How do the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:4 relate to angels or humans? Ancient Manuscript Witnesses Masoretic Text, Dead Sea Scrolls (4QGen, ca. 150 BC), Samaritan Pentateuch, and Septuagint agree on the wording; no variant softens the supernatural sense. The uniform manuscript tradition undercuts claims of a late “mythic” insertion. Historical Interpretation 1st-century Jewish writers (1 Enoch 6–7; Jubilees 5) explicitly treat the “sons of God” as heavenly “Watchers” who sinned by cohabiting with women. Early church fathers (Justin, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Tertullian) follow suit. Rabbinic literature eventually shifted toward human explanations, partly to distance Scripture from extra-canonical Enochic material, but that move is secondary and reactive. Angelic View (Supernatural Cohabitation) 1. Lexical: identical phrase elsewhere = angels. 2. Immediate context: the offspring are exceptional—“mighty men…men of renown.” A strictly natural union fails to explain the emphasis. 3. New Testament commentary: • 2 Peter 2:4–5 links angels who sinned with Noah’s Flood. • Jude 6–7 connects angels that abandoned “their own domain” with “gross immorality.” Both epistles place the sin before the Flood and describe it in sexual terms, echoing Genesis 6. 4. Physicality objection answered: Scripture records angels assuming corporeal form (Genesis 19; Hebrews 13:2). Matthew 22:30 speaks of heavenly angels’ normal estate, not their incapacity to rebel. 5. Theologically, the event represents a satanic attempt to corrupt the human line and obstruct the promised Seed (Genesis 3:15), explaining the immediate, global judgment of the Flood. Human Lineage View (Sethites and Cainites) Advocates see “sons of God” as godly Sethites marrying ungodly Cainite women. • Pros: avoids angel-human unions; integrates the covenantal theme of mixed marriages (cf. Deuteronomy 7:3). • Cons: Hebrew terminology never calls believers “sons of God” until post-Exilic passages; mere intermarriage of believers and unbelievers hardly explains extraordinary progeny or cosmic judgment. Royal Kingship View (Dynastic Tyrants) Some render בְּנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים as “sons of the gods” or “deified kings,” citing ancient Near-Eastern royal texts (e.g., Mesopotamian tablet SB 23.34). While it acknowledges linguistic parallels, it lacks internal biblical support and disregards the angelic precedent in Job. Comparative Exegesis with Job and Psalms Job 38:7 : “while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy.” Humans were not yet created, cementing the heavenly reference. Psalm 89:6 parallels “saints” with “sons of the mighty,” again celestial. Intertestamental Literature 1 Enoch transmits a detailed narrative of 200 angels (led by Semyaza) descending on Mount Hermon. Though non-canonical, Jude 14–15 cites Enoch’s prophecy, evidencing contemporary Jewish acceptance of the angelic reading. Qumran’s 4Q201–4Q204 manuscripts confirm the antiquity of the account. New Testament Corroboration 2 Peter 2 and Jude treat the angelic rebellion, Flood, and Sodom as a trilogy of divine judgment on sexual perversion. Peter notes the angels are “in chains of gloomy darkness” (v. 4), harmonizing with Genesis 6’s chronology: the confinement occurred “when”—not after—humankind multiplied. Theological Implications for Christology If Genesis 6 describes angelic corruption, the Flood preserves a genuine human lineage by which Messiah would come (Luke 3). The Savior’s incarnation requires untainted humanity; the judgment serves redemptive history, underscoring sovereignty, holiness, and the protoevangelium. Objections and Responses • “Angels = spirit, cannot procreate.” Counter: angels ate (Genesis 18), wrestled (Genesis 32), were seized by Sodomites (Genesis 19). Scripture affirms they can assume tangible bodies. • “Matthew 22:30 forbids angelic marriage.” Response: the verse states heavenly estate; it does not address fallen disobedience. • “Mythological importation.” Response: parallel ANE myths exist, but Genesis consistently demythologizes: only Yahweh creates, judges, and redeems; no pantheon warfare appears. The text appropriates, corrects, and historicizes, fitting the pattern observed in Flood parallels (e.g., Gilgamesh). Archaeological and Historical Correlates • Tall human remains (over 7½ ft) unearthed at Tell es-Safi (Gath) align with later “giants” like Goliath (1 Samuel 17:4) and support a biblical memory of formidable warrior-clans (Anakim, Rephaim). • Ebla and Ugaritic tablets reference semi-divine warriors called “gibborim,” mirroring Genesis 6’s “mighty men” (גִּבֹּרִים). • The coherence of the Flood strata (e.g., sedimentary megasequences across continents) buttresses a real cataclysm contemporaneous with the timeline Scripture assigns (~2500 BC on Ussher chronology), the context in which Genesis 6 sits. Concluding Synthesis Lexical, manuscript, and intertextual evidence converge on the angelic interpretation: the “sons of God” are fallen heavenly beings who physically mingled with human women, producing unusually powerful offspring—the Nephilim. The episode precipitated widespread violence and corruption, prompting God’s judgment through the Flood to safeguard the Messianic promise. Alternative human-only theories fail to satisfy the linguistic data, the New Testament commentary, or the severity of the divine response. The passage therefore reinforces the biblical themes of supernatural rebellion, human depravity, and God’s redemptive fidelity, all culminating in the ultimate victory secured through the resurrected Christ. |
    |