Who Are the 'Sons of God' in Genesis 6:1-4?

Introduction

An interesting passage of Scripture, containing mythological elements akin to ancient Near Eastern mythologies, such as those from Canaan and Mesopotamia, is found in Genesis 6:1-4.¹ In this text, the “sons of God” descend from heaven to mate with the “daughters of man,” rebelling against the One True God and provoking God’s righteous judgment through a devastating flood. This passage echoes themes found in the literature of the surrounding culture, such as the Epic of Atra-khasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh.² However, should this passage be interpreted and understood in this same mythological framework? Are the “sons of God” fallen cosmological beings (angels), or are they something else? While scholars have debated these questions, this paper will argue that the most plausible understanding of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of man” in Genesis 6:1-4 is that they represent the godly sons of Seth and the ungodly descendants of Cain, respectively. This particular perspective is known as the “religiously mixed races view,” or, according to Graham Cole, “the morally mixed humans view,”³ and it will be revisited and argued for after surveying two other positions, Scriptural evidence for them, and opinions of various theologians and scholars through Church history.

Translation and Survey of Interpretation

Genesis 6:1-4 declares the following:

¹ When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, ² the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. ³ Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” ⁴ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.⁴

There are three primary interpretations of this passage.

The Cosmologically Mixed Races View: Angels and Humans

This first interpretation, the oldest of the three according to Gordon J. Wenham, is “the cosmologically mixed races view,” in which the “sons of God” (fallen angels) pursue the “daughters of man” (ordinary women).⁵ Evidence for this position is overwhelming within the first and second centuries: “1 Enoch, where ‘angels’ or, alternatively, ‘watchers’ occurs in the description next to the “sons of heaven” (1 En. 6-11)… Jubilees 4:15, the Testament of Reuben 5:6, 2 Baruch 56:12-16, 2 Enoch 8:4, and the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen ar 2:1).”⁶ Furthermore, Josephus and Philo take this position and Codex Alexandrinus also lends support.⁷ Another advocate of this view, Justin Martyr, writes the following:

God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and rotation of the seasons, and appointed this divine law—for these things also He evidently made for man—committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and the punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness.⁸

In this excerpt from Justin Martyr, the essentials of Genesis 6:1-4 are demonstrated—that men sinned and deserved divine judgment—yet his understanding of “the sons of God” as angels is misinformed, perhaps influenced by other extrabiblical sources rather than God’s Word. The following view more closely agrees with Scripture, albeit less so than the final interpretation.

The Sociologically Mixed Races View: Aristocrats and Commoners

In the second interpretation, “the sociologically mixed races view,” the “sons of God” and the “daughters of man” are understood to be ruling men and ordinary women, respectively,⁹ and this view emerged “as early as the second century A.D,” primarily in Jewish interpretation.¹⁰ For instance, Targum Onkelos (c. AD 80-120) translates “sons of God” as “sons of the rulers,”¹¹ and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (c. AD 150-250) takes an ambiguous position, translating “sons of God” as both “sons of the great” (lowercase G) and “sons of the Great” (capital G).¹² This latter translation could be interpreted as either the “the cosmologically mixed races view or “the sociologically mixed races view.” Despite this ambiguity, many Jewish interpretations prefer the translation of Targum Onkelos, even anathematizing any who “promulgate[s] the ‘angels’ theory” in Genesis Rabbah 26:8 (fifth-sixth century AD), which cites R. Simeon b. Yohai (AD 130-160).¹³

While this interpretation aligns well with the culture of the ancient Near East, such as Nimrod establishing many cities as a “deified” human called “the first on earth to be a mighty man” and “a mighty hunter before the LORD” (Gen. 10:8-12), as well as rulers and princes being called “sons of God” in Psalm 82:6, it diverges from the thesis of this paper. The subsequent interpretation, which this paper defines and defends, is only similar to “the sociologically mixed races view” in that it agrees that both parties referenced in Genesis 6:1-4 are human, for this following interpretation is grounded in covenant faithfulness and unfaithfulness rather than sociopolitical dynamics.

The Religiously Mixed Races View: Godly Sethites and Worldly Cainites

As previously mentioned, the final interpretation this paper will address and defend is “the religiously mixed races view,” where the “sons of God” are descendants of Seth and the “daughters of man” are descendants of Cain.¹⁴ This view originated “in the late second and early third centuries AD. Julius Africanus’s work contains the earliest known adoption of the Sethite theory… [and] a variation of this view was promoted in Augustine’s influential City of God.”¹⁵ In this text, Augustine writes:

When the human race, in the exercise of this freedom of will, increased and advanced, there arose a mixture and confusion of the two cities by their participation in a common iniquity. And this calamity, as well as the first, was occasioned by woman, though not in the same way; for these women were not themselves betrayed, neither did they persuade the men to sin, but having belonged to the earthly city and society of the earthly, they had been of corrupt manners from the first, and were loved for their bodily beauty by the sons of God, or the citizens of the other city which sojourns in this world.¹⁶

In other words, like their ancestors, Eve and Cain, “the daughters of man” sinned and also, although unintentionally, caused the “sons of God” to sin. This sin, undoubtedly, was a co-mingling of religious races (i.e., the godly descendants of Seth and the ungodly of Cain), and Augustine makes this apparent by his juxtaposition of two cities: “the earthly city” and “the other city which sojourns in this world.” Augustine’s insight clarifies that this distinction is not only of lineage but of covenant—the godly and the ungodly, and later in history, John Calvin follows this logic. Therefore, according to Calvin and others, this covenant emphasis will be further explored and defended in the following sections.

Argument: Exegesis of Genesis 6:1-4

An exegesis of Genesis 6:1-4 is beneficial to demonstrate “the religiously mixed races view’s” plausibility. This brief analysis will elucidate the complexities of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” in their literary and biblical context, uncovering the distinction between the two groups and exploring the passage’s theological themes of sin and covenant.

Literary Context

While the historical-cultural context of Genesis 6:1-4 has been briefly stated in that the story of Genesis takes place in the culture of the ancient Near East, it is also crucial to describe it in terms of its literary context. No pun intended, Genesis is “flooded” with linear and segmented genealogies. The difference between these two genealogies is best explained as follows:

“Linear genealogies list names that connect an individual to one specific kin in a previous generation. While the depth of linear genealogies may vary, their breadth remains limited to one person per generation. A segmented genealogy has both generational breadth—more than one person per generation—and depth. A segmented genealogy depicts relationships both within a specific generation (i.e., brother to brother, sister and even cousins) as well as from one generation to another (i.e., mother to daughter).”¹⁷

Both types of genealogies occur in the chapters before Genesis 6:1-4. In chapter 4:17-24, the descendants of Cain are segmentally demonstrated. However, verses 25-26 of the same chapter declare, “Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, ‘God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.’ To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.” These verses serve as a transition into the linear genealogy of Adam to Noah, of which Seth is included, and they demonstrate that this lineage is of God’s covenant community. These two genealogies, the descendants of Cain and the descendants of Seth, and their implications will be revisited.

Outline

• I. The Sons of God, the Daughters of Man, and the Nephilim, Their Offspring (Gen. 6:1-4).
  • 1. Context (v. 1).
    • a. “When man began to multiply on the face of the land” (v. 1a).
    • b. “daughters were born to them” (v. 1b).
  • 2. “The Sons of God” (v. 2).
    • a. “saw that the daughters of man were attractive” (v. 2a).
    • b. “they took as their wives any they chose” (v. 2b).
  • 3. Then the Lord Said (v. 3).
    • a. “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever” (v. 3a).
    • b. “for he is flesh” (v. 3b).
    • c. “his days shall be 120 years” (v. 3c).
  • 4. The Nephilim (v. 4).
    • a. “were on the earth in those days, and also afterward when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them” (v. 4a).
    • b. “These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown” (v. 4b).

Exegetical Commentary

I. The Sons of God, the Daughters of Man, and the Nephilim, Their Offspring (Gen. 6:1-4)

1. Context (v. 1)

a. “When man began to multiply on the face of the land” (v. 1a). Genesis 6:1a demonstrates that man began to grow rapidly in number, and this verse makes sense in light of the segmented genealogy of Genesis 4:17-24, which highlights the proliferation of Cain’s descendants in its breadth and depth. In other words, the segmented genealogy suggests that the descendants of Cain may have been more numerous than the descendants of Seth. Regarding this, Calvin further clarifies, “The house of Cain, therefore, was more populous than [even] Moses states.”¹⁸

b. “daughters were born to them” (v. 1b). Daughters were born to these sons of Seth, who were called “man.” Thus, they are called the “daughters of man,” and “Moses, then, does not distinguish the sons of God from the daughters of men, because they were of dissimilar nature, or of different origin; but because they were the sons of God by adoption, whom [H]e had set apart for [H]imself; while the rest remained in their original condition.”¹⁹ That is, the distinction between Cain and Seth and their offspring is not human merit but God’s decree to save them through the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

2. “The Sons of God” (v. 2)

a. “saw that the daughters of man were attractive” (v. 2a). Regarding this statement, Justin Martyr is partly right to say, “the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women.”²⁰ However, the object of the appointment is misplaced. It was not angels whom God appointed as “sons of God” but the descendants of Adam through Seth; it was not angels that saw the fairness of the “daughters of man” but “the sons of Seth.”

b. “they took as their wives any they chose” (v. 2b). Calvin writes, “Moses clearly describes the violent impetuosity of their lust, when he says [this statement] by which he signifies, that the sons of God did not make their choice from those possessed of necessary endowments, but wandered without discrimination, rushing onward according to their lust.”²¹ Moreover, lust was not their only fault, “for it is not fornication which is here condemned in the sons of the saints, but the too great indulgence of license in choosing themselves wives… [T]he sons of [degenerated themselves] when they thus bound themselves in the same yoke with unbelievers.”²²

3. Then the Lord Said (v. 3)

a. “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever” (v. 3a). The sins of both the “daughters of man” and the “sons of God” are condemned by God in His own words. He has seen the depravity of humanity and decides to execute His righteous judgment.

b. “for he is flesh” (v. 3b). God’s statement echoes that which He gave Adam: “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19). In other words, humans are not like God. They are made from physical things, unlike God, who is not made from anything physical or spiritual. Therefore, humans will return to that from which they came.

c. “his days shall be 120 years” (v. 3c). Because of the depravity of humans that God has seen, He expedites the wage of sin, which is death (Rom. 6:23). No longer will humans live as long as they did prior, but their lifespan will be limited.

4. The Nephilim (v. 4)

a. “were on the earth in those days, and also afterward when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them” (v. 4a). While there is much debate surrounding this verse as well, it is best said that these men were of robust stature, and had existed prior to the sin of the “daughters of man” and the “sons of God.” Calvin explains this verse: “That a contagion so great should have spread through the few families which ought to have constituted the sanctuary of God, is no slight aggravation of the evil. The giants, then, had a prior origin; but afterwards those were born of promiscuous marriages imitated their example.”²³

b. “These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown” (v. 4b). These men, the corrupted offspring that were assimilated into the covenant line through the promiscuous relations between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of man,” according to Calvin, “boasted of their wickedness, and were, what are called, honourable robbers. Nor is to be doubted, that they had something more excellent than the common people, which procured for them favour and glory in the world.”²⁴

Biblical Theology

The interpretation of the “sons of God” as descendants of Seth is one of covenant focus, keeping with the focus of the entire Bible, composed of two covenants or testaments. That is, Genesis 6:1-4 focuses on the godly line of Seth corrupted yet also on the “faithfulness of God in carrying out his promises to the chosen fathers of the nation,”²⁵ for God spared the covenant line in Noah, a type of Christ, who “found favor in the eyes of the LORD” (Gen. 6:8). There are many parallels between the covenant communities of the Old and New Testament, for they are not different covenants but are the same Covenant of Grace administered under various heads, culminating in “Jesus as the last Adam and the second Moses (e.g. Deut. 18:15, 18-19; John 1:21, 25, 45; 5:46; 6:14; 7:40; Acts 3:22-26; 7:37; Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:45-49). Also, the community of Israel was understood to be a type of the church (e.g. 1 Cor. 10:1-13; 1 Pet. 2:9-10).”²⁶ In Genesis 6:1-4, the people of God are called the “sons of God,” likewise, the New Testament calls the people of God the “sons of God” (John 1:12-13; Rom. 8:14; Gal. 3:26). Moreover, just as God’s covenant community was delivered through Noah’s Ark, so too are Christians delivered through the ark that is Christ:

[B]ecause they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Pet. 3:20-21)

While this paper does not argue for the efficacy of Baptism, this verse demonstrates the overarching narrative of God’s Word as delivered in both the Old and New Testaments. However, there are some reservations about this verse and its relation to the argument of this paper: that the “religiously mixed races view” (the “sons of God” are the sons of Seth and, therefore, are of the lineage of God’s covenant with man) is the most plausible interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4.

Brief Defense of the Religiously Mixed Races View in Regard to 1 Peter 3:19 and 2 Peter 2:4

Advocates of the “cosmologically mixed races view” often use 1 Peter 3:19 and 2 Peter 2:4 as evidence and, therefore, critique the “religiously mixed races view” as unfaithful to the apostles’ interpretation. This comparison is unwarranted, for “though a strong case may be made that Peter and [even] Jude are elaborating on Genesis 6 through Enoch, it is difficult to be certain whether the NT authors are referring to the events of Genesis 6 or something else. Genesis 6 makes no reference to the punishment of the sons of God” specifically, yet it does refer to the punishment of the whole world.²⁷ Regarding this comparison, Calvin says that this preaching of Christ in 1 Peter 3:19 refers to human spirits, not angels, and that “Peter ascribes salvation only to the family of Noah, and gives over to ruin all who were not within the ark.”²⁸ Regarding 2 Peter 2:4, he says that Peter “has not named the time and the manner and other circumstances” of the fall of the angels.²⁹ Therefore, it is speculative to assume Peter references Genesis 6 in these words.

Summary and Conclusion

In conclusion, Genesis 6:1-4 is a highly debated section of Scripture with many different interpretations (such as “the cosmologically mixed races view” and the “sociologically mixed races view”), the best of which is the “religiously mixed races view,” in which the “sons of God” are descendants of the godly Seth and the “daughters of man” are the descendants of the ungodly Cain. This interpretation fits well with the literary context of Genesis’s focus on genealogies (linear and segmented) and covenants (the Adamic, Noahic, and Abrahamic). More importantly, interpreting Genesis 6:1-4 in this way demonstrates the continuity of the Old and New Testaments. God establishes a covenant with His people, calls them sons, and is just to condemn them when they sin, yet in love and grace, He spares them, and this reality is brought to fruition in the work of Jesus, the better mediator of the Covenant of Grace. Therefore, Christians should rejoice from these verses, for their God is a constant, ever-faithful, and works according to His nature the same always.

Bibliography

Alexander, T. Desmond, and David W. Baker, eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Alexander, T. Desmond, Brian S. Rosner, D.A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy, eds. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity and Diversity of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Arnold, Bill T., and Bryan E. Beyer, eds. Readings from the Ancient Near East: Primary Sources for Old Testament Study. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009.

Augustine. City of God. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 2, St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, edited by Philip Schaff, translated by Marcus Dods. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887. Logos Bible Software.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles. In Calvin’s Commentaries. Vol. 22, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, James, 2 Peter, and Jude, translated by John Owen. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005.

———. Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis: Volume First. In Calvin’s Commentaries. Vol. 1, Genesis, translated by John King. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005.

Cole, Graham A. Against the Darkness: The Doctrine of Angels. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021.

Justin Martyr. The Second Apology of Justin. In The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885. Logos Bible Software.

Targum Onkelos. Sefaria. Accessed October 9, 2024. https://www.sefaria.org/Onkelos_Genesis.6.1?lang=bi.

Targum Jonathan. Sefaria. Accessed October 9, 2024. https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_Genesis.6.1?lang=bi.

Footnotes

1. Alexander, T. Desmond, and David W. Baker, eds., Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 337. ↩

2. Arnold, Bill T., and Bryan E. Beyer, eds., Readings from the Ancient Near East: Primary Sources for Old Testament Study, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 21-31, 66-70. ↩

3. Graham Cole, Against the Darkness: The Doctrine of Angels, Foundations of Evangelical Theology, edited by John S. Feinberg (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021), 116-117. ↩

4. Unless otherwise specified, all Scripture references are to the English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016). ↩

5. Cole, 116. ↩

6. Alexander and Baker, 794. ↩

7. Ibid. ↩

8. Justin Martyr, Second Apology, ch. 5. Logos Bible Software. ↩

9. Cole, 115. ↩

10. Alexander and Baker, 794. ↩

11. Targum Onkelos on Genesis 6:1-4, Sefaria, accessed October 9, 2024, https://www.sefaria.org/Onkelos_Genesis.6.1?lang=bi. ↩

12. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis 6:1-4, Sefaria, accessed October 9, 2024. https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_Genesis.6.1?lang=bi. ↩

13. Alexander and Baker, 794. ↩

14. Cole, 116-117. ↩

15. Alexander and Baker, 794. ↩

16. Augustine, City of God 15.22.1. ↩

17. Alexander and Baker, 346. ↩

18. Calvin, Commentaries on Genesis, 216. ↩

19. Ibid., 238. ↩

20. Justin Martyr, Second Apology, ch. 5. Logos Bible Software. ↩

21. Calvin, Commentaries on Genesis, 239. ↩

22. Ibid. ↩

23. Calvin, Commentaries on Genesis, 245. ↩

24. Calvin, Commentaries on Genesis, 246. ↩

25. Alexander et al., eds., New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity and Diversity of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 140. ↩

26. Ibid., 141. ↩

27. Alexander and Baker, 794. ↩

28. Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, 113-114. ↩

29. Ibid., 396. ↩