Who are the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6:2? I. Canonical Text “When men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took as wives whomever they chose.” Ii. Hebrew Terminology “sons of God” = בְּנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים (benê hāʾĕlōhîm). The plural always denotes personal beings; the singular ʾĕlōhîm here, as elsewhere (e.g., Psalm 82:1), points to the heavenly realm. Iii. Old Testament Parallels 1. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 use the identical phrase for angelic beings presenting themselves before Yahweh. 2. Deuteronomy 32:8 (DSS/LXX) reads “sons of God” in Yahweh’s council. 3. Psalm 29:1; 89:6 employ benê ʾēlîm (“sons of the mighty”) as a clear synonym. These passages consistently describe supernatural, not human, entities. Iv. Ancient Jewish Interpretation 1. 1 Enoch 6-7; Jubilees 5; and 4QGenesis Apocryphon portray angels cohabiting with women, producing giants (Nephilim). 2. Josephus, Antiquities 1.3.1, repeats this understanding. 3. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Genesis 6:2) translates “sons of God” as “sons of the rulers, the angels.” V. New Testament Confirmation 1. 2 Peter 2:4-5 connects angels who sinned before the Flood with imprisonment. 2. Jude 6-7 equates angels that “did not stay within their proper domain” with sexual immorality paralleling Sodom. 3. Both writers immediately reference Noah, tying the event to Genesis 6. Vi. Early Christian Fathers Justin Martyr (Dial. 79), Athenagoras (Supplication 24), Irenaeus (AH 4.36.4), Tertullian (On the Veiling of Virgins 7) uphold the angelic view, reading Genesis 6 as literal supernatural transgression. Vii. The Sethite Line Hypothesis Fourth-century Augustine (City of God 15.23) reinterpreted “sons of God” as Sethites marrying Cainite women to avoid angel-human unions. This became the dominant western view through Calvin, yet it must explain: • Why godly men are uniquely labeled benê hāʾĕlōhîm only here. • Why their unions produced Nephilim, “mighty men of renown.” • The immediate divine judgment unprecedented for mere mixed marriages. Viii. Royal-Tyrant View Some link “sons of God” to ancient Semitic kings claiming divine sonship (e.g., Ugaritic ktb. 1.4.VI). Scripture, however, uses benê ʾēl for heavenly beings, never for earthly monarchs, and Genesis 6 lacks royal terminology. Ix. Archaeological And Textual Support Dead Sea Scrolls (4QGen-Exod-Lev a) preserve “sons of God.” No manuscript evidence substitutes “sons of Seth.” LXX renders οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ, mirroring the Hebrew. Tablets from Ugarit (14th c. BC) list mlk.bn.ilm (“kings, sons of gods”) but always in pantheons, reinforcing celestial identity. Gigantic bedstead dimensions (Deuteronomy 3:11, 13+ feet) and megalithic dolmens in Bashan support a historical memory of extraordinary stature among Rephaim, linguistic cousins of Nephilim (Numbers 13:33). X. Theological Ramifications a. Angelic rebellion before the Flood magnifies human depravity, justifying the cataclysm (Genesis 6:5-7). b. Divine judgment of these angels prefigures Christ’s authority over principalities (Colossians 2:15). c. Their restraint “in gloomy dungeons” (2 Peter 2:4) assures eschatological justice. Xi. ChrisTological Typology The incursion of fallen angels, corrupting flesh, contrasts with the Incarnation, where the true Son of God assumes humanity to redeem it (John 1:14; Hebrews 2:14-16). Noah’s deliverance “through water” (1 Peter 3:20-21) foreshadows resurrection, the ultimate defeat of both sin and rebellious angels (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). Xii. Behavioral And Philosophical Considerations Interbreeding motifs appear across cultures (e.g., Greek “Titan” myths), suggesting a collective memory of angelic-human unions. Cross-cultural convergence supports a historic kernel rather than coincidental mythogenesis. Xiii. Summary Scriptural usage, Second Temple literature, unanimous early Jewish and early Christian testimony, explicit New Testament commentary, and consistent manuscript evidence identify the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 as fallen angelic beings who illicitly cohabited with human women, producing the Nephilim. Alternative explanations arose later to address secondary theological concerns but lack lexical, contextual, and historical support. |
    |