Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Text/SMS
Random
Subscribe
Answer
Genesis 6:1–4 refers to “sons of God” and “daughters of men” (KJV). There have been several suggestions as to who the sons of God were and why their children grew into a race of giants. Here is the biblical record:
The sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. . . . There were giants [Hebrew, nephilim] on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:2–4).
There are three primary views concerning the identity of the sons of God:
1) they were fallen angels
2) they were powerful human rulers
3) they were godly descendants of Seth who intermarried with wicked descendants of Cain
Giving weight to the first theory is the fact that in the Old Testament the phrase sons of God elsewhere refers to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). A potential problem with this is Matthew 22:30, which indicates that angels do not marry. The Bible gives no reason to believe that angels have a gender or the ability to reproduce. The other two views do not present this problem.2) they were powerful human rulers
3) they were godly descendants of Seth who intermarried with wicked descendants of Cain
The weakness of views 2 and 3 is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary human females does not account for why the offspring were “giants” or “heroes of old, men of renown.” Further, why would God bring the flood on the earth when God never forbade powerful human males or descendants of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendants of Cain? The oncoming judgment of Genesis 6:5–7 is directly linked to what took place in Genesis 6:1–4. Such a harsh judgment points to a perverse sin—and the mating of fallen angels with human females would seem to qualify.
As noted, the weakness of view 1 is that Jesus declares that angels “neither marry nor [are] given in marriage” (Matthew 22:30). However, the text does not say that angels cannot marry, only that they do not. Further, marriage is not the same as sexual relations. Jesus’ words do not rule out the possibility that angels could assume physical form and engage in sexual intercourse. Also, Matthew 22:30 refers to “angels in heaven,” not fallen angels, who do not care about God’s created order and who actively seek ways to disrupt God’s plan. The fact that God’s holy angels do not marry does not mean that demons cannot pervert sexuality in this world.
We believe the first view is the best interpretation. Whereas angels are spiritual beings (Hebrews 1:14), they can appear in human, physical form (Mark 16:5). The men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the two angels who were with Lot (Genesis 19:1–5). It is plausible that angels are capable of taking on human form, even to the point of replicating human sexuality. Why do the fallen angels not repeat this sin more often? It seems that God imprisoned the fallen angels who engaged in that particular evil as a warning to others not to do the same (see Jude 1:6). Early Jewish interpreters and apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings are unanimous in holding the view that fallen angels are the sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6. This by no means closes the debate; however, the view that Genesis 6:1–4 involves fallen angels mating with human females has a strong contextual, grammatical, and historical basis.
