The sons of God and the daughters of men (Genesis 6:2). [1.]
(I.) Three possible views.
John Walton:
This issue is one of the thorniest in Old Testament interpretation.
…The earliest view, held unanimously until the second century A.D. as
far as we know, is that “the sons of God” were angelic beings. In this
view there is a material distinction between “the sons of God” and
“the daughters of men,” and the offense is the transgression of
boundaries. …In the second and third centuries, both Jewish
Interpreters and Christian interpreters began to diverge from this
consensus, but in different directions. Jewish commentators took the
path of identifying “the sons of God” as rulers. Christian
commentators beginning with Julius Africanus promoted the view that
“the sons of God” were men from the line of Seth while “the daughters
of men” were women from the line of Cain. This view entered the
mainstream in Augustine’s City of God and soon became the
Christian interpretation. It remained so through the Reformation and
into the nineteenth century. [2.]
Bruce K. Waltke:
All three interpretations can be defended from the Hebrew grammar.
[3.]
(a.) Angelic Beings.
(i.) The argument in favor.
Gordon J. Wenham:
The “angel” interpretation is at once the oldest view and that of most
modern commentators. It is assumed in the earliest Jewish exegesis
(e.g., the books of 1 Enoch 6:2ff; Jubilees 5:1)... [4.]
Abraham Kuruvilla:
…the LXX (Vaticanus contains ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ, angeloi tou theou;
the Alexandrinus corrects υἱοὶ, huioi, to ἄγγελοι; the LXX also has
ἄγγελοι θεοῦ for “sons of God” (בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים) in Job 1:6; 2:1;
38:7; and Dan 3:25. Philo (Giants 2.6), Josephus (Ant. 1.31;
1.73), 2 En. 18.3-8; 2 Bar. 56.11-14; and the DSS (1Qap Genar 2:1, 16; CD 2:17-19) also hold to this interpretation, as well as Justin
(Second Apology 5), Irenaeus (Haer. 4.36), Clement of Alexandria
(The Instructor 3.2), and Tertullian (On the Veiling of Virgins
7), among others. “Sons of god” in the OT may stand for heavenly
beings (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1; 82:6; 89:6-7; Dan 3:25; etc.)...
[5.]
Gordon J. Wenham:
Modern scholars who accept this view advance three main reasons for
supporting it. First, elsewhere in the OT (e.g., Ps 29:1, Job 1:6)
“sons of God” refers to heavenly, godlike creatures. Second, in 6:1-4
the contrast is between “the sons of the gods” on the one hand and
“the daughters of man” on the other. The alternative interpretations
presuppose that what Gen 6 really meant was that “the sons of some
men” married “the daughters of other men.” The present phrase “sons of
God” is, to say the least, an obscure way of expressing such an idea.
It is made the more implausible by 6:1 where “man” refers to all
mankind. It is natural to assume that in v 2 “daughters of man” has an
equally broad reference, not a specific section of the human race.
Finally, it is pointed out that in Ugaritic literature “sons of God”
refers to members of the divine pantheon, and it is likely that
Genesis is using the phrase in a similar sense. [6.]
(ii.) The argument against.
Andrew E. Steinmann:
However, this interpretation is not without problems. It introduces
angels into Genesis with hardly any prior discussion of them apart
from the cherubim who guarded the way to the tree of life (3:24).
Moreover, in the New Testament Jesus clearly teaches that angels do
not marry (Matt. 22:29-30; Mark 12:24-25; Luke 20:34-36). It could
also be added that although the Scriptures at times speak of angels
appearing as humans, they never depict them as having bodies that
function like those of humans: they do not eat, drink or sleep. It is
hard, therefore, to conceive of them mating as humans do. Moreover,
Hendel has noted that ‘The sexual mixing of gods and mortals is
unattested elsewhere in West Semitic lore’, thereby casting doubt upon
the supposed mythological background behind this text. Finally, it
ought to be observed that this intermarriage of the sons of God and
daughters of mankind contributes to God’s judgment on humanity (vv. 3,
5-7). Since these marriages were initiated by the sons of God, it
seems incongruous that God would judge humankind on the basis of what
angels did. [7.]
(b.) The godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain.
(i.) The argument in favor.
Abraham Kuruvilla:
Historically, this is the interpretation that has been followed by
Julius Africanus (Chronicles 2), Chrysostom (Hom. Gen. 22.2),
Augustine (City of God 15.23), Luther (Lectures on Genesis Chapter
6-14), and Calvin (Comm. Gen. 1.237-238). [8.]
Kenneth A. Mathews:
We already have shown how chaps. 4 and 5 contrast the two lines of
descent from Adam—the Cainites and Sethites. Genesis 6:1-8 relates how
the two lines intermarry, resulting in a community of unprecedented
wickedness. The flood account, we have shown, is actually embedded
within the Sethite genealogy, which is not completed until the notice
of Noah’s death (9:29). This provides the appropriate interpretive key
for understanding 6:1-8. During this period of amazing Sethite
expansion (chap. 5), the Sethite family marries outside its godly
heritage, which results in moral decline.
ʾĔlōhīm can be rendered as a genitive of quality, meaning “godly sons,” referring to the heritage of the Sethites. …bĕnê hāʾĕlōhīm
has analogues pointing to human referents. [fn. 108: Since
בְנֵי־אֱלֹהִים cannot refer to physical descent, i.e., the angels are
not physically generated, then we must take “sons of God” as
metaphorical regardless of referent. It follows, then, that the
expression can be applied to more than angels, i.e., any who “bear the
image of God” (see Keil, Pentateuch, 128-29).] Also important is the
weight of the Pentateuch’s testimony, which identifies the Israelites
as the children of God (e.g., Deut 14:1; 32:5-6; cf. Exod 4:2; Pss
73:15; 80:15); this resonates well with taking the “sons of God” in
6:2 as an allusion to godly (covenant) offspring (cf. also Isa 43:6;
Hos 1:10; 11:1; John 1:12-13). [9.]
(ii.) The argument against.
Derek Kidner:
…while the Old Testament can declare God’s people to be his sons, [fn.
20: Deut. 14:1; Isa 1:2; Hos 1:10 (MT 2:1).] the normal meaning of the
actual term ‘sons of God’ is ‘angels’, [fn. 21: Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7;
Dan. 3:25.] and nothing has prepared the reader to assume that ‘men’
now means Cainites only. Possible New Testament support for ‘angels’
may be seen in 1 Peter 3:19, 20; also in 2 Peter 2:4-6, where the
fallen angels, the flood, and the doom of Sodom form a series that
could be based on Genesis, and in Jude 6, where the angels’ offence is
that they left their proper habitation. The craving of demons for a
body, evident in the Gospels, offers at least some parallel to this
hunger for sexual experience. [10.]
Michael S. Heiser:
…this view forces two divergent meanings on the Hebrew word ʾadam in
Genesis 6:1–2: the term would have to mean “mankind” in Genesis 6:1,
but a specific group of humans—the Cainites—in Genesis 6:2. [11.]
(c.) Kings or rulers.
(i.) The argument in favor.
Kaiser, Davids, Bruce & Brauch:
(1) The ancient Aramaic Targums render “sons of God” as “sons of
nobles” (Targums of Onkelos), and the Greek translation of Symmachus
reads “the sons of the kings or lords.” (2) The word gods (Hebrew
elōhı̂m is used in Scripture for men who served as magistrates or judges (“Then his master must take him before the judges
[elōhı̂m],” Exodus 21:6; see also Exodus 22:8; Psalm 82:1, 6). (3)
Structurally, the account of the Cainite Lamech (Genesis 4:19-24) and
that of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 are very much alike. In
each there is the taking of wives, the bearing of children and the
dynastic exploits. The former passage ends with a boast of judgment by
Lamech, and the other ends with God’s decree of judgment. Lamech
practiced bigamy (Genesis 4:19), and he enforced his policies by using
tyranny. The portraits are parallel and depict states of tyranny,
corruption and polygamy. (4) Near Eastern discoveries have validated
the pagan use of all sorts of ‘gods’ and ‘goddesses’ names in order to
give more clout and prestige to the governments of Egypt and
Mesopotamia—hence the title “sons of God.”
The fifth and final line of evidence concerns the
nep̄ilı̂m/gibbôrı̄m of Genesis 6:4. The word nep̄ilı̂m occurs only here and in Numbers 13:33, where it refers to the Anakim, who
were people of great stature. The root meaning of the word nep̄ilı̂m
is “to fall.” However in Genesis 6:4 the nep̄ilı̂m are associated
with the term gibbôrı̄m. The word gibbôrı̄m comes from gibbôr
meaning “a mighty man of valor, strength, wealth or power.” Nimrod, in
Genesis 10:8, was such a gibbôr. He also was clearly a king in the
land of Shinar. Hence the meaning of nep̄ilı̂m/gibbôrı̄m is not
“giants,” but something more like “princes,” “aristocrats” or “great
men.” [12.]
(ii.) The argument against.
Michael S. Heiser:
First, the text of Genesis 6 never says the marriages were polygamous.
That idea must be read into the passage. Second, ancient parallels
restrict divine sonship language to kings. Consequently, the idea of a
group of sons of God lacks a coherent ancient Near Eastern parallel. The precise plural phrase. refers to divine beings elsewhere in the
Old Testament, not kings (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Pss 29:1; 82:6 [cf.
82:1b]; 89:6 [Hebrew: 89:7]). [13.]
(II.) Conclusion.
Victor P. Hamilton:
Suffice it to say, it is impossible to be dogmatic about the
identification of “sons of God” here. The best one can do is to
consider the options. While it may not be comforting to the reader,
perhaps it is best to say that the evidence is ambiguous and therefore
defies clear-cut identifications and solutions. [14.]
Notes:
[1.] Gordon J. Wenham: "“The sons of the gods” or “the sons of God.” בני־האלהים could be translated either way. Job 1:6; 2:1 lend support to the latter, while Pss 29:1; 89:7 make the former possible." {Gordon J. Wenham, World Biblical Commentary: Volume 1: Genesis 1-15, (Waco: Word Books, 1987), p. 139.}
[2.] John H. Walton, The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis, (Zondervan Academic, 2011), on Gen. 6:1-4, §. Identity of the Sons of God.
[3.] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), on Gen. 6:2.
[4.] Gordon J. Wenham, World Biblical Commentary: Volume 1: Genesis 1-15, (Waco: Word Books, 1987), p. 139.
[5.] Abraham Kuruvilla, Genesis: A Theological Commentary for Preachers, (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2014), n. 45, p. 103. Note that Kuruvilla does not advocate this solution. Cf. Abraham Kuruvilla: "However, there has been no mention of any angels in Scripture up to this point; moreover, angels do not marry (Matt 22:29-30/ Mark 12:24–25/Luke 20:34-36). Also, the phrase “they took wives for themselves” is a fairly standard expression for normal marriage in the OT (Gen 11:29; Jdg 3:6; 2 Sam 5:13; 1 Chr 14:3; 23:22; etc.); no bizarre super-human conjugal relationship is implied by in the phrase." {Ibid.}
[6.] Gordon J. Wenham, World Biblical Commentary: Volume 1: Genesis 1-15, (Waco: Word Books, 1987), p. 139. John Phillips: "The expression “sons of God” (“sons of Elohim”)...occurs three times in the book of Job (1:6; 2:1)...in that context the sons of God are angelic beings. It occurs again in Job 38:7… Again the sons of God are evidently suprahuman beings. The other reference is in Daniel…(in that case it was God the Son in one of His preincarnate appearances), again a supernatural being. …the title “sons of God” in the Old Testament, then, is confined to angelic beings and to Christ. In the Septuagint version of the Scriptures the expression “sons of God” is invariably translated “the angels of God.” The term “sons of Elohim” seems to be confined to those who are directly created by God’s volition rather than to beings born of their own order. It is that characteristic that, as much as anything, distinguishes between the angels and men. In the Old Testament a kindred expression is used, “sons of Jehovah,” and that would have been an ideal expression to use in Genesis 6, had it been the intention in that passage simply to differentiate between Cain’s descendants and Seth’s. In fact, it would have been a particularly appropriate expression because Genesis 4:26 records that, since the days of Enos, men had begun to call upon “the name of Jehovah.” Instead of using the expression “sons of Jehovah,” however, the text uses an expression elsewhere reserved in the Old Testament as descriptive of supernatural beings." {John Phillips, The John Phillips Commentary Series: Exploring Genesis: An Expository Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001), n. 4, p. 79.}
[7.] Andrew E. Steinmann, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: Genesis, (InterVarsity Press, 2019), p. 83. Franz Delitzsch: "But could angels have had carnal intercourse with human women? According to Bereshith rabba, c. 26, R. Simeon b. Jochai pronounced an anathema upon all who should understand בני האלהים of angels (though the Sohar makes him affirm it himself); Augustine (civ. Dei, xv. 23) advises rather to relinquish the apocryphal fable; Jerome reserves his judgment; Cyril of Alexandria reckons this opinion among the ἀτοπώτατα; Theodoret calls its advocates ἐμβρόντητοι καὶ ἄγαν ἠλίθιοι (Quæst. in Gen. § 47); Philastrius numbers it among the heresies; the ancient Protestant interpreters regard it as a Jewish Platonizing fancy." {Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis: Vol. I, Clark’s Foreign Theological Library: Vol. XXXVI, trans. Sophia Taylor, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888), p. 223.}
[8.] Abraham Kuruvilla, Genesis: A Theological Commentary for Preachers, (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2014), p. 104.
[9.] Kenneth A. Mathews, The New American Commentary: Genesis 1-11:26: Vol. 1A, (Nashville: B&H, 1996), pp. 329-330. Cf. John Murray, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 244-247. Abraham Kuruvilla: "This interpretation might raise the problem of reading “men” differently in 6:1 and 6:2—in the first case generically of mankind, and in the second as referring to those of Cain’s lineage, which in itself, is not a problem, for they too are part of generic mankind. In Jdg 20:3, the sons of Benjamin are contrasted with the sons of Israel, but the former are part of Israel; in Jer 32:20, the Israelites are contrasted with the rest of humankind, but, of course, the former are humans, too; and, likewise, in Ps 73:5, the wicked are contrasted with the remainder of mankind. Thus the “sons of God” are human followers of God, distinct from the rest of mankind who are non-God followers. [fn. 44: However, one could see both occurrences of “men” in 6:1-2 as equally having the generic sense, with the Sethite “sons of God” simply failing to show covenantal discrimination in their choice of spouses (as in Gen 24:3-4; 26:34, 35; 27:46; 28:1-3, 6-8; 34). Rather, they made their selection based on their own whims and fancies—“whomever they chose” (6:2). Or it could also be argued that “men,” both in 6:1 and 6:2, is similarly restrictive, indicating, in both cases, Cainites: they multiplied, and had daughters who married the “sons of God.” There is no necessity to see “sons of God” as being non-human; they are labeled differently simply to distinguish them from the other, presumably ungodly, folks. The attribute “of God” (in בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, bne-ha’elohim) is thus, essentially, a genitive of quality (= “godly sons”). These individuals are godly/covenant offspring (as in Exod 4:22, 23; Deut 14:1; 32:5, 6, 18, 19; Ps 73:15; 82:6; Isa 1:2; 11:1; 43:6; 45:11; Jer 3:14, 19; 31:9, 20; Hosea 1:10; 11:1; Mal 1:6; John 1:12-13). The striking contrast between the pietistic elements in Seth’s family on the one hand (the result of Seth’s birth and his taking the place of Abel, 4:25-26; the pointed mention of Seth’s “image” and “likeness,” 5:3; his descendants: Enoch, 5:23-24; Lamech, 5:28-31; Noah, 6:8; and even the placement of Gen 6 after the introduction of the Sethites and Noah in Gen 5), and the humanistic characters in Cain’s line, on the other hand, leads one to see godliness as the key distinction between the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” in 6:1." {Abraham Kuruvilla, Genesis: A Theological Commentary for Preachers, (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2014), pp. 103-104.}
[10.] Derek Kidner, Kidner Classic Commentaries: Genesis, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), pp. 89-90.
[11.] Faithlife Study Bible, gen. ed. John D. Barry, (Lexham Press, 2012), Michael S. Heiser, “Genesis 6 and the Sons of God.” Victor P. Hamilton: "In response we observe that while sons of God is indeed an enigmatic phrase, and appears here for the first time in the OT, notes about godliness abound in the context (4:26; 5:24, 29). Furthermore, the OT does not lack instances of a shift from a generic to a specific use of a word in one context. [fn. 10: Examples provided by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 vols., vol. 1: The Pentateuch, tr. J. Martin, 3 vols. repr. in 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 1:130-31.] Thus, ādām as “mankind” in v. 1 and as “Cainites” in v. 2 is not impossible." {Victor P. Hamilton, New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1990), p. 264.} Victor P. Hamilton: "It is possible, however, to reverse this identification and see the daughters of men as Sethites and the sons of God as Cainites (really “Eveites”). For example, the birth of daughters occurs only among the Sethites of ch. 5. Again, the taking of wives for oneself (6:2) is paralleled by the Cainite Lamech (4:19). Could it be that here we have a replay of Gen. 3? As Eve the initiator led Adam astray, so the sons of God led astray the daughters of men." {Ibid., p. 265.}
[12.] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996), p. 108. Cf. Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006), pp. 185-189. Bruce K. Waltke: "This interpretation best explains “any of them they chose” (6:2). For example, Pharaoh took to bed whom he would (12:10–20), and so did David (2 Sam. 11). It also fits the immediate context of the Flood, the theme of Genesis, and connects the reference to the Nephilim and heroes in 6:4 to 6:1–3. However, the meaning “divine rulers” is somewhat questionable, whereas “angels” is well established. …The best solution is to combine the “angelic” interpretation with the “divine king” view. The tyrants were demon possessed. Gispen avers: “The text presents us with men who are controlled by fallen angels.” [fn. 26: W. H. Gispen, Genesis I: Kommentaar op het Oude Testament (Kampen: J. H. Kok), 221, cited favorably by VanGemeren, “The Sons,” 348.] Their perverted psyches allowed this entrance of the demonic. Eichrodt asserts, “God’s power operates … within the evil which has been begun by the perversion of the creature’s will.” [fn. 27: Eichrodt, Theology, 2:179.]" {Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), on Gen. 6:2.} Cf. Meredith G. Kline: "Indeed, this is how the demonic dimension should be incorporated into the interpretation of the passage if one concludes that 1 Peter 3:19,20 and Jude 6 refer to the involvement of demons in the episode recorded in Genesis 6. That is, demons should not, then, be substituted for the human kings in the reconstruction of the event but rather the demonic element should be kept in subordination to the fundamental reality of the earth rulers' revolt against heaven. It could be accounted for in terms of the phenomenon of demon-possession in the experience of “the sons of the gods,” or of some such extraordinary working of demons through them (cf. 2 Thess 2:9). In that case, Satan will have intruded himself into the history of the world that then was both at its outset and at its culmination through acts of preternatural entry into other creatures." {Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006), p. 187.}
[13.] Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, (Lexham Press, 2015), Chapter 12: Divine Transgression, §. Divinized Human Rulers. Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible: "6:2 sons of God. Royal titles of the ancient Near East regularly suggested the divine descent of kings, even outside Egypt’s context of deified kings. This idea of divine descent was a rhetorical expression of the divine election and legitimization of the king and is typical in royal inscriptions. Throughout the Biblical period it was part of the royal prerogative to claim divine heritage. Thus the title “son of God” can be identified as a royal motif both in the Bible and outside of it. Gilgamesh is portrayed as two-thirds god and one-third man (Gilgamesh Epic, 1.48) and “flesh of the gods” (Gilgamesh Epic, 9.49). Nevertheless, though it is common for kings to be portrayed as having divine parentage, there is no precedent for ancient kings as a group being referred to as “sons of god.” …married any of them they chose. There are no examples from Akkadian or Northwest Semitic mythological texts of divine beings marrying or cohabiting with human women, so it would be difficult to make the claim that this account is a vestige of ancient mythology as some do. There are examples of kings claiming mixed ancestry of gods and humans…but that is a different concept. If the “sons of God” are viewed as kings, the question remains as to what offense they are committing here. Polygamy has always been a weak candidate since the OT does not condemn it. Promiscuity is likewise an unlikely explanation since the Hebrew text describes the situation using the standard idiom for marriage (“taking wives”). An alternate understanding may be found in a practice noted in the Gilgamesh Epic as the prime example of Gilgamesh’s tyranny, namely, his exercising the right of the first night with a new bride: “He will couple with the wife-to-be, he first of all, the bridegroom after” (Gilgamesh Epic, Old Babylonian version, v.159-60). This practice accommodates the marriage terminology, and in Gilgamesh it is clearly both oppressive and offensive behavior. The remaining problem is that this practice is infrequently attested in ancient literature." {NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, gen. eds. John Walton, Craig Keener, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), n. on Gen. 6:2, p. 17.}
[14.] Victor P. Hamilton, New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1990), p. 265. Howard Vos: "Many interpreters come out dogmatically in favor of one of the above views, but in light of all the evidence it seems impossible to do so." {Howard F. Vos, Everyman’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), p. 44.}
Καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν.
~ Soli Deo Gloria
