Who Are the Sons of God in Genesis 6:2

There are three main views pertaining to who the “sons of God” are in Genesis 6:2. The views are that they are fallen angels, Sethites, or a line of divinely appointed kings. Each of the views offers up an insight into mankind during the period before the flood, and the results of their behavior would lead to the destruction of the world.


The view that the “sons of God” pertains to fallen angels or spiritual beings is believed by some, and Frank Jabini believes this as well. Jabini focuses in on the distinction that is made between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men.” He says that “the context seems to suggest that the daughters of men were the offspring of humankind that began to multiply itself. Verse 1 focused specifically on the fact that 'daughters' were born to humankind. 'Sons of God' in verse 2 seem to indicate beings belonging to another class (that was not mentioned before), rather than simply referring to humankind.”1 Jabini has the view that “this passage may be referring to 'spirits' that had sexual relations with human beings.”2 He looks to other verses in the Bible, such as in Psalms, and contends that “the sons of God 'refer to the angels or spiritual beings who are members of Yahweh's court and do his biddings.'”3 He also points to Daniel 3:25 as rendering the same phrase for “sons of God” as Genesis 6:2 does as well. Jabini believes that “the scriptures and both past and present church leaders taught that spiritual beings can be involved in sexual activities with human beings.”4


The second main view of who the “sons of God” are in Genesis 6:2 is that they are the descendants of Seth. Albert Barnes puts forth this notion, and believes that the “sons of God” are “those who are on the Lord's side, who approach him with duly significant offerings, who call upon him by his proper name, and who walk with God in their daily conversation.”5 Barnes goes back further in Genesis, where the “occasion for the present designation is furnished in the remark of Eve on the birth of Seth.”6 Eve regarded Seth as “the son of God.” This tradition would continue, and “these descendants of Seth, among whom were also Lamek who spoke of the Lord, and Noah who walked with God, are therefore by a natural transition called the sons of God, the godlike in a moral sense, being born of the Spirit, and walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”7


The final main view for the meaning of “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 is that this was a race of divine kings. Meredith Kline is one of the voices behind this view. Kline argues that these were “men of the aristocracy, princes and nobles, in contrast to the socially inferior 'daughters of men.'”8 He derives this from the “titulary of this pagan ideology of divine kingship the term elohim was appropriated in Gen. 6:1-4 as a designation for the antediluvian kings. It is accordingly to be translated, 'the sons of the gods'...the author at once caught the spirit of ancient paganism and suggested darkly the satanic shapes that formed the background of the human revolt against the King of kings.”9 Still interpreting elohim as “kings, it is also possible to regard that designation not as a direct appropriation from the pagan titulary but as a genuinely theistic expression honoring these potentates in their office as 'the sons of God'”10 Support for this interpretation is “found in the similar titles for theocratic rulers in Israel...particularly important is the evidence of Psalm 82.”11


I believe that the proper application for the “sons of God” is that they are the descendants of Seth. I agree with Barnes' dismissal of this referring to fallen angels or spiritual beings, because “they were not created as a race, have no distinction of sex, and therefore no sexual desire; they 'neither marry nor are given in marriage'.”12 It is difficult “to believe that after angels rebelled against God and were cast from heaven, they acquired the capacity for human reproduction.”13 It is also difficult to believe that these were a line of Godly kings for several reasons, including the fact that there is no evidence that a monarchial system of rulers had been established in the line of Cain, and it is difficult to understand why something as familiar as kingship should be expressed so indirectly.14 While it is fascinating to observe other opinions as to the translation of “sons of God”, but the observance of these being the descendants of Seth provides, in my opinion, the most accurate insight into the text, as well as the overall theme of the chapter. Regardless of who the “sons of God” were, their offspring would be judged and found wanting by a Holy and Righteous God, and this judgment would see the destruction of the world through the floodwaters.




Bibliography


Barnes, Albert. “Barnes Commentary On the Bible” Genesis 3, Biblehub.com. http://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/genesis/3.htm.

Davis, John J., Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis, Salem, Wisc.: Sheffield Publishing Co.,
1998.

Jabini, Frank, "Sons of God Marrying Daughters of Man: An Exercise in Integrated Theology." Conspectus (South African Theological Seminary) 14, 2012.

Kline, Meredith, “Divine Kingship and Gen. 6:1-4”, Westminster Theological Journal 24, 1961/62


1Frank Jabini, "Sons of God Marrying Daughters of Man: An Exercise in Integrated Theology." Conspectus (South African Theological Seminary) 14 (2012) 101.


2 Ibid., 101.


3 Ibid., 102.


4 Ibid., 81.


5 Albert Barnes, “Barnes Commentary On the Bible” Genesis 3, Biblehub.com, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/genesis/3.htm.


6 Ibid.


7 Ibid.


8 Meredith Kline, “Divine Kingship and Gen. 6:1-4”, Westminster Theological Journal 24 (1961/62) 194.


9 Ibid., 192.


10 Ibid., 193.


11 Ibid., 192.


12 Albert Barnes, “Barnes Commentary On the Bible” Genesis 3, Biblehub.com, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/genesis/3.htm.


13 John James Davis, Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis (Salem, Wisc.: Sheffield Publishing Co., 1998) 112.





14 Ibid., 113.