Were the “sons of God” men or angels? The Bible is clear about this. My desire is to study it out so you can properly understand Genesis 6.

I’ve come across a lot of people who do not think that the sons of God referenced in Genesis Six were actually fallen angels at all, so I thought it would be a good idea to show why I believe that the sons of God are in fact fallen divine angelic beings. The common accusation towards this view is that books like the book of Enoch and Jashar are used to prove the fallen angel view, and thus it’s unfounded in the Bible. To combat that view. I will only be using biblical references along with some relevant commentary to prove that the sons of God in Genesis six are fallen divine angelic entities.

The section in question is found in Genesis 6:1-4. “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 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. 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.”

There are two main theories regarding the identity of the sons of God and the daughters of men.

The first is that the sons of God, we’re fallen divine, angelic beings and the daughters of men, human females. This is the view that I hope to demonstrate here. The second view is that the sons of God are the human godly line of Seth and the daughters of men, the human ungodly line of Cain. This is a popular view that is taught in most seminaries today. There is a third view that these sons of God were dynastic kings or rulers and the daughters of men, simply commoners. However, I will not specifically address this theory here because it falls closely in line with the Sethite view.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia references the Sethite view as quote, “some commentators hold that by sons of God is to be understood as the pious race descended from Seth and by daughters of men, the daughters of worldly men. These commentators connect the passage with Genesis 4:25 where the race of Seth is characterized as the worshipers of Yahweh and is designated as a holy seed. “

Genesis 4:25 “And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.”

This argument says that because Seth was the replacement child of Abel, as mentioned in Genesis 4:25, they were the worshipers of Yahweh. This is not accurate. The passage in question is Genesis 4:26 which states, “Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord,” is a very poor English rendering.

The Hebrew word châlal (Strong’s 2490) means to bore, that is, (by implication), to wound, to dissolve; figuratively to profane, to break one’s word, to defile, to pollute, to stain or wound.

So if we render this properly, we can translate this as “men defiled the name of God,” quite different from what we read in the English and a blow to the idea that the sons of God are the sons of Seth whose descendants worshiped Yahweh properly.

An objection to this concept of men defiling or profaning the name of God is that the word châlal does not refer to profaning the name of God, but rather the state of mankind. Thus, the argument follows that it was profaned or fallen humanity that began to call upon the name of the Lord at this time, giving them the title, sons of God.

There are a couple of problems with this idea. First we see in places like Leviticus 19:12 where it states “And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.” Here the word for “profane” is the same word used in Genesis 4:26, châlal, demonstrating that the use of the word can certainly be to describe a negative attribution to calling upon the name of the Lord.

Second, we read in Exodus 6:3, “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.”

The phrase God Almighty in the Hebrew is El Shaddai and Lord is translated Yahweh, (Jehovah), the proper name for God and the same name used in Genesis 4:26, (translated “the Lord”), thus the idea that Genesis 4:26 is referring to men beginning to worship the name God Yahweh is unfounded. In fact, the word for men in Genesis 4:26 does not appear in the original Hebrew text.

Thus, we can conclude that at the very least the name Yahweh was invoked at this point in time for some reason, but to suggest it was to worship his name is not found in the text.

Were “the daughters of men” descendants of Cain?

Next, the Sethite view declares that the daughters of men were simply the daughters of Cain. This is a problem. Again, when looking at the original Hebrew words, the daughters of men are translated as hā-’ā-ḏām, or more directly the daughters of Adam.

The distinction is that they are literally daughters of humanity or man. Why would there be a distinction made between the sons of Adam and the sons of God? Wouldn’t the line of Seth also be considered sons and daughters of Adam?

One must read into the text what’s not there to derive that the sons of God are the sons of Seth. It’s simply not found in the biblical account.

The Sethite view also fails to address one very important factor. The offspring that results from the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men were giants, Nephilim. It’s another strike against a Sethite view since clearly the union between the sons of God and daughters of men caused the corruption of flesh we read in Genesis 6:12. “And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.“

The word for flesh in the Hebrew is bā·śār and literally means flesh. Soft tissue, meat or skin. The word for corrupt is niš·ḥā·ṯāh and means corrupt, ruined, marred, or spoiled.

It is quite clear that the literal flesh of humanity became corrupt, ruined, marred, and spoiled at this time. This makes sense, when we considered that just a few chapters back, God declared that the seed of Eve would triumph over the seed of the serpent or Satan because of the Messiah was promised through the seed of Eve.

It became the goal for Satan to destroy the human lineage in order to prevent the messiah from being born.

This idea also makes sense when we consider the fact that God flooded the entire earth except Noah, who was described as being perfect in his generations. The Hebrew word used perfect in his generations is tā·mîm and is defined as being without blemish, without defect, blameless or perfect.

So for the Sethite theory to hold up to this scrutiny, they would have to show that the marriage between godly human men and ungodly human women produced a race of giants, but also caused a complete corruption of the flesh of humanity to the point where God had to flood the earth.

A common objection I often hear to the fallen angel view is that angels do not procreate. The passage often used to make this argument is Matthew 22:30 which states, “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

Let’s take a look at a parallel passage in Luke 20:34-36 – “And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”

Jesus clarifies that it is those who are worthy to attain the resurrection from the dead who won’t marry nor be given in marriage. This is because we will have eternal life. Procreation will not be necessary.

In other words, the passage from Matthew 22:30 and subsequently Luke 20:34-36 has nothing to do with the ability of angels to procreate or not, but rather it is Jesus stating that procreation will no longer be necessary in the future state of eternal life.

The confusion may be with the fact that Jesus refers to us who are saved as sons of God. I will address this a little bit later when we look at the phrase “sons of God” in the New Testament, but what these passages do show us is that angels and equally the sons of God are eternal beings.

It would logically follow that there are passages like 2 Peter 2:4 that states, “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, (Tarturus), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.”

And this subsequent verse, Jude 6 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.”

In other words, these angels who left their rightful domain of the spiritual dimension took on fleshly bodies. We read in Galatians 5:19 quote, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness.”Once these angels took on human flesh, it logically follows that they did what the flesh desires as alluded to in Galatians 5:19.

We read in 1 Corinthians 11:10, “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”

It is very peculiar that in a chapter that speaks about the role of women in Church, Paul encourages women to have some form of covering over their heads because of the angels. This is logically a reference to Genesis 6.

In conjunction with the argument the angels cannot procreate, is the argument that angels do not have physical bodies. We just saw how the Bible describes angels that left their own habitation and committed sins that landed them in the dark prison called Tartarus, but this idea is further verified when we consider the reality of angels appearing in physical form in the Bible.

First. It’s fascinating to consider the possibility that angels actually have food. In Psalm 78:25 it states, “Man did eat angels’ food: he sent them meat to the full.”

Here King David is referencing the manna that was provided while Moses and the Israelites were wandering in the desert during the exodus from Egypt. The Hebrew word for angel here is ’ab·bî·rîm and is translated in various places in the Bible as “mighty, powerful, strong animals, social leaders, and angelic beings.”

It’s fascinating to consider that manna was in fact food for the angelic beings, but there’s more. We read in Hebrews 13:2, “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”

While this is startling and serves as enough evidence, there are even more verses that allude to the physicality of angels.

In Genesis 19:1 we read, “And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground.“

We go on to read about the people in the town lusting after these two angels. In Genesis 19:5 it states, “And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came into thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.”

This event is also referenced in Jude 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.”

Passages that allude to men going after strange flesh are often thought to have been a commentary about homosexuality, especially pertaining to Sodom and Gomorrah. While it is true that there was homosexual activity in Sodom and Gomorrah, the word for strange in the Greek is Heteros and means of uncertain affinity other or different.

If homosexuality were the only point, why would the word reflects something different? I believe it’s because the point here was that men lusted after these angels, so the argument the angels do not or cannot have physical bodies is once again unfounded in the Bible. So it logically follows that since they can manifest with physical bodies, they have the capacity to commit sinful acts right here on earth.

In my opinion, the historical origin of the Sethite view provides a nail in the coffin. The first person to popularize this idea with Augustine of Hippo in the fourth century AD. Augustine’s commentary on the Genesis 6 account has become the predominant view adopted by familiar names such as Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, and John Calvin in the 17th century.

In an article entitled “Sons of Seth and the Daughters of Cain,” reputed author and Hebrew scholar Douglas Hamp states, “Augustine says, ‘by the daughters of men, the scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain.'”

We must ask the important question, where in scripture does it say such a thing? Augustine makes the claim above that scripture designates those daughters as coming from the race of Cain, but just where do we see that? The answer is that we simply do not. It was first tentatively considered by Julius Africanus and then completely invented by Augustine and then repeated by all who would follow in his footsteps ever since.

If the term “sons of God” refers to the sons of Seth as so many suggest, why does the text not simply state it. Prior to Augustine inventing the Sethite claim, the common view held was that the sons of God who had unlawful relations with the daughters of men were in fact fallen divine angelic beings.

The phrase “sons of God” in the Hebrew text is bə·nê hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm and appears in the Bible five times in the Old Testament; six if you include the proper translation of Deuteronomy 32:8.

The first two times we see the phrase is in Genesis 6. The next three appear in the book of Job. Job 1:6 states, “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.”

And finally in Job 38:7, “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.“

In all of these instances, in the Book of Job, it is quite clear that the sons of God are angelic or divine beings. We know this because first they present themselves before the Lord and his throne. We know that in the Old Testament Times, no human can see God’s face without losing his or her life. We see an example of this in Exodus 33:18 when Moses asks God, “ I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.” God replies in Verse 20, “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.”

Furthermore, Satan, a spiritual being is among them in this heavenly meeting also presenting himself before the Lord. This clearly shows that the entities described as sons of God, here in the Book of Job, are in the spiritual realm.

In a commentary by John Brown of Job 1:6, he writes, “the scene changes from Earth to heaven and we see God’s angels gathering for a meeting with Jehovah.”

Matthew Henry commenting on Job 2:1 says, “The angels attended God’s throne and Satan was among them.“

The account of Job 38:7 is especially intriguing because here God is describing the creation account of the earth. At the end of God’s decree of how he created the earth, ee proclaims that the morning stars and the sons of God shouted for Joy. If the sons of God here are humans, how would they be present in the time before humans were created? The point of reference is clear.

“The Sons of God” in Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7 all derive from the Hebrew bə·nê hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm. The same Hebrew phrase that is used in Genesis 6 translated as “sons of God.” While many who hold the Sethite view do agree that the sons of God in Job references divine angelic beings, they deny it when it comes to the same phrase in Genesis 6, thus exposing their inconsistent hermaneutic.

There is another element to help us understand what is going on in the Old Testament and the divine angelic beings or gods. In Psalm 82 we see a classic example of what is called “the divine council.” Dr. Michael Heiser is the leading authority on this topic who has helped me and many others to understand this idea that the “sons of God” mentioned in the Old Testament are not human but divine beings.

In Psalm 82: 1-2 it states, “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked?”

Later in the same chapter we read, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes,” Psalm 82:6-7.

This passage in Psalm 82:6 is quoted by Jesus himself in John 10:34-36, after the Pharisees accused Jesus of blasphemy because he claimed to be equal with God. “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”

In other words, Jesus was declaring his divinity in this passage by claiming to be equal with God who in Psalm 82 is described as judging the “lowercase g” gods.

This is confirmed when we read a few verses before where Jesus declares in John 10:30, ” I and my Father are one.”

The objection often heard is that the gods in Psalm 82 are not in reference to divine beings, but rather human judges, but a passage to lay this idea to rest is found in Deuteronomy 32:8, “When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of God.”

Many translations of Deuteronomy 32:8 may read, “When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.” Instead of “sons of God,” we see the sons of Israel.”

However, Dr. Michael Heiser in a document entitled “Deuteronomy 32:8 And The Sons of God” clearly demonstrates why the text should more accurately read “sons of God.” This passage is alluding to God assigning divine angelic beings who rejected him to take dominion over the various regions of the earth.

Doctor Heiser makes the connection between the passage here in Deuteronomy 32:8 with the table of nations that we see in Genesis 10. In short, there is no way this can be the sons of Israel when Israel had not yet become a nation.

Getting back to the issue of Psalm 82 in John 10, in another document by Doctor Heiser called “Jesus’s Quotation of Psalm 82:6 in John 10:30,” for a different view of John’s theological strategy, Heiser states, “John Wants his readers to know that Jesus was making a divine claim consistent with sons of God being used of divine beings. The mortal view of Psalm 82 therefore does nothing to assist the claim of Jesus’s deity, whereas the view offered here makes, the inclusion of Psalm 82:6 consistent with John’s rhetorical goal. Thus, there is another example of divine angelic beings being present in the Old Testament referred to as the sons of God.”

Part of the reason why there is so much skepticism for the sons of God in Genesis 6 being angelic beings is because the text doesn’t come out and directly say they were angels or divine beings. If the text had, there would be no debate to begin with.

To help clarify what the sons of God really meant and why the fallen angels theory best fits, let’s look at what the phrase actually entails from what we can gather from the New Testament.

To put it simply, the sons of God represents a direct creation of God. In other words, they were not born from another being or have human parents but are created deliberately and directly by God.

The best example while it shows in the singular son of God is in Luke 3:38 which states in the genealogy quote, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Here, Adam is clearly stated as the son of God. This makes sense because Adam did not have a human parent but was rather created directly by God. This is why Jesus is called the second Adam.

According to 1 Corinthians 15:47 where it states, “The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.” The rest of humanity, including you and I, apart from Jesus are born as sons and daughters of a fallen Adam.

But this brings up an important question. Does this mean that Jesus who is also referred to as the son of God is equal with Adam and the angels?

No, this is because Jesus is the uniquely begotten son of God. Let me explain the key to understanding how the title “Son of God” is different when it refers to Jesus can be understood. In the most popular verse in the entire Bible, John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” the word begotten in the Greek is monogenē. It is a combination of two words, monos which means only solitary alone and genē, which means offspring or kind. So Jesus was the one and only begotten son.

The idea of “begat” was a well understood concept in antiquity as a reference to producing the same kind. We read in Genesis one, in several places that each plant and animals were made after their own kind. It’s common logic that a human begets a human or a dog begets a dog. A cat begets a cat. In the same way when God begets a son, Jesus, he is just as much God as the Father. (Jesus was NOT created, but he was unique.)

This also serves as an example of why the corruption of all flesh in Genesis 6 grieved God who sent the flood. While Jesus is the only begotten son of God, the rest of us who are saved are also called “sons of God” in the New Testament. This is to identify the new nature of those of us who are saved.

Jesus tells us in John 3:6, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 5:17, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”

Ephesians 2:10 “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

So in light of all these verses, it becomes clear that in Christ we have given up our nature of being sons of Adam and are now direct creations of God. And therefore the sons of God.

We see direct evidence of this when we read in John 1:12-13 where it says, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

Romans 8:14 “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”

Again in Luke 20:36 it says, “Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”

This plays right into the well understood Christian theology of adoption. While we are born as children or descendants of Adam, those of us who are saved in Jesus Christ are adopted into the family of God first, spiritually, and then eventually physically.

We see evidence of this in 1 Corinthians 15:53, “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.”

This is the hope we have in Jesus Christ. While we are saved spiritually, the ultimate fulfillment of his promise is to have new immortal bodies so that we may live in the presence of God. In fact, Paul even tells us in 1 Corinthians 6:3, “Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?”

So how does this entire concept deny the Sethite view and help us understand the identity of the sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6. Whoever those sons of God were in Genesis 6, they had to be a direct creation of God. Since Adam, the first son of God, as mentioned in Luke 3:38 fell in the garden, all those who were born from Adam are sons and daughters of Adam, or in the case of Genesis 6, daughters of men.

If we go back to Genesis 6 and read the passage again, it might become clear why the sons of God can not be of human descent. “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose,” Genesis 6:1,2.

“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,” Genesis 6:4.

There are many avenues of inquiry that can come from this study, but I hope this demonstrates that the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6 were in fact rebellious divine beings and not the sons of Seth or dynastic kings.

I do want to clarify one thing before we end. The phrase “fallen angels” that is often referenced to as “the sons of God” in Genesis 6 is more of a title rendered in the modern vernacular, rather than any clear translation from the Hebrew or Greek word for angels. The more precise description maybe phrased “divine beings” or gods with the lower case g, hence my use of fallen divine angelic beings as a description of who the sons of God in Genesis 6 were.

Nevertheless, the case for the sons of God being nonhuman is quite evident. I also hope that I was able to demonstrate our identity as adopted sons and daughters in Christ and why we are given the title “sons of God” in the New Testament.