In the four verses of Genesis 6:1-4, is contained one of the greatest, continuing controversies in scripture. It did not seem to be a problem with Moses, the man attributed to authorship, as he made no attempt to identify the "sons of God" or the "daughters of men" who are mentioned in the passage. Current belief, as to the "daughters of men", does not seem to present a great problem, the terminology used providing a very secure definition. It is almost universally agreed that they are human women. No such agreement can be seen in regards to the "sons of God", mainly because the terminology is cryptic, since there is no definition of the phrase, either before or after its use, within the book of Genesis. There are essentially three basic theories that have been held, with a fourth concerning the "sons of God" as the Cainite line, proposed to deal mainly with the identification of the "sons of God".

THEORY I

THE SONS OF GOD ARE MEN OF POLITICAL IMPORTANCE

The theory that The Sons Of God Are Men Of Political Importance includes the idea that the men were political leaders, such as kings, but could also be the children of those particular leaders. The term that is translated "sons of God" is "bene ha'elohim". When it is not directly used as a name for God, "elohim" can be translated as ordinary gods, magistrates, great men, judges or mighty men of power. This theory views the "sons of God" in the setting of human political-religious leaders. They are rulers in the ancient pre-flood world who may have been regarded by their subjects as divine or having access to the divine. In context, their exalted position effectively separated them from common society and placed them in a social stratum that was unapproachable by the ordinary individual. Marriage and social interaction was confined solely to the upper level stratum of the ruling class, where common individuals of the lower levels of society were effectively prevented from interaction with or entrance into the privileged ruling class.

The privileged members of the elite ruling class are seen to be the "sons of God" who abandon the imperative to marry and associate within their social, political and religious class in order to marry women of the common class, the "daughters of men", whom they suddenly discover to be very beautiful. The belief is that all members of the ruling elite participated in the abandonment of the ordained means of marriage.

The proponents of this theory would state that the author of Genesis found the actions of the ruling elite, the association with the common women, to be the meaning of the passage and found it of such a great violation of social propriety that it was considered to be sin. In addition, the conduct was somehow of such extreme immoral behavior, in the view of God, that it was associated with the wickedness and violence of mankind that caused God to remove His Spirit from man and brought about the eventual judgment of the flood. It what manner such unions could be considered in such a negative light is not clear. The social stratums would have been artificial creations by humanity from the beginning, so it is hard to understand why crossing those boundaries in the context of marriage would be any violation at all in the eyes of man or God.

THEORY II

THE SONS OF GOD ARE THE CAINITE LINE

The premise that the "sons of God" are the members of the Cainite line, is a strange reversal that also sees the "daughters of men" as the progeny of the "Adamic" line. The identification is made through an interpretation that Cain, as a progeny of Eve, 4:1, was produced with the help of the Lord. The "daughters of men" are seen as the progeny of Adam, through the line of Seth, who was born in the likeness of his father, 5:1. The proposal is very unusual and requires a very non-traditional view of the scriptural context. This theory is advanced by Lyle Eslinger.

THEORY III

THE SONS OF GOD ARE ANGELS

The theory that The Sons Of God Are Angels has gained its greatest support in this century. The term "elohim", in the absence of a direct reference to God, can also be translated angels, as is the proper translation in Psalm 82:6. The theory is a belief that a group of fallen angels came to earth, found human women sexually attractive and mated with them. These unions produced children who were part angel and part human. In addition, these children were of gigantic physical proportions and also became the political and military leaders of the ancient pre-flood world. It is because of the children of the union, who were angel-human in nature, that God had to destroy the earth. The only means to eliminate the children was to kill them all in the flood.

Support for the theory is martialed from both the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament an appeal is made to Job 1:6; 2:1 and 38:7 as an identification of the "sons of God". In the New Testament, appeal is made to Jude 6, I Peter 3:18-20 and II Peter 2:4-5. The New Testament verses are said to give the explanation of just what constituted the sin of the angels, namely that of abandonment of a proper sexual orientation to cohabit with human women. Proponents of the angelic theory would also state that the relationship with human women will occur again, as is noted by Talbot in his radio broadcast notes:

"The degraded form of sin practiced in 'the days of Noah' will be indulged in again during the darkest period of this world's history, just prior to the return of Christ in glory."
"The result of this unholy alliance was 'a race of monstrosities.' 'There were giants in the earth in those days' - 'fallen ones,' 'Nephilim.' 'The term "men of renown" of Genesis 6:4 probably finds its historical equivalent in the "heroes" of Grecian mythology.'"

The belief in a future occurrence of the union of angels with human women is held by an appeal to Luke 17:26-29, and Matthew 24:37-39.

In order for the theory to have continuity, the various verses that form its foundation are linked in a very logical manner:

A. The "sons of God" are identified as angels by the association with Job 1, 2 and 38.

B. The sin of the "sons of God", angels, is identified by an appeal to Jude 6, I Peter 2 and II Peter 3.

C. The future occurrence of the same sin is made by linking Matthew 24 and Luke 17 to the previous references in Jude 6, I Peter 2 and II Peter 3.

THEORY IV

THE SONS OF GOD ARE DESCENDANTS
OF THE LINE OF SETH

In light of the fact that there may have been two separate lines of humanity, the Sethite or godly line and the Cainite or ungodly line, there is the view that The Sons Of God Are Descendants Of The Line of Seth, who have abandoned their godly heritage in order to mingle with the women of the Cainite line who are the "daughters of men". It is the abandonment of God that makes the actions of the "sons of God" so notable and gives credibility to the idea that it is the abandonment of God that is part of the sin that leads to the judgment of the flood. The abandonment of God leads to choosing of women, without regard for the spiritual, and eventual wickedness in conduct. The choosing of the women is not seen, in itself, as sinful but only represents a life that has cut itself off from the spiritual and has become controlled only by the physical. Without a spiritual foundation, humanity drifts into wickedness, the ultimate result being violence and judgment by God, noted in Genesis 6:5, 11, 13.

REASONS FOR THE SELECTION AND
EXAMINATION OF THE MAJOR THEORIES

Theory number one, The Sons Of God Are Men Of Political Importance, is the most contrived. The theory has no merit within the context of the narrative and cannot be supported with any other text in the scripture. It might be noted that since the authorship of Genesis is attributed to Moses, then the idea that he would refer to the political and social elite as the "sons of God" becomes more questionable. Since he was reared and educated in the royal court of Egypt, as noted in Exodus 2:10, where the Pharaoh was considered a god, it seems very improbable that Moses would use the terminology "sons of God" in order to give credence or respect to the leadership of the society to which he referred. Moses had rejected the profane political and social society of Egypt and had fled the court of Pharaoh, as is recorded in Exodus 2:15 and Hebrews 11:24-27. If Moses had intended the political and social leaders of the society to be the subjects of his narrative, he certainly would have described them in different terms, rather than give them possible status in relation to the true God. The theory rests solely on its own authority and because of such, it must be dismissed from any serious consideration.

Theory number two, The Sons Of God Are The Cainite Line, is of recent origin, but it requires such a strained interpretation of the references used to support it that it becomes very difficult to give credence to the premise. The theory is an interesting excercise in academic interpretation, but makes a distinction between children of Eve and children of Adam which, in reality, does not exist because all the children were progeny of both in concert.

Theory number three, The Sons Of God Are Angels, and theory number four, The Sons Of God Are Descendants Of The Line Of Seth, have been, and continue to be, the two most popular theories. These two theories are also in direct opposition to each other, theory number two identifying the "sons of God" with heavenly beings while theory number three identifies the "sons of God" with earthly humanity.

Given the fact that the narrative apparently assigns some relationship between the "sons of God" and the wickedness and violence that existed in the world, and to the eventual onslaught of the flood, then guilt and responsibility must have also been assigned to humanity as a result of the actions of these "sons of God". With this fact in view, humanity's responsibility for sin and God's provision for salvation must be seen in a very different context, depending on which view is adopted. It is because of this dilemma regarding responsibility and salvation that it becomes necessary to reach a conclusion as to the identity of the "sons of God".

|TOP of page|
|HOME PAGE| |GUEST BOOK| |SITE INFO| |SERVICES| |NEWS| |FAMILIES| |GALLERY of the ARTS| |HAND HISTORY| |GENEALOGY| |CONTACT| |LINKS TO SITES|

PAGE GRAPHICS CREDIT

GG VAULT