Who Are the “Sons of God” and the “Daughters of Men” in Genesis 6:1–7?
Introduction
This passage is one of the most challenging in the entire Bible—one that has sparked diverse interpretations among scholars and theologians throughout history. Some more liberal interpreters even suggest that this section may have been derived from cultural legends of its time. These include Hermann Gunkel, Claus Westermann, S. R. Driver, E. A. Speiser, Ralph H. Elliott, and Walter Brueggemann. But could this really be true?
Every Word in the Bible Is True
It must be affirmed from the outset that the Bible is the true Word of God: “The sum of your word is truth” (Psalm 119:160). Isaiah declares, “Seek and read from the book of the Lord: not one of these shall be missing; none shall be without its mate. For his mouth has commanded, and his spirit has gathered them” (Isaiah 34:16). Therefore, all that is contained in the Bible is the true Word of God.
As 2 Timothy 3:16 states, “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” Scripture is not a collection of myths, legends, or fables (cf. Psalm 119:160; John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20–21).
Having established this truth, we now turn to our main question.
Genesis 6:1–2
Let us read Genesis 6:1–2 (NRSV):
“When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose.”
Our focus is on the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men.” If time permits, we may also discuss the Nephilim briefly.
The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men
We can easily identify who the “daughters of men” are, but who are the “sons of God”?
The Hebrew phrase is benei ha’elohim (בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים), literally “sons of God.” This expression has given rise to several interpretations, but we will consider three of the major ones:
- They were fallen angels.
- They were earthly kings or rulers.
- They were the descendants of Seth.
Let us examine each view.
1. They Were Fallen Angels
Ancient Jewish writers held this view strongly. Apocryphal books such as 1 Enoch 6:2 and Jubilees 5:1 support this interpretation. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus also affirmed it in Antiquities of the Jews. Early Christian writers such as Philo of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Ambrose subscribed to the same view.
Some modern theologians, including Gordon J. Wenham and John MacArthur, agree. MacArthur said, “I am convinced that these are demons… We believe the sons of God were angels, fallen angels, demons.” He also notes that every instance of benei ha’elohim in the Old Testament refers to angels (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psalm 29:1; Daniel 3:25). The New Testament also makes allusions (1 Peter 3:18–20; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6).
However, this view encounters serious difficulties. Jesus said in Matthew 22:30 that angels “neither marry nor are given in marriage.” While this statement does not necessarily mean they are sexless, it does indicate that they do not engage in marriage relationships. Furthermore, in Genesis 18–19, angels appeared in human form, and the men of Sodom desired to “know” them (cf. Hebrews 13:2), which raises further complexities.
Critics of this view include Augustine, the Targum and rabbinic writers, Symmachus, Kenneth Mathews, Thomas Constable, Matthew Henry, G. Henton Davies, Warren W. Wiersbe, Carl Friedrich Keil, Franz Delitzsch, and The Moody Bible Commentary.
Wiersbe wrote:
“Some interpreters view 6:1–7 as an invasion of fallen angels who cohabited with women and produced a race of giants. But as interesting as the theory is, it creates more problems than it solves… Furthermore, the emphasis in Genesis 6 is on the sin of man and not the rebellion of angels… The judgment was coming because of what humans had done” (The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, 2007, p. 36).
Wayne Grudem and Millard Erickson also oppose this interpretation.
2. They Were Great Men, Kings, or Rulers
Meredith G. Kline is a chief proponent of this view. He argues that benei ha’elohim should be translated “sons of the gods,” referring to ancient dynastic rulers. In ancient Near Eastern cultures, rulers were often regarded as divine or semi-divine (cf. Exodus 21:6; 22:8–9, 28; Psalm 82:1, 6). Thus, the “sons of God” could represent royal figures or magistrates.
However, this view also faces difficulties. John J. Davis observes that by Genesis 6, such political structures did not yet exist. V. P. Hamilton adds that although rulers were sometimes called “gods,” they were never called “sons of the gods.”
3. They Were the Descendants of Seth
This view was first proposed by Julius Africanus and later adopted by Augustine. During the Reformation, Martin Luther and John Calvin also supported it.
According to this interpretation, the “sons of God” were the godly descendants of Seth, and the “daughters of men” were the ungodly descendants of Cain. Their intermarriage led to moral corruption, provoking God’s judgment and the Flood. This aligns with later prohibitions against intermarriage between the Israelites and pagan nations (cf. Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:3).
Proponents point out that in some Old Testament passages, those who obey God are called His “children” (cf. Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:5; Psalm 73:15; Isaiah 43:6; Hosea 1:10). C. F. Keil wrote:
“The sons of God are not angels, but the men who through faith and obedience were possessors of the divine image and likeness” (Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch, Vol. 1, p. 84).
Sven Fockner summarizes this perspective:
“Because of the way the narrative is designed from Genesis 4 to Genesis 10, the reader expects the passage to deal with the two lines of humanity and the vanishing of one of them. Before chapter 6, only the unbelievers were depicted as wicked (Lamech). Then the sons of God joined this group.”
Herbert Wolf writes:
“The view that probably is preferred by most evangelicals today understands the ‘sons of God’ to be descendants of the godly man Seth. Turning their backs on their godly heritage, these men intermarried with unbelieving women from the line of Cain and produced offspring renowned for their wickedness” (Introduction to the Old Testament: Pentateuch, p. 168).
This interpretation fits the narrative flow from Genesis 4–6 and provides moral and theological coherence. However, it is not without challenges—particularly the linguistic argument that benei ha’elohim elsewhere always refers to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). Additionally, the identification of the “daughters of men” remains uncertain.
Other Views
A few less common interpretations also exist. Lyle Eslinger suggested that the “daughters of men” were the daughters of Seth, though this view has limited support. Others, such as John H. Sailhamer and Philip Eveson, believe Genesis 6:1–4 simply summarizes the intermarriage and corruption of humankind in general.
Summary and Conclusion
We have examined the three principal views, each with its strengths and weaknesses. Even the early Church Fathers were divided, and this debate continues today.
However, such disagreement does not undermine the authority or truth of Scripture. Instead, it reveals the limits of human understanding and the vastness of God’s wisdom.
What remains clear is that the passage emphasizes humanity’s sinfulness and God’s righteous judgment. Regardless of who the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” were, the central message is that human wickedness brought about divine judgment through the Flood.
Yet, even the Flood did not cleanse humanity of sin. Only the blood of Jesus Christ can truly wash away our sins. His death, burial, and resurrection accomplish the redemption of humankind.
Therefore, while the identity of the “sons of God” may continue to invite debate, the most important truth remains unchanged:
We are sinners in need of Jesus Christ, our Savior.
