Identifying the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4

Throughout Christian history, one of the more debated passages has been Genesis 6:1-4. In these verses, scholars wrangle over whether or not “sons of God” refers to angels or humans, and whether or not their progeny resulted from unjust relations between angels and humans. Though multiple views exist and each has its own variations among scholars, this article will briefly discuss the two primary views and consider the supporting evidence for each.

The most ancient of sources suggest the angels cohabited with women and bore children that were a combination of both angel and human. For example, the Greek Septuagint (300-100BC) translates ‘sons of God’ as ‘angels of God’. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the phrase ‘sons of God’, they observe, refers to angelic beings (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1; 82:6; 89:7). Other ancient sources that support this position include 1 Enoch 6:2ff, Jubilees 5:1, Philo (De Gigant 2:358), Josephus (Ant 1.31), and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QapGen 2:1; CH 2:17-19). Along with these sources, many early Christian writers supported this view. These include Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen.

To further buttress their interpretation, advocates who perceive the “sons of God” to be angels point to 2 Peter 2:4-5 and Jude 6-7. From 2 Peter 2:4-5 and Jude 6-7, one could argue that God’s punishment of the angels is somehow connected to the flood. Nevertheless, the context also allows for the idea of eternal punishment for angels apart from that reserved for sinful humanity.

Detractors of this view note that the New Testament teaches that angels do not marry (Matt 22:29-30; Mark 12:24-25; Luke 20: 34-36). Beyond this, they opine that this understanding leads to humanity being punished for the sins of angels in the flood of Noah (whose story unfolds immediately following the account of the Nephilim in Genesis 6). Genesis 6:5, however, neglects to mention any sins involving angels and, instead, pronounces the prevailing wickedness of humanity.

Since the 3^rd century AD, the traditional Christian position on this subject (supported by both Luther and Calvin) has been that the descendants of Seth had relations with the daughters of Cain and thereby corrupted the previous piety exemplified by the descendants of Cain in Genesis 5. To support this view, they look to Genesis 5:29 where Lamech prophesies that Noah will somehow lift the curse of God. This, they contend, is a prophetic utterance that follows Genesis 3:15 which demonstrates the lineage through which Christ will come to bruise the serpent’s head (i.e., defeat Satan). Instead of clinging to God’s covenantal promise to defeat Satan, the faithful descendants of Seth, they contend, intermarried with the godless Cainites. To explain the identity of the mighty offspring of these unions (labelled as Nephilim in Genesis 6:4), proponents of this interpretation point out that the sons of Anak, who existed after the flood which should have destroyed the Nephilim if they were indeed the products of intercourse between angels and humans, were called Nephilim themselves (Num 13:33). To further explain the mention of the Nephilim in Genesis 6:4, some who support this view point out that the grammar indicates that “Those were the mighty men” modifies “children” and not “Nephilim.”  They also point out that Nephilim literally means fallen ones, so Nephilim can refer to a third grouping with “sons of God” and “daughters of men” being the other two. Taken this way, it is quite possible to view the Nephilim as fallen angels or fallen sinners and yet avoid the uncomfortable conclusion that offspring were born out of an unholy union between angels and humans.