example of Word Biblical Commentary for Genesis 6:1-8 - a difficult passage to say the least

Who are these Nephilim and WHY?

after entries on technical matters (translation, notes, form/structure), this "heavyweight" commentary has two entries - headed "Comments" and "Explanations"

These sections help us understand some of the implications of such a difficult passage, and what the jewish and Christian traditions have held:

comment

1“When man began to multiply on the land.” This clause describes an ongoing situation, the multiplication of humanity, that forms the background of the new action in v 2. Other examples of this use of yk yhyw are to be seen in 26:8; 27:1; Exod 1:21; 13:15. This clause points back to the first command given to mankind, “be fruitful and multiply,” and also to the close connection between “man” (µdah ) and “the land” (hmdah ), which was noted earlier (cf. 2:5, 7; 3:17). Here µda is prefixed with the article (“the man”) as is normally the case in chaps. 2–4, in contrast to the anarthrous proper name “Adam” used in 4:25–5:5.
“ And when daughters were born to them.” Unusually for Hebrew word order, the subject of this clause, “daughters,” here precedes the verb and so throws it into prominence. Chap. 5 described how man created in God’s image as male and female multiplied “bearing sons and daughters” (5:4, 7–10, 13, etc). But whereas in chap. 5 the male descendants were the center of attention, here the daughters are highlighted. It should also be noted that in the Atrahasis epic the multiplication of mankind is mentioned shortly before the divine decree to send a catastrophic flood.

When the land extended and the peoples multiplied. The land was bellowing like a bull (A 2:1, 2–3).

“The sons of the gods” or “the sons of God.” µyhlahAynb could be translated either way. Job 1:6; 2:1 lend support to the latter, while Pss 29:1; 89:7 make the former possible. However, it is the nature of “the sons of the gods/God,” that has perplexed commentators. Three main kinds of interpretation are offered by modern exegetes. First, “the sons of the gods” are nonhuman, godlike beings such as angels, demons, or spirits. Second, “the sons of the gods” are superior men such as kings or other rulers. Third, “the sons of the gods” are godly men, the descendants of Seth as opposed to the godless descendants of Cain.
The “angel” interpretation is at once the oldest view and that of most modern commentators. It is assumed in the earliest Jewish exegesis (e.g., the books of 1 Enoch 6:2ff; Jubilees 5:1), LXX, Philo De Gigant 2:358), Josephus (Ant. 1.31) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QapGen 2:1; CD 2:17–19). The NT (2 Pet 2:4, Jude 6, 7) and the earliest Christian writers (e.g., Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen) also take this line.
Modern scholars who accept this view advance three main reasons for supporting it. First, elsewhere in the OT (e.g., Ps 29:1, Job 1:6) “sons of God” refers to heavenly, godlike creatures. Second, in 6:1–4 the contrast is between “the sons of the gods” on the one hand and “the daughters of man” on the other. The alternative interpretations presuppose that what Gen 6 really meant was that “the sons of some men” married “the daughters of other men.” The present phrase “sons of God” is, to say the least, an obscure way of expressing such an idea. It is made the more implausible by 6:1 where “man” refers to all mankind. It is natural to assume that in v 2 “daughters of man” has an equally broad reference, not a specific section of the human race. Finally, it is pointed out that in Ugaritic literature “sons of God” refers to members of the divine pantheon, and it is likely that Genesis is using the phrase in a similar sense.

Explanation:

The transformation of oriental theology found in chaps. 1–5 continues in 6:1–4. Stories of superhuman demigods like Gilgamesh were a commonplace, and intercourse with the divine was regularly sought in the fertility cults of Canaan and the sacred marriage rites of Mesopotamia. Through such procedures men sought to achieve enhanced earthly life and even eternal life. But to Hebrew thinking such ideas were utterly abhorrent. Within the earthly realm the creator’s categories must not be transgressed. Each species had been created to propagate itself “according to its type.” Thus crossbreeding of cattle, intermarriage with foreigners, even plowing with teams of different types of animals or wearing garments of mixed cloth was forbidden by the law. How much worse was this breach of the boundary between the earthly and heavenly realms. It seems that the sons of the gods must be understood as spiritual beings akin to angels or demons. Though some have regarded it as unfair that mankind should have been punished for this transgression which was provoked by the initiative of spirits, the narrative gives no hint that seduction or rape was involved. These unions are described in terms befitting perfectly normal marriages, which presupposes that the fathers of the girls gave their free assent to the arrangements. In biblical times a man might propose, but it was certainly the girl’s father who disposed when it came to matrimony. The narrator evidently pictures the girls’ fathers encouraging these unions, just as it was presumably fathers who pushed their daughters to participate in the fertility cults. So, as in Gen 3, we have the temptation to sin coming from outside man, but his freely given consent brings him under judgment.
As often in Scripture the punishment is made to fit the crime. Grasping at immortality through these liaisons, man is sentenced to live a maximum of 120 years, roughly a sevenfold reduction over the average lifespan of the antediluvians. Though some of Noah’s immediate descendants live longer than this, their lives are much shorter than the pre-flood patriarchs. The Pentateuch shows that by the time of Moses one hundred and twenty was regarded as the greatest age a man could hope to reach.

Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 1: Genesis 1-15, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher) 1998.