Who Were the Sons of God in Genesis 6? Three Interpretations Explained

This post is still under development, but this is what I have so far

Who Were the Sons of God in Genesis 6? Understanding a Difficult Bible Passage

Genesis 4 traces Cain's lineage, including violence and the escalation of human wrongdoing. Genesis 5 traces Seth's lineage, highlighting people who walk with God and the hope associated with Noah. Genesis 6 describes a further deterioration of human society immediately before the flood. If we want to understand the character of God and the judgment that takes place with the flood, then we must dedicate some time to the first 4 verses of Genesis 6.

But this isn't as simple as one might expect.

 Unquestionably, 6:1–4 is the most demanding passage in Genesis for the interpreter.
—K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 320.

You have been warned! I will do my best to clarify what this text teaches and what it is not saying. As always, I welcome your feedback. Let’s dive in together!

Context

Genesis 4-5 give us the descendants of Cain and the descendants of Seth (who replaced Abel (Genesis 4:25)). Genesis 4 gives us more details about the descendants of Cain, while Genesis 5 focuses on the descendants of Seth, from Adam to Seth to Noah, who “will comfort us” (Genesis 5:29). There is a theme throughout Genesis 1-11 of God's blessing on humanity and the threat to that blessing. In Cain's line, we see wickedness unfolding and spreading among humanity. By contrast, the lineage of Seth shows references to God, worship, and godly behavior (Genesis 4:26; 5:22-24, 29).

Many skip the genealogies in the Bible, and I don’t blame anyone who does, but these genealogies show that one segment of the population is moving away from God, while another seeks God. But even among the descendants of Seth, we read the tragic phrase, “and he died.” Except for Enoch, and I wish we could know more about him. Ultimately, we want to understand Genesis 6:1-4 in light of humanity's growing corruption, which ultimately leads to the flood (Genesis 6:7, 13, 17).

Sons of God and daughters of men

Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

3 And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 There were giants 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 6:1-4 NKJV

Who are the “sons of God” and “daughters of men”?
What was the nature of their actions (v. 2)?
What was God’s response (v. 3)?
Who are the “Nephilim” and “Gibborim” (v. 4)?

These are the big interpretive questions we need to tackle in order to better understand everything that follows and, even more importantly, God and His character.

Is Genesis 6 just an old myth?

Critical-scholarship approach - Many critical scholars see Genesis 6:1–4 as a remnant of an old myth, or at least originally mythic in form and function. They argue that the myth was later historicized by the Yahwist or a later editor. In this line of thought, the “Sons of God” is seen as a common expression for the council of the gods in Canaanite usage. Ugaritic texts and Phoenician and Ammonite inscriptions describe the assembly of the lesser deities under the chief god El. These ancient accounts are full of stories in which deities mate with beautiful women by force or persuasion, giving birth to demigods. The original intent of this story was supposedly to explain the origins of a race of giants.

The problem with this view is that, if this were the case in Genesis 6:1–4, then the enigmatic Yahwist made a poor attempt to camouflage the mythic element. A much stronger argument, as we find in the creation narrative (Genesis 1:1–2:3) and the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1–9), is that Genesis 6:1–4 refutes pagan stories that told of a race of superhuman giants. Though ancient memory reflected a distant past when fierce tyrants ruled the day, the author of Genesis, by linking the Nephilim to the wickedness of the times and their ensuing judgment, showed that they were entirely mortal, not superhuman, and subject to God's judgment. The biblical author not only “set the record straight” but also used it as testimony condemning the wicked generation, which deserved the cataclysmic flood to follow.

3 possible interpretations

Historically, three opinions have won a significant following for identifying the “sons of God”:

1. Angels

2. Human judges or rulers

3. The descendants of Seth

More recently, some have suggested that this baffling epithet refers to royal despots, similar to the second view. Others combine the angel and human views, holding that the human despots are demoniacs possessed by fallen angels. Still others, who attribute Genesis 6:1–4 to pagan sources, argue that the “sons of God” are the lesser gods of the Canaanite pantheon. These disparate views share an essential tenet: the narrative shows how human conduct transgressed divinely established boundaries. Proponents of this view never seem to explain how this happened. (For a deeper dive, see  K. A. Mathews, 324–325.)

1. Angels

Let’s tackle the first possibility, that the “sons of God” are angelic, or celestial, beings who defied God by moving outside their appointed realm and marrying human “daughters.” This will sound a bit technical, but stick with me and it will make sense. In this interpretation, ʾĕlōhîm is taken as a proper noun (“God”) or as a genitive of attribute (indicating quality), referring to a class of beings and giving the sense of “divine beings.”

Pros
This interpretation indicates that the “sons of God” belong to the heavenly realm (angels), in contrast to the “daughters of men,” whose realm is terrestrial. According to this argument, their unnatural sexual union (in rebellion against the divine ideal stated in Genesis 2:24) produced the “Nephilim,” whose notorious deeds (Genesis 6:4) required the strongest of penalties (Genesis 6:5). Supporters of this view boast that it is the oldest opinion known, since it was advocated among the Jews at least by the second century B.C. as indicated by 1 Enoch 6–11. Early Christian writers also advocated the angel view. Enoch's influence appears among Christian authors in the East until the third century and among Latin authors up to Ambrose.  There is also the fact that the “sons of God,” in Job 1:6; 2:1, and 38:7, and in Dan. 3:25, are unquestionably angels (also in Psalm 29:1 and 89:7).

Moreover, since “men” in v. 1 refers to collective mankind, we can expect the same meaning in v. 2, where it refers to the “daughters of men.” This indicates, according to this view, a contrast between the “daughters of men,” who refer to human women, and the “sons of God,” who belong to the divine sphere, namely, angels. Additionally, as noted earlier, evidence suggests an ancient memory among pagan peoples that celestial beings once cohabited with humans.

An ancient story that illustrates this view is the Epic of Gilgamesh, which depicts the goddess Ishtar proposing marriage to Gilgamesh (who himself is semidivine). Thus, in this view, the Hebrew account corrects the false notion that there was in antiquity a superhuman race of semidivine beings and shows that the culprits were not gods but degenerate angels whose offspring were merely sinful “men [flesh] of renown,” subject to the same destruction of God’s moral outrage as any mortal human.

Christian proponents of this interpretation also appeal to the New Testament, arguing that the apostles allude to Gen 6:1–4 when they refer to fallen angels (1 Pet 3:19–20; 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6). These “angels” are imprisoned awaiting the day of God’s judgment because they “did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home” (Jude 6). If so, the New Testament writers agreed with the Jewish opinion reflected in 1 Enoch.

Cons
However, taking the “sons of God” as angels has its drawbacks. Contextually, the account has not identified an angelic host, at least in the sense of a heavenly court, up to this point. Moreover, Genesis 6:1–8 concerns humanity and its outcome from beginning to end, not angels and their punishment. The flood is God’s judgment against “man” (Genesis 6:3, 5–7), and there is no reference to the culpability of angels.

This view is also difficult to reconcile with procreation as a power God bestowed on the terrestrial order of animals and humanity (Genesis 1:22, 28). The Bible provides no other evidence that procreation is a trait of the heavenly hosts, although angels admittedly take on other human properties (Genesis 18:1–2, 8 with 19:1, 5). Yet even here there is significant difference between holy angels who acquire the ability to eat and rebellious angels who acquire sexual properties. By what line of reasoning does one propose that angels' fallen condition somehow results in corporeal procreation? When I struggle to interpret a verse, I look to see if Jesus said anything about it. In this case, Jesus, when distinguishing earthly life from that of heaven, declares that angels do not have sexual relations as humans and implies they are not sexual (Matthew 22:30). This differs remarkably from the pagan perception of supernatural beings.
(For thoughts on Jewish pseudepigrapha (ancient Jewish writings attributed to figures from the biblical past), specifically 1 Enoch, see footnotes)

However, among several alternatives to this interpretation is the view that Christ “in spirit” preached repentance through Noah (2 Pet 2:5) to the human generation of the flood while the ark was being built. This human audience was alive then but now is confined to prison, awaiting judgment. This parallels 1 Pet 4:6, which says, “the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead,” meaning those who heard it while alive but are now dead. No New Testament passage identifies the sin of the angels (“spirits,” 1 Pet 3:19), and no detail, such as marriage or bearing children, ties the passage to 6:1–4. Because the New Testament line of evidence remains unclear, it cannot unduly influence our reading of the Genesis account. (For a deeper dive, see K. A. Mathews, 325–328.)

2. Rulers

Another view held by Jewish scholars interprets the “sons of God” as human judges or rulers (aristocrats). The word ʾĕlōhîm has broader usage than the common meanings “God” and “divine.”

Pros
The Old Testament offers generous evidence for taking ʾĕlōhîm as human “judges.” Psalm 82:1, 6–7 speaks of human rulers as ʾĕlōhîm (Psalm 82:6a), and, more importantly, the parallel member (Psalm 82:6b) refers to them as “the sons of the Most High” (bĕnê ʿelyôn), a description analogous to bĕnê hāʾĕlōhîm in Genesis 6:2. The psalmist, as in Genesis 6:3, stresses the mortality of the judges despite their lofty assignment. In this view, the Nephilim (Genesis 6:4) are not regarded as the children of their marriages but as their contemporaries.

A variant of this view interprets bĕnê hāʾĕlōhîm as a class of polygamous warriors or despotic kings who acquired large royal harems by coercion. They fathered the “Nephilim” and “the heroes of old” (i.e., “Gibborim,” Genesis 6:4), infamous for their cruel tyranny. In this view, “Sons of God” reflects the ancient Near Eastern conception of sacral kingship, in which monarchs were believed to be deities or divine sons ruling on behalf of the gods. We see this in the Ugaritic myth of King Keret. Keret is identified as “the son of El.” As stated earlier, Hebrew tradition also understood divine rule as carried out by appointed (human) magistrates. Related to this is the biblical motif of royal “sonship” in Davidic theology (2 Samuel 7:13–16; Psalms 2:7; 89:27). The argument is that bĕnê hāʾĕlōhîm is best rendered “the sons of the gods,” referring to antediluvian kings whom the ancients believed were divine.

Moreover, it is argued that the account of Cain’s dynasty (Genesis 4:17–24), especially Lamech, properly sets the background for Genesis 6:1. Cain’s lineage gives us the origins of city organization, polygamy, and violent tyranny. Thus, Genesis 6:1–8 describes how this emerging Cainite kingship carried out its evil endeavors and how God judged it.

In essence, the “sons of God” refers to the Cainites. The Sumero-Akkadian tradition offers a cultural parallel: Atrahasis prefaces the flood by tracing the origins of divine kingship to the founding of urban life. Genesis does the same in Genesis 6:1–4, which prepares the reader for the ensuing flood story.

Cons
Although this interpretation avoids the obvious problems of the angel view, it fails to meet contextual requirements, since the larger passage does not speak of kingship. Though individual kings were referred to as “son of God,” no evidence can be marshaled for groups of kings in the ancient Near East bearing the name “sons of the gods.” The idea of polygamy derived from the phrase “any of them they chose” is only inferential at best. Also, the text offers no clear reference to coercion. The NIV renders lāqaḥ (“took”) as “married” since the term is the common Hebrew expression for wedlock. (For a deeper dive, see K. A. Mathews, 328–329.)

3. Descendants of Seth

This is the view I find most compelling. Church Fathers, such as Augustine, as well as the Reformers (Luther, Calvin), interpreted the “sons of God” as a reference to “godly men,” that is, the righteous lineage of Seth. Although this view has its share of difficulties, it remains the most attractive.

Pros
Genesis 4 and 5 contrast Adam's two lines of descent—the Cainites and the Sethites. Genesis 6:1–8 relates how the two lines intermarry, resulting in a community of unprecedented wickedness. As we have shown, the flood account is embedded within the Sethite genealogy, which is not completed until the notice of Noah’s death (Genesis 9:29). This provides the interpretive key for understanding Genesis 6:1–8. During this period of remarkable Sethite expansion (Genesis 5), the Sethite family marries outside its godly heritage, leading to moral decline.

ʾĚlōhîm can be rendered as a genitive of quality (describing the character or nature rather than biological ancestry), meaning “godly sons,” referring to the heritage of the Sethites. It is important to note that “Sons of God” cannot refer to physical or literal biological descent; since angels are not physically generated, we must take “sons of God” metaphorically. As a result, the expression can apply to more than angels, i.e., anyone who “bears the image of God.”

In trying to properly interpret the identity of the “Sons of God” we must consider the Pentateuch’s testimony, which identifies the Israelites as the children of God (Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:5–6; Exodus 4:22; Psalms 73:15; 80:15); this resonates well with taking the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 as an allusion to godly (covenant) offspring (Isaiah 43:6; Hosea 1:10; 11:1; John 1:12–13).

Cons
Some will argue that such a reading is inappropriate before the founding of Israel, since there is no designated people of God. My counter is that the author connects the prepatriarchal fathers (Genesis 1–11) with the founders of Israel (Genesis 12–50). Genesis invites Israel to see itself in its parents' events by using the language and imagery of institutional life and events Israel later experiences. Mosaic law codified the prohibition against marriage outside the covenant community; Genesis illustrates how religious intermarriage brought calamity for the righteous (Genesis 28:1; 34:1ff.; 38:1ff.).

Some will cite Job 1:6; 2:1; and 38:7 as clear references to the Sons of God as angelic beings. I don’t disagree. The Bible does describe the gathering of celestial beings (or a heavenly council) in the book of Job and elsewhere (Psalm 82; 1 Kings 22:19-22; Daniel 7:9-10). In Job, the sons of God are contrasted with Satan. Ephesians 6:12 mentions principalities, rulers of darkness, and spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places. Revelation 12:9 says that Satan and his angels were cast to the earth. In light of these texts, I see the differentiation between the sons of God and Satan as a differentiation between heavenly beings who follow God and those who oppose Him. I see the “sons of God” similarly as a distinction between humans who follow God and those who oppose Him. I see substantial biblical support for interpreting “sons of God” as a description of someone who follows God, whether angel or human, rather than an ontological category.

Other objections to this view include that the text never calls Seth’s line “sons of God,” and Genesis 4–5 never labels the lines as godly and ungodly in this way. And the biblical text never calls Cain's descendants the “daughters of men” in particular.

The question whether the “sons of Elohim” were celestial or terrestrial sons of God (angels or pious men of the family of Seth) can only be determined from the context, and from the substance of the passage itself, that is to say, from what is related respecting the conduct of the sons of God and its results. That the connection does not favour the idea of their being angels, is acknowledged even by those who adopt this view. “It cannot be denied,” says Delitzsch, “that the connection of Gen. 6:1–8 with Gen. 4 necessitates the assumption, that such intermarriages (of the Sethite and Cainite families) did take place about the time of the flood (cf. Matt. 24:38; Luke 17:27); and the prohibition of mixed marriages under the law (Ex. 34:16; cf. Gen. 27:46; 28:1ff.) also favours the same idea.”
—Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 83.

Daughters of men

Although I believe that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 refers to the Sethites, I do not insist that the “daughters of men” (bĕnôt hāʾādām) refers exclusively to Cainite or wicked women. Verse 1 speaks of human procreation in general by the collective use of “men” (hāʾādām), meaning “people,” as in Genesis 5:1b–2 (Genesis 6:5). “Daughters of men,” then, in v. 2 again refers to women regardless of parentage, but among these “daughters” are the offspring of Cain. The problem seems to be that the sons of God took “any of them they chose.” The Sethites’ crime seems to be not choosing wisely. Their unrestricted license accelerated the degeneracy of the whole human family.

The patriarchs traditionally married within their family (endogamy; see footnotes). Mosaic instructions prohibited intermarriage with Canaanite neighbors (Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:3), and special regulations carefully governed foreign marriages (Deuteronomy 23:7–8; 25:17–19). Moses’ generation had tasted the bitter fruit of foreign entanglements, which led them into sinful practices (Numbers 25). Old Testament history illustrates all too well how interreligious unions spelled disaster for Israel. This Sethite incident of intermarriage with the ungodly leads to the deterioration of the godly family; as a forewarning, it alerts the holy seed of Israel not to neglect God’s prohibition.

The actions of the “sons of God” are described in language reminiscent of Eve’s sin (Genesis 3:6): she “saw” that the fruit was “good” and “took.” Although the text specifies no sin or condemnation, the allusion to the garden rebellion suggests that the marriages are, in some way, tainted. As we already noted, there is no explicit indication of sexual coercion since the common idiom for marriage occurs here. The “daughters” silence could indicate willing complicity.

“Any of them they chose” does not necessarily mean polygamy. Diversity may be intended here; the “sons of God” selected wives from any family, including Cainite women. If so, the godly lineage exercised a freedom that goes awry when they embrace the unrighteous. Although Genesis does not explicitly state a prohibition, it contains much that is embryonic, but stated explicitly in Mosaic command (for example, “clean” and “unclean,” in Genesis 7:2). Later Israel could well have read this incident in light of Mosaic restrictions on intermarriage with non-Israelites. Since Genesis 6:2 deliberately echoes the garden temptation, perhaps this expression reflects the sinister trap of the serpent in Genesis 3:1. There the serpent challenges God’s veracity regarding the freedom of the woman to eat from any tree (as in Genesis 2:16). As a consequence of believing the snake, she rebels by unlawfully choosing the forbidden fruit. Similarly, these “sons of God” stumble by choosing wives from the forbidden lineage. (For a deeper dive, see  K. A. Mathews, 329–332.)

Although I find the Sethites, or those who follow God, as the most compelling interpretation of “sons of God,” no view escapes criticism. The mysterious identity of the “sons of God” continues to humble the expositor.

Nephilim

The identity of the “Nephilim” (Genesis 6:4) and their relationship, if any, to the marriages (Genesis 6:2) is perplexing. The word “Nephilim” occurs but once more, in Numbers 13:33, where it refers to an indigenous population inhabiting Canaan. I have an entire post dedicated to a deeper dive into this topic.

Conclusion

The expression "sons of God" can refer to heavenly beings, as we see in Job, but biblical language also describes God's people as His children. Therefore, the expression itself does not settle the question of identity. We must consider the immediate context of Genesis 6 alongside the broader biblical narrative. I find the Sethite interpretation most compelling because it connects the passage to the contrast between Cain's and Seth's descendants in Genesis 4–5. Although this interpretation has difficulties, I believe it offers the most coherent explanation of the passage's literary and theological context.

Takeaway

As long as we live in this sinful world, we experience a constant battle between good and evil. Genesis 3:15 prophesies enmity between the serpent and the woman, including between the woman's offspring and the serpent's. (Covered in greater detail in The First Judgment) We see evidence of this conflict in the story of Cain and Abel and the descendants of Cain and the descendants of Seth (who replaced Abel). The seed of the woman can be traced from Seth to Noah and, eventually, to Jesus (Luke 3:23-38). We see further language about the battle between good and evil in Revelation 12, where it describes the dragon being cast to the earth (with his angels) and persecuting the woman who gave birth to the male Child (Revelation 12:13). Revelation 12 ends with a description of the dragon making war with the rest of the offspring of the woman, those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ (Revelation 12:17).

In Noah's time, God judged the earth with a worldwide flood (Genesis 6:17). Revelation describes a judgment by fire (Revelation 20:14-15). The Bible describes the world's population as divided into two groups. Jesus describes the final judgment as a shepherd dividing the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:31-46). One group receives eternal life; the other, eternal punishment.

How does all this relate to Genesis 6:1-4? If we interpret the Sons of God as followers of God or children of God (Philippians 2:14-16; John 1:12-13), we see a warning for us. Jesus even makes a comparison between the last days and the days of Noah (Matthew 24:36-39). When we interpret the cause of the flood as heavenly beings procreating with human women, it distances the cause of the flood from our moral choices. But when we see ourselves as the sons of God, suddenly our faithfulness to God matters, and this is a stronger biblical link to all the judgment stories in the Bible. Whether angels or humans, our personal choice to follow God matters.

In Genesis 6, the sons of God see that the daughters of men were beautiful and took wives for themselves of all whom they chose (Genesis 6:2). Eve saw that the tree was pleasant to the eyes and took of it. Are you beginning to see a theme here?

For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world.
—1 John 2:16 NKJV

The central concern in Genesis 6 is humanity’s growing wickedness, not angelic-human procreation. 2 Timothy 3:1-9 warns about what the last days will be like, and the focus is on character. The correct interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 demythologizes it and warns all the children of God to remain faithful to Him.

Footnotes:

Angels and 1 Enoch
If you want to get more technical, the New Testament evidence presented for this interpretation is complicated by its exegetical obscurity and its uncertain relationship to Jewish pseudepigrapha, especially 1 Enoch (1 Pet 3:19–20; 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6, 14–15). First Enoch 1–36 tells of Enoch’s journeys following his translation (Gen 5:24). He is commissioned to forewarn the fallen angels who had sinned by cohabitation with human women (Gen 6:1–4); afterward the book recounts his universal travels, including his visit to the abyss, where he sees the imprisoned angels, detained until the final judgment. Anyone familiar with Jewish apocryphal literature will recognize that this interpretation of Gen 6:1–4 in 1 Enoch was widespread. Many commentators assume that Peter’s readers were familiar with this interpretation and that the apostle either alluded to 1 Enoch or he himself subscribed to the angel view in showing that the resurrected Christ, not Enoch, was Lord over evil and would triumph over hostile powers, including spiritual forces (1 Pet 3:19–20).

Endogamy examples: Abram married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12); Isaac married his cousin (24:15); and Jacob married his cousins Leah and Rachel (Genesis 29:12). Such family ties were primarily intended to preserve the family’s distinct religious heritage. Exogamy, marriage outside one’s group, was also known (Esau married Hittite and Canaanite wives, Genesis 26:34; 28:6–9). (For a deeper dive into this topic, see “Marriage (OT and ANE),” in the Yale Bible Dictionary, volume 4, pages 564-565)