Who are the Sons of God in Genesis 6:2?

The text in question is:

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 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 bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.

Among many others one question raised by this text is: 'who were these sons of god'?

Contemporary competing theories for the identity of the sons of God include:

• angels
• sons of Seth
• a myth possibly of Persian origin?

ANALYSIS OF THE WORDS USED

The Hebrew words used are:

	sons <01121> of God <0430>

   1121 ben {bane}	from 1129; TWOT - 254; n m
   1) son, grandson, child, member of a group
   1a) son, male child
   1b) grandson
   1c) children (plural - male and female)
   1d) youth, young men (plural)
   1e) young (of animals)
   1f) sons (as characterization, ie sons of injustice [for un-righteous men] or sons of God [for angels]
   1g) people (of a nation) (plural)
   1h) of lifeless things, ie sparks, stars, arrows (figurative)
   1i) a member of a guild, order, class

   0430 'elohiym {el-o-heem'}	plural of 433; TWOT- 93c; n m p
   1) (plural)
   1a) rulers, judges
   1b) divine ones
   1c) angels
   1d) gods
   2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
   2a) god, goddess
   2b) godlike one
   2c) works or special possessions of God
   2d) the (true) God
   2e) God

If the interpretation is that the sons of God are angels, this would be 1121(1f) and 430(1c,2e). The phrase could be interpreted as angels. A benoi elohim is a son of God in nature, per Ron Rhodes (Bible Answer Man, 11-23-93 3:45), "To the ancients Son of God means shares the nature of God". An angel is a spiritual being, and as such shares in the nature of God (both are spiritual beings).

OLD TESTAMENT PARALLELS

This section contains all of the other Old Testament references to Sons of God. Each reference is to angels, not to men. There are no references in the Old Testament to "sons of God" that are not used in reference to angels.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Da 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Is 24: 21 And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones [that are] on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.
22 And they shall be gathered together, [as] prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.

There are other OT passages that are used to argue that the phrase "benoi elohim" refers to men. The problem is that the verbal constructions of these phrases are vastly different. None of them use the phrase "benoi elohim". The phrase "children of the Lord your God" is the closest case used in these and refers to mankind in those passages, or the children of Israel specifically. The key phrase being "children of the Lord your God", and not the same phrase "sons of God". These phrases could theoretically be equivalent since they are similar, but they are not identical as is often claimed. In fact, there is sufficient reason to believe that the phrase has a specific meaning when it occurs in Genesis and Job, specifically angels.

Deut 14:1 Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.

Deut 32:5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.

Ps 73:15 If I say, I will speak thus; behold, I should offend against the generation of thy children.

Hos 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES

Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

I Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

2 Peter 2:4 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;

5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

The key words from the Jude reference are strange flesh (verse 7).

EXTRA-BIBLICAL REFERENCES TO IDENTITY

This section contains some of the extra-biblical references to the identity of the sons of God as angels. The sources of the writings are;

• Patristic References
• Psudeopigraphal writings
• Historical Records

PATRISTIC REFERENCES

The church fathers from 0 to 400 AD universally taught that the verse was referring to angels and not to men. A partial list includes:

• Philo, de Gigantibus
• Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 5
• Ps. Clemens, Hom. viii, 13
• Clem. Alex., Strom v 1, 10
• Tert., De Virg, Vleand, vii, Adv Marc. v, 18, De Idol, ix

In his day, Augustine combated the view by denying the inspiration of Enoch against Tertulian. Additionally, Augustine argued that the phrase in the Septuagint, angellos should mean angels, not sons of God. This reading in the Septuagint is not in the modern version (Brenton, Hendrickson Publishers) which has the phrase vioi tou Theou. clearly sons of God. The arguement is flawed anyway since the rendering should not be based on the Septuagint, but on the Hebrew text itself. The translation in the modern Septuagint argues more strongly for the angelic interpretations.

PSUEDOPIGRAPHAL WRITINGS

Book Of Enoch; 2 Enoch 7, 18

The Book of Enoch vi. 1 And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters.
2. And the angels, the children of heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another, 'Come let us choose wives from among the children of men and begat us children'. ...

Jubilees 4:15, 5:1

Jubilees v. 1 And it happened, when the sons of the children of men commenced to increase over the face of the whole earth and daughters were born unto them, that the angels of the Lord saw them in one year of this jubilee, that they were beautiful to look upon; and they took unto themselves wives from all of them whomever they chose, and the bore them sons, all these were giants. ...

Both Enoch and Jubilees were written in the time frame of about 200 BC to 100 AD. They are ancient references to the understanding that Jews had of the Genesis 6 verses in the time of Christ.

HISTORICAL WRITINGS

• Josephus, Antiquities i. 3, 1
• T. Reuben 5:6
• Napth 3:5

COMPLETE EXPLANATION OF THE VIEW

Note from the Genesis account that Noah and his family were the only righteous people on the earth. This is a strong argument against the sons of God being the godly descendants of Seth.

The production of giants as a result of the union is another argument against the sons of Seth. Why should the offspring be unusual in stature just because one was from a Godly line?

Another problem phrase is Gen 6:4; "and also after that". After what? After the flood seems to be the obvious conclusion. Who could live through the flood since all flesh died in the flood? The use of the word giants is related to this problem. This word occurs in two places in the Hebrew Bible. The other is Num 13:33. This is where the "after that" comes into play.

Nu 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, [which come] of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

The word for giants is nephalim. This is as follows:

   5303 n@phiyl {nef-eel'} or n@phil {nef-eel'}
   from 5307; TWOT - 1393a; n m
  1) giants, the Nephilim

EVIDENCES AGAINST THIS VIEW

Matt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

This verse is quoted to prove that angels are incapable of sexual intercourse. Note that the verse does not speak on the subject of whether angels are capable of sexual intercourse simply that in heaven there is no marriage. Also the verse is discussing conditions in the future heaven, not in the past earth.

Note that anytime that an angel appears in human form, it would appear to be completely human, even eating food.

Hank Hanegraaff of the Christian Research Institute has presented his personal opinion about the verses in question in the Christian Research Journal, Fall 1996 issue. Hanegraaff lists 7 reasons why the verses can not be talking about fallen angels. Hanegraaff expounds his view, which is that the verse refers to the sons of Seth who left their godly heritage and married unbelieving wives. His view fails to adequately face the text itself or the evidence that is presented in this page. Hanegraaff's 7 arguements are:

1. Angels are sexless and do not have physical organs.
2. If they could do it in the past, they could do it now.
3. Nephalim reappear after the flood in Numbers 13:33.
4. Reproduction is only "after their own kind".
5. Flood was only a judgement on man, not angels.
6. Salvation issues for these mutant creatures.
7. No other verse says that demons can have sexual relations with women.

Each of these arguements are weak for various reasons.

1. Angels appear to be able to eat and apparently even digest food. Exactly how they accomplish this is not explained. They must be able to manifest themselves in a physical form to do so. If they have mouths (and stomachs), then what the big deal with having sexual organs? They stayed overnight with Lot and his family (Gen 19:2). They ate with Abraham, etc.
2. Maybe they learned their lesson and do not want to repeat it. This would equally apply to the fall of the angels. If there was another rebellion in heaven, another leader could take away another group like Satan did with the original 1/3. Yet Hangraaff believes this is not possible for a variety of reasons. He should apply his same reasons here.
3. The appearance of the Nephalim is explained by the phrase "and also afterwards". They did survive the flood, but not in a bodily form, for all flesh was killed in the flood. There is also debate currently about the extent of the flood and many believe that the flood was a local flood with universal applicability.
4. Reproduction is after their kind, but not necessarily limited to that only and is not related to natures. Zebra's and horses can actually reproduce, but most like most hybrids are themselves sterile. That is because we are talking purely organic reproduction here. Angels are not limited organically and when they appear in human form would pass all conceivable medical tests for their humanity when in fact they are not human. The word "type" applies only to biological type. The incarnation is proof of this. How can God the Father produce Jesus using the same arguements that Hanegraaff expouses? Is Hanegraaff intentionally denying the incarnation?
5. The flood was a judgement on the evil that was on the earth. The text does not say anything else. Plenty of non-humans (animals, etc) also died in the flood.
6. At the worst case, the same salvation issues exist for fallen angels. In the best case, the hybrids could be judged as men. This is a non-problem.
7. No verse says that they can't. This is an arguement from silence and is logically flawed. Secondly, the position is that the demons are the disembodied offspring of the union, and are a separate class of being from their fathers, the fallen angels. Hanegraaff never faces this aspect of the view. This is clearly presented in Enoch. Demons were seen as the disembodied spirits of the hybrids who died in the flood.

Hanegraaff totally fails to face any of the mountain of historical evidence in the church fathers against his view.

Further this betrays a liberal bias against the supernatural that permeates Hanegraaff's writings.

Use of mutant is also seriously misleading and prejudicial. The correct word should rather be hybrid. Mutant is from the word mutation which is a change in form or qualities. Hybrid is the offspring of onr race, variety, species, genus, etc with that of another. Cross polination of plants with that of another species is another example of this. Just because it was the divinely ordained order that these things should be done does not imply that they can not be done. That was the nature of the offense.

Hanegraaff claims that the OT phrase "sons of God" sometimes refers to angels and then fails to produce even one text where the phrase refers to anything other than angels. The large numbers of passages where it is clear that the passage refers to angels weaken his case and Hanegraaff is silent on exegesis of those passage. What's his pretext here? He needs to remember that:

A text without a context is a pretext.

Hanegraaff certainly has a right to his own opinion about this controversial text, but his use of the following phrases turns this subject into a test for orthodoxy.

It is my conviction that those who consistently hold to a Biblical worldview must reject the concept that women and demons can engage in actual, physical sexual intercourse.

I reject this interjetion of pagan superstition...

The scriptural perspective is that...

 

Actually, comparison of Hanegraaff's article to the Gleason Archer book, "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties", reveals extensive unacknowledged "borrowing" from the book by Hanegraaff.

Hanegraaff fails to note that Archer says that the sons of God refers to "men who are true believers" as that is a serious problem with his interpretation of the passage. He believes, instead, that they are apostates. Archer pushes the problem off to another level by saying that it happened in the past. Nevertheless, a reading of the passage shows that the marriages were the source of the problem.

Further although Hanegraaff claims that "While advocates point to 1 Peter 3:19-20, 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6 to support this theory, a quick review of these passages demonstrates that they do not establish the position.", and "better interpretations of these passages in context reveal that these verse have nothing at all to do with fallen angels having sexual relations with humans", he fails to provide the necessary exegesis of the passage to make it point. Just saying something does not make it so and unsubstantiated claims are easy to make.

This demonstrates that Hanegraaff is a capable editor, but not a particularly good researcher. Certainly Hanegraaff can change the word "intrusion" to the word "interjection". He is simply taking materials that others have researched and presenting it as if he had done the research himself. Other commentators, such as James Montgomery Boice have presented commentaries that oppose the view that Hanegraaff expouses and they certainly have Biblical worldviews.

Send us e-mail at: webmaster@douglasgilliland.com

Copyright © 1996-2003 - webmaster@douglasgilliland.com   - All Rights Reserved
These pages contain personal opinion and commentary on various issues.
We reserve the right to have our own opinions and the right to state them publicly.
We believe that the Constitution of the U. S. gives us this right.
Last Updated 10/16/03

Order Amazon.Com books through us.