[To catch up on the previous four posts, go here, here, here, and here.]
Bringing this five-post series of articles to an end, I want to present an exegetical and theological argument for the view I find most compelling (at this point).
I’m most persuaded by the view that the “sons of God” are rebel angels and that the Nephilim are not their offspring. As I’m presenting the argument below, I will address possible objections to this view along the way.
The Phrase “Sons of God”
While the word “son” and “sons” has appeared in Genesis prior to Genesis 6:1–4, the phrase “sons of God” appears for the first time in 6:2. And in later biblical texts, “sons of God” clearly refers to angels. The exact construction (בני האלהים) occurs only five times in the Old Testament: in Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7.
Since we’re trying to discern what’s going on in Genesis 6:2 and 6:4, let’s look at the three occurrences in Job.
In Job 1:6 we read, “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.” The “sons of God” here are angels.
In Job 2:1, “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD.” And again, the “sons of God” here are angels.
In Job 38:6–7, “On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Here, once more, the “sons of God” are angels.
Because of the way the expression “sons of God” is used in Job, the case is strengthened that the expression in Genesis 6:2 and 6:4 is referring to angelic beings.
In the context of Genesis 6:2, “sons of God” appears distinct from the use of “man” and the “daughters” who were born to “man” in 6:1. In other words, 6:1 is about how “man” multiplied and daughters were born to them. Then 6:2 refers to “daughters” again, this time calling them “daughters of man.” Perhaps we should see the language of “man” and “daughters” in 6:1 and 6:2 as drawing a distinction between humans and the “sons of God” in 6:2. The “sons of God” would be nonhuman.
Important to notice is that the Sethite view suffers from the fact that there is no mention of Seth at all in 6:1–4. We read about people multiplying, daughters being born, and then beings known as “the sons of God” saw that these daughters were desirable and took any they chose to be wives (6:2).
Angels Who Marry?
Readers might shake their heads here and insist, “Jesus said angels do not marry.” That’s partly correct. When Jesus spoke about angels not marrying, the entirety of his statement was this: “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matt. 22:30).
Jesus’s words about angels in heaven do not have to govern everything possible for rebel angels on the earth. The Sethite view has overstretched the language of Matthew 22:30.
When we read Genesis 6:4, we see that “the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.” The sexual activity is plain and not subtle. If the sons of God are rebel angels, then illicit sexual activity is taking place in unions with human women.
Readers may scratch their heads and say, “How is it that angelic beings are doing things that humans do?” This is a valid question. Consider, though, that in Genesis there are angels who do things that seem to be what humans do. For example, in Genesis 18 there are angels who go to Abraham’s tent, and they appear as men (18:2, 16, 22). They rested under a tree and ate the food that Sarah made (18:4–8). Two of these “men” are later called “angels” (19:1).
What if we admit that we do not know everything there is to know about the invisible realm, the realm of angels and demons? Could it be these rebel “sons of God” appeared as humans and were capable of human activities?
For the longest time the Sethite view was appealing to me because the “sons of God are angels” view seemed so strange. Yet the strangeness of an interpretation cannot be decisive. In Genesis, a snake tempts a woman. In Exodus, walls of Red Sea water stand at attention. In Numbers, a donkey speaks to a pagan prophet. In Jonah, a fish swallows a wayward prophet. Quite frankly, the Bible is full of strange stories. Don’t reject the “sons of God are angels” view because of how strange it seems.
The View of Peter and Jude
Part of the exercise of biblical theology is paying attention to how later texts interpret earlier texts. Would you be open to the idea that there are New Testament passages interpreting what happened in Genesis 6:1–4?
Clearly in Genesis 6:1–4, the “sons of God” are committing sexual sin in the days of Noah. What ultimately convinced me that the “sons of God” are rebel angels is the evidence from the letters of 1–2 Peter and Jude. They seem to be writing statements that show awareness of the prevailing intertestamental reading of Genesis 6:1–4, and they seem to affirm that reading.
In 1 Peter 3:18, Christ is the righteous who died for the unrighteous. And in 1 Peter 3:19–20 we’re told that “he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because 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.”
According to 1 Peter 3, there were beings who sinned in the days of Noah, and those beings are now being held in judgment—“spirits in prison.” Could Peter be interpreting Genesis 6:1–4 to include acts of angelic disobedience? If so, then the rebel angels would be the “sons of God” in that passage.
But let’s keep looking. In 2 Peter 2:4–10, “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.”
There’s a lot going on in that 2 Peter 2 passage, too much to handle in one article. But a few observations are relevant for our purposes. Peter is asserting that God knows how to deliver the righteous and handle the wicked, and Peter marshals forth evidence from the Old Testament as proof. Working backward, we notice that 2:7 mentions the rescue of Lot and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, which occurred in Genesis 19. What other story does he mention? The sinning of angels in the days of Noah. There isn’t a passage besides Genesis 6 that corresponds to his claim.
According to 2 Peter 2, angels sinned in the days of Noah, and they were put in chains until the judgment. Doesn’t this sound like the same teaching in 1 Peter 3, where spirits were being kept in prison for disobeying the Lord in the days of Noah? Apparently, 1 Peter 3 and 2 Peter 2 are talking about the same event—what happened in Genesis 6:1–4 with the “sons of God.”
Genesis 6:2 calls the sinning beings “sons of God,” and Peter calls them “spirits” and “angels.” According to 2 Peter 2:10, they engaged in the “lust of defiling passion” and despised “authority.” The activity of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1–4 was a manifestation of angelic rebellion against God.
Let’s add Jude. According to Jude 6–7, “And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”
Do you notice how Jude’s words are similar to Peter’s words? In Jude 7, he brings up judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah, which took place in Genesis 19. And in Jude 6, he mentions angels who rejected their proper position and authority, and these angels are now “kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness” until the day of judgment. Moreover, the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah in Jude 7 includes the language “likewise indulged in sexual immorality…” Likewise. Jude 7 is about sexual immorality, and so is Jude 6.
To recap: 1 Peter 3:19–20, 2 Peter 2:4–10, and Jude 6–7 are all talking about the same thing, the sexual sin of rebel angels in Genesis 6:1–4. In the letters of Peter and Jude, we are getting an inspired interpretation of what happened. They give clarity as to the identity of the “sons of God,” and the authors confirm the displeasure and judgment of God in response to those sinful actions.
The Nephilim
I’ve argued above for the view that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1–4 are rebel angels. And now I want to consider the identity of the Nephilim. What does the passage specifically tell us?
First, we’re told that 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” (Gen. 6:4). The presence of the Nephilim was parallel to the period of time when unions between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of man” were taking place.
Second, the Nephilim were on the earth “also afterward,” which means after the flood judgment. Though God’s judgment caused everyone to perish who wasn’t inside the ark, the Nephilim were on the earth “afterward.” This isn’t because they were supernatural. The Nephilim were human warriors, which brings us to the third point.
Third, speaking of the Nephilim, the author says, “These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown” (Gen. 6:4). They’re called men—mighty men, even giants (think: Goliath). The book of Numbers mentions the Nephilim too. The twelve spies came back with the report that said, “And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them” (Num. 13:33). Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33 speak with one voice about the Nephilim: they are mighty men.
I get the impression from Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33 that the Nephilim are not supernatural creatures. I don’t think they’re the offspring of the “sons of God” and “daughters of man.” Rather, the Nephilim existed during the same days when the “sons of God” were committing rebellious acts of immorality with human women.
Conclusion
In the preceding sections, I argued for the view that the “sons of God” are rebel angels and that the Nephilim are human mighty men rather than supernatural offspring. When we consider how the exact expression “sons of God” was used outside Genesis 6, we’re left with Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7—three verses which all use “sons of God” to refer to angels.
In addition to this lexical observation, we have the compelling evidence of Peter and Jude’s letters, letters which mention sinning angels during the days of Noah. Peter and Jude are interpreting earlier Scripture (specifically, Gen. 6:1–4), and they are identifying the “sons of God” for us with language like “spirits” and “angels.”
Earlier in this article, we also considered how Jesus’s words in Matthew 22:30 and the overall strangeness of the “sons of God are angels” view are not defeaters to the view. In fact, the ancient Jewish interpretation—as well as the earliest Christian interpretation—of Genesis 6:1–4 is that the “sons of God” are rebel angels who committed sexual sin in unions with human women. And I think this ancient view is correct.
Do you think others would benefit from thinking about Genesis 6:1-4 in light of the article’s arguments? Consider trying this button: