Figment. Absurd. Gross.

These are but three of the names John Calvin calls the position I hold on Genesis 6. And while, he doesn’t employ his most common insult (stupid!), I am sure he would have little trouble applying that label to the view that angels had sexual relations with women, such that the Nephilim (or giants) were the resultant offspring.

For indeed, when considering who the sons of God were in Genesis 6, he excoriates the ancient view that believed the sons of God (=angels) came from heaven to consort with the daughters of man. He writes in his commentary on Genesis 6, “That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious [strange or unusual].” ^[1]

Following this view, he adds another, namely, the idea that the sons of God were royal sons and the daughters of men were commoners. The problem in this case was the way that the nobility chased the commoners, resulting in offspring of mixed hereditary stock.[2] On this second view, whom he assigns to the “Chaldean paraphrast” (i.e., the Babylonian Talmud), we can agree that this interpretation fails to follow the terms of Scripture. (Yet, it is not far from another view that will be referenced below.)

In contrast to both views, Calvin then offers his—the idea that has become popular among so many evangelicals today. He sees the sons of God as the male heirs of Seth and the daughters of man as the female offspring of Cain. While Calvin frames this division in theological terms (i.e., the sons being chosen by grace and the daughters being left in their common condition), his reading is purely human, and wreaks nothing of gross absurdity.^[3] Or, so he believes.

Historically, his view, which goes back to Augustine and before that to Julius Africanus (c. 160–240), can be summarized under the title of the Sethite position, while my position, which goes back to the Jewish interpreters of the Second Temple period might be titled the Fallen Angel position. Additionally, there is the view that understands the sons of God in royal terms, but not like that described by Calvin, what I’ll label the Kings of the Earth position.

In what follows, I want to lay out these three positions and begin to explain why I believe Calvin’s mockery of this position is wrong. As always, it is not a light thing to disagree with such an eminent theologian, but as a Baptist, Calvin’s insults don’t bother me. I’ve disagreed with him before, and here I will do so again. I will argue that his Sethite view is reasonable, but not ultimately persuasive. Better, we should read Genesis 6 in the context of the whole Bible, and when we do we will discover the fact that the angels of heaven left their proper abode, consorted with human women, and thus invited the judgment of God which led to the cosmic flood.

Genesis 6:1–4: Laying Out Three Options

Over the years, at some point or another, I have held to all three of the options expressed here. As we will see, each position is held by respected evangelical scholars who make arguments from the text of Scripture. And there is no reason to divide churches over this passage of Scripture. How one reads Genesis 6:1–4 is a third-tier issue. It is not something defines the faith (first tier) or the church (second tier). Rather, it clarifies a particular vision of the cosmos and one that relates to the events of redemptive history. Still, how one reads this passage does not immediately deny the supernatural (if one holds to the Sethite view), nor invite wild speculation about angels (if one holds to the fallen angel view). And so, it remains third tier.

Equally, differing interpretations of Genesis 6 are not direct results of how one understands extra-textual literature. While books like 1 Enoch expands the testimony of Genesis 6, one does not need to know of that book or read it to affirm the angelic view of verses 1–4. As I outlined in the last post, Jude and 2 Peter lead us to consider the content of 1 Enoch as reliable history that informed their view of the world. But even without 1 Enoch, we can read Genesis 6 in the context of the whole Bible and make a case for fallen angels.

That is what I am attempting to do here and in the related posts, but first I want to outline the interpretive options. As noted above, there are three primary interpretations.^[4]

1. The Line of Seth View (Augustine, John Calvin, Graham Cole, Ken Mathews) which defines the sons of God as sons of Seth and the daughters of man the daughters of Cain.
2. The Kings of the Earth View (Meredith Kline, Walter Kaiser) which defines sons of God as the great warrior kings of old and the daughters of man as the women they, like Lamech (Gen. 4:19) forcefully took to themselves.
3. The Fallen Angel View (Gordon Wenham, Douglas Van Dorn) which defines the sons of God as angelic beings who had relations (marriage or not) with human women and sired giants with them.

Admittedly, in our modern world, the last position seems most absurd and inspired by the fantastical mythologies of Greece or Northern Europe. Yet, I would contend that such stories, along with the worldwide recollection of giants, serpentine creatures, and fallen angels is but an echo of the true story of angels leaving their proper abode, joining themselves to women, siring Nephilim—giants who show up before the flood and after.

In the next post, I will explain this rationale from the text of Scripture. But for now, I’ll lay out the three main views.

The Sethite View

Though most of the early church fathers, as well as most Second Temple Jews, held to the Angelic interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4, “Church Fathers, such as Augustine, as well as the Reformers (Luther, Calvin) interpreted the “sons of God” as a reference to “godly men,” that is, the righteous lineage of Seth.^”[5] In this view, the sons of God sinned by taking unbelieving wives. Or to put it in the categories established by Genesis 4–5, the sons of Seth, who called upon the name of the Lord (Gen. 4:26), joined themselves to daughters of Cain, who were descendants of this evil patriarch. Admitting that this view “has its share of difficulties,” Ken Mathews proceeds to explain its superiority. He writes,

We already have shown how chaps. 4 and 5 contrast the two lines of descent from Adam—the Cainites and Sethites. Genesis 6:1–8 relates how the two lines intermarry, resulting in a community of unprecedented wickedness. The flood account, we have shown, is actually embedded within the Sethite genealogy, which is not completed until the notice of Noah’s death (9:29). This provides the appropriate interpretive key for understanding 6:1–8. During this period of amazing Sethite expansion (chap. 5), the Sethite family marries outside its godly heritage, which results in moral decline.^[6]

The advantage of this view is that it takes seriously the conflict set between Cain and Seth in Genesis 4–5, a conflict that expands upon Genesis 3:15. Likewise, this view attends to the surrounding context—both the beginning of Seth’s line in Genesis 5 and its end in Genesis 9:29. And it provides a moral lesson to all who would be reading Genesis during the days of Moses or after, that the unrighteous union of men and women who do not share the same covenantal commitments invites ungodly offspring, which in turn invites God’s judgment.

On this basis, we can say that the Sethite view is remarkably reasonable and entirely biblical. As Graham Cole notes, it has historical warrant too.

This approach appeared early on in church history with Julius Africanus (c. 160–240) and climaxed with Augustine (354–430) in the fifth century. Augustine argued that in his day many viewed the sons of God as angels, but in the light of his two-cities distinction he maintains that the sons of God were Sethites, who as citizens of the City of God “formed a connection” with daughters of men, who were of the City of Man (i.e., Cainites).[7]”

For theological and biblical reasons, therefore, the Sethite view advances a drama of redemption that assumes the presence of angels and demons, but one that spends far less time addressing them. Instead, it keeps the eyes of the reader on the human subjects of Genesis 6, their sin, and the judgment they deserve for forsaking righteousness.

In my estimation, the problem with this view is not the bifurcation of humanity into two, or the warfare that exists between the offspring of Seth and Cain. I share the theological conviction that the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent are juxtaposed in the genealogies of Cain and Seth. Yet, what is lacking in this view is an attention to word usage (How is “sons of God” used in the Old Testament?), the translation of the Septuagint (sons of God is translated angels), the over-reading of sons of God as sons of Seth (Seth is not mentioned in the passage), the way Genesis 6 bridges the angelic activities of Genesis 3 and Genesis 10 (cf. Deut. 32:8-9), and the way the Jude and 2 Peter read this passage.

For these reasons, and for others mentioned below, I find the purely human reading of this passage unconvincing.

The Kings of the Earth View

The second view goes back to the tradition of Jewish interpreters, too. As Ken Mathews notes,

“Jewish interpreters have understood the ‘sons of God’ as human judges or rulers (aristocrats).”^[8] This can be observed in a passage like Psalm 82:1, 6–7, where the kings of the earth are “gods” (elohim) and “the sons of the Most High.” Yet, in can also be seen in the language assigned to David, Moses, and Adam.

In reverse order, David’s son was titled the “son of God” when God promised David an eternal throne (2 Sam. 7:13–16; Pss. 2:7; 89:27). Relatedly, this identification with David’s son coheres with the earlier use of sonship language for Israel. Abraham’s offspring, the people of Israel, were called God’s firstborn son in Exodus 4:22–23, and in Deuteronomy 32:6–7 he identifies Israel as his son. Then, taking one step further back, Adam is also called a son of God in Luke 3:38, a term that is never properly assigned to Adam, but one that fits the royal and priestly nature of being made in God’s image. In this way, the language of sonship given to Adam, Israel, and David are all related, as Israel and David take up the vocation of the original Adam—a royal and priestly son.

At the same time, the language of the sons of God, is best understood in the broader context of the ancient Near East. Coupled with the language of the gibborim in Genesis 6:4, the sons whom the sons of God sire, those dubbed the “mighty men [gibborim] of old, the men of renown,” the second view sees this sons of god as kings of the earth, variously identified. That is to say, that some who hold this position may see “sons of God” as kings as a general reference, but others see this language as polemic against the false idea that these kings were divine or semi-divine. Commonly, among the peoples of the ANE, the king of a tribe or nation was thought to be the son of a god. Thus, the argument goes, Moses is combatting that view with a bit of polemical irony.

More generally, however, Old Testament scholars like Meredith Kline and John Walton argue that sons of God are kings of the ancient Near East.[9] Similarly, Walter Kaiser argues,

Genesis 6:1-4, therefore, is best understood as depicting ambitious, despotic and autocratic rulers seizing both women and power in an attempt to gain all the authority and notoriety they could from those within their reach. Their progeny were, not surprisingly, adversely affected, and so it was that God was grieved over the increased wickedness on planet Earth. Every inclination of the hearts and thoughts of humanity was evil. Thus the flood had to come to judge humankind for the perversion of authority, the state, justice and human sexuality.[10]

Indeed, such wickedness does provoke the anger of God. And throughout the Old Testament (see e.g., see Isaiah 13–23), we find national judgments upon local kings for all that Kaiser lists here. Yet, the judgment upon the whole earth appears, to me, to be something entirely different. God is not bringing a universal flood for the grave but still local sins of kings in the Middle East.

Rather, as the next position argues, Yahweh is bringing a judgment upon all creation because the sons of God rebelled against God by leaving their place in heaven. By breaking the boundaries set forth in creation, the entire cosmos was made unclean. The flood, in response, was the necessary act of purification that would permit the world, while still filled with sin, to exist until God could make all things new.

The Fallen Angel View

While Ken Mathews takes a stand against the Fallen Angel view (as well see below), Gordon Wenham argues for it. In fact, he goes so far as to say that, “The “angel” interpretation is at once the oldest view and that of most modern commentators.”^[11] I actually do not know why Wenham makes the point that “most modern commentators” hold this view, other than those who are most inclined to read the Old Testament through ancient literature (i.e., critical scholars) would have to concede that the cultures surrounding Israel had no trouble conceiving of a world with angels and human-angel hybrids.

In contrast to such speculations and fanciful mythology, the Bible is far more circumspect with regards to angels, demons, and their place in the world. Many evangelicals, however, would have a hard time accepting the supernatural presuppositions of the pre-modern mind. That being said, an angelic interpretation of Genesis 6 is not merely the product of ancient literature. There is evidence in Scripture for such a reading too. As Wenham goes on to note three supporting reasons for understanding Genesis 6:1–4 as “Spirit-Human Marriages” (his terminology), he writes,

First, elsewhere in the OT (e.g., Ps 29:1, Job 1:6) “sons of God” refers to heavenly, godlike creatures. Second, in 6:1–4 the contrast is between “the sons of the gods” on the one hand and “the daughters of man” on the other. The alternative interpretations presuppose that what Gen 6 really meant was that “the sons of some men” married “the daughters of other men.” The present phrase “sons of God” is, to say the least, an obscure way of expressing such an idea. It is made the more implausible by 6:1 where “man” refers to all mankind. It is natural to assume that in v 2 “daughters of man” has an equally broad reference, not a specific section of the human race. Finally, it is pointed out that in Ugaritic literature “sons of God” refers to members of the divine pantheon, and it is likely that Genesis is using the phrase in a similar sense.^[12]

Wenham’s three points are a good starting point for making the case that the sons of God are fallen angels. But we can add to his list.

For instance, as Peter Gentry observes, “sons of God” in the plural are always used of angels and never of humanity. While Israel is called the son of God (Exod. 4:22–23), it is in the singular. And while David’s son is referred to as God’s son (2 Sam. 7:13–16), it is also in the singular. Equally, there are more than two references to sons of God in the Old Testament. Douglas Van Dorn, following the painstaking work of Michael Heiser lists them out in his book Giants: Sons of the Gods.[13] 

“Sons of God” Passage	Hebrew Phrase
Genesis 6:2	beney ha-‘elohim[sons the gods]
Genesis 6:4
Job 1:6;Job 2:1;Job 38:7
Psalm 29:1Psalm 89:6	beney ‘elim[sons of God / might]
Psalm 82:6	beney ‘elyon[sons of the Most High]
Deuteronomy 32:8	angelōn theou[angels of God]
Deuteronomy 32:43	uioi theou[sons of God]

From this list, it stands to reason that sons of God are angelic beings. Additionally, this is confirmed by the fact that the Alexandrian manuscript of Genesis 6:1 translates the word “sons of God” angels, just like Deuteronomy 32:8.

Going further, the interpretation of “sons of God” as sons of Seth has no warrant in the text. It reads a certain theological conclusion into the passage, namely that humanity was divided between Seth’s offspring and Cain’s. While this divide is real and extant in the text, the passage clearly denotes the “daughters of man,” not the daughters of Cain.

Similarly, there is nothing in the text that demands every descendant of Seth to be righteous and every descendant of Cain to be wicked. In fact, because only Noah found favor in God’s sight, it is much more likely that everyone in Seth’s line had become corrupt. And, if the tradition of Noah marrying Naamah, the daughter of Lamech, has any merit, then at least one of the Cain’s line found salvation on the ark.

Then, consider the testimony of the New Testament.

2 Peter 2:4. 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; ⁵ if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Jude 6–7. 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— ⁷ just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

In addition to observations we can make from Genesis itself, the fact that Jude and 2 Peter both make mention of angels leaving their proper abode (= “their own position of authority”), and God bringing judgment on them in the day of Noah (2 Pet. 2:5), then it appears more than reasonable to conclude that Genesis 6 is speaking about the fall of angels, the wickedness of those angels consorting with women, and the fruit of their union to be Nephilim, or the giants.

While Peter Gentry makes a compelling argument that these giants were not the offspring of angels and humans, but lived before and after the fall of the angels, I am inclined to follow Gordon Wenham when he writes of the Nephilim.

The only other biblical reference to the Nephilim is Num 13:33. The Israelite spies said they saw the Nephilim, who were so tall that they felt as small as grasshoppers. [Septuagint] and [Vulgate] also understand them to be giants. Indeed their term, gigantes, suggests they understood the Nephilim to be the offspring of the “angel” marriages, for in Greek mythology the gigantes were the product of the union of earth and heaven. And this is the way most modern commentators understand the term.^[14]

Strange as this view of angels and men may sound, I am persuaded by the arguments of authors like Douglas Van Dorn, who has traced the history of the giants in the Bible. In his book Giants: Sons of the Gods, he concludes his introduction by saying:

The evidence is very strong that the sons of God, the Nephilim, Gibborim (at least in this passage [Gen. 6:1–4]), and the correlative Greek translations all point towards the identification of the giants as demigods- half-breed children of heavenly beings and human women. It really does not matter if this sounds like the National Enquirer, because frankly, it is what the text says. Our choice is to “believe it or not,” though I personally think that God is much more reputable than Robert Ripley.[15]

Putting all this together, I believe that the interpretation that affirms fallen angels and colossal giants is the right one. Admittedly, this interpretation fits better with many ancient mythologies, but as those mythologies are found on every continent, I am actually inclined to see the universal stories of the gods coming down from on high as an echo of the true story.[16] That being said, let me now address a few of the arguments against my position.

Responses to Arguments against the Fallen Angels View

In his eminently helpful commentary, Ken Mathews takes the Sethite position, and one of the reasons he does so is because he rejects the arguments for the Fallen Angel position. In no less than five ways, he rejects that view. And to each of his objections, I will attempt to respond.

Objection 1. No mention of angelic host in Genesis 6.  Mathews writes, “there has been no identification of an angelic host, at least in the sense of a heavenly court, in the account to this point.”^[17]

Answer. This is only true if the “let us make” in Genesis 1:26–28 does not include the divine council. However, if there is any sense of angelic beings observing creation (cf. Job 38:7) or mentioned in the plural “let us,” as some have argued, then Mathews argument breaks down.

Even if we reject the divine council view of creation, we still must reckon with the fact that Moses and his audience would have had an understanding of the divine council, something that is found in places like 1 Kings 22:19–23 and Psalm 82. So Mathews appeal to the divine council does not automatically reject the angelic view.

Objection 2. Genesis 6 is about God’s judgment on mankind, not angels. “From beginning to end 6:1–8 concerns humanity and its outcome, not angels and their punishment. The flood is God’s judgment against ‘man’ (vv. 3, 5–7), and there is no reference to the culpability of angels.”^[18]

Answer. The problem with this argument is that it forgets that the way sin entered the world, the sin of Adam, was aided by the serpent, who is none other than the devil and Satan (Revelation 12). Accordingly, to say that the story is about man’s sin (Gen. 6:5) and not angels is not necessary, nor coherent in comparison with other passages. Certainly, an affirmation of angels here does not acquit man’s guilt; it simply enlarges the guilt of the whole of creation.

Even more, as Satan played a role in the opening chapter of Genesis, angelic beings will also be identified with division of the nations in Genesis 10–11. While Moses does not directly address the place of angels in those two chapters, Deuteronomy 32:8–9 is clear, God divided the nations and subjected them to the sons of God. Thus, as Genesis 1 begins with a heavenly being and Genesis 10–11 ends with heavenly beings, there is good reason to believe that sons of God in Genesis 6:1 refer to angels too.

Argument 3. Angels do not have bodies, so they cannot procreate. “It is difficult to reckon this view with procreation as a power bestowed by God upon the terrestrial order of animals and humanity (1:22, 28). There is no biblical evidence elsewhere that procreation is a trait of the heavenly hosts, although admittedly angels take on other human properties (cf. [Gen.] 18:1–2, 8 with 19:1, 5). Yet even here there is significant difference between holy angels who acquire the ability to eat and rebellious angels who acquire sexual properties. By what line of reason does one propose that the fallen condition of angels somehow results in the exercise of corporeal procreation.”^[19]

Answer. Undeniably, this the most difficult problem with this angelic view. There remains in my mind a metaphysical question, at the level of genotype, that plagues me: If angels had offspring with women, what is the genotype?[20] Still, as puzzling as that is for me, two considerations are worth mentioning.

First, every time we see angels on earth in the Bible, they have physical bodies. They eat with Abraham (Genesis 18), physical restrain men in Sodom (Genesis 19), open locked doors for Peter (Acts 12), etc. In other words, whatever their physical attributes are, the Bible presents them in human form when they visit the earth. Accordingly, this could permit physical union.

Second, however, relates to the incarnation itself. If God the Son could assume a physical body in the Incarnation, though he existed for eternity without body, parts, or passion, then we must keep open a way of thinking about the universe that allows some kind of union between heaven and earth. This is not to say that hypostatic union of the Son, where he subsists in two natures (one divine, one human), is analogous to the angels taking on flesh, but the reverse. If it is possible for a created being in heaven to descend to the earth, though wicked and rebellious, it does say something of the world God made. 

Now, it would be vain speculation to endeavor to explain how between angels and humans works, but in light of the New Testament teaching and the promise that men of earth will one day enter heaven, we should look with favor at the possibility of heaven and earth being joined in the proper sense. And conversely, we should abhor any union that is not according to righteousness—which is what we find in Genesis 6.

Argument 4. Matthew’s Gospel denies the fallen angels. “Also Jesus, when distinguishing earthly life from that of heaven, asserts that angels do not have sexual relations as humans and implies they are not sexual (Matt 22:30 pars.). This differs remarkably from the pagan perception of supernatural beings.^[21]

Answer. This is an argument with great form but weak substance. First, the argument from Matthew 22:30 is by inference, not by direct address. In Matthew 22, and its parallel (Mark 12:25), Jesus does not teach about Genesis 6 directly, nor address creation in general, nor speak to the matter of angelic bodies (see Arg. 3). Rather, Jesus is addressing what happens in heaven in the age to come. Accordingly, the time and the place do not fit the use of this verse to reject an angelic reading of Genesis 6. For in Genesis 6, both the place is on earth (not heaven) and the time is in the beginning (not the end). Equally, when the New Testament does speak about angels falling, there is no other episode recorded in Scripture besides the events of Genesis 6.

Second, the inference depends on what should be done, not what could be done, or what has been done. Jesus is not describing the ways angels have or could sin. But clearly, because angels can sin, when Jesus speaks about the future glories of heaven, he is making a comparison that would fall outstand the range of angelic sin. Thus, Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25 really don’t have anything to say directly to Genesis 6.

Equally, while the language of angels taking women for marriage is what we read in Genesis 6, the language of “wives” could be “women.” And the forceful taking of women could be something less than marriage. The same word for “take” is used of Lamech in Genesis 4:19 when he took two women for himself. And thus, the way the angels took women might be similarly disordered.

Again, angels should retain their proper position in heaven. But if they left heaven, taking on human form as they do in other places in the Old Testament, and do not return but took women for themselves, then this would be something different than what Jesus is describing. In fact, what Jesus says could even affirm the fact that angels leaving heaven is sin, because earth is for men and women, not for angels.

Argument 5. The New Testament Testimony is Not Clear. “The New Testament line of evidence remains unclear, it cannot have undue influence in our reading of the Genesis account.”^[22]

Answer. On this point, I simply disagree. Following the likes of Thomas Schreiner and others, I am quite convinced that there is no Old Testament reference in 2 Peter or Jude, unless they are describing Genesis 6. The mention of angels leaving their proper abode and inviting God’s judgment is either describing the events of Genesis 6 or it is describing an unnamed “fall” with worldwide impact.

God created an eternal fire for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41). And it is possible that the formation of this place of judgment is entirely undefined by Scripture. But it is better, in light of everything else, to see Genesis 6 as the event that invited such judgment. Just as Genesis 3 introduces us, with the light of later revelation, to the devil who “leads” his angels to rage against God, however he leads them (cf. Rev. 12:7), so Genesis 6 introduces us to the angels themselves who fell in order to pursue women.

As Genesis 1–11 provides a vision of the cosmos that God made, it makes sense that God would inspire Scripture that speaks of the devil (Genesis 3), the sons of God who have been placed over the nations (cp. Genesis 10 with Deuteronomy 32:8–9), and, in between, the sons of God who fell (Genesis 6),

In Sum: Angels Fell in Genesis 6

As I read these chapters that is how I understand them. I appreciate the other two interpretations—the Sethite view and the Kings of the Earth view. At the same time, I acknowledge that the view I have argued for has challenges too, especially as it relates to the Nephilim. But actually that is a problem that comes after discerning what Scripture says about the sons of God and the daughters of men. For once that decision is made, the question about the Nephilim takes us to other places in Scripture.

For now, in the arguments I outlined above, I have tried to lay out each option and show why the Fallen Angels view is best. In the next post, I will pick the language itself and begin to show from Scripture how we should understand words like Sons of God, Nephilim, and Gibborim, to name only a few.

Soli Deo Gloria, ds

Photo by Luigi Boccardo on Unsplash

_____________

^[1] John Calvin and John King, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 238–239.

[2] He writes, “The opinion also of the Chaldean paraphrast is frigid; namely, that promiscuous marriages between the sons of nobles, and the daughters of plebeians, is condemned.” (Ibid.)

^[3] “Moses, then, does not distinguish the sons of God from the daughters of men, because they were of dissimilar nature, or of different origin; but because they were the sons of God by adoption, whom he had set apart for himself; while the rest remained in their original condition. Should any one object, that they who had shamefully departed from the faith, and the obedience which God required, were unworthy to be accounted the sons of God; the answer is easy, that the honour is not ascribed to them, but to the grace of God, which had hitherto been conspicuous in their families.” (Ibid.)

^[4] In a different order, Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 139,” lists them as “First, “the sons of the gods” are nonhuman, godlike beings such as angels, demons, or spirits. Second, “the sons of the gods” are superior men such as kings or other rulers. Third, “the sons of the gods” are godly men, the descendants of Seth as opposed to the godless descendants of Cain.”

^[5] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 329–330.

^[6] Ibid.

[7] Graham A. Cole, Against the Darkness, 117.

^[8] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 328.

[9] Meredith Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Overland Park, KS: Two Age Press, 2000), 185–89; John Walton, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1–4,” in The Genesis Debate, ed. Ronald Youngblood (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock), 184–209. Cited in Graham A. Cole, Against the Dark, 115.

[10] Walter Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1997), 108.

^[11] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 139.

^[12] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15,  139.

[13] Douglas Van Dorn, Giants: Sons of the Gods, 25.

^[14] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15,  142–143.

[15] Douglas Van Dorn, Giants: Sons of the Gods, 41.

[16] On the relationship between Genesis 1–11 and the origin of false religions, see Daniel Strange, Their Rock is Not Like Our Rock: A Theology of Religions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014).

^[17] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 326.

^[18] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 326–327.

^[19] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26,  327.

[20] One way around this question is to affirm “sons of god” as angels, but to deny any sexual union with women. Thus, Genesis 6 does report the fall of angels, but not the procreation of Nephilim. This is Peter Gentry’s view.

^[21] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 327.

^[22] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 328.