The early verses of Genesis chapter 6 tell us about “The Sons of God” that take for themselves the “daughters of men” as wives and have offspring. These verses are likely some of the most discussed verses in the entire book of Genesis. There are three different ways this has been understood. The first two views support Exell’s insistence, “It is clear that angels cannot be intended by ‘the sons of God’ in this context, as they do not marry, nor are they given in marriage.”[1] The first way is that the sons of God refer to the line of Seth and the daughters of men refer to the line of Cain. Leupold explains this position. He writes, “Here now is the natural sequence of thought: after the Cainites were observed to be going in one definite direction in their development, and the Sethites, too, were seen to be going in an entirely different direction, and these two streams of mankind were strictly keeping apart because they were so utterly divergent in character, now (Ch. 6) the two streams begin to commingle, and as a result moral distinctions are obliterated and the Sethites, too, become so badly contaminated that the existing world order must be definitely terminated.”[2] A variant of this position says, “The intermarriage mentioned here is not simply between the line of Seth and the line of Cain. Instead, the two lines exemplify the difference between the faithful and the unfaithful, which probably accounts for the more general characterization of sons of God/daughters of mankind instead of the specificity of sons of Seth/daughters of Cain.”
Another opinion that has support among ancient Jewish writers is that the phrase represents more or less the Cinderella story. The sons of God refer to powerful human beings as kings, princes, judges, or rulers who leave their social status and marry commoners. Steinmann concludes this view by saying, “The marriage of the sons of God to the daughters of mankind is, then, a reference to aristocrats intermarrying with commoners.”
However, as Steinmann concedes, “The oldest-known interpretation is found in ancient compositions such as 1 Enoch and the book of Jubilees, as well as in a number of the early church fathers. It is also widely held among modern scholars…This position holds that the sons of God are angels and cites Job 1:6; 2:1, where this phrase is used to describe members of God’s heavenly court.”[3] Gerhard Von Rad argues that this settles the issue once and for all. He says, “The question, which has been asked from the time of the early church down to our day, whether, namely, the “sons of God” are to be understood as angelic beings or as men, i.e., as members of “the superior human race of Seth,” can be considered as finally settled. The benē hā ’elōhīm, here, by the way, clearly contrasted to the daughters of men, are beings of the upper heavenly world…These angelic beings let themselves be enticed by the beauty of human women to grievous sin; they fall from their ranks and mix with them in wild licentiousness.”[4] Robert Newman writes a convincing article in the Grace Theological Journal and after studying the New Testament references to whether the “sons of God” were supernatural beings or human beings he concludes that “Jude and 2 Pet clearly favor the supernatural position.”[5]
[1] Exell, Joseph S., and Thomas H. Leale. 1892. Genesis. The Preacher’s Complete Homiletic Commentary. New York; London; Toronto: Funk & Wagnalls Company.
[2] Leupold, H. C. 1942. Exposition of Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
[3] Steinmann, Andrew E. 2019. Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Edited by David G. Firth. Vol. 1. The Tyndale Commentary Series. London: Inter-Varsity Press.
[4] Rad, Gerhard von. 1972. Genesis: A Commentary. Edited by Peter Ackroyd, James Barr, Bernhard W. Anderson, and James L. Mays. Translated by John H. Marks. Revised Edition. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press.
[5] Grace Seminary. 1998. Grace Theological Journal.