THE SONS OF GOD: Exploring Theories of Their Identity

Before the Great Flood during Noah’s time, the author of Genesis 6 mentioned the sons of God: “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.” (vv. 1–2). The identity of the sons of God and the nature of their intermarriage continue to puzzle many. Scholars have offered three valid suggestions:

Theory 1: The Cosmologically Mixed Races (angels and humans)
Theory 2: The Religiously Mixed Races (godly Sethites and the wicked Cainites)
Theory 3: The Sociologically Mixed Races (oppressive leaders and female commoners)

EXPLORING THE VIEWS

Theory 1: Angels and Humans

According to the Cosmologically Mixed Races View (also known as the Angel Theory or Supernatural View), the sons of God who married women were fallen angels. Angels were also called “sons of God” in other passages (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7, etc.). Those who support this view use 2 Peter 2:4–5 and Jude 5–7 as their basis.

They argue that since Peter mentioned Noah in v. 5, the sinful angels bound by the Lord in hell must be the sons of God before the Great Flood. Since Jude mentioned the sexual immorality of Sodom and Gomorrah in v. 7, some suggest that this was also the reason the angels who left their place of authority (v. 6) sinned. Thus, Jude may have been referring to the sons of God who intermarried with human beings.

Supporters of this theory also appeal to Jewish traditions, citing ancient Jewish literature such as 1 Enoch, which reflects the Jewish belief that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were fallen angels. According to this view, the mixed marriage between angels and humans best explains the origin of the Nephilim, believed to be giants.

Theory 2: Godly Sethites and Wicked Cainites

According to the Religiously Mixed Races View (also known as the Sethite Theory), the sons of God were godly men descended from Seth, while the daughters of men were from the wicked line of Cain.

People belonging to the covenant family/community were also referred to as the “sons of God” or “children of God” (Ex. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; 32:5; Hos. 1:10; Jer. 31:9, etc.).
Supporters of this theory rely on the immediate context. Just prior to this, the writer recorded the wicked race of Cain (Gen. 4:17–24) and the godly race of Seth (4:25–5:32). These two genealogies seem to explain why the intermarriage in Genesis 6 was problematic: the godly race violated their covenant with the Lord by marrying the women of Cain, which led to the total wickedness of humanity (vv. 5–6).

Theory 3: Oppressive Leaders and Female Commoners

In the Sociologically Mixed Races View, the sons of God in Genesis 6 refer to kings or rulers of that time who married ordinary women (commoners).

The title “son of God” was a common designation for rulers in the ancient Near East. It was also used of Israelite kings (2 Sam. 7:14; 1 Chron. 22:10; Ps. 89:26–27, etc.). According to this theory, the sons of God were none other than the Nephilim described as the “heroes of old, men of renown” (v. 4). Advocates of this view point out that the text does not explicitly say the Nephilim were born out of the intermarriage; rather, it simply states that the Nephilim were on earth “in those days.” They also argue that the phrase “they married any of them they chose” (v. 2) indicates that the marriages were offensive, oppressive, or even polygamous. Such wickedness contributed to the corruption of the human race, resulting in God’s judgment through the Great Flood (vv. 5–7). Additionally, the writer may have intended to contrast the “sons of God” (tyrannical rulers) with Lamech, a ruler who married two women and was described as violent (Gen. 4:23–24).

ANALYZING THE VIEWS

All three theories have significant support, but each has weaknesses.

Theory 1 (Angels and Humans) was widely accepted in both Jewish and Christian traditions at one point, but recent scholarship has raised concerns.

• Angels are spiritual beings without physical bodies (Heb. 1:14; Eph. 6:12). There is no biblical mention of them taking human form in Genesis 6.
• Jesus said in Matt. 22:30 that angels “neither marry nor are given in marriage,” implying they cannot reproduce.
• The Flood was God’s judgment on humans, not angels—so if the cause of wickedness was fallen angels, it would seem unfair that humanity bore the punishment.
• 2 Peter 2:4–5 and Jude 5–7 never explicitly say the angels’ sin was intermarriage. These could instead refer to their rebellion in heaven.
• The reliance on extrabiblical myths (like 1 Enoch) is questionable.
• The identity of the Nephilim remains debatable, and the biblical text does not confirm they resulted from angel-human unions. Moreover, they appear again after the Flood (Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33), raising more questions.

Theory 2 (Sethites and Cainites) is widely accepted among modern scholars but also has issues.

• The term “man” in v. 1 seems to refer to humanity in general, but in v. 2 it is taken to mean only Cain’s descendants—an inconsistency.
• The text never explicitly states the “daughters of men” were Cain’s line.
• No biblical record prohibits such intermarriages at this time.
• Nowhere is the Sethite line directly called “sons of God.”
• It does not adequately explain the Nephilim.

Theory 3 (Rulers and Commoners) is seen by some as the least problematic, but it too has difficulties.

• There is no clear indication in the text that the sons of God were wicked rulers.
• The supposed oppressive nature of the marriages is assumed, not explicit.
• While “son of God” was used for kings, there is no record of the plural “sons of God” being applied to a group of rulers in other ancient literature.
• Like the other views, it struggles to explain why this intermarriage was so corrupt that it warranted God’s judgment.

CONCLUSION 

This topic remains open, so it is wise not to be dogmatic. Questions like this challenge us to think critically, examine the text carefully, and weigh different views. They also remind us to live humbly with unanswered questions, trusting God’s wisdom in choosing not to reveal everything to us. Stay Curious.

Sources and Studies:

Walton, J. and, Keener, C. (2016). “𝘚𝘦𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘵𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘎𝘦𝘯 6;2, 𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘎𝘰𝘥”. 𝘕𝘐𝘝 𝘊𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘚𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘺 𝘉𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦. Zondervan
Heiser, M. (2015). “Divine Transgression.” 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘙𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘮. Lexham Press
Gleason, A.L (2001). “Does ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6:2 refer to angels? ”𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘌𝘯𝘤𝘺𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘰𝘧 𝘉𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘋𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 . Zondervan
Keiser, W., et al., (1996). “6:1–4 Who Married the Daughters of Men? ”. 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘚𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦. InterVarsity Press
Howe, T., and Geisler, N. (1992). “Genesis 6:2 —Were the “Sons of God” angels who married women? ” 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘈𝘴𝘬. Victor Books.