Who are the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6:1-2? Passage in Focus “Now 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.” – Genesis 6:1-2 Immediate Literary Setting Genesis 4–5 contrasts two lines: Cain’s culture of violence and Seth’s lineage calling on the LORD (4:26). Genesis 6:1-8 then explains why divine judgment (the Flood) became necessary. Verse 4 explicitly links the “sons of God” union to the rise of the Nephilim and to the corruption that provoked the Flood. Canonical Usage of “Sons of God” 1. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 — heavenly beings presenting themselves before Yahweh. 2. Psalm 29:1; 89:6 (Heb. benê ʾēlîm, “sons of the mighty”) — divine council imagery. No Old Testament use of the exact phrase ever designates ordinary human males. Intertestamental and Early Jewish Witness • 1 Enoch 6–10; Jubilees 5:1 describe “Watchers” (angelic beings) marrying women, producing giants, and prompting the Flood. • Qumran text 4Q530 (Book of Giants) repeats the same storyline. • Philo (On the Giants 2) and Josephus (Ant. 1.3.1) interpret Genesis 6 angelically. These sources, though not canonical, show the standard Second-Temple reading. New Testament Corroboration • 2 Peter 2:4-5 : “God did not spare the angels when they sinned… when He brought the flood upon the world of the ungodly.” • Jude 6-7: Angels “left their own habitation” and are compared to Sodom’s sexual immorality. • Both passages tie an angelic fall to pre-Flood judgment, echoing Genesis 6. Main Interpretations Surveyed 1. Angelic/Fallen-Angel View 2. Sethite (godly line of Seth intermarrying with Cainites) 3. Dynastic/Royalty View (ancient tyrant-kings claiming divine status) Evaluation Criteria 1. Lexical Consistency 2. Contextual Fit 3. Wider Canonical Support 4. Jewish and Early-Church Reception 5. Theological Coherence Angelic/Fallen-Angel View Strengths • Exact lexical identity with indisputable angelic texts (Job, Psalms). • Supported by every Second-Temple Jewish source that comments on the passage. • Affirmed by the apostolic writings (2 Peter, Jude). • Explains why the event was extraordinary enough to invite global judgment. • Provides natural reading for the birth of “Nephilim” (נְפִילִים, lit. “fallen ones” or “giants”), a term elsewhere linked with extraordinary size/strength (Numbers 13:33). Objections Answered • “Angels do not marry” (Matthew 22:30). Jesus states angels in heaven do not marry; the text describes angels who “left their proper abode,” a direct parallel to Jude 6. • “Immaterial beings cannot sire offspring.” Scripture shows angels eating (Genesis 18) and wrestling (Genesis 32:24-32). Hebrews 13:2 acknowledges their tangible interaction with the physical realm. Nothing in Scripture precludes God allowing embodied manifestation. Sethite View Proposed “Sons of God” = male descendants of Seth; “daughters of men” = female descendants of Cain. Weaknesses • Requires “men” (אָדָם) in v. 1 to mean only Cainites, though the same word elsewhere in the verse is universal. • Nowhere else are Sethites called “sons of God” until the New Testament adoption motif (Romans 8:14). • Does not explain the Nephilim’s superhuman description. • Fails to align with Peter’s and Jude’s angelic references. Dynastic/Royalty View Proposed Ancient despots claimed semidivine status and practiced polygamous harems. Weaknesses • Ignores the consistent angelic sense of the phrase. • Adds historical conjecture without internal textual signals. • Leaves Peter and Jude’s angel references unexplained. Early-Church Confirmation Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria all uphold the angelic interpretation. Only in the fourth century, as Augustine promoted the Sethite view (City of God 15.23), did an alternative become prevalent. Archaeological and Cultural Parallels • Mesopotamian Apkallu lore describes semi-divine sages who offended the gods and were judged by a flood (Atrahasis Epic tablet III). The biblical account corrects these myths by anchoring them in real angelic rebellion and true divine judgment. • Ugaritic tablets (KTU 1.23) list “sons of El” as divine council members, linguistically parallel to benê ha’elohim. Chronological Placement Using a Ussher-style timeline, the Genesis 6 events transpire c. 1556 AM, roughly 2400 BC. A young-earth framework places the Flood c. 2348 BC, corroborated by global flood legends on every inhabited continent and widespread sedimentary layers teeming with marine fossils atop high mountains—powerful geological evidence matching a catastrophic deluge. Moral and Theological Implications 1. Divine Boundary: God’s created order separates heavenly and earthly realms; violation invites severe judgment. 2. Human Corruption: The narrative exposes how spiritual rebellion accelerates human depravity (“every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time,” Genesis 6:5). 3. Messianic Preservation: By halting hybrid corruption, God preserves the promised Seed (Genesis 3:15), culminating in Christ, the true Son of God who took flesh lawfully by virgin conception, not by angelic transgression. Practical Apologetic Use • Demonstrates the coherence of Scripture across Testaments. • Shows alignment between archaeology, ancient Near-Eastern texts, and biblical revelation without syncretism. • Reinforces the authority of the written Word over speculative modern reinterpretations. Summary Considering lexical data, manuscript uniformity, Second-Temple testimony, apostolic commentary, early-church consensus, and theological coherence, the most straightforward reading identifies the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-2 as angels—specifically, heavenly beings who rebelled by taking human wives. Their sin precipitated the birth of the Nephilim and hastened the Flood, underscoring the holiness of God, the reality of spiritual warfare, and the unwavering integrity of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. |
    |