The mysterious passage in Genesis 6:1-4 refers to the “sons of God” marrying the “daughters of men.” This has led to much debate and speculation regarding the identity of the “sons of God.” Here is an in-depth look at various interpretations of this cryptic passage.
The Sethite View
One view is that the “sons of God” were the godly descendants of Seth, Adam’s son. The “daughters of men” were the ungodly descendants of Cain. According to this view, Genesis 6 describes the intermarriage between the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain which led to the corruption and violence described later in the passage.
Advocates of this view point to passages like Genesis 4:26 which says that Seth’s son Enosh was associated with the beginning of calling on the Lord’s name. The implication is that Seth’s line was godly, while Cain’s line was wicked. Therefore, the intermarriage between the two groups led to the spread of wickedness and violence which precipitated the Flood.
A weakness of this view is that the text itself does not explicitly make a distinction between the descendants of Seth and Cain. Nor does it state that the “sons of God” were followers of God. This is inferred from other passages, but not directly stated here.
The Angel View
Another major view held by some scholars is that the “sons of God” were angels or other divine beings who married human women. This view understands the phrase “sons of God” as a reference to angels as it is used elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g. Job 1:6).
According to this perspective, Genesis 6 describes fallen angels or lesser divine beings who left their proper realm and habitation to marry human women and produce offspring. This unnatural union between angels and humans led to the birth of the Nephilim (Genesis 6:4) and the wickedness that precipitated the Flood.
Supporters of this view point to the fact that every other Old Testament use of the phrase “sons of God” refers to angels rather than humans. They also argue this unnatural union would help explain the extreme wickedness leading up to the Flood.
Critics claim this view depends too heavily on extrabiblical texts like 1 Enoch, and that it diminishes the human role in the sin leading up to the Flood. They also note that Jesus said angels do not marry (Mark 12:25), which raises questions about this perspective.
The Dynastic Ruler View
A third perspective holds that the “sons of God” were kings, nobles, or aristocrats who were controlled by lust and took wives as they chose. The “daughters of men” were ordinary women that they married.
According to this view, these powerful rulers were controlled by lust and fleshly desires. They married whomever they chose, which led to the corruption and violence in the world at that time. Their offspring through these marriages were the Nephilim, who were powerful warriors and tyrants.
Advocates claim this view fits with other Ancient Near Eastern literature where kings were sometimes referred to as gods or sons of gods. They also argue it avoids the difficulties with the angel view and better fits the human context of Genesis.
Critics counter that nowhere in Genesis are the “sons of God” equated with rulers. This view depends heavily on connections to other ANE literature rather than the text itself. The phrase “sons of God” also does not appear to refer to kings elsewhere in the Old Testament.
The Godly Line View
A fourth view agrees the “sons of God” were descendants of Seth, but this godly line included both sons and daughters. The sin was the intermarriage between the godly line of Seth and the ungodly Cainites.
This view claims the phrase “sons of God” was a general term for the godly line, including both men and women. Just as the New Testament can speak of “sons of the resurrection” and include daughters (Luke 20:36), so can “sons of God” refer to both godly men and women.
Therefore, Genesis 6 refers generally to the intermarriage between Seth’s godly descendants and Cain’s ungodly descendants. This mingling led to the diffusion of wickedness and violence throughout humanity.
Critics argue this dilutes the masculine emphasis in the text. The context also focuses specifically on men marrying women rather than a general intermingling of lines. So this view faces exegetical hurdles despite offering a Sethite interpretation.
The Messianic View
A fifth perspective sees the “sons of God” as messianic figures whose marriages perverted the messianic line. H.C. Leupold advocated this view, seeing the marriages as Satan’s attempt to impede the coming of the Messiah.
On this reading, the “sons of God” were most likely Seth’s descendants but were specifically those in the messianic line leading to Noah. The marriages with the “daughters of men” were an attempt to corrupt and pervert the line leading to the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
Leupold connects this to Genesis 3:15 and the promise of a seed who would crush Satan but also have his heel bruised by him. The marriages in Genesis 6 were an attempt to sabotage the messianic line.
Critics counter that the text itself does not indicate these were messianic figures. This view depends heavily on inferred background about a wider biblical theology of messianic hope rather than the specifics in the text.
The Tyrants View
A final view agrees with the dynastic rulers perspective but gives it a negative slant. On this reading, the “sons of God” were powerful despots who took wives from among the common people.
Ronald Youngblood was a key proponent of this position. He argues the phrase “sons of God” refers to kings and tyrants who were controlled by lust and power. They took wives from ordinary people, which led to extreme corruption and wickedness on the earth.
Youngblood sees this lust for power and women on the part of oppressive rulers as the primary sin leading to the Flood. The emphasis is on tyrannical rulers abusing their power in destructive ways.
Critics contend that the text itself does not portray the “sons of God” as inherently evil or tyrants. Nor does it directly associate them with abuse of power. So this perspective depends more on reading a negative connotation into the text.
The Ongoing Debate
There are good arguments on various sides of this debate. In the end, no consensus has emerged on the exact identity of the “sons of God.” Faithful interpreters differ on whether it refers to rulers, angels, Sethites, or some other group.
But regardless of the specific view adopted, the overall context seems to convey that the mixing or marriages between the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” led to increases in wickedness and corruption in the world. This ultimately precipitated God’s judgment through the Flood.
The Nephilim offspring also display the consequences of unrestrained lust and power. So the passage serves as a warning against the abuses that arise from power and lust out of control, regardless of the precise identities.
While the Nephilim arise from ungodly marriages, Noah arises as the shining example of righteousness amidst the corruption. His faithful walk with God contrasts the agenda of the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” in pervading the world with wickedness.
The overall story sets up the themes of sin, judgment, and redemption that will continue through Genesis and beyond. And it highlights God’s desire to save the righteous even as he judges the unrighteousness that opposes his good design for human flourishing.
