Who are the 'sons of God' in Genesis 6?
The Word of God is true and everything described in it refers to real events. Yet even faithful Bible commentators differ on numerous passages of text. Genesis 6 is one such text about which there are quite a number of different opinions. While I accept that believers differ from each other and also may differ, it is not because the Word of God has more than one meaning in a specific passage of text. The differences in interpretation do not come as a result of a defect in the Word of God, but in our failure to understand it correctly. The Word of God is always true and clear, but we, as fallen people, fall short in our understanding of it, especially in certain so-called 'difficult' passages of text.
This article is
not an attempt to bring an end to the debate about this text. It is very
possible for someone to come to a different conclusion from me through serious
study of the Scriptures. But if they differ it must be as a result of serious
study of the Scriptures on this matter. Leaving this question open to 'my
personal opinion', or 'traditional views', or 'the popular views' does not make
you a good Bible student. I would encourage you to investigate this matter and
draw your own conclusion based on proper study.
1. Understanding
the context
For the understanding of any passage, it is first important to have a correct understand of the context in which the passage is placed. What is the reason why what is said was said? What is the argument being made that gave rise to the particular statement? This understanding of the context begins within the passage itself, but it also extends to what is discussed before or after the specific passage.
a.Immediate
context
The verses we are examining specifically is Genesis 6:1-2 which says "When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose."
-
Intercourse
There is little doubt that 'the sons of God' did not took the 'daughters of men' as their wives to enter into a platonic relationship, but they had intercourse with them. Verse 4 clearly says 'when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.’
-
Giants
Verse 4 begins with the statement 'The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward.' These 'giants' are further described as ‘the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown' in the verse. The Hebrew word that is translated into English as 'giant' is the word nephiyl. It comes from the Hebrew word for 'fall' and actually means 'those who overwhelm people with fear' or 'people fall before them out of fear'. The further description in the verse that they are ‘the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown' corresponds to this description.
b.Wider
immediate context
-
Events before our
passage
If
we start with the events of Genesis 3 and follow the course from there
to Genesis 6, we find the following. In Genesis 3 we find the
fall. In Genesis 4 we find the story of Cain and Abel where Cain kills
Abel and Seth is later born to Adam and Eve as a new offspring. Genesis 5
gives us the Genealogy from Adam to Noah, through Seth.
-
Events after our
passage
After the events of our text comes the global flood in the days of Noah. During this flood, all of humanity was wiped out with the exception of Noah and his family who are descendants of Adam through Seth.
c. The
Scriptural use of words
-
Sons of God
The description 'sons of God' is seen by most as a description given only to angels. This especially because in Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 it is used to refer to the angels. Job is seen as one of the oldest Bible books because Job is believed to have lived before the days of the flood.
Of course, the Lord Jesus Christ is also called the 'Son of God' and He was certainly not an angel. Even more striking is that believers are also called the 'sons of God' (Matt. 5:9, Rom. 8:14, Gal. 3:26). The description 'sons of God' cannot therefore be seen as a biological or ontological description, but it appears to be related to what a person's (Christ, angels or people's) relationship with God is. While angels are described in this way on occasion, believers and Christ himself are also described in this way.
-
Fallen angels
Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25 refer to the fact that, after the resurrection from the dead, we will not marry, but will be like angels. Here Jesus answers a question that specifically deals with marriage from which children are conceived.
Jude 1:6-7 and 2 Peter 2:4-7 may refer to the events described in Genesis 6 when it speaks of fallen angels, in the old world, before the global flood. The reference there to Sodom and Gomorrah seems to show that these angels' sin was sexual in nature.
Fallen
angels, or Satan and his demons, are never called the 'sons of God'. It is very
striking that Satan is not specifically mentioned as one of the 'sons of God'
in Job 1:6. "Now there was a day
when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also
came among them.”
2. Sons
of God refers to angels
The view that the 'sons of God' refers to angels is the most common explanation of this text. However, this does not mean that it is without its problems. There are numerous reasons why this view is not necessarily the best explanation for this passage.
a.The
immediate context
-
Intercourse
Fundamental to the understanding that this refers to angels, is that angels must then be able to have intercourse, and specifically intercourse with someone from another species (namely humans) and can produce children. Interbreeding between different species is impossible and there is no reasonable answer to the contrary.
Some reckon that the angels came in the form of men, but even if this is so, they would still not be able to produce children with them. Others say that these fallen angels (demons) possessed human men and they had intercourse with women, and while they would then be able to produce children they would not be the children of angels then, but the children of men.
-
Giants
The word 'nephilim' does not specifically mean 'giant' and while in some cases 'giant' may be an acceptable explanation for them 'striking fear on people', it is not the only explanation. Unfortunately, most people are misled by the translators who took liberties with the translation which does not necessarily ensure accuracy. It is very possible that they 'struck fear upon men', for many other reasons than that they were tall in stature. The fact that the further description calls them 'mighty men who were of old, the men of renown’ again does not state that they were large in stature, but simply that they drove people to fear. There may have been several reasons for this, which are not clear from the context.
It is also not absolutely clear that these Nephilim came about as a result of intercourse between the sons of God and the daughters of men. Verse 4 simply says that the Nephilim existed in the days when the sons of God went in with the daughters of men and bore children. It does not say that the children that were born to these Nephilim, although that could certainly be a valid statement.
b.Wider
immediate context
-
Events before the
passage
The
preceding passages place a strong emphasis on the descendants of Cain who were
generally evil and the descendants of Seth who were generally righteous. There
is no reference to angels in any part of the context and it would therefore be
strange if it referred to angels here.
-
Events after the
passage
The global flood was primarily for the purpose of wiping out the human race. Clearly, God punished the sins of man. If the sons of God do not refer to men, then it leaves the question why the punishment of the people occurred immediately after they are mentioned, in the context, there is no punishment for the angels who, according to this view, then initiated this evil.
c. The
Scriptural use of words
-
Sons of God
As
already mentioned, the term 'sons of God' is not used exclusively for angels,
but for Christ and in particular for believers as well. While Job may have
lived and wrote at a similar time to these events, it does not mean that the
term 'sons of God' was used exclusively for angels even during that time. Even
Adam is called the son of God (Luke 3:38) and as a man made in the likeness of
God, such a description is just as appropriate for him and his descendants.
-
Fallen angels
Fallen
angels are not called the sons of God anywhere in Scripture. Furthermore, while
it is true that Jude and 2 Peter refer to fallen angels, from the past, who are
kept in custody for great punishment, the way in which those who holds that
this refers to those angels is not acceptable. Genesis 6 is used to explain
Judas and 2 Peter's fallen angels' sin and then Judas and 2 Peter is used to
explain Genesis 6's sons of God. That is arguing in a circle! You cannot use
one thing to explain another thing and then use that explained thing to explain
your original statement.
3. The sons of God refer to the descendants of
Seth
While this view is not without its challenges, based on good hermeneutics it seems to be the most logical explanation.
a. The immediate context
-
Intercourse
It
is entirely possible that the sons of Seth could have had intercourse with the
daughters of Cain. The believer must not be yoked (married) with an unbeliever.
This was not only true in the time of the New Testament (2 Cor. 6:14 etc.), but
also in the times of the Old Testament (Ex. 34:16; Lev. 19:19; Deut. 7: 2-3
etc.) The descendants of Seth were known as people who served God (Gen. 5:24,
6:9), and the descendants of Cain were known for evil (Gen. 4:19; 23-24)
-
Giants
It is very possible that these Nephilim were the children born from the union between the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain as the word does not necessarily mean 'giants'. The further description that they were 'mighty men who were of old, the men of renown', could also describe the fact that they were extremely evil and well known for it. This could also be an acceptable explanation for Nephilim.
b.Wider
immediate context
- Events
before the passage
If
it refers to the descendants of Seth who took women from the descendants of
Cain, it comfortably flows from the preceding events, where the evil of Cain
and his descendants (Gen. 4) and the righteousness of Seth's descendants (Gen. 5)
are seen. If Seth's offspring had married Cain's offspring, the children would very
possibly have chosen the path of evil and thus become 'Nephilim!'
-
Events after the
passage
The absence of the punishment on angels and the fact that the global flood was specifically to wipe out all flesh seems to show that the sin was amongst mankind and that angels are not meant here.
c. The
Scriptural use of words
-
Sons of God
To
call believers the sons of God is common usage in the Scriptures and from the
preceding context we can see that Seth's descendants were largely people who served
and feared the Lord, while Cain's descendants, on the contrary, were known for
disobedience and evil. To therefore call the descendants of Seth the sons of
God, as the Word indeed calls believers, makes sense. From his descendants were
those who called on the name of the Lord (Gen. 4:26), walked with God (Gen.
5:24) and found favour in the eyes of the Lord (Gen. 6:8)
-
Fallen angels
We cannot escape the idea that fallen angels are never called the sons of God. Indeed they were once, before they fell, sons of God, but to call them so after they fell into sin would make no sense at all.
It
is also clear that the question Jesus asks in Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25 was
specifically about several brothers who all married one woman in order to raise
children with her. So if Jesus answers, that in the afterlife we will be like
angels who do not marry, it is only logical that his answer is specifically
stating that we will no longer have sexual intercourse then, like the angels.
The view that angels are sexless and do not reproduce is therefore a sensible
view from that passage.
Conclusion:
While the explanation of this text is certainly not a cross to die on and believers may come to a different conclusion after careful study of the texts, it is my opinion that the 'sons of God' refers to the offspring of Seth, and the daughters of men refer to the offspring of Cain. I realize that this view also has its challenges, but good hermeneutics (Scripture study) inclines me to believe that this view is the most logical and therefore most likely explanation for the passage.
It would also correspond to a very important principle that is still applicable for believers: Not to enter into marriage with unbelievers, because it does not honour God. There are a legion of examples from which we can see the terrible consequences of mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers.
Rev. Leon Harmse
Pastor of
Sunwardpark Baptist Church