The “Sons of God” in Genesis 6:1–4: A Rhetorical Characterization

By Thomas A. Keiser

[Thomas A. Keiser is a professor and department chair of the Department of Biblical Studies and Christian Ministry at Regent University’s College of Arts and Sciences, Virginia Beach, VA.]

ABSTRACT

The identity of the referent of the “sons of God” in Gen 6 is a notorious and complex problem. Its complexity results from not only the number of issues involved, but their interrelationships as well. There is no consensus on the identity of the referent, principally due to the difficulty in harmonizing all of the various complexities.

The first matter considered is whether the “sons of God” should be understood as human or, in some manner, divine. A number of problems arise if they are understood as being divine, and the fact that judgment was carried out on humanity, and that within a larger context of a series of judgments upon humanity, seems to require that those involved in the story be understood as human. The issue then becomes explaining the human referents and the meaning of the expression “sons of God.”

From a contextual and literary review, a seemingly natural explanation surfaces. The broader context of the Primeval Narrative presents humanity’s seizing for itself rights which, according to the narrative presentation, lie only with God. Thus, they sinned by seeking to “be like God.” The analysis of the narrower context of Gen 5 and the literary features of Gen 6:1–4 indicate that the presentation of the narrator is probably designed to feature the corrupt character of humanity’s spreading throughout the earth. Utilizing numerous direct allusions to the fall, humanity’s character is portrayed as the full fruition of the sin of the man and woman in Eden, who seized autonomy in an attempt to be like God. God himself assesses humanity, which has multiplied and become great—that is, “like God”—and declares that they are actually nothing but evil. If this is an accurate assessment of the narrative flow, then it is quite easy to understand the expression “sons of God” as simply one of numerous rhetorical features used to portray humankind in all its pride and arrogance.

That is, it is an expression which sarcastically characterizes humanity, specifically the man, from his own perspective of greatness.

-------------

I. Introduction

The identity of the referent of the “sons of God” in Gen 6 is a notorious and complex problem. Its complexity results from not only the number of issues involved, but their interrelationships as well. A partial list of these issues is (1) the referent of “daughters of men,” (2) the referent of nephilim, (3) the nature of the sin, if any, in 6:2, (4) the relationship of v. 4 to vv. 1–3, (5) the relationship of the judgment to the offense, (6) the relationship of these verses to the preceding narrative, (7) the relationship of these verses to the following narrative, (8) the degree to which this story is affected by ancient Near Eastern mythology, and (9) how understanding the passage might be impacted by Jude and 1 Peter.[1]

Attempts to identify the sons of God in Gen 6 date back to the second century BC. As evidenced in Second Temple literature, the earliest known approach was to consider the “sons of God” to be angels. Not long into the first century AD rabbis began to question this approach; nevertheless, the angelic view continued in early Christianity for many years.[2] Then, with the advent of the Enlightenment, the focus of attention moved to the supposed mythological nature of the story, which was thought to be an awkward insertion into the Primeval History.[3[ Finally, in the latter twentieth century, scholars made an effort to relate Gen 6:1–4 to its own literary context. This last approach resulted in more contextual suggestions for the identity of the sons of God, such as human kings, the descendants of Seth, and angels who were part of “the divine counsel.”[4] This latter idea seems to be the current consensus among conservative scholars.

Unfortunately, due to frequent discussions of this passage, both popular and scholastic, it is extremely difficult to consider the identity of the “sons of God” with any type of fresh perspective. As van Gemeren states, “It is sobering to recognize how difficult it is to read the passage without preconceived ideas.”[5]

Since pre-conceived notions are so influential, and this particular issue is so complex, the following discussion will proceed in a systematic manner, working through the various issues, beginning with the most inclusive categories. The first matter to be considered is whether the “sons of God” should be understood as human or, in some manner, divine. After arguing that the context seems to require that they be understood as human, the discussion will move to a consideration of the exact nature of that human presentation. It will be argued that the expression “sons of God” is intended as a rhetorical and satirical allusion to human beings who have assumed for themselves divine prerogatives.

II. Human or “Divine”?

A fundamental question in determining the referent of the “sons of God” is: Are they human or, in one way or another, divine? If this issue can be resolved with any confidence, the number of remaining options will be significantly reduced, thus facilitating further resolution. In the following section the various options will be evaluated.

1. Divine: Gods or God-Human Combination

The most widely suggested option for the “sons of God” being divine has been that Gen 6:1–4 is either a remnant, or possibly a polemic, of ancient Canaanite mythological accounts. The former idea is common among those who approach the subject from a diachronic perspective and/or see the biblical accounts as representative of a development of one or more ancient Near Eastern religions. The strength of this view is that similar ancient Near Eastern myths clearly existed, and therefore, by analogy, one might well expect to find the same phenomenon in Israel. However, there are significant problems with this perspective. It is unlikely that such an obvious remnant of myth would remain in a text which is widely recognized as having been carefully demythologized. That is, it is difficult to conceive that such meticulous demythologization would overlook such an obvious fragment.

In contrast to those who see a mythical character to this passage, some suggest that it represents some form of polemic on, or at least an allusion to, ancient mythology. There are many suggestions along these lines. For example, Childs states that the heart of the myth has been destroyed, but re-employed by the Yahwist to demonstrate opposition to God.[6] Van Wolde takes the position that this passage represents mythology rather than history, but with the narrator relating it to the actual past of the readers and thus demythologizing the nephilim.[7] Along the same general lines, Hendel argues that Gen 6:1–4 is a story of the mingling of gods and mortals which results in the procreation of demigods, employed by the Yahwist to preface the flood with a more purely ethical motive.[8] Breukelman argues that this is a critique of the myths of the goyim, suggesting that “the answer as to why this fragment was included in this form and in this place must be because they wished to point to the giants and heroes of pagan mythology and to declare as emphatically as possible who is not the true representative human among humankind.”[9]

Others suggest a more human emphasis to the story while still maintaining a mythological relationship. Westermann suggests that mythological language serves to functionally describe a human phenomenon, and that the only thing divine about the “sons of God” is the superior power that enables them to take what they want.[10] Others prefer to understand the narrative as a direct polemic. For example, Cassuto suggests that the narrator is stating: “In other words: Do not believe the gentile myths concerning men of divine origin who became immortal. This is untrue, for in the end all men must die … because they, too, are flesh.”[11] He goes on to argue that the intended point is that, in contrast to the content of pagan myths, the giants did not become gods, and that this is not a relic of ancient myths, but a composition to “contradict the pagan legends, and to reduce the content of the ancient traditions regarding the giants to a minimum.”[12]

The most significant difficulty with all of these mythological views is that they do not fit well into the narrative flow of the larger context of Gen 1–11. This problem has been widely recognized, even by proponents of this approach, who, as mentioned above, see this passage as an account which is inserted awkwardly into the larger context.[13]

A couple of suggestions have been made, however, which attempt to relate the pericope to the broader context of the flood account while still maintaining some form of a mythological understanding. Mann suggests that the passage has a blatant mythological background, but its original purpose of explaining the presence of giants on earth has been dramatically changed to fit the introduction of the flood story.[14] The concern with this view is the often cited problem that the flood appears to be a judgment upon humanity rather than upon divine beings, mythological or otherwise.

A proposal which, in my opinion, makes the best attempt at considering the broader context of Gen 1–11 while viewing the “sons of God” as divine, is that of Clines. He connects the account with the prior narrative by proposing that the “sons of God” are both divine beings and antediluvian rulers.[15] He suggests that monogamy, first broken by Lamech, and now totally destroyed, presents deterioration as testified in other aspects of the Primeval History. Thus, the union of divine beings and humans corrupted the image of God as resting in man by improperly representing him through royal violence and despotic authority. In this model, the reference to descendants as “men of name” (“notorious men”) alludes to Cain naming his city, while simultaneously foreshadowing the Babel debacle, with all of the “name” terminology serving to dishonor the one whose name should be proclaimed, namely, Elohim. The sin, as he suggests elsewhere, is not the union of the divine and human, as proposed by others, but rather violence and hubris.[16] Therefore, he proposes that the idea is not whether the “sons of God” are human or divine, but rather that they are antediluvian rulers whose origins were traditionally simply considered to be semi-divine.[17] Although the suggestion presented in this article is similar in many ways to that of Clines, it will be argued that, contrary to his proposal, whether the “sons of God” are human or divine is very important and plays a significant rhetorical function in both the narrower and broader contexts.

2. Divine: Angels

The initial impression when reading Gen 6:1–4 is usually to understand the “sons of God” as a reference to angelic beings. This perspective is normally based upon other biblical expressions similar to “sons of God,” NT passages such as Jude and 2 Peter, or simply tradition. However, a closer consideration reveals considerable difficulties with this common view, even more so than with the mythological perspective. The following discussion will consider those difficulties and attempt to demonstrate that they are, in fact, insurmountable.

Contextual Considerations. Contextual factors present serious problems with the view that the “sons of God” are angelic beings. Genesis 6:2 presents a situation which results in God’s judgment upon humanity by some type of limitation on life (v. 3).[18] Further, the verses immediately following emphasize the wickedness of humanity, all but explicitly stating: “The flood is because of human sin.”

However, lest there be any question, Yahweh’s post-flood comment removes all doubt as to the narrator’s perspective regarding the identity of the guilty party: “I will not again curse the ground because of the man” (Gen 8:21).[19]

Not only does this immediate context present difficulties for understanding the “sons of God” as angels, so does the broader context. This episode follows the widely recognized pattern established and repeatedly utilized throughout Gen 1–11, namely, the cycle of sin and judgment. In Gen 3 the man and woman disobey God and are judged. The same phenomenon occurs in Gen 4 with Cain, later in Gen 6–8 with the flood, and in Gen 11 with Babel. A review of each case reveals that the sinful action of humanity is met with divine judgment upon the guilty party. Therefore, if the offenders in Gen 6 are understood to be angels, the story of the “sons of God” reflects an abrupt and rather dramatic change in this pattern in that judgment for sin is applied to other than the guilty party.

In an attempt to address this problem, Wenham has suggested that judgment on human beings is appropriate in that they are actually at fault in the “sons of God” story. He attributes sin to the daughters of men through conjecture that they agreed to sexual intercourse with the sons of the gods.[20] The obvious problem with this idea is that it is speculative and without any basis in the narrative. Actually, the women are featured as neither prominent nor responsible characters in that they are portrayed as passive objects, and even that in only one aspect of the story. Another problem with Wenham’s suggestion is that, in each of the previous sin-judgment cycles, the reason for judgment has been explicitly articulated. If the basis for the judgment in this story was the sin of women, the narrative presentation would again have taken an abrupt and dramatic change in pattern from the greater context in that, not only is the sin not explicitly stated, but also the putatively responsible individuals, and the ones receiving judgment, are only portrayed as minor and passive characters. This scenario seems to be highly unlikely.

Another suggestion has been made by Peterson who proposes that there is an intended change from the cycle of sin-judgment, proposing that it is irony on the part of the narrator.[21] Although his argument is unconvincing for various reasons, of greater importance is that it only attempts to explain the change in the literary presentation and does not deal with the logical and ethical problem of humanity being judged even though they are the apparent victims rather than offenders.

Second Temple Literature. The support of Second Temple literature for considering the “sons of God” to be angels is frequently seen as trumping any contextual problems. Although the fact that Second Temple literature, most notably 1 Enoch, treats Gen 6 as referring to angels is indisputable,[22] the question arises as to whether this treatment should be understood as correct and/or authoritative for our own understanding of Gen 6. One must ask whether this material may simply represent an early perspective on the biblical text.

Of further concern is that, as Keil pointed out long ago, only one of the multiple references to punishment of angels in 1 Enoch is directly associated with the Genesis account (see 18:14, 15; 21:3; 54:3–6; 90:21, 24).[23] Accordingly, it is unclear whether these passages are based on the Genesis account, or if the one clear allusion to Gen 6 in 1 Enoch could simply be a reference to a biblical text as a proof text for the writer’s own proposition that the cosmos has been impacted by fallen angels. Or, to put it more simply, is 1 Enoch interpreting Gen 6, or rather using Gen 6 as support for the worldview which he is presenting? Both of these possibilities undermine using this material as an authoritative indication of the proper interpretation of the referent of “sons of God” in Gen 6:2.

New Testament. If the Second Temple literature stood by itself, it would carry less significance for our discussion. However, this material seems to be validated by NT texts (Jude 6 and 2 Pet 2:4–5). Unfortunately, as with Second Temple literature, these biblical passages are complicated by their own exegetical obscurity and their uncertain relationship with Jewish pseudepigrapha.[24]

Of first consideration is the fact that these passages do not explicitly refer to the Genesis account. Although Jude does appear to make a direct reference to 1 Enoch, which itself seems to refer to Gen 6, it does not necessarily follow that Jude is validating Enoch’s perspective of that story. In fact, Charles argues that the opposite may be true. He asserts that Jude’s omission of explicit references to the flood and Noah may represent a conscious attempt to avoid the perception of an endorsement of a “common intertestamental speculative theology surrounding the ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of men’ in Gen. 6:1–4.”[25] Charles proceeds to argue for understanding Jude’s use of Enoch, not as an endorsement, but rather as an integral part of a literary strategy in which he exploits a work highly regarded among his readers.[26]

Charles’s approach is supported by Jude’s description of the specific sin of the angels. In Jude and 1 Enoch, angels are said to have not kept their rule or place of rule (ἀρχή), and to have left their abode. This does not correspond to Gen 6 in which neither rule nor abode is at issue. If Charles is correct, the presentation by Jude is a direct reference to 1 Enoch rather than Gen 6 and is accomplished in a way which does not correspond to or endorse the Genesis account.[27]

In a more recent article somewhat related to the approach taken by Charles, Davids presents a solid argument that the writers of the Catholic Epistles read the narrative stories of the Hebrew Scriptures through the lenses of Second Temple literature.[28] Accordingly, the usage in those letters of a literary strategy which exploited that literature would be expected. If Davids’s proposal is valid, then there is even more caution against taking Jude and 2 Peter as authoritative portrayals of the events recounted in Gen 6.

Even if one might argue on some basis that 2 Peter and Jude support the view that the “sons of God” are angels, one must then deal with other NT references which argue against this position by their characterization of the ontology and function of angels. For example, Heb 1:7, 14 present angels as spiritual rather than corporeal beings. Additionally, Jesus seems to state that angels are without procreative powers (see Matt 22:30; Mark 12:25).[29] If, in an attempt to alleviate this latter difficulty, one might speculate that by taking on human form (e.g., demon possession[30]) angels became empowered to procreate, then one opens the door to all of the corresponding issues of nature. That is, one of the arguments of the angelic view of Gen 6 is that the nephilim refer to superior beings produced by the union of angels and human women. However, if the angels procreated by possessing human bodies, then from a biological perspective the children would be completely human. For them to be anything else requires some type of “DNA contribution” from the divine beings and would therefore necessitate the angels becoming part human and part angelic—a problematic proposition, to say the least.[31]

Related to the foregoing discussion, some additional problems regarding the ontology and function of angels have been suggested: (1) nephilim elsewhere refers to humans rather than divine-human beings, as is commonly suggested in the angelic view; (2) the context of the Primeval History has presented the blessing of procreation as specifically conferred on animals and humanity (Gen 1:22, 28), with no mention of any similar blessing regarding angels; and (3) there is no biblical precedent for angels marrying human beings, nor is there any for angels assuming human bodies (versus appearing in human-like form).[32]

Miscellaneous Issues. Two less significant arguments in support of the view that “sons of God” are angels are (1) the usage of the expression “sons of God” for angels elsewhere in the OT, and (2) a possible linguistic parallel with the Ugaritic “sons of El.” However, it has been suggested that the latter observation may actually present an argument against the angelic view. As Westermann points out, the expression “sons of El” actually refers to true divine beings, not angels.[33] As for the expression being used for angels elsewhere in the OT, Walton sees a problem regarding the significance of these references, noting that there are only three such occurrences (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). His assertion is that, due to this limited lexical base, one should not make “sweeping statements about exclusiveness in the semantic range of the phrase.”[34] Thus, these observations which are sometimes made in support of the “sons of God” being angels are, in and of themselves, inconclusive.

Summary of the Angelic View. Critiques of the various arguments for the angelic view reveal that it is not as solidly supportable as is generally supposed.

Additionally, this view has what appears to be a fatal flaw. The apparent requirement of the Gen 1–11 context that the offense in which God intervenes is that of humanity is, in my opinion, so strong that it seems to preclude this conclusion.

3. Human: Overview

It has been suggested in the foregoing discussion that, in view of the immediate and wider context, the referent of the “sons of God” seems to be best understood as human beings. However, scholars holding this view have encountered their own set of difficulties in explaining the specific nuance of the expression, such as (1) why would the narrator choose to refer to human beings in this manner? (2) Who are the nephilim? (3) What is the significance for the storyline of the mention of the nephilim and gibborim and notorious men? (4) What scenario with reference to the foregoing questions explains the placement of this story into its context within the Primeval History? The following discussion will review the strengths and weaknesses of common suggestions and then propose another possibility.

4. Human: “Sethites”

One approach taking the “sons of God” as human has been to understand them to be “Sethites,” that is, as the “sons” of the “sons and daughters” mentioned in the genealogy of Gen 5. In this scenario, the “daughters of men” are identified as “Cainites,” that is, as women born into the genealogy of Cain in Gen 4. The “Sethites” are assumed to be “the faithful” while the “Cainites” are understood to be “the unfaithful,” with the sin being inappropriate intermarriage. Used in support of this view is the fact that there exist Pentateuchal references to Israel as children of God (e.g., Deut 14:1; 32:5–6; and, similarly, Exod 4.2; Ps 73:15; 80:15). These references are assumed to function as precedents for calling “the faithful” “sons of God.” Additionally, it is averred that this proposition makes sense of the context of Gen 1–11 in that “the faithful” (“Sethites”) are to be understood as being distinguished from “the unfaithful” (“Cainites”) in that they comprise two separate genealogies.

There are a number of significant arguments against this suggestion. For example, it requires a change in meaning of adam between the first two verses of Gen 6. That is, the first usage of this term would refer to humankind in general while the second usage would refer to a specific genealogy. Although some scholars argue for this possibility, most see it as arbitrary, thus, as proposed by Waltke, placing the burden of proof on the one who would argue for such a change in meaning.[35]

Other problems with this idea are that (1) nowhere are “Sethites” called “sons of God,” and, (2) nowhere are they characterized as more godly than the “Cainites.” First, the very idea of “Sethites” and “Cainites” as separate and distinct categories of people is an imposition on the text. Actually, based on the introduction to the genealogy of ch. 5, the “sons” there referenced would be more properly labeled “Adamites.” With the line of descent presented as those born in Adam’s image, the textual emphasis appears to be on Adam with Seth simply being the next in a series of genealogical entries. Second, the presentation of the genealogy of Gen 5 is not featured in a positive manner. Its portrayal is actually strongly negative in that there is a redundant emphasis on death throughout.[36] The fact that this redundancy is removed in the continuation of this same genealogical form in Gen 11 argues all the more for its intended negative focus in ch. 5. Thus, the “Sethites,” who are actually “Adamites,” are presented as those born in the image and likeness of Adam and therefore under the curse of death, as was Adam. There seems to be no contextual basis, therefore, for understanding Gen 5 to be a narrative presentation of a faithful hereditary line.[37]

One final, yet significant problem with the “Sethite” view is that it does not explain the narrator’s presentation of the nephilim, much less their contribution to the storyline. Thus, although it represents an attempt to identify the “sons of God” as human, with some type of relationship to the context, this view contains too many unresolved difficulties.

5. Human: Despotic Rulers

Another suggestion for a human understanding of the “sons of God” is that they are kings, with their sin being despotic rule and a sinful practice of polygamy. This view, it is proposed, has the benefit of combining the ancient Near Eastern practices of royal harems and sacral kingship. The nephilim in this scenario are understood to be princes rather than giants, great men who were infamous for their cruelty.

As with the “Sethite” suggestion, this view also encounters a number of problems. First, since there has been no mention of kingship yet in the context, it becomes problematic to understand the narrator using an opaque term to introduce characters (kings) who do not even appear until chs. 10 and 14. Even when kings do appear, they are portrayed as neither despots nor creators of harems.[38] Secondly, there is no biblical evidence of groups of kings called “sons of God,” and the application of a sacral kingship idea would be, at least from a contextual perspective, anachronistic. Thirdly, both the sins of despotic rule and polygamy are inferences. However, the most significant problem with this view is the explicit textual presentation of the reason for the flood. Genesis 6:5, followed by an even more explicit statement in vv. 11–13, refers to the iniquity of humankind at large as the cause of destruction, not the sinfulness of a select and privileged few.

6. Human: Judges

A variant of the kingship view suggests that the “sons of God” were judges. This perspective uses biblical texts that utilize the term elohim for judges as precedent.[39] In this case the nephilim are not offspring, but contemporaries. One obvious question raised by this position is why the mention of the nephilim? Further, this view also assumes both corrupt leadership and polygamy, which are not mentioned in the text. However, most significant is, once again, that the cause of the flood is presented as general human wickedness rather than the sinfulness of a few.

7. Humans: Rhetorical Allusion to Genesis 3

There is another possible scenario, identifiable from a contextual analysis, which does not seem to introduce its own set of problems, as do the other options discussed above. This perspective views the expression as a satirical reference to humankind which rhetorically characterizes them as those who desire to be like God. As an allusion to Gen 3, it refers to humans as “sons,” but not of Adam, Seth, or Cain, but rather in a manner which reflects their own warped self-conception, namely, God-like.

When viewing the story from this perspective, the problems commonly encountered with the human view dissipate quite naturally. First, the most fundamental problem with most views, human or otherwise, is resolved. God’s judgment in the flood is carried out upon the guilty party. Second, the reason for the narrator employing the difficult expression “sons of God” becomes clear—it is an ironic reference to the desire of humans to be like God. As will be discussed below, this characterization meshes well with the mention of the nephilim, gibborim, and notorious men, and, when combined with it, intentionally portrays the entire episode in a specific manner, namely, as a contrast between divine and human perspectives.

III. “Sons of God” as a Rhetorical Allusion

To appreciate the impact of the expression “sons of God” as a rhetorical allusion, it is helpful to understand it within the rhetoric and storyline of creation through the flood. The following discussion will review the manner in which “sons of God” as a rhetorical allusion meshes into that larger narrative, while simultaneously presenting a very specific character of the days before the flood.

1. Creation to the Flood

Genesis begins with a description of the perfection of God’s creation, characterized in terms of fullness and vitality of life (Gen 1:1–2:3).[40] Although the seven day account is presented from God’s perspective in that the purposes, actions, and evaluations are his alone, he chooses to have humanity represent him in his creation.

The Eden and Cain narratives then present what happened to this creation in the hands of humanity. The man and the woman try to become godlike themselves. But in their disobedience and distrust of God, they bring death upon themselves and a curse upon their sphere of influence. Then, in Gen 5, the curse of death is portrayed as spreading from generation to generation in a genealogical form which emphasizes death.[41] Finally, corruption fills the earth and culminates in God’s destruction of the earth with a flood. Thus, the overall storyline is (1) God creates a realm of life which he evaluates as good, (2) he places humanity over that realm, (3) humanity takes upon himself divine prerogatives, (4) corruption results, and (5) God sees the corruption and brings judgment.

Within this storyline, the “sons of God” episode clarifies the basis for the judgment of the world as the corruption of humanity. As it does so, it focuses on a contrast in perspectives between God and humanity. As will be discussed below, humankind saw those days as an era which epitomized their greatness, while God saw it as nothing but corrupt.

2. The Sons of God Story

The sons of God story begins with a description of the setting. It was the time when mankind (literally, “the man”) was increasing on the earth and daughters were being born. This particular description seems somewhat strange until the allusions are recognized. The awkward wording simultaneously alludes to two situations which have already appeared in the Genesis narrative. The multiplication of “the man” (רָבַב) corresponds to God’s creation blessing for humanity to multiply (רָבַה) on the earth. Daughters being born corresponds to “and begot sons and daughters” in the genealogy of ch. 5.[42] Thus, the description of the setting simultaneously invokes both God’s intent that humanity fill the earth as his representative and what actually occurred, namely, the filling of the earth with death and corruption.

Following the characterization of the setting, the story’s action is simple: the “sons of God” saw and took, and God responded. The significance of that action, however, is indicated in the same way as was the setting, namely, with more allusions to the previous narratives. The sons of God “saw” (רָאָה) “that” (כִּי) something was “good” (טוֹב).[43] This expression occurs in two prior situations. It is first used repeatedly in Gen 1 and represents the action of the sovereign creator who evaluated what he had made. This concept of evaluation again appears when humanity takes to themselves the right to autonomously assess for themselves when the woman “saw” (רָאָה) “that” (כִּי) the forbidden fruit was “good” (טוֹב). By using the wording of seeing what was good, the narrator contrasts the sin of the garden with God’s evaluations in Gen 1. God, as the creator and ultimate authority, sees and evaluates. Humanity, created to represent God, tries to become like God by independently seeing and evaluating. And now, in Gen 6, by using the same words in the same combination, the narrator invokes that situation.[44] God’s authoritative evaluation is contrasted with humanity’s self-serving evaluation. Thus, the action of the story is characterized in the same way as the setting. God’s purposes in creation are contrasted with humanity’s corruption of those purposes. God’s perspective is contrasted with humanity’s self-serving perspective.

Following the presentation of the action of the “sons of God” the narrator gives God’s response, namely, judgment. As might be expected in light of the characterization of the actions of the “sons of God,” God’s response is presented in a manner which explicitly focuses on his perspective. Humanity evaluates and takes for itself. God evaluates and judges.

Lest this contrast in perspectives be missed, the narrator inserts a background comment in the middle of the presentation of God’s response by giving another description of the character of that time period. The time when the “sons of God” took the daughters of men was the era of the nephilim, who were mighty and notorious men.[45] The premise of this article is that this description, like “sons of God,” is satirical. It paints a sarcastic picture of those days as seen from humanity’s own vantage point. Those were the glory days of humankind, when “all the women [were] strong, all the men good-looking, and all the children above average.”[46] Understood in this manner, the description of the basis for the flood presents a consistent picture: Humanity has corrupted God’s intention for his creation. Humanity’s functioning based on its own self-serving perspective is in direct opposition to God’s perspective of what is good and intended in his creation. The result must be judgment.

3. The Sin of Genesis 6:2

Although the overall flow of the story seems relatively straightforward, one finer point which is a common subject of discussion was the exact nature of the sin, if any, in v. 2. A variety of suggestions are proposed, some of which were discussed above. The following discussion will propose a variation which not only meshes well with the overall perspective taken in this article, but directly contributes to the “sons of God” story.

Those who see the “sons of God” as referring to humanity generally take the sin to be polygamy. Although it is commonly noted that “taking” (לָקַח) a wife or wives simply describes entering into marriage,[47] a closer look at the early usages of this expression, especially within the context of the Primeval History, raises an interesting alternative, and one which contributes to the picture painted of the days before the flood.

The expression “taking a wife” first appears in Gen 4:19 with Lamech. Subsequent usages are Gen 11:29 (Abram and Nahor); 12:19 (Pharaoh and Sarah); 20:3 (Abimelek and Sarah); 21:21 (Hagar taking Ishmael a wife from Egypt); Gen 24:3–4, 7, 37–38, 40, 51 (servant taking a wife for Isaac); 26:34 (Esau taking Hittite wives); etc. Most of these early usages appear in some type of negative context, raising the question as to whether this expression may connote something other than simply a neutral reference to marriage. I propose that this expression actually connotes the arrogance of a male-dominated society in a manner which features the development of the curse of Eden (“he will dominate you”).

Before relegating this suggestion to putative biases of feminist criticism, one must consider it within the context of the Primeval History. In Gen 2, the narrator provides a poetic comment regarding the nature of marriage, stating “For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother and cling to his wife.” This seems to be quite a different idea than a man taking a wife, especially considering the difference between the concepts and usages of “taking” (לָקַח) and “clinging” (דָבַק).[48] If the concepts expressed by “taking” and “clinging” are, in fact, quite different, what, then, would explain the reason for the narrator’s subsequent change in wording when referring to marriage? In considering this question, one is immediately reminded of the judgment pronounced by God in Gen 3. A primary consequence of the sin of humanity was that the unity between a man and woman was disrupted. The woman would seek to dominate the man while he would subjugate her. In view of this change in relationship, it is quite understandable to encounter a rhetorical switch in the narrator’s presentation of marriage to something other than complete harmony and unity. If this proposal is valid, then subsequent to and consistent with the curse, a man could be characterized as taking wives rather than clinging to a wife. The suggestion that the expression represents the negative connotation of disruption in creatorial harmony is supported by the fact that its first occurrence is in connection with Lamech taking two wives, as well as by the connection between Gen 6 and Gen 3 with the usage of the terms “seeing” (רָאָה) “that” (כִּי) something is “good” (טוֹב). Thus, there seems to be a significant contextual basis for understanding “taking wives” as presenting, not just polygamy, as often asserted, but as an additional and intentional allusion to the characterization of the effects of the fall. This idea may be further supported by Jesus’ characterization of the era of the flood as a time of marrying and giving in marriage. That is, it could be understood as a time in which men took and gave wives as it pleased them, in contrast to God’s intention that men cling to their wives as their own flesh.[49]

If the above proposal is valid, the rhetoric of the “sons of God” story comes into even clearer focus. Not only were “those days” the glory days of humanity—which God saw as evil—but the manner in which they are described alludes to the corruption of divine intentions for creation. Those were the days in which God’s blessing to fill the earth was accomplished, but with wickedness. Those were the days when human kind continued to “see” and “take,” just as in Eden. Those were also the days when their seeing and taking reflected the degeneration of the unity of man and woman.

4. “Sons of God” vs. “Daughters of Men”

A problem encountered by those who understand the “sons of God” to be human is the apparent contrast between the expressions “sons of God” and “daughters of men.” If both the sons and the daughters were human, why would the narrator use terminology which presents an apparent contrast? This problem is frequently addressed by the suggestion (with variations) that the sons were “Sethites” and the daughters were “Cainites,” or by the suggestion that the “sons of God” were dynastic rulers. However, since these ideas are problematic, as discussed above, this contrast of terminology must still be addressed. The connotation of “taking” wives as argued above lays the groundwork for an explanation which fits well into both the larger and more immediate context. If the narrator is intentionally portraying the days prior to the flood as a time when, in a manner predicted in Gen 3, men subjugated women and took wives according to their pleasure rather than marrying in the more humble and devoted way implied by “clinging,” then a characterization which pictured the men as proud and arrogant (“sons of God,” in contrast to the more neutral expression used for the women) would be quite appropriate, contributing to the rhetorical presentation of the days preceding the flood.

IV. Conclusion

The most fundamental problem associated with identification of the referents of the expression “sons of God” is whether they should be understood as human or divine. Although there are a number of problems with the view that they are divine, the fact that judgment was carried out on humanity—and that within a larger context of a series of judgments upon humanity—seems to require that those involved in the story be understood as human. The issue then becomes explaining the human referents and meaning of the expression “sons of God.”

From a contextual and literary review, a seemingly natural explanation surfaces. The broader context of the Primeval Narrative presents humanity’s seizing for itself rights which, according to the narrative presentation, lie only with God. Thus, they sinned by seeking to “be like God.” The analysis of the narrower context of Gen 5 and the literary features of Gen 6:1–4 indicates that the presentation of the narrator is probably designed to feature the corrupt character of humanity’s spreading throughout the earth. Utilizing numerous direct allusions to the fall, humanity’s character is portrayed as the full fruition of the sin of the man and woman in Eden, who seized autonomy in an attempt to be like God.[50] God himself assesses humanity, which has multiplied and become great, that is, “like God,” and declares that they are actually nothing but evil. If this is an accurate assessment of the narrative flow, then it is quite easy to understand the expression “sons of God” as simply one of numerous rhetorical features used to portray humankind in all its pride and arrogance. That is, this is an expression which sarcastically characterizes humanity, specifically the man,[51] from his own perspective of greatness. These are those who have seized for themselves the right to be godlike. These are the “sons of God.”

The significance of this study is twofold. First, a solution to a problematic text is proposed, one which seems to address all of the heretofore noted difficulties. However, second, and more important, it provides a clearer understanding of the narrator’s characterization of the situation leading up to the judgment of the flood. Not only was the earth entirely corrupt, but the nature of that corruption is emphasized, namely, a contrast between human and divine perspectives. The fact that the basis for the flood is characterized in this manner indicates that this contrast is a fundamental concern in the human-divine relationship. As would be expected, with this being the case, this same issue continues to surface in various ways throughout Scripture. As those who seek to represent God in this world in which we live, it would serve us well to consciously and continually be humbly mindful of our propensity to view things from a worldly and human, rather than divine, perspective, and the serious consequences which can result.

Notes

1. Although the nature of the 120 years of v. 3 is another question associated with this passage, it doesn’t seem to be perceived by scholars as a factor in identifying the “sons of God.”
2. For a review of Second Temple literature and rabbinic interpretation, see Ferdinand Dexinger, “Jüdisch-Christliche Nachgeschichte von Gen 6, 1–4, ” in Zur Aktualität des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für Georg Sauer zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Siegfried Kreuzer and Kirt Lüthi (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1992), 155–75.
3. E.g., Brevard S. Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology 27 (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1960); John Day, “The Sons of God and Daughters of Men and the Giants: Disputed Points in the Interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4, ” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1 (2012): 427–47; Ronald S. Hendel, “When the Sons of God Cavorted with the Daughters of Men,” Biblical Review 3 (1987): 8–13; Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 1:371.
4. These suggestions will be discussed below.
5. Willem A. van Gemeren, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1–4: An Example of Evangelical Demythologization?,” WTJ 42 (1981): 332.
6. Childs, Myth and Reality, 57.
7. Ellen van Wolde, Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1–11, BibInt 6 (New York: Brill, 1994), 63–74.
8. Hendel, “When the Sons of God Cavorted.”
9. Franz H. Breukelman, “The Story of the Sons of God Who Took the Daughters of Humans as Wives,” in Voices from Amsterdam: A Modern Tradition of Reading Biblical Narrative, ed. Martin Kessler (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 93, emphasis original.
10. Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 371–72.
11. Umberto Cassuto, “The Episode of the Sons of God and the Daughters of Man (Genesis vi 1–4),” in Biblical and Oriental Studies, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973–1975), 1:26.
12. Ibid., 1:28.
13. E.g., Childs, Myth and Reality; Hendel, “When the Sons of God Cavorted”; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 371.
14. Thomas W. Mann, The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988), 11.
15. David J. A. Clines, “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode (Genesis 6:1–4) in the Context of the ‘Primeval History’ (Genesis 1–11),” JSOT 13 (1979): 33–46.
16. David J. A. Clines, “Theme in Genesis 1–11, ” in I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11, ed. Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 297.
17. Clines, “Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode,” 35.
18. For the purposes of the present discussion, it does not matter whether the 120 years is treated as the time which would elapse before the inception of the flood or a general limitation on the life span of human beings.
19. Hamilton proposes that the destruction of animals for the sin of humankind in the flood story serves as a precedent for one group suffering for the sins of another (Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 263). Thus, he argues, since animals are destroyed due to the sin of humanity, one should not reject the idea that humanity would suffer for the sins of angels. One problem with this suggestion is that it fails to take into account why, in the case of the flood, the one group (animals) suffers for the sins of another (humanity). In the Gen 1–3 situation, humanity has been given dominion over animals and charged with subduing the earth. It is because of this position of responsibility that the entities over which humankind have been placed end up suffering along with them under God’s judgment. However, in the flood narrative, the judgment upon the human and animal world because of the sin of angels is a different matter altogether. Angels have not been presented in the previous context as having been given any responsibility with reference to creation. Not only has the narrative not presented any notion of angels having authority over humankind or creation, they have only been mentioned in secondary and incidental ways (3:24). (For those who would argue for the divine plural being a reference to angels, see Thomas A. Keiser, “The Divine Plural: A Literary-Contextual Argument for Plurality in the Godhead,” JSOT 34 [2009]: 131–46). Since they have not been previously presented as principal characters, nor as having any type of authority over either creation or humanity, there appears to be no basis, contrary to Hamilton’s suggestion, to accept as unremarkable that the sin of angels results in judgment on humanity.
20. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, WBC 1 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 141.
21. David L. Peterson, “Genesis 6:1–4, Yahweh and the Origination of the Cosmos” JSOT 13 (1979): 49.
22. See 1 En. 6–11; 18:3–8; Jub. 4:15–22; Philo, On the Giants, 2:6; T. Reu. 5:6–7; 2 Bar. 56:11–14; 1QapGen 2:1, 16; CD 2:17–19; Josephus, Ant. 1:73.
23. Carl Friedrich Keil, The Pentateuch, trans. James Martin (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1869), 1:134.
24. So also Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, NAC 1a (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 327.
25. J. Daryl Charles, “Jude’s Use of Psuedepigraphical Source-Material as Part of a Literary Strategy,” NTS 37 (1991): 130–45.
26. He argues that Jude’s focus is the judgment upon those who left their proper place, rather than on the nature of the sins themselves. For a full discussion, see ibid., 130–45. See also J. Daryl Charles, “On Angels and Asses: The Moral Paradigm in 2 Peter 2, ” Proceedings—Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 21 (2001): 1–12.
27. Similar arguments can be made with reference to 2 Peter.
28. Peter H. Davids, “What Glasses Are You Wearing? Reading Hebrew Narratives through Second Temple Lenses,” JETS 55 (2012): 763–71.
29. In what appears to be a speculative attempt to alleviate the implications of Jesus’ statement, Huey asserts that Jesus was simply making an analogy and stating that the relationship of resurrected Christians will be different from the relationship of earthly marriage. “He was no more saying that angels are sexless than he was teaching that resurrected Christians will be neither male nor female.” He further posits that Jesus was talking about angels in heaven and not about fallen angels. See F. B. Huey Jr., “Are the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6 Angels? Yes,” in The Genesis Debate: Persistent Questions About Creation and the Flood, ed. Ronald Youngblood (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 199. However, given both Jesus’ statement and the presentation of Hebrews, the burden is on Huey to demonstrate that his suggestion is more than simply speculation.
30. E.g., Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1899), 226; Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 182; Bruce K. Waltke, with Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 117.
31. The entire argument about ontology is highly speculative. However, if one wishes to “open that door,” all implications must be considered. See, e.g., Zvi Ron, “The Book of Jubilees and the Midrash on the Early Chapters of Genesis,” JBQ 41 (2013): 143–55.
32. Stephen Hre Kio, “Revisiting the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6:1–4, ” BT 52 (2001): 234–39.
33. Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 372.
34. He argues that the significance of the expression lies in the construction “sons of,” which, occurring many times in the OT and extrabiblical literature, simply denotes a member of a category. See John H. Walton, “Are the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6 Angels? No,” in Genesis Debate, 190–91.
35. Waltke, Genesis, 116. Mathews attempts to avoid this problem by arguing that “daughters of men” can refer to any human women, rather than strictly Cainite. He also proposes that the expression “of all they chose” can imply inclusiveness, thus indicating that they chose whomever they wished without considering any restrictions. See Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, 330–31. This suggestion is plausible, but appears to be simply an attempt to deal with this problem rather than something implied by the text itself.
36. Notice that the last two lines of the genealogical form have death as their subject, and are unnecessary statements in that both facts are already understood from the earlier lines of the form.
37. Another item of note is the fact that, although Israel is referenced as children of God later in the Pentateuch, not only does there need to be some type of demonstration that “sons” should be understood as being the same as “children,” but also that it is legitimate to read back into the earlier chapters of Genesis the existence of a people who are not introduced until Exodus.
38. Kline goes to great lengths to argue for kingship as a theme of these chapters (Meredith Kline, “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1–4, ” WTJ 24 [1962]: 187–204). However, although Gen 1–5 certainly introduces the concept of rule, it is rule over creation rather than “kingship” in the sense of human rule over other human beings. The concept of human kingdom does not appear until Gen 10 with Nimrod.
39. E.g., Exod 21:6; 2:8–9 [7–8], 28 [27]; Ps 82:1, 6–7.
40. The creation account begins with that which is unproductive and uninhabitable (tohu vabohu) and steadily progresses, increasing in quantity and quality of life forms, resulting in a creation full of life and vitality.
41. Notice the redundancy of the last two lines of each genealogical entry. The information about death has already been stated and is therefore unnecessary. Its inclusion is evidently for the purpose of emphasis, as is typical of Hebrew repetition. It is interesting to note that, although the genealogy of Gen 11 follows the same form as that of ch. 5, these redundant lines are omitted. This change in form (and, hence, emphasis) follows God’s intervention in salvation for the first time (Noah) instead of strictly judgment (the man, the woman, the serpent, Cain, humanity as a whole). Thus, with God now acting in salvation, the emphasis on death disappears.
42. That this expression alludes to the genealogy is supported by the fact that the only other usage of the word “daughters” in the entire Primeval Narrative is in the genealogies of chs. 5 and 11. The elimination of the reference to sons being born serves to contrast male and the female, the significance of which will be discussed below.
43. So also Carol Kaminski, “Beautiful Women or ‘False Judgment’? Interpreting Genesis 6:2 in the Context of the Primeval History,” JSOT 32 (2008): 457–73. See esp. her discussion on pp. 465–69. Similarly Isaac M. Kikawada, “A Quantitative Analysis of the ‘Adam and Eve,’ ‘Cain and Abel,’ and ‘Noah’ Stories,” in Perspectives on Language and Text, ed. E. W. Conrad and E. G. Newing (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 198; Laurence A. Turner, Genesis Readings: A New Biblical Commentary, ed. John Jarick (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 44; and Waltke, Genesis, 117.
44. Additional support for the foregoing perspective is found in the final subordinate clause of 6:2, which characterizes the object of the “taking” as “from all which they chose.” This additional clarification is really unnecessary if the intention of the narrator is to state simply that the “sons of God” saw that women were fair and therefore took them as wives (their taking implies choice). Its inclusion emphasizes the exercise of evaluation, which, in view of the other allusions to Gen 3, is best understood as self-serving action in independence of God (similarly, Kaminski, “Beautiful Women”).
45. Two descriptions are used in v. 4 of the nephilim, namely, gibborim and notorious men (literally, “men of the name”). The term gibborim is widely accepted as meaning “mighty men,” commonly in connection with warfare. “Men of the name” (“notorious men”) is also an expression which generates little discussion, being understood as referring to people who were famous and renowned. However, there is still some debate regarding the referent of nephilim. Although popular perception is that they were the semi-divine offspring of the union of angels and human women, this is an inference only, and derives from the presumed referent of “sons of God.” The fact that they are described as mighty and notorious men argues that they should be understood as simply human, rather than semi-divine. The only other occurrence of this term in the Hebrew Scriptures is Num 13:33 where it appears as part of the description of the inhabitants of Canaan. Once again, in that passage it is best understood as referring to human beings since it appears among expressions clearly referring to people. Thus, “those days” were the glory days of humanity, when human beings blossomed and flourished in all their might and greatness—at least when seen from their own perspective.
46. For those who might miss the allusion, this is a quote from the introduction to News from Lake Wobegon.
47. E.g., Gen 4:19; 11:29; 12:19; 20:2, 3; 25:1; 36:2, 6; Exod 34:16. See Cassuto, “Episode of the Sons of God,” 17–28; Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 265; van Wolde, Words Become Worlds, 70.
48. See Gen 34:3; Ruth 1:14; 2 Sam 20:2; Deut 10:20; 11:22; 13:4; 30:20; Josh 22:5; 23:8.
49. A review of biblical passages indicates that, especially in the NT (1 Cor 7; 1 Tim 4:3; 5:11, 14), but also at times in the OT, women are to be treated with more respect than objects to be given and taken in marriage (see Num 36:6 in which the daughters of Zelophehad are told by the Lord to marry whom they wish).
50. For a discussion of the knowledge of good and evil understood as independence in discerning what is beneficial and detrimental, see Thomas A. Keiser, Genesis 1–11: Its Literary Coherence and Theological Message (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2013), 75–85.
51. The focus on man as the responsible party is consistent with the characterization of the fall in Gen 2–3, which presents the man as the main character and the primarily responsible person.