Reading Between the Lines:
The Identity of the “Sons of God” in Genesis Six
Copyright 2008 - Philip Thompson
Copyright Notice: This paper my be reproduced and distributed only if the author's name remains intact along with the entirety of the document. Otherwise, all other reproductions should be limited to quotations from the source document.
One of the most notorious exegetical debates among conservatives is the identity of the “sons of God” in Genesis chapter six. Although this debate is full of material that supports different perspectives, one point is very clear; there can be no definitive answer given for any viewpoint with the information that is available. The only option that a reader has is to objectively look at the views and pick one that seems most compelling. Ultimately, the reader’s opinion regarding the “sons of God” is not incredibly influential, but his choice will undoubtedly affect his angelology at some point. Since none of the arguments are complete and clear, the Christian must not look for the answer that is beyond reasonable doubt, but an answer that carries the most weight of evidence.
View 1: Royalty or Nobility
The first view believes that people of greater financial status began to intermarry with those of lower social status. These inappropriate marriages were sinful in God’s eyes primarily because the princes were exercising polygamy. These men were contemporaries of a group called the nephilim. Eventually the children of the “sons of God” became “men of renown” as they sought to make names for themselves. The men of renown (gibborim) eventually plunged the world into tyranny. As a result, God had to destroy the human race by the flood and end the fleshly power play of these selfish rulers.
Pros: This view was adhered to by many rabbis, and is supported in some readings in the Targums. The concept of nobility can be supported by other possible meanings of the Hebrew word elohim (cf. Ex. 21:6; 22:8 – “judges”), as well as many archaeological findings that refer to nobility as sons of gods (bn il). Also, a more specific account of similar actions appears in Genesis 4:19-24 with Lamech. Finally, the word for “mighty men” is the same Hebrew word that is used to describe Nimrod’s reign (Gen. 10:8).
Cons: The problems with the argument of the nobility-peasant marriages are numerous. Initially, throughout the Old Testament, there is no indication of a caste-like system that is ordained by God. To assume that God would destroy the world for an action that is glorified elsewhere (cf. Ruth) seems ludicrous. The problem does not even seem to be polygamy. No doubt Solomon had an even greater list of wives than these men had, and yet God retained him as king of
View 2: Sethites
The second view holds that the “sons of God” were the children of Seth. Seth was the son of Adam that held a blessed status. No doubt, there was a great divide between his children and that of his older brother, Cain. The evil brother also had a line of wicked children. In order to remain holy, the children of Seth did not marry the marked out children of Cain. In the process, the children of the covenant surrendered what was right for what was pleasing. Thus, when certain sons of Seth began to intermarry with daughters of Cain, God’s wrath was kindled.
Pros: This view has a strong early Christian history; it was held in the early church until the fourth century. The tide began to shift from the angel view starting prominently with men like Justin, Cyprian, Tertullian, Clement, Eusebius, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Augustine. Augustine’s interpretation was explained in his book, City of God (
Cons: It would seem that calling Sethites “sons” and Cainites “daughters” is an awkward way to express the idea (unless Cainite men did not marry Sethite women). Those who hold this view must make a strong distinction between the word “man” in verse one (clearly denoting mankind) and the word “men” in verse 2. Also, this view does not adequately explain the giants or the mighty men of renown. Even the corruption of mankind by mere intermarriage also seems to be forced upon the text.
View 3: Demons
The last main position holds that heavenly beings committed sexual sins with human women. After the fall of Satan and his army, he sought to mess up God’s plan for humanity. Having successfully triumphed in the Garden of Eden, the demonic forces began to seek other victories. In this instance, certain demons took on human form (or entered human bodies), and committed some of the most bizarre and twisted sins imaginable. The results of these sins were the race of giants and a special imprisonment of the adventurous angels as a warning to others.
Pros: This interpretation carries the weight of history. The textual basis of this argument is found in the LXX, the writings of Josephus, the apocryphal Book of I Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Philo’s writings, and a note in Codex Alexandrinus. This view was popular until the 4th century AD when the main opinion switched the Sethite view. This view also carries biblical support. Angels are referred to as “sons of God” in multiple locations (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 89:6; Deut. 32:43 (LXX and DSS), cf. Heb. 1:6). Also, whenever angels appear on earth, they most often appear as human males; when appearing as humans, they seem to be able to perform all human functions. Even the men of
Cons: Only one of the manuscripts of the LXX contains the reading “angels of God.” Even if one accepts this reading, it would seem to be a stretch to call fallen angels “sons of God.” Also, Jesus made it very clear that angels can not marry (Mark
The weight of evidence seems to be very balanced between all three views. On a microscopic level, the royalty view would seem to be the least weighty. The lack of evidence of God’s continued dealings with men in the way described by the royalty view is very important. Neither this view nor the Sethite view can properly account for the word nephilim, especially based on its usage in Numbers 13:33. The Sethite view suffers slightly due to the separation of the meanings of “man” and “men” in verses one and two. The angel view can be supported to some extent more than the others. Although the weight of tradition is not infallible, it is clear that Jude used the Book of Enoch in verses fourteen and fifteen of his book. His use of the apocrypha in that verse could leave open the possibility for a second allusion in verse six. Thus, the attack on the apocryphal and traditional supports for the angel view is a matter of simple rhetoric. Fallen angels could be referred to as “sons of God” if men with a sin nature can be called by the same title. In fact, “sons of God” is but a reference to these angels’ origin rather than their nature (all views would acknowledge that this group did not retain whatever form of godliness they may have had). Actually, this view may fit the position of Matt. 22:30 better than the argument proposed by the other two views. The passage does not say that angels are sexless, since people in the resurrection will be male and female. It merely says that these angels do not marry. There are also two important qualifying statements in the passage. First, the angels are “of God” indicating their state as the elect angels. Also, the angels are referred to as “in heaven” pointing up the fact that angels could be “sexless” in heaven but never on earth (where they always appear as males). This view does not mandate that all giants come from demonic activity, but that the nephilim in this passage did, as the context seems to indicate. The charge concerning Jude six and seven can be refuted by the masculine demonstrative pronoun (toutois) that does not refer to the cities around
However, it is important to note that the ability to argue against the attacks against the angel view does not lend enough support to the view to raise it significantly above the rest. One could just as easily argue for any of these views at the same time. Each view’s proponents charge each other of reading into the text, but all the positions require something to be read into the passage. In the end, all three views end up reading between the lines to come up with a way to figure out the identity of the mysterious bene-ha elohim.
Works Consulted
Nobility View:
Bruce, F. F., et al., Hard Sayings of the Bible.
Walvoord, John F., Roy B. Zuck, ed. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Vol. 1.
Sethite View:
Archer, Gleason. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.
Barnes, Albert. Notes on the Bible. CD-ROM. E-Sword.net CD-ROM.
Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Book of Genesis.
Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. CD-ROM. E-Sword.net CD-ROM.
Keil, Johann, and Franz Delitzsch. Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament. CD-ROM. E-Sword.net CD-ROM.
Matthews, Kenneth A. Genesis. Vol. 1. NAC.
Poole, Matthew. Commentary on the Holy Bible.
Wesley, John. Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible. CD-ROM. E-Sword.net CD-ROM.
Angel View:
Hiebert, D. Edmund. Second Peter and Jude: An Expositional Commentary.
Orr, James, ed. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. CD-ROM. E-Sword.net CD-ROM.
Unbiased View:
Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis. Vol. 1. NICOT.
