Genesis 6:1-4 is one of the most debated passages in Scripture. It is also a passage that many people ignore or gloss over, either because they do not understand it or do not know how to understand it. The difficulty in interpreting the passage lies in who the “sons of God” are in verse 2. The main lines of disagreement are whether they were merely human beings or spiritual beings. Scholars hold many different interpretations. Liberal and conservative scholars fall on both sides of the argument. This paper will address two common interpretations. The first interpretation will be that the “sons of God” were descendants of Seth and human beings. The second interpretation that the author holds is that they were fallen angels (demons) that took human form or possessed men. Each variation seems to have its issues, so it is hard to be dogmatic about a particular interpretation. Regardless of the interpretation, the main conclusion drawn from this passage and agreed upon is “the wickedness of man was great in the earth” during this time (Gen 6:5-6).
The interpretation of the “sons of God” as human beings has multiple views on who the men were. Sailhamer does not view Gen 6:1-4 as a prologue leading up to the flood but as a conclusion to the lineage provided in Gen 5.1 When this passage is read in that context, there is no reason to assume anything in these verses is wicked. He believes “sons of God” and “daughters of man” are only references to Adam (man) being created by God and Eve (woman) being created from Adam.2 The most common view of “sons of God” as human beings is that they were the descendants of Seth. The three sons of Adam and Eve named in Genesis were Cain, Abel, and Seth. Cain murdered Abel (Gen 4:8), then Eve gave birth to Seth (Gen 4:25-26). This view holds that the line of Cain was wicked, and the “sons of God” were the faithful sons of Seth. Therefore, the “daughters of men” were the daughters of Cain, and the wickedness that was occurring was the faithful sons of Seth sinfully marrying into the wicked line of Cain. There are several reasons this view is taken. One reason is that the context of this passage follows the lineages of Cain and Seth given in Gen 4 and 5.3 However, Petrovich argues that this view of Seth or Cain’s descendants “is standing on exceedingly shaky hermeneutical grounds” as the passage does not refer to either.4 If Gen 6:1-4 is a prologue to the flood (as most consider it), it is odd that the intermarrying of Cain and Seth’s descendants would have been prohibited, as they all descended from Adam (sons of man). Petrovich also argues against this presupposition that all of Cain’s descendants were wicked and Seth’s descendants were faithful, as Scripture does not give that indication.5
Another argument for the “sons of God” as human beings uses Matt 22:30 as a prohibition against fallen angels by arguing that angels cannot procreate. Since angels cannot procreate, they cannot produce offspring as the sons of God did in Gen 6:4. However, Petrovich argues, “The Bible simply does not indicate any such prohibition or stress such limitations placed on angelic beings.”6 The main arguments for the sons of God being human beings seem to root in a despiritualizing of the text. While the idea that fallen angels procreated with women may not make sense, Scripture gives examples of strange interactions between man and spiritual beings that support this conclusion. For example, we see angels appear as men (Gen 19:5, Heb 13:2), people physically controlled by demon possession (Matt 8:28, 9:32; Luke 4:33), and Satan entering Judas (Luke 22:3).
The second interpretation is that the “sons of God” were spiritual beings, not just human beings. Wenham argues, “There is a consensus among modern commentators that concurs with the oldest Jewish and Christian interpretation that the sons of God are spirit beings and their consorts are ordinary human women.”7 While this interpretation seems strange to us, there are several reasons for this conclusion. First, the phrase “sons of God” in the OT is used about spiritual beings (Job 1:6, 38:7; Psa 29:1, 82:6; Dan 3:25). There are verses that do refer to humans as God’s sons, but the phrase “sons of God” is not used to refer to human beings. Next, a simple reading of Gen 6:1-2 shows a contrast is being made between those “of man” and those “of God.” Petrovich points out that the “daughters” in verses 1 and 2 are both “daughters of man” and must be referring to the same subject. If the “daughters of man” in v. 2 are only interpreted as descendants of Cain, then v. 1 must only refer to the line of Cain. This would imply that “man” in v. 1 only speaks of Cain’s descendants multiplying, and there would be no reference to Seth’s descendants.8
The primary support for this interpretation comes from references to fallen angels in Jude and 1 Peter. Jude references angels that “left their proper dwelling” and “pursued unnatural desire” (Jude 6-7), which parallels “sons of God” (spiritual beings) taking “daughters of men” (unnatural desire). It says these angels have been “kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment,” paralleling 2 Peter 2:4 and referring to angels sinning before Noah and the flood. Also, 1 Peter 3:18-20 states that Jesus “went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah.” The plural word “spirits” (pneuma) in the NT refers to spiritual beings rather than human beings. These NT passages seem to explain that the fallen angels of Gen 6:1-4 that pursued human women were cast into a prison to be held until the judgment. As Wenham stated, the interpretation that the “sons of God” were spiritual beings was a commonly held belief in Jude and Peter’s time.
Another line of this interpretation is that fallen angels possessed human men and that these were the “sons of God.” As mentioned above, one challenge in this passage is that the sons of God and daughters of man conceived children (Gen 6:4). If the sons of God were strictly angelic beings, then it is difficult to know how this was physically possible. The demonic-possession interpretation removes possible physical limitations on angels imposed by Matt 22:30. If the sons of God were demon-possessed men, this conception would be more logical. This interpretation still aligns with Jude and 1 Peter with fallen angels pursuing unnatural desires. Wenham asks why men were punished if the root of the sin was spiritual beings. He answers, “The verbs imply perfectly legitimate marital arrangements, which could be entered into only with the full consent of the girls’ fathers.”9 The culpability lies with man, who is punished by the flood (Gen 6:5-7), and the fallen angels, who are imprisoned (1 Peter 3:19-20). Petrovich argues that the demonic plan was to create a “deviant line of offspring that was designed to stop the birth of Jesus from coming through a purely human line, which would invalidate any hope for redemption at Calvary.”10 In light of that conclusion, we see the justification for the flood and the importance of Noah, righteous and blameless in his generation (Gen 6:9). Whatever we conclude, we can be thankful for a continuous line of righteous men God has preserved through the ages to accomplish His plans and purposes for our redemption and His glory!
- Sailhamer, John H. “Genesis.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005, 113. ↩︎
- Sailhamer, 115. ↩︎
- Cook, William F. “Who Are the Sons of God in Genesis 6?” The Gospel Coalition. January 6, 2020. Accessed May 22, 2023. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/who-are-sons-of-god-genesis-6/. ↩︎
- Petrovich, Douglas. “Identifying the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6:1-7.” The Evangelical Theological Society, 2016, 1. (Download full PDF here.) ↩︎
- Petrovich, 2. ↩︎
- Petrovich, 4. ↩︎
- Wenham, Gordon J. “Genesis.” Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Edited by James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003, 43. ↩︎
- Petrovich, 1. ↩︎
- Wenham, 43. ↩︎
- Petrovich, 4. ↩︎
