Genesis 6:1-2

There are three major views about the identity of the sons of God.

1. They were fallen angels who married women. [Note: The Book of Enoch (a second century B.C. pseudepigrapha); Philo; Josephus; Justin Martyr; Tertullian; Cyprian; Ambrose; Pember; Clarence Larkin The Spirit World; Henry Morris, The Genesis Record; C. Fred Dickason, Angels: Elect and Evil; M. R. DeHaan, 508 Answers to Bible Questions; Boice, 1:245-48; R. S. Hendel, "When the Sons of God Cavorted with the Daughters of Men," Bible Review 3:2 (Summer 1987):8-13, 37; Merrill, p. 23; Wenham, pp. 140, 146; et al.] Arguments in favor of this view follow with responses.

a. The term "sons of God" as it occurs here in Hebrew refers only to angels in the Old Testament (Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7; et al.). Response: Angels do not reproduce (Matthew 22:30).

b. 2 Peter 2:4-5 and Judges 1:6-7 appear to identify angels with this incident. Response: There are no other references to angels in the context here in Genesis. These New Testament passages probably refer to the fall of Satan.

c. If God could impregnate Mary, spirit beings may be able to do the same thing to human women. Response: Spirit beings cannot do everything that God can do.

2. They were godly Sethites who married ungodly women. I prefer this view. Arguments in favor of this view follow with responses.

a. The Old Testament often refers to the godly as God’s sons (e.g., Exodus 4:22). Response: This would have to be an exception to the technical use of "sons of God" as a reference to angels in the Old Testament.

b. Moses had already established the concept of a godly line in Genesis (Genesis 4:26).

c. Sonship based on election is common in the Old Testament.

d. Warnings against marriages between believers and unbelievers are common in the Pentateuch.

3. They were dynastic rulers who married women. [Note: Merediith G. Klein, "Diivine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4," Westminster Theological Journal 24 (1962):187-204; John Skinner, Genesis; Kitchen, "The Old . . .," p. 4; et al. See also Watson E. Mills, "Sons of God: The Roman View," Biblical Illustrator (Fall 1983):37-39.] Fallen angels (demons) may have indwelt or at least controlled them. [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 36; Waltke, Genesis, pp. 116-17.] Arguments in favor of this view and responses follow.

a. Ancient Near Eastern literature often called kings sons of gods.

b. The Old Testament refers to administrators (e.g., judges) as gods. Response: Scripture never regards them as descendants of deities, as pagan ancient Near Eastern literature does.

c. This story is similar to Babylonian antediluvian stories.

Scholars have debated this passage heatedly, but there is not yet decisive evidence that enables us to make a dogmatic decision as to the correct interpretation. One writer expressed his frustration as follows.

"What does he [Moses] mean? I do not know, and I do not believe anyone knows. So far as I am concerned, this passage is unintelligible." [Note: Albertus Pieters, Notes on Genesis, p. 116.]

Context is very important in any interpretive problem, and I believe it argues for view 2 in this case. [Note: See Keil and Delitzsch, 1:131-34. Many conservative interpreters hold this view. See Wolf, p. 99.] If so, the purpose of this segment appears to be to document the degradation of even the godly, thus justifying the flood.

Some people who believe that the angelic conflict is a major theme of Scripture have emphasized this passage. I do not believe that the angelic conflict is a major theme of Scripture. I believe the angels are important primarily because of their function as God’s messengers sent forth to minister to people (Hebrews 1:14).