Who are the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4?

There is a remarkable analogy between our days and the days of Noah in this matter of restless spirit activity. A remarkable condition of things is recorded in Gen. 6:1-4. "It came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they choose." Who are the sons of God referred to here? Believing men are undoubtedly called "sons of God" in Rom. 8, but it would be irrelevant to introduce that thought into Gen. 6. The expression is best explained by its use in the contemporary book of Job, and there it is beyond all doubt used of angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38). Gen. 6 thus tells us of the spirit world breaking bounds and entering into unholy connection with the human family. That spirits are capable of taking men's form, and performing human functions is clearly shown in Gen. 18; 19, where we have angels eating meals with Abraham and Lot. It is beside the mark to quote Luke 20:34-36 as an objection to this. The Lord is there describing the proper estate of angels, from which the transgressors of Gen. 6 departed. Personally I have no doubt that these are the beings referred to in Jude 6. "The angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness until the judgment of the great day." This cannot mean evil angels in general, for they have their liberty while divine long-suffering continues; the reference is clearly to certain amongst them whose freedom has been taken away for ever. The progeny of the mixed unions of Noah's days were "mighty men, men of renown." Such confusion could not be permitted in God's universe; and this was one reason why the flood ensued. The evil breed was swept away in that catastrophe; and the fact that the apostate spirits have been deprived of their liberty ever since, has acted as a deterrent against the repetition of the offence. But while Satan's tactics may change, his object is the same in all ages. Hence the awful condition of things with which we are confronted to-day — the spirit world seeking by all possible means to get into intimate touch with our fellow-men for their present and everlasting ruin.

The question is who are the sons of God who took the daughters of men? The general view is that the sons of God were the pious descendants of Seth and the daughters of men, the Cainitish offspring. However, there are strong arguments against it.

There is no proof in the text that the daughters of men were only the descendants of the Cainites. The text supports the view that in "daughters of men" the natural increase of the whole human family is meant, and not a special class. The theory that "sons of God" must mean pious people can likewise not be sustained. The term "sons of God" is never applied in the Old Testament to believers. Isaiah 43:6 refers to the future gathering of the godly remnant of Israel. That the believer is a son of God, predestined to the son-place, with the spirit of sonship in him, crying, "Abba, Father," is exclusively a New Testament revelation. The result of the marriage of the sons of God with the daughters of men was children, who were heroes, men of the Name. If the sons of God were simply the pious Sethites, who mixed with the Cainites, it is hard to understand why the offspring should be a special race, heroes, men of the Name. The giants were Nephilim, which means "the fallen ones."

"Sons of God" is the term applied in the Old Testament to supernatural beings, both good and evil. Angels good and fallen are termed sons of God in the Old Testament. Satan himself is reckoned among the sons of God in Job 1:6, and 2:1. The term sons of God must mean here supernatural evil beings. These evil beings came down out of the air and began to take possession of such of the daughters of men as they chose.

As we open Genesis 6 we are carried on to the later centuries of the antediluvian age, when the population had considerably increased and human wickedness began to rise to a climax. Many have understood the term, "sons of God," to refer to men of Seth's line — the line of faith — who fell away and married daughters of Cain's line, but we agree with those who accept the term as meaning beings of an angelic order, as it clearly does in such scriptures as Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 and Job 38:7. How such connection can have been established, resulting in progeny superhuman in size and strength, we do not know, but we believe that Jude 6 and 7 confirm what we are saying. Sodom and Gomorrha went after "strange flesh," committing such enormous evil as is forbidden in Exodus 22:19, and these sons of God did the same thing in principle, by going after the daughters of men. Thereby they apostatized, leaving their first estate, and lest they should repeat the offence they are held in everlasting chains under darkness until eternal perdition falls upon them. They will be finally judged at the great day of the great white throne.

In Genesis however, we are only told about the terrible effect of this in the world of men. The monstrous men produced were monsters of iniquity, filling the earth with violence and corruption. Yet man in his fallen condition is such that these monsters instead of being considered men of infamy were treated as men of renown. They were the originals doubtless from whom sprang those tales of "gods" and "goddesses" and "Titans," etc., which have come down to us in the writings of antiquity. They are popularly dismissed as fables, but it looks as if they have a larger basis of fact than many care to admit.

1894 81 The chapter opens with a brief and calm notice of a mysterious fact, on which heathen mythology revels much. What scripture does say is pregnant; but the reticence on such a theme is as suggestive of holiness, as man's tradition as usual indulges prurient curiosity. The recital no doubt seems strange to minds accustomed to reason from existing phenomena and disposed to discredit what is "marvellous" in men's eyes or all that is beyond common sense. Yet Peter and Jude render striking testimony, not only to the truth of the narrative and the divine judgment of the exceptional sin committed, but to the solemn and needed warning it renders to guilty Christendom. God has not spoken in vain whether by Moses at the beginning of the O.T., or by those two inspired men verging on the close of the N.T. If any one has a mind to read a scathing exposure of modern unbelief as expressed by the commentators Patrick or Gill, D'Oyly and Mant, Scott or A. Clarke, he can find it in Dr. S. R. Maitland's Eruvin, Essay vi. 124, etc. Henry Ainsworth in his Annotations and Matthew Henry in his Commentary were no better. There is a slight difference in the popular view, some holding the sons of God to be great men, or nobles; others, the progeny of Seth.

But it is impossible to deny that "sons of God," in the early books of the Bible (Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7), are found appropriated to angels. So in a slightly different form of the Hebrew we read in Ps. 29:1, and Ps. 89:6. When the prophet Hosea predicts in Hosea 1:10 (or Hosea 2:1) what the apostle Paul applied (Rom. 9:26) to the present call of Gentiles during the eclipse of Israel, the phrase is pointedly distinct, besides its having no retrospective bearing. Indeed in the Alexandrine MS. of the Septuagint version of Gen. 6:2, for viol of the Vatican is read hoi aggeloi. But apart from this, which goes rather beyond the place of a translator, there is no ground from O.T. usage to question that the application of the phrase is to angels, and not to men even if faithful and righteous. And the apostolic reference is indisputable. Peter and Jude, regarding the awful crisis at the end of this age in the light of this scripture, though from quite different aspects, bear the concurrent testimony of the Holy Spirit that angels were here intended by "sons of God."

I can understand two distinct classes here, but they seem to have subsisted together, though the first may have, in the first instance, preceded the second. They may have been Cain's progeny; another offspring of the unholy mixture of the sons of God and daughters of men. Certainly the two are brought out as bringing about the Flood, they both characterised the epoch which brought about the Flood - "those days."

The principle is the mixture of those who are of God with evil; but I am not aware that B'ney ha-Elohim (sons of God), is ever used for men. Job 38:7, they are surely not men, but angelic; so Job 1: 6. B'ney El khay (sons of the Living God) in Hosea 1:10 (in the Hebrew 2:1), is surely different. Judges are called "Elohim," but not B'ney ha-Elohim (sons of God). But there is no question of that here; so that the usage is certainly for beings angelic, not human, in nature; see Jude. I cannot for a moment doubt the force of this B'ney ha-Elohim (sons of God), and b'noth ha-Adam (daughters of man); and Jude quite confirms it. It seems to me also that akharey ken is not "afterwards" but "after that"; i.e., the consequence of this alliance; they were Titans and such like. All these traditions had a source. It may be questioned if the nephilim (giants) and gib-bo-rim (mighty ones) are identical.

51 But then, afterwards, only the general state of the race of Ha-Adam (Man) is spoken of. The sons of Anak are called nephilim; elsewhere giants are "Rephaim"; the connection with the traditions of giants, Titans, etc., seems evident.

72 But other angels fell apart from the devil. Of some scripture says, they are "reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day"; whereas Satan roves all about the world now, and others with him, so that they are not in chains under darkness. Jude says, those that "kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day; even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them, in like manner giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." They, doing evil, are set forth for an example, their condition now being an abiding testimony to their judgment. "In like manner" refers to giving themselves over as the cities did. "The sons of God," in Genesis 6:2, were angels, just as in Job, "the sons of God" presented themselves before God.

There were 'sons of God' who took wives of 'the daughters of men.' Gen. 6:4. These are believed by some to have been angels, permitted to take human form: cf. Jude 6, 7. Others judge the descendants of Seth to be alluded to.

The angels who came to present themselves to God in the days of Job, and who shouted for joy when the foundations of the earth were laid, are called 'sons of God.' Job 1:6; Job 2: l; Job 38:7.

Some have supposed that "the sons of God" were fallen angels, connecting this with Job 1:6 where angels are clearly spoken of as "sons of God." But men are more often in scripture called "sons of God" than angels are. Besides, angels are sexless (Mt.22:30), and they do not have bodies: they are spirits (Heb.1:14) It is unthinkable that God would create special bodies for fallen angels in order that they might take ungodly advantage of women.

But this matter is plainly settle by God's word in verse 3: "The Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh." It is clear that "the sons of God" were the responsible parties here: it was they who took wives, not the wives who took them. So God calls the sons of God men, insisting also that they are "flesh," not spirit, as angels are. So early in history this event stands as a solemn warning to believers against yoking themselves with unbelievers. Such mixtures are often strongly censured in the Old Testament as well as in the New. Compare Ezra 9:1-4 and 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.

Some have supposed that “the sons of God” were fallen angels, connecting this with Job 1:6 where angels are clearly spoken of as “sons of God.” But men are more often in scripture called “sons of God” than angels are. Besides, angels are sexless (Matt. 22:30), and they do not have bodies: they are spirits (Heb. 1:14). It is unthinkable that God would create special bodies for fallen angels in order that they might take ungodly advantage of women.

But this matter is plainly settled by God's word in verse 3: “The Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh.” It is clear that “the sons of God” were the responsible parties here: it was they who took wives, not the wives who took them. So God calls the sons of God “men,” insisting also that they are “flesh,” not spirit, as angels are. So early in history this event stands as a solemn warning to believers against yoking themselves with unbelievers. Such mixtures are often strongly censured in the Old Testament as well as in the New. Compare Ezra 9:1-4 and 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.

But in Gen. 6 we have a very solemn statement — the apostacy of the ancient world. The sons of God chose the daughters of men. The true key to this account is supplied in the Epistle of Jude. It is hardly so common-place and ordinary a matter as many suppose. When understood, it is really awful in itself and its results. But the Holy Spirit has veiled such a fact in the only manner that became God and was proper for man. Here indeed the principle of reserve does apply, not in withholding from man's soul the deepest blessing of grace for his deepest wants, but in furnishing no more than that which was suitable for man to learn about the matter. He has said enough; but any one who will take the trouble to refer to Jude in connection with this chapter will gather more than appears on the surface. It is not needful to say more now. God Himself has touched it but curtly. This only may be remarked in addition, that "the sons of God," in my judgment, mean the same beings in Genesis as they do in Job. This point will suffice to indicate their chief guilt in thus traversing the boundaries which God had appointed for His creatures. No wonder that total ruin speedily ensues. It is really the basis of fact for not a few tales of mythology which men have made up. Any one who is acquainted with the chief writings of the old idolatrous world, of the Greeks and Romans especially, will see that what God has veiled in this brief statement, which passes calmly over that of which more had better not be spoken, is what they have amplified into the Titans and the giants and their greater deities. I do not of course enter into details, but here is the inspired account, which shines in the midst of the horrors of that dark scene which fabulists portrayed. But there is enough in man's amplification to point to what is stated here in a few simple words of truth.