The Sons of God in Genesis 6: Angels, Sin, and Shifting Interpretations

Genesis 6 kicks off one of the Bible's most enigmatic and debated passages. Right before the flood narrative, we read: "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" (Genesis 6:1-2, ESV). This leads to the birth of the Nephilim, often translated as giants or mighty men of old. For centuries, this text has sparked questions: Who are these "sons of God"? Why does it matter? And how does it connect to references in the New Testament about sinning angels?

In this blog, we'll explore the traditional view that the sons of God were fallen angels, linking it to passages in Jude and 2 Peter. We'll dive into how this interpretation dominated early Jewish and Christian thought, with examples from key writers. Finally, we'll see how allegorical approaches, championed by figures like Origen and Augustine, shifted the conversation toward more symbolic readings.

The Biblical Foundation: Sons of God and Sinning Angels

The phrase "sons of God" (bene elohim in Hebrew) appears in the Old Testament to describe angelic beings, such as in Job 1:6 and Job 38:7, where they gather before God or rejoice at creation. In Genesis 6, these sons of God are said to have taken human women as wives, producing hybrid offspring—the Nephilim—who were "mighty men who were of old, the men of renown" (Genesis 6:4). This union is portrayed as a catalyst for widespread wickedness, prompting God's decision to flood the earth.

This story echoes in the New Testament. In Jude 6-7, we read: "And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—just as Sodom and Gomorrah... indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire." Similarly, 2 Peter 2:4-5 states: "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah..." These passages link angelic sin to the days of Noah, implying a sexual transgression akin to what's described in Genesis 6. Many scholars see this as drawing from extrabiblical traditions, like the Book of Enoch, which expands on angels (called Watchers) descending to earth, teaching forbidden knowledge, and mating with women.

The angelic interpretation isn't just a modern fringe theory—it's rooted deeply in ancient understandings of cosmic rebellion against God.

Jewish Teachings: Angels and Forbidden Unions

For centuries before Christ, Jewish literature overwhelmingly viewed the sons of God as angels. This wasn't some obscure idea; it was embedded in key texts and commentaries.

• The Book of Enoch (1 Enoch): Written around 200 B.C., this apocryphal book is pivotal. In chapters 6-7, it describes 200 Watchers, led by figures like Semjaza and Azazel, who swear an oath on Mount Hermon to take human wives. They produce giant offspring who devour humanity, leading to violence and God's judgment. Enoch is cited in Jude 14-15, showing its influence on New Testament writers.

• Flavius Josephus: The first-century Jewish historian, in his Antiquities of the Jews (Book 1, Chapter 3), writes: "For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good; on account of the confidence they had in their own strength. For the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call Giants." Josephus links this to Greek mythology, seeing the biblical account as the true origin of giant tales.

• Philo of Alexandria: A first-century Jewish philosopher, Philo interpreted the sons of God as angels or incorporeal souls who descended into bodies, drawn by sensory pleasures. In On the Giants, he writes that these beings, called "angels" in Scripture, were lured by women's beauty, leading to the birth of giants.

Other sources, like the Book of Jubilees (c. 100 B.C.) and the Genesis Apocryphon from the Dead Sea Scrolls, reinforce this angelic view, portraying the sons of God as heavenly beings whose actions corrupted humanity. Rabbinical traditions also leaned this way, seeing it as a tale of cosmic disorder.

Early Christian Views: Echoing Jewish Roots

The early Church Fathers, building on Jewish exegesis, largely adopted the angelic interpretation. This was the dominant view until the fourth century, reflecting a literal reading of the text influenced by apocalyptic literature.

• Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 A.D.): In his Second Apology (Chapter 5), Justin states that angels transgressed God's order by cohabiting with women, producing demons who now afflict humanity. He ties this directly to Genesis 6 and pagan myths about gods fathering heroes.

• Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202 A.D.): In Against Heresies (Book 4, Chapter 36), Irenaeus affirms that the angels who sinned were the sons of God who commingled with daughters of men, leading to the flood. He saw this as part of humanity's fall into deeper sin.

• Tertullian (c. 155-220 A.D.): Tertullian, in On the Veiling of Virgins and On Idolatry, explicitly calls the sons of God fallen angels who lusted after women, teaching them forbidden arts like makeup and astrology. He connects this to the origins of idolatry.

Other fathers like Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and Ambrose echoed this, viewing it as a real historical event of angelic rebellion. This perspective aligned with the Church's emphasis on spiritual warfare and the reality of demonic forces.

The Shift: Origen, Augustine, and the Rise of Allegory

So, why did this angelic view fade? The turning point came with the rise of allegorical interpretation, influenced by Greek philosophy and a desire to harmonize Scripture with reason. Early on, the literal-angelic reading was standard, but by the third and fourth centuries, thinkers began questioning its implications—like angels having physical bodies or procreating.

• Origen (c. 185-253 A.D.): A key Alexandrian theologian, Origen rejected literal interpretations of Genesis, favoring allegory to uncover deeper spiritual meanings. He opposed the idea of angels physically uniting with women, calling it a "figment" in his commentary on Genesis 6. Influenced by Platonism, he saw creation stories as symbolic, not historical timelines. This method spread, encouraging readings where "sons of God" might represent abstract ideas rather than actual beings.

• Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.): Augustine built on Origen's allegorical approach, popularized through his mentor Ambrose. In The City of God (Book 15, Chapter 23), he refuted the angelic view, arguing it was refuted by its own absurdity and preferring the "Sethite" interpretation: sons of God as righteous descendants of Seth, daughters of men as ungodly Cainites. Their intermarriage symbolized the blending of the "City of God" and "City of Man," leading to corruption. Augustine's influence, especially post-400 A.D., made this the orthodox position in Western Christianity, sidelining the angelic view until its revival in modern times.

This shift wasn't just theological—it reflected a broader move away from apocalyptic literalism toward philosophical sophistication, avoiding what seemed like mythological elements incompatible with emerging doctrines on angelic nature.

Wrapping Up: Why It Still Matters Today

The sons of God in Genesis 6 aren't just an obscure footnote; they highlight themes of rebellion, judgment, and God's sovereignty over cosmic forces. The angelic interpretation, backed by ancient Jewish and early Christian voices, paints a vivid picture of spiritual warfare. Yet, the allegorical turn via Origen and Augustine reminds us how cultural and philosophical contexts shape Bible reading.

Whether you lean angelic, Sethite, or something else, this passage challenges us to grapple with Scripture's depths. What do you think—who were the sons of God? Drop your thoughts in the comments!