Who Were the Sons of God in Genesis?

“SONS OF GOD”: ANGELS, MEN, OR MISINTERPRETED?

The book of Genesis was written as a warning to the children of Israel by their leader, Moses.  Since the Bible supports the belief that all Scripture is inspired, inerrant, and extant (2 Tim. 3:16), it will be assumed that Moses wrote what God said, and that God meant what He said and meant to write it as He did.  God meant to write bene elohim, with just as much purpose as He meant to use the same words in Job.  God also knew the confusion that would be caused when He wrote Matthew’s account of the angels not marrying.  He knew Jude and 2 Peter would also throw doubt (or provide commentary) on His words.  Indeed, as many Biblical authors have stated, God is the “only wise God,” (Rom. 16:27; I Tim. 1:17; Jud. 1:25) to whom is due praise and glory.  God’s thoughts and motives are high above anything of man’s work (Isa. 55:9), but it is the glory of a man to search out the hidden things (Prov. 25:2) that God has concealed.

With a respectful view in mind, the text will be investigated, drawing from the opinions of men who have studied Scriptures throughout the years.  Tradition, it must be noted, may not always be correct.  Apocryphal texts, though uninspired, may have some interesting opinions as commentary to the text.  It must also be noted, however, that though Jewish lore, the LXX, and the book of Enoch support an idea, Scripture is the final say.  Godly men throughout the ages – who have carefully considered the topic in question, have come to many different conclusions.  Men such as Henry Morris, Dr. John R. Rice, and even John MacArthur all have their strong opinions.

Given that so many have tackled the subject, and that respected theologians and historians such as Josephus and Augustine have disagreed dogmatically on the interpretation of the passage, a short discussion cannot do justice to a passage that has so many (even poets, such as Byron and Milton) have discussed.  Perhaps the wisest thing to admit at the outset of such as study is the comment made by Glaze, in his informative work Angels in History and Prophecy.  He, after considering historical, traditional, and Biblical evidence, gives his conclusion, then states “The decision as to whether the ‘sons of God’ were fallen angels or the sons of the ungodly line of Cain is a decision of conviction.  All are guilty of basing some interpretation on preconceived ideas and sometimes mistaken conclusion.  We are sometimes forced to render a verdict in such a way as not to violate another personal doctrine or belief.”^[1]

What Glaze states is truth.  Every man has preconceived notions when approaching a passage.  What that man should do is consider what the Bible has to say and mold his beliefs to the Bible.  However, when at times the Bible does seem to contradict itself, the man should interpret what is unknown with what is known.  That is one reason so many appeal to passages such as the one in Matthew to interpret the passage in Genesis, for, in all reality, the passage is unclear, and must be interpreted in light of other passages.

It is this author’s opinion two particular theories concerning creation are false.  These two theories are the “Gap theory” and the idea (as discussed in McGee’s “Thru the Bible” series as well as other authors) that there was a pre-Adamic race which was responsible for a “recreation of earth” because they fell and were corrupted. Some scholars believe that the souls of the pre-Adamic creatures became the demons of today (see Glaze, 67-68 for more information).  That these two ideas are false will be assumed, as they cause some faulty view of the text to be extrapolated.

Purpose and thesis

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the expression and meaning of the “sons of God” as found in Genesis 6:2.  The passage in question states “And the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took wives of all they chose.”  To many, this has been a point of contention, particularly as it relates to angels, and their dealings with men.  It seems that while very few current theories seem to be fully supported by the text and context of the passage, it seems that the sons of God truly are not angels, but perhaps have been misinterpreted in meaning and scope.

Contextual Summary

As stated previously, the passage in question falls just before the devastating Flood, which was brought upon mankind because, as verse 5 states, “the wickedness of man was great, and . . . every imagination of the thoughts the his heart was only evil continually.”  Clearly this passage is a punishment on man for his sin.  Man as a race, not as a gender.  The human race discussed since its creation in Gen. 1:26 has gone from one man and woman to having multiplied across the face of the earth (6:1).  The race has also gone from spotless and pure to “evil continually.”

Mankind was created in Gen. 1:26 as part of the creation week of God.  In the subsequent chapters, Moses discusses the Fall of man, his subsequent exile from the garden, the first murder, the blessing of God on the line of Seth, the and genealogies of Cain and Seth, respectively.

The overall context of the passage is that sin brings death.  This, in fact, is a purpose of the passage in question, as well, for having just come out of a chapter filled with (mostly) godly members of the line of Seth having “died” continually, the reader is fully aware that death in reality is in the world.  Since the book was written to the Hebrews as they left Egypt and were about to enter the Promised Land, they would have most likely seen the parallels, and understood how sin and death were in the world, because of disobedience.

God promised blessing to the children of Israel, primarily through the three-fold blessing He had promised to Abraham (Gen. 12:2-3; Gen. 22:17).  While some parts of the covenant were unconditional, certain parts, such as that pertaining to the circumcision, were to add blessing if obeyed and cursing if neglected.  This is a clear application of the overall context of Genesis to the children of Israel, and this story of God cursing mankind with the Flood because of their wickedness, served initially as a warning to Israel of God’s response to disobedience, sin, and wickedness.

Challenges to the Text

Ironically, the majority of challenges to the text come from the commentaries (or perceived commentaries) on the text found within the Bible itself.  While assumed to be commentaries because of their arrangement, passages such as that found in Jude 1:6 and 2 Pet. 2:4 seem to clarify the text’s characters while passages such as the one in Matt. 22 seem to throw doubt on the same conclusion.  Another major challenge to the interpretation is the very little the Bible has to say about angels, their creation, and their physiology (they are spiritual beings, but can take on convincing human form on special occasions).

What is the meaning of bene elohim in the passage?

What is the relation of passages such as Jude 1:6 and 2 Peter 2:4 with the text?  Are they commentaries on the passage?

What is the relation of “angels of heaven” in Matthew 22 with the “sons of God”?  What about fallen angels?

What about the context of the passage, does that have anything to do with another interpretation?

Is the union of “sons of the God” and “daughters of men” the cause of God’s judgment, or is it simply and interlude?

Presuppositions concerning the text

Much debate has raged about the passage in question, and it is the author’s intent to present as many sides of the debate as possible.  However, it should be noted that for the three major views, the presupposition will be made that there is a distinction between “sons of God” and “daughters of men” and that the sin God punished was a result of their union.

THE THREE MAJOR VIEWS of BENE ELOHIM

Overview of the implication and meaning of bene elohim.

“And the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took wives of all they chose.” - Gen. 6:2 (KJV)

The first word of import in this passage is the word “sons,” which, according to the Strongs definition, is the English translation of the Hebrew word ben.  Ben refers to a wide range of different related words, normally referring to familial relationship, eg. “grandson, etc.”^[2]  This word is derived from banah, which refers to “building,” whether literally or figuratively, and can have meanings from “begin to build, obtain children, make, repair, set (up), etc.”^[3]  Thus, the word “Son” can refer to a relationship, whether subject (as in relation to a ruler) or direct family relationship, with a parental form.

Noting the multiple meanings of the expression “Sons of,” on must note its implication in the original text.  Richards, in his book Every Good and Evil Angel, notes that the “Hebrew phrase... does not indicate biological relationship, but rather membership in a group or class.”  Its essential purpose, then, Richards continues, “is to identify angels as supernatural beings (emphasis his).”^[4]  Therefore, angels being described (see below in the discussion of the Job passage) as “sons of God” may be a reference to their membership of God’s heavenly “family” or group.  They are “subjects” of God, and therefore His sons – not biological in any way.

The second major word in this passage is the word “God.”  It is the Hebrew word elohiym, the plural of eloahh, referring to deity or the deity.  The plural elohiym can be used to mean “gods,” the supreme God of the Bible (usually with a definitive article) and in some places, such as Exodus 22:28, can also refer to rulers, as a way of respect.^[5]

The remaining phrases of import in Genesis 6:2 are “saw the daughters of men,” and “that they were fair.”  The context of the passage defends the traditional view of “daughters” as the children or offspring of men, and the final portion “that they were fair,” refers to their goodness, most likely to their beauty (see discussion of “Sons of the Gods, in Westermann, 372).

The expression for “sons of God” in this passage is bene elohim.  This is the portion of the text that has been under the most debate, and therefore will be the portion treated from many different viewpoints.  The expression bene elohim is used elsewhere (translated with the exact Hebrew bene elohim) in reference to angels, and it is for this reason often this passage has been interpreted as referring to angels coming and coupling with the fair daughters of men (see Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 for the definite angelic uses of the bene elohim).  This expression will be dealt with variously throughout the paper, and new light will be brought on it depending on the context and interpretation of it.

Interpretation 1: Bene Elohim as Angels

The first major interpretation, and hotly debated at that (as noted by many commentators) is that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 is a reference to a race of fallen angels that took on human form and procreated with women, thus producing an evil race of “giants.”

This belief, while not necessarily defended in Richards’s work, nonetheless is described, as he contrasts the respective proofs for either case (the other case, that the “sons of God” refers to the descendents of Seth, will be discussed below).  In this chart, he lists five “proofs,” or evidences that the bene elohim are indeed angels.  They are as follows:

(1) “The exact phrase is used only of angels outside of Genesis. (2) The Matt. 20 [sic- Matt 22] text simply says angels do not procreate; it does not rule out gender when they take on human form. (3) The context emphasized the unusual nature of this releationship which produced “giants” (Gen 6:1-4). (4) Pagan literature often refers to Titans and other offspring of deities and humans Genesis 6 indicates the roots of this tradition.  (5) Second Peter 2:4,5 and Jude 6,7 compare the sin of a group of angels now bound with the sexual perversion of Sodom and Gomorrah (i.e. unnatural sex) and closely connects the sin with the time of the Flood.”^[6]

The belief that angels are “sons of God,” is indeed grounded in Scripture.  In Job, the exact expression bene elohim is used with very strong connection to the angelic host.  One in particular, Job 38:7, references the act of creation, in which “the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God (bene elohim) shouted for joy.”  In this passage, God is talking to Job, interrogating him as to his location when creation was underway.  Since there were no men before the sea was set in its bounds (38:8), this verse could not refer to powerful rulers of men, or simply men in any way – they were not on the earth.  Also, the other uses in Job of bene elohim are 1:6 and 2:1, both of which reference the divine presentation of the “sons of God” to the Lord.  This as well could not be a reference to men or rulers, as it most apparently takes place in heaven, on a specific day.  These “sons” or “subjects, offspring” of God are most likely the angels of the heavenly court.

Elsewhere in Scripture, Bene elohim does often refer to those beings known as “angels.”  According to Morris, in his Defender’s Study Bible, “This was the uniform interpretation of the ancient Jews, who translated the phrase as ‘angels of God’ in their Septuagint translation.”  Also, he references other passages dealing with such word orderings as “bar elohim (Dan. 3:25)” and “bar elim (Ps. 29:1, 89:6).”  He states that “The intent of the writer of Genesis [who he sees to be Noah] was clearly that of introducing a monstrous irruption of demonic forces on the earth, leading to universal corruption and eventual judgment.”^[7]

Furthermore, MacArthur, in his note on Genesis 6:2, also believes that the “sons of God” referred to here are indeed angels, alluding to the Job passages as proof.^[8]  He states that the passage is mainly dealing with the violation of God’s order, in that he ordained things to reproduce after their kind and within the bonds of marriage.  It is his proposal that demonic possession was part of the procreation, in that angels had to possess the male human bodies.

Dickason, in his work Angels: Elect and Evil, also assumes that Genesis 6:2 is discussing angels.  It is his opinion that since the passages used to claim that “sons of God” means “elect of God” (as found in various other Scriptures) are not precisely the wording of bene elohim, the latter is a definitive term referring only to angels.  He also claims that the term is not a classification of the holiness of angels, as Satan appears with them, but rather that it is simply a term referring to their might.^[9]

As stated previously, the fact that bene elohim is a common term for angels is true.  Believing men are sometimes called “sons of God,” however, the construction is different, further hinting at the conclusion that bene elohim is a technical term for angels.

Angels – Sexless or not?

In defending the ancient belief that Gen. 6:2's bene elohim were angels, Morris in his commentary The Genesis Record, discusses that angels do take on human form, and uses for example those that appeared to Abraham and those that appeared to Lot.  He states that while many hold that angels are “sexless,” they are indeed always presented in the masculine form.  He states that using Matt. 22:30 to support the sexlessness of angels is not legitimate, as simply not given in marriage does not mean gender neutral.  His supposition is that mankind post-resurrection will still retain their personal identity, which includes gender.^[10]

The belief that angels do not marry or reproduce is supported by Scriptures.  The angels at least that are currently in heaven do not marry, nor are they given in marriage (see Matt. 22:30; Mk 12:25, and discussion, above).  It is true that the purpose of that passage was not whether angels were sexual beings, however, the ones in heaven at least do no participate in the rites of marriage.  Moreover, it is unclear from the Scripture whether angels in human form are able to procreate, as they are able to be touched, and in all other ways their divine nature is unknown if they wish it to be (see Heb. 13:2, which states that “some have entertained angels unawares”).  Angels have been witness throughout the Bible to eat (Gen. 18:8; 19:3) and to walk (Gen 19:1).  Therefore, angels have the capability to take on human form, but since they are not specifically said or implied to have the qualities of reproduction, it is assumed that they do not have such capabilities.

Weaknesses in the Angelic Theory

Since when interpreting difficult Scriptures one must interpret unknown in light of the known, one must interpret the difficult passage (Gen. 6:2) in light of Biblical precedents located elsewhere.  Angels in physical form are not man.  That is clear.  Demons are still angels.  Demons are therefore bound by the same principles (generally) as angels, with the exception that angels that did not sin now no longer have the option of choosing to sin, and vice versa for the demonic race (for more on this, see Glaze, 61).  In Genesis 1:25, God makes all the animals of the earth after their kind and tells them to reproduce “after their kind.”  Since mankind is the only thing that can reproduce with mankind, and cat kind with cat kind; dog kind with dogs, etc., anything taking on the form of man is not intrinsically man, and therefore, scientifically speaking, would lack the essential humanity required to reproduce with man.  Thus, if angels were to take on human form (and if they were able to reproduce), they could not reproduce with man, for every creature (that is, created thing^[11]) is commanded to reproduced after its kind.

Now a problem again arises, as angels are not among the ranks of the animal kingdom, in that animals have not a sentient will nor a service ability to the Lord.  The angelic host possess power of speech, and can traverse between the heavenlies and the earth.  Therefore, some rules applicable to the animal kingdom do not apply to angels.  This is true.  Angelic purpose must be understood, and God’s reaction to this purpose must also be understood to determine which physical attributes apply and which, by default, are of none effect.

The purpose of angels, as noted in Whyte’s volume on The Nature of Angels, is that angels are primarily seen as messengers and comforters.  He poetically illustrates it that in the Hebrew Old Testament, “for all down the nation’s chequered history their cheering words had been heard and their ministering wing seen.”^[12]  Poetic, yes, but the true purposes of angels throughout Scripture is nonetheless to pass on messages from God, to deliver God’s people from danger, and to mete punishment of God upon mankind.  In fact, the word for angel literally means “messenger.”  Therefore, since angels do not need to reproduce, do not need to “bolster” their ranks, etc., reproduction is not necessary.

But would demons be part of the bene elohim distinction?  Since Satan is specifically stated as among the “sons of God” in Job, then indeed holiness would seem to be not one of the qualities of their ranks.  However, this term is also used of the angels (Job 38:7) who shouted for joy at creation.  The fact that demons were not among the Job 38:7 crowd would seem to be evident.  Why not?  Perhaps demons had not yet become such, in that the fall of Lucifer had not occurred; also, the “sons of God” could be a term referring to many things.

Since all other instances of the “sons of God” have come from Job, it can hardly be seen as a definitive term.  There are some similarities found in other passages (as noted by Morris), however, these can be ruled out just as easily as every passage in the New Testament when referring to “sons of God.”  In the New Testament (Jn 1:12, for instance), “sons of God” is used as a term for believers, and other places as well.  It seems to be that “sons of God” in Job is a descriptive term for angels, but in light of the fact that there is no mention of angels previously and no allusion to angels in any part of this passage (other than what has been supposed to be the theme of said passage), the definition of bene elohim cannot be conclusively proved to mean angels.

Refutation of the Apparent Proofs of the Angelic Theory

It truly seems that the “sons of God” of Gen. 6:2 cannot be angels.  There are many reasons, which can be brought to bear by use of logic and Scripture.

The first of many is that of the passages cited.  The 2 Peter 2:4,5 and the Jude 6-7 passages cited cannot be applied, as they are not implying an association between the angelic and Sodomites sins (at least in relation to sexual immorality).  The 2 Peter passage’s context is dealing with the treatment of false prophets in the church.  It is a caution to new believers to be aware of false preachers using their positions to obtain money.  As referenced in the Life Application Study Bible, the three divisions of God’s judgment, the angels that rebelled, the people alive before the Flood, and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, are merely (if that word can be used in reference to God’s judgment) showing that God will judge all, and will truly judge these false prophets.^[13]  As if there were any question about this interpretation, refer to 2 Peter 2:9.  The arrangement of three rather random punishments of God, note the following: God always delivered the righteous.  When the angels fell, 2/3 remained.  When the Flood came, Noah and his family was delivered, and when Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, Lot was delivered (this is discussed in vs. 7-9a).

As for the Jude passage discussing angels, and associating them with the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, another reasonable explanation is possible.  These examples put forth in Jude are showing that God judges sin.  They are not in any necessary order, going from Egypt to the angelic rebellion, to Sodom.  The relation of the angels to Sodom is not that they were sexual perverts, nor does the text insinuate such, but rather that they were fallen in their own pride (see Ezekiel 16:49, which states that Sodom’s sins, among other things, were pride, fullness of bread, and other things.  The sin of Sodom was an unthankful pride that stemmed from her prosperity.  Compare this with the Egyptians and those angels that fell, and one can understand the meaning of this passage.  The wickedness so common is not recognizing what God has provided, and as Romans 1 traces the downward progression, the angels fell away into reprobation.  While that reprobation of Sodom included sexual perversion, and while such may have been one of the sins referenced in this text, (as has been inferred in Genesis 6) such is not stated, nor necessarily a legitimate inference from either text

.           One common refutation, even as noted in Richards’ book, is that angels are not sexual beings, and therefore could not procreate with women.  This is valid, and for a Biblical grounding to this point many refer to Matt. 22:30 and Mark 12:25, which state that the saints in heaven will not be married, nor able to get married, but are rather compared to the angels, who do not do such things.  One interesting note is that in Matt. 22:30, Jesus adds the clause “angels of God” (emphasis mine) as if to insinuate the contrary could be true of those angels that are not “of God.”  No exact proof, as the Mark 12:25 passage lacks this clause, though it says “in heaven.”  This could be a reference to heavenly angels, but is more likely Christ’s emphasis of the state of man in heaven by stressing what the angles in heaven do.

Again, though, the context of this passage must be taken into account.  The purpose of Matthew 22:30 is to show the Sadducees that they “err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matt. 22:29) Perhaps the best explanation of this passage and its context could be that from Hendriksen’s commentary on Matthew, in which he states “Had they known the Scriptures, they would have known that there is nothing in Deut 25:5,6 that makes it applicable to life hereafter.”^[14]  He continues, stating that this injunction was directed exactly against the Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection.  In regards to angels, Jesus also shows that they exists, which is supported by the Scriptures the Sadducees claimed to believe.  Jesus intended in the simple passage of vs. 30, “[to] prove that these men know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.”^[15]  The writings of this passage are true – angels do not marry nor are they given in marriage – yet the passage was not intended such.  Its intent was to show the Sadducees that they did not believe the Scriptures nor understand them.  This passage is helpful to the idea that angels are the “sons of God” in Gen. 6:2 because the sexlessness of all angels is not the purpose of this passage.

However, God gave a mandate that all things of earth were to reproduce after their kind (Gen 1:24).  He also created man in His own image and gave them the mandate to be fruitful and multiply.  A few assertions must be made.  Since very little is said about angels, it would seem that God wanted very little to be known about them.  What He has revealed about them is that they do not reproduce.  As for whether they can, and just choose not to, such is unknown from the Scriptures.  However, given that when God commands things to reproduce after their kind, they are then unable to reproduce outside of their kind (for instance, even if a dog wanted to, he could not reproduce with a cat); it would seem that angels and men would therefore not be able to produce a viable offspring.

As for MacArthur’s idea that angels possessed the human male bodies to procreate, this could very well be the case, but logic must have her say.  If a demon were to possess a man or woman, then that man’s genetic information would be passed on, his genetic information would not be suddenly “spiritualized,” thus imbuing the fertilization process with demonic power.  The only way, hypothetically, to pass on the genetic information of a demon form would be for a demon to procreate, which is not being addressed in the “possession” theory.  Furthermore, the offspring would be just as responsible to do right before God as their parents, and would not be more prone to evil because of their demonic ancestry, were that really to be considered.  Man is responsible for his own decisions and his own sins.  Remember the overall context – what would the lesson be to Israel if God were saying “do not let demons mate with your women and produce demon-giants, or I will have to destroy you like I did the people before the Flood.”  No, it seems very strongly that God is warning the Israelites that man has just grown so much on the surface of the earth and so totally turned from Him that they had to be punished.

One final note in regards to the idea of angels taking on human form.  They would not produce any “super race” because they would be humans.  Given the lack of genetic defect present in the human population before the flood, and the healthy, long-life span, the antedeluvian people would therefore not much be affected by the perhaps genetic perfection of a newly metamorphosed demon-man.  Remember, angels would have to become fully man to procreate with a woman, and therefore their intrinsic spiritual abilities would not be passed on.  This is assuming a demon could become fully man.

And as for the angels possessing the physical functions similar to that of man, there are some notes to consider.  As shown before, angels are not reproductive in heaven, yet the saints are seen as eating and talking and walking, etc. in heaven.  Therefore, it is not stretching the Scriptures to assume that one earth, in human form, angels are only able to do that which they would do in heaven.  They are not suddenly allowed to go about their own purposes (which sexual intercourse with humans would be) because they cannot do such in heaven.  Besides, given the goals and objectives of the angels, the pointlessness of intercourse is quite evident, and therefore not possible.

But assuming the giants were the product of demonic possession and The idea proposed by some that God judged the world because demons made giants in the earth is not logical when one considers a single question.  “Why did the demons not do it again?”  They would still have the ability to become man, unless something happened between Genesis 6 and 8 which stripped them of that power (since the angels of Gen. 19 were still in human form, this is not likely), why would they not try to create another evil race of “super men” with which to cause mankind’s destruction – which is their goal, after all.

Analysis of the Commentary Passages

Although discussed earlier, another aspect of the “commentary” passages should be addressed.  Many believe that Jude and 2 Peter are discussing the Genesis 6 passage when they allude to “the angels which sinned” that are kept in “chains of darkness.”  The 2 Peter passage does not necessarily have to mean the “angels” of Gen. 6 at all.  It states “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment” (2 Pet 2:4).  It then goes on to mention the Flood and Sodom, and states that if God did not spare them, he will not spare the false prophets.  The angels that sinned could be referring to simply the demonic host, or angels that did some other sin.  Morris references this as stating that “God no longer allows them to roam about the earth like other demons, but has confined them . . . casting them down to a special ‘hell’” which is Tartarus, where they are to be held for judgment.^[16]  While this would explain why the demons were not able to repeat this performance, it does not conclusively prove that the “leaving their principality” (as stated in Jude 6-7 is necessarily their going in unto women.

Moreover, in Jude, the passage does not necessarily have to be focused on sexual perversions.  Surely it would seem that if just the Sodom instancer were compared with the angelic fall; however, God begins His comparative analysis by mentioning the unbeliever’s in Egypt – unbelief.  This sheds new light on the entire situation, and very well moves it out of the range of sexual perversion as seen in Sodom.  God is comparing the unbelievers of Egypt with the unbelieving angels with the unbelievers of Sodom – people (or angels) that were so bent on their own pride they chose to disregard God’s place as God, and for that, they were condemned.  There does not necessarily have to be a relation between Jude and II Peter, for there could have been different sins that the fallen angels committed, and those sins could have been possession (see Matt. 8:28-30 for a demon pleading with Jesus to cast them into swine instead of ‘tormenting them before their time’?).  However, this does not necessarily have to be so, nor does it prove that the “sons of God” in Genesis were angels.

Furthermore, the punishment God meted out upon the descendants of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” is not fitting of the crime for two reasons.  If it was for the evil of a race of nonhumans – why punish the humans, who were not at fault.  Moreover, why punish a race of half-demons who could simply be recreated in another few years?  There is no answer to the questions posed, yet logically, the idea that God was punishing the wickedness caused by other reasons is more likely.  The wickedness will be further discussed later.

Interpretation 2: Bene Elohim as rulers and magistrates

One idea, put forth by Claus Westermann in his commentary on Genesis 1-11, is that they term “sons of God” refers to rulers of the people in those days.  He cites several theories and beliefs, and comes to the conclusion that the focus of this passage is not indeed the “sons of the Gods” (as he puts it), but in contrary the beauty of the women.^[17]  This brings the seond theory of the identity to light.  Some believe that the “Sons of God” is a mythological representation of the power of the rulers to take whomever they wish. 

This raises the second major view of the text.  The “Sons of god” are rulers of the people.  The English word “god” often refers to a deity, whether the true “God” of the Hebrew people or the Canaanite or pagan “gods” of the land.  The Hebrew word in the case of this is “elohiym,” which, as stated, can mean either the God of the Bible or false gods of the land, but can also be used to refer to rulers.  The Bible commanded in Exodus 22:28, “Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.”  In this light, “elohiym” carries with it multiple meanings.

The word “sons of God,” according to Westermann, would not have been taken to mean “angels.”  He quotes Gunkel, who stated “The phrase bene elohim [sic] would have been understood in Hebrew usage as ‘beings belonging to the category of elohim,’” and also that “beliefs in such beings had originally nothing to do with the Yahweh religion.”^[18]  Westermann then continued to cite other beliefs, related to this, that the expression had some Canaanite parallels, until he relates “He [Herrmann] understands the Hebrew phrase. . . in Gen. 6:1-4 in an analogous sense.”^[19]  Finishing up this train of thought, Westermann states that the beauty of the daughters of men is what is stressed, and that the only thing “divine” about these men, who in all reality acted nothing like deity, is that they are able to have whomever they wish to have (with this, he compares the stories of David and Pharaoh, and their ability to have whomever they pleased).

Refutation of the Magistrate View

While the Bible does discuss rulers in terms of “gods,” such as in Exodus 22:28, there seems to be little evidence that that is the intent of these passages.  Considering the presuppositions stated in the introduction, many believe that the actions here of the “sons of God” to be the cause of the “great wickedness.”  Taking that into account, what would be the great sin here?  Certainly Gill has it correct when he concludes that such could not be magistrates because there would be no great sin for which they would be punished.^[20]

Furthermore, the previous passage deals mostly with the line of Cain, and with no warning as to the magistrate idea, it seems far-fetched to assume that suddenly God is going to quickly comment “and the rulers married the peasants, and there was great wickedness because of it.”  Indeed, the angelic or Sethite theory seems more biblically sound.

Another reason for this not being of magistratic interpretation is the lesson principle.  What lesson would God be teaching?  He had not, at least as far as having been recorded in Scripture, commanded or even commented on rulers being separate from commoners.  He had, however, commented on the separation of Kenite/Sethite and had also commented on the fact that everything was to remain in its own kind and reproduce after such.  There seems to be very little evidence for this view, even though it sounds reasonable initially.

Interpretation 3: Bene Elohim as descendants of Seth.

Context determines meaning, and therefore one must ask what would have been the original understanding.  Above it has been noted that the “sons of God” would not have been understood to mean “beings belonging to the category of elohim,” but rather “analogous.”  This, in light of the discussion of the context of Genesis 6, brings to bare the final major belief (for a brief discussion of one other belief not supported by Scripture, please see Appendix).  This belief is that the bene elohim were indeed the sons of the Sethite lineage that took wives of the daughters of man, that is, of the Kenite line.

As for bene elohim always pertaining to angels, the first use does not necessarily have to mean such.  Certainly elsewhere in Scripture the exact words refer, yet their context is in unmistakeable use.  Their use does not refer to controversial activities, etc., for which there is no Scriptural grounds.  On the contrary, the nature of angels is upheld in these passages, not torn down, as it is in this passage.

Furthermore, in the context, Seth’s descendants are considered as logical candidates for the simple reason that they are focus of the previous chapter.  The previous chapter mentions Seth’s offspring down to Noah, and who is to say, perhaps, that some of Noah’s ancestors may have married offspring of Cain.  It is on this note that Gill has some interesting observations in his defense of bene elohim as meaning the line of Seth.

Gill disregards both the angelic theory and the magistrate theory by stating that angels are sexless and that magistrates would not be committing any great sin for which they would be punished.  He states that what is being discussed here is the godly line of Seth, which according to ancient tradition, had been segregated up until this point.  According to Gen. 4:26, in the time of Enos, the children of Seth began to “call upon the name of the Lord.”  This, according to Gill (as well as others) is a recognition of the public worship of Jehovah, now that families had begun to grow larger and would now merit such assembly.^[21]  These worshipers were the line of Seth, which Gill notes were “[distinct] from the children of men; these claimed the privilege of divine adoption, and professed to be born of God, and partakers of his grace, and pretended to worship him according to his will, so far as revealed to them, and to fear and serve and glorify him.”^[22] 

Furthermore, these, according to tradition, had been separated from Cain’s progeny by actually physically living in the mountain of Hermon, while Cain’s line lived in the valley – the same valley, traditionally, where Abel was slain.^[23]  Thus, according to tradition, there was a segregation and religious difference between these two people. The world began to be populated, and after time, apparently Adam’s descendants began to multiply upon the earth, and, forgetting their holy roots, the Sethites began to take to themselves wives of the Kenites.

According to Gill, the name “Jared” in Gen. 5:20 hints at the previous discussion, for it was in his days that the sons of God went down.  “Jared,” in fact, means “descending,” and it is believed that it was during his time the men went down to hear what the great tumult from the valley was.  It was his warning to his children (“ye know what some have done, that they have gone down from the mountain, and have had conversation with the daughters of Cain, and have defiled themselves; take you care of your purity, and do not descend from the holy mountain”) that can provide some much-needed application from the passage to the Christian’s life.  Do not go investigating what it is the world says.  The Christian does not need to turn from worshiping God in order to see if there is more out there for him.  The world will never satisfy the Christian, and indeed, will only bring hurt and conflict to a true believer.

Other theologians also hold this view.  Scofield states that the “uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that verse 2 marks the breaking down of the separation between the godly line of Seth and godless line of Cain.”^[24]  While this was not the uniform Hebrew and Christian view (as has been seen), nonetheless, according to the Sethite view, this would be the breaking point of the segregation.  Luther stated that the “sons of God” refer to the “male descendants of the patriarchs who had the promise of the blessed Saviour [sic].”^[25]  It is Luther’s opinion that the Jews were foolish to explain this phrase as describing the evil spirits that caused a generation of wicked men.

Weaknesses in the Sethite Theory

According to Morris, the theory of Sethite interpretation is weak because not all the Sethites were godly.  Such is true.  Indeed, the only survivors of their line was Noah, his wife and their family – eight people out of a multitude.  Morris contends that indeed all of Adam’s sons would have been “sons of God” if any were.  He does not believe that at this period in history (because so many perished in the Flood) any could be really considered “sons of God.”^[26] He also contests that if there were “sons of God” marrying “daughters of men,” what about “daughters of God” marrying “sons of men”?

Furthermore, it seems that the emphasis on the “giants” would refute the Sethite view.  Surely God would not stress the advent of giants and explain them as products of normal human intercourse (This will be discussed in Section 2: The Combination View).

Also, it should be noted that theologians have been in error concerning the interpretation of this passage.  In the quotation by Scofield, earlier, he state that “The uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that vers 2 marks the breaking down of the separation between the” lines of Seth and Cain.  This has clearly not been the case, as has been shown.  Furthermore, Luther stated that the patriarchs had received the promise of the Savior.  This, too, is in error, for God had promised to bless Seth’s line and curse Cain (which He did), however, the most promise God gave to Eve was that she would have a descendant that would “bruise the serpent’s head.”  And since Eve thought Cain was the fulfiller of this, she was clearly ignorant of the coming and nature of the breaker of the serpent’s head.^[27] (Gen 4:1)

Defense of the Sethite Position

While some attributes of the explanation must be assumed, such as that this passage is directly related the previous passage, and not, as von Rad assumes.  Von Rad states that “the beginning of the new story is quite general in its chronology and without special connection with what precedes.  The reader, therefore, who has learned to pay attention to such artless transitions, detects that he is being introduced into a previously quite independent narrative context.”^[28]  Though von Rad assumes such, it seems to do injustice to the text to call such transitions “artless” and unrelated to the rest of Scripture.  As has already been attested, it seems that the passage of Genesis from 1 to 6 has been proving that man sins and that his sin merits judgment, which God enacts by curses and death.

One attack against the Sethite position is that God had not chosen a specific line through which He would work.  God did allow the Sethites to call upon His name and be called by His name.  It seems that God probably did not get worshiped by the Kenites because they did not want to worship Him.  He banished their father, and they were too materialistically consumed, it seemed.  God worked through the line of Seth.  However, in relation to the accusation that God had not chosen one line through which to work, there is no statement in Genesis that states that there was any “choice” involved at all.  God had accepted the Sethites because they had come to Him.  He chose them because they worshiped Him.  God would have allowed the Cainites such pleasure, it seems, were they to desire Him, but they did not.  God is not willing that any should perish in their sins, such is the statement of Scripture. (2 Pet. 3:9) The God of the New Testament is the same one in this passage. 

It seems clear that because the people of Seth chose to follow God, they lived separately.  However, there came a day when God was not satisfactory to them, and they intermingled with Cain again.  Because of this, wickedness became great in the earth.  God saw that there was great wickedness, and chose to punish it.

Conclusion

In conclusion to the first section, there seems to be no particular theory that totally

models the Biblical picture.  In that light, however, the Sethite explanation weighs well against the Scriptural evidence.  However, it is this author’s opinion that even that is not the overall meaning of the passage, even though that may have been the occurrence described.

THE COMBINATION VIEW of BENE ELOHIM

Again, while it seems that there are supports strongly for both the Sethite and angelic views as the interpretation of bene elohim as found in Genesis 6, there is one more view that seems to be the most biblically consistent.

It seems that the most biblically sound explanation of this position is what is known as the “interlude.”  It is proposed that the passage in question is not discussing some merging of godly with ungodly (though such may have happened) or angelic with human, but rather simply building off of the chapter five context of life and death.

This belief explains the giants, the “sons of God,” the “daughters of men,” the judgment, and, in fact, does it “artfully.”  In a class lecture pertaining to the said passage, Hullinger proposed that the passage (v. 1-4) is not introducing the Flood narrative, but concluding the genealogical narrative of chapter 5.^[29]  It is his supposition that all the various points of contention can be explained using this theory.

Biblical Explanation of Nephilim

In the Genesis account, when the bene elohim came in unto the “daughters of men,” there were “giants in the earth in those days.”  As erroneously stated by von Rad, thepassage found in vs. 4 should have been after vs. 2, and in fact had been in an earlier tradition.^[30]  This idea is erroneous per the presuppositions of this paper, that God preserved and inspired His Word precisely as He meant to preserve it.  The passage clearly states “There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” (6:4).

A simple look at the passage will see that the giants, or nephilim were in the earth in those days, and after the days when the “sons of God” wedded the “daughters of men.”  It seems from a simple viewing of the Scripture with no forcing of a meaning upon it that the giants were not products of any specific union, but were in existence.  It has been noticed that there were larger than normal men in ancient days.^[31]  Moreover, since the same word for giants (nephilim) is used to describe the children of Anak, it would seem that such a term is not a definitive term for the offspring of these supposed ungodly unions.

In fact, the term nephilim, is not specifically a term for demon or anything of that sort.  According to Hullinger, the meaning of such is simply “mighty ones,” “tyrants,” or “men of renown.”^[32]  According to von Rad, such meaning is “mighty ones,” such as “‘strong ones,’ the ‘heroes’ (LXX gigantes).”^[33]  Morris interprets such as coming from the Hebrew word naphal, which has the idea of “those who fall upon” or “attackers,” although he also interprets it as an allusive meaning of “those who have fallen,” in reference to the demonic “psuedoparents, the fallen angels.”^[34] 

There is nothing, other than the brief linguistic allusion to “fallen,” that requires the nephilim to be a result of demonic coupling.  This word can simply refer to the fact that there were great heroes in those days – great men, whose actions were of renown.  Or, perhaps the meaning could literally mean as the AV says – “there were giants in those days.”  There is nothing that says the giants had to be a product of the unions of 6:2, nor does there have to be a “fallen angel” meaning.

Biblical View of “the Sin”

Note: At this point, the presupposition that there was a sin involved in the “sons of God” marrying the “daughters of men” will be addressed.  It seems that often commentators and readers of Genesis 6:1-4 equate the coupling of the bene elohim with the “daughters of men” as the cause of the abundant wickedness in the earth.  However, examination of the text itself lends a different interpretation.  It seems to suggest that there was great wickedness in general, and that because of this great wickedness, God decided to limit the history of that time span of earth to 120 years (Gen. 6:3).  Furthermore, since God had determined that it would be 120 years until the Flood before He commented on the giants’ presence on the earth, their existence in itself had nothing to do with the great wickedness.

The giants were no doubt men, such is clear by the expression, “and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renoun.” (Gen. 6:4) Therefore, only in that they were men were the giants responsible for the wickedness; however, the other men of the earth were likewise evil and wicked and deserving of punishment.

Nowhere in this passage does God condemn the coming of the “sons of God” unto the “daughters of men.”  It seems simply that God is just commenting on the actions of the children of the chapter 5 heritage.  Life is going on as normal.  This is also supported by Hullinger’s reasoning, as he purports that the passage is simply indicating that the children of Adam are increasing in number.  It is his thesis that this is merely the “calm before the storm.”^[35]

Biblical Conclusion

Since the entirety of the previous chapter deals with the effects of sin, and since chapter divisions are not present in the original Hebrew manuscript, there is support for the interlude view.  Never does God state that the “sons of God” are anything more than just the children of Adam, and nowhere does it assert that such merging of the race was a sin.

Moses seems to be writing this section just as a “wrap-up” to his genealogy, letting the reader know that “man continued in his living this way, having children, marrying, and giving in marriage.”  In fact, this phrase sounds remarkably like that said by Jesus in Luk 17:26-27 “And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.”  It truly seems that the Bible supports this theory that the passage in question is simply an interlude between the endless monotony of man’s existence and man being wiped out because of his sin.

CONCLUSION

Overall, it seems that while each theory has its support, there are truths to be found in both the angelic and Sethite view.  It is my view that if by some strange reason angels were the culprits in the passage, then what we are dealing with here are angelic possession, which would not produce anything other than mortal men.  This is plain, and seems to be what the passage bears out.  The men were mortal, and their offspring, though men of renown, were likewise mortal.

Furthermore, it seems that the passage in question is explained by the interlude view, and while it may have been saying that the Sethites and Kenites joined together, thus causing wickedness to become more abundant, such does not seem to be the focus.  The focus truly seems to be that man continued to live as he did, in his typical human self, not caring about God or His commands.  This led to such great wickedness that God eventually determined to destroy man.

As we have seen through the various verses cited, the overall thrust of the passage would be man’s responsibility and that God will deliver the righteous and punish the wicked, as shown in Genesis 6, Jude 6 and 2 Peter.  It seems to be no coincidence that Jesus’ words in Luke concerning the people of Noah’s day seem to follow the vein of Genesis 6 as relating to the passage prior to it.  One important thing for the believer to remember when reading it is that presuppositions and predispositions normally sway determinations.

APPLICATION

Theology without application is pointless knowledge that “puffs up,” as the Bible says.  1^st  Corinthians also warns to approach knowledge with humility.  As we have seen through the study of the bene elohim, there are a lot of theories, and each have their strong points.  One major application evident in the passage is that man is responsible.

God made man with self-determination and sentience; therefore, man is responsible before God for his actions.  How will you or I be judged for what we do?  We are only responsible for that.  The angelic view seems to take responsibility away from man and places the fault for the Flood ultimately at the feet of the demonic offspring of those unions.  That is one reason I reject that theory.

Also, as shown in the interlude theory, man’s opinions can begin to shade the Bible’s meaning.  Commentators can skew meanings and misinterpret facts (such as Scofield’s “all the Hebrews and Christianity believe this), using their notoriety whether intentionally or accidentally to sway believers who have not taken the time to study it out themselves.  Also, tradition can skew what the Bible really has to say.  God has given to each one of us a brain and ability and teachers to help us study His Word.  Most importantly, He has given us His Spirit, with which we can compare “Scripture with Scripture.”

God has blessed us abundantly, and perhaps the final warning we can apply to our lives from these passages is that we need to be ready.  As in the days of Noah, as in the days of Lot, things went on as they had for years, until something happened.  Mankind today is getting to that morally depraved type that we see throughout the major judgment periods in the Bible.  Christians have God’s guarantee that they will be delivered; however, will there be the faith when God returns, or will we be saved “so as by fire”?  God gave us these admonitions for a reason.  He wants us to go out and tell the world and live right ourselves.

Regrettably, many Christians do not care enough.  They are too caught up with acceptance and materialism to be swayed by the world’s plight.  But the opposite should be the sway of this passage.  It did not matter who like whom and what possessions someone had when the Floods came or when Sodom was destroyed – all men become equal materialistically before God in the day of Judgment.

---

^[1]Bob Glaze, Angels in History and Prophecy, (Oklahoma City, OK: Bible Belt Publishing, 1998), 79.

^[2]James Strong, Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, as found on the E-sword program. (www.e-sword.com), version 7.8.5. #1121.

^[3]Strong, #1129.

^[4]Larry Richards, Every Good and Evil Angel (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 127.

^[5]Strong, #430.

^[6]Richards, 127.

^[7]Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible. (Grand Rapids: World Publishing, 1995), 20.

^[8]MacArthur, The MacArthur Student Bible, p. 10. s.v. “Gen. 6:2"

^[9]C. Fred Dickason, Angels: Elect and Evil (Chicago: Moody Press, 1975), 60.

^[10]Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), 166.

^[11]Strong, s.v. ktisma, #G2938

^[12]Alexander Whyte, The Nature of Angels (Grand rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), 95.

^[13]Tyndale House Publishers. Life Application Study Bible. (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1997), 2209.

^[14]Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), 805.

^[15]Hendriksen, 806.

^[16]Morris, The Genesis Record, 169.

^[17]Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 372.

^[18]Westermann, 372.

^[19]Westermann, 372, quoting W. Herrmann, ZRGG 12 (1960)

^[20]John Gill, Gill’s Expositor: Genesis to Numbers (Streamwood, Ill.: Primitive Baptist Library, 1979), 45.

^[21]Gill , 40.

^[22]Gill, 45-46.

^[23]Gill, 46.

^[24]Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible, quoted in John R. Rice, In the Beginning... (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord, 1975), 186.

^[25]Martin Luther, Luther’s Commentary on Genesis. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958), quoted in John R. Rice, In the Beginning... (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord, 1975), 187.

^[26]Morris, Genesis Record, 168.

^[27]Gill, 32.

^[28]Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 113.

^[29]Jerry Hullinger, BI 675 class lecture, Pensacola Theological Seminary, 23 October, 2007.

^[30]Von Rad, 115.

^[31]Morris, The Genesis Record, 173.

^[32]Hullinger, Class Lecture - 24 Oct. 2007.

^[33]Von Rad, 115.

^[34]Morris, The Genesis Record, 172.

^[35]Hullinger.