The term "sons of God" is found in five places in the Old Testament, Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. The question is who does the term "sons of God" refer to and is it the same in both Genesis and in Job?

To start the Study we need to look first at the Genesis passage and its context. " 2. that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore [children] to them. Those were the mighty men who [were] of old, men of renown."

It would appear that there are three possible interpretations. These were fallen angels, they were descendents of Seth and the "daughters of men" were descendents of Cain, they were earthly "divine-kings". We will address each of these individually.

Were they angels?

The first of these, that they were angels who had rebelled against God and been cast out of heaven, was the accepted view of orthodox rabbinical Judaism[1]. The argument goes something like this: the difference between the phrase "sons of God" and "daughters of men" makes an explicit difference between something of God and something of nature. If these had been men, why not say the sons of men and the daughters of men?

In Job 1:6 and 2:1 the translators of the Hebrew text to Greek (the Septuagint) use the phrase “angels of God”. This is in keeping with the orthodox rabbinical teachings. We do find instances where angels appear in human form, as men, and interact with humans[2].

Arguments against the belief that these were angels goes back to the understanding that angels are spirit beings without gender. Jesus said, “For in the resur-rection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage , but are like angels in heaven.”[3] It has been the accepted belief since the earliest days of the church that angels are without sexual organs or desires.

Secondly, the phrase is used in a number of other passages to refer to men, not angels: For it is not to angels only that the term “sons of Elohim,” or “sons of Elim.” Is applied; but in Ps lxxiii. 15, in an address to Elohim, the godly are called “the generation of Thy sons,” i.e. sons of Elohim ; in Deut. Xxxii. 5 The Israelites are called His (God’s) sons, and in Hos. i. 10, “sons of the God;” and in Ps. Lxxx. 17, Israel is spoke of the son, whom, Elohim has made strong.[4] This shows that we cannot take the phrase “sons of God” in a philological sense, but must interpret it by theology alone.

One final thought is that when angels are referred to, is it to be understood in a physical or ethical sense? Generally speaking, when the attributes of angels are spoken of in scripture, it is in an ethical sense.

Were they descendents of Seth?

Some claim that “sons of God” refers to the descendents of Seth. These were righteous people who had gone astray from God.

Whether the term "sons of God" is to be taken as celestial or terrestrial, i.e. angels or pious men of the tribe of Seth, can only be taken from the context. "It cannot be denied," says Delitsch, "that the connection of chap vi. 1-8 with chap iv. necessitates the assumption that such intermarriages (of the Sethite and Cainite families) did take place about the time of the flood (Cf. Matt xxiv. 38; Luke xvii. 27); and the prohibition of mixed marriages under the law (Ex. xxxiv. 16; cf. Gen. xxvii. 46, xxviii. 1 sqq.) also favours the same idea." So we know that such marriages were taking place prior to the flood.

The Hebrew term translates "take a wife" throughout the Old Testament is an expression for the standing relationship between a man and a woman under the covenant of f God. At no time did it refer to porvneia, or the simple act of sexual intercourse. This would certainly rule out angels as "sons of God" based on the comments of Christ[5]. Some argue that through the fall, angels gave up their celestial nature and took on a terrestrial form. The can only be based on wild speculation since there is nothing in Scripture or the early writings to substantiate such claims.

Were they "rulers" or "princess"?

In 1962, Meredith Kline suggested (in The Westminster Theological Journal, May 1962) that the "sons of the god" were tyrannical "divine" kings like those we know from historical times in the ancient Near East.[6]

David Livingston, Who Were the Sons of God in Genesis 6[7]?, states the following:

In Scripture, adherents of a religious system were called "sons." For instance, the "sons of Hamor" in Genesis 33:19 must have belonged to a cult in which donkeys were sacrificed while making a covenant (cf. G. E. Wright, Shechem. McGraw-Hill, 1965, p. 131). E. Kautzsch in Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (p. 418, u) says, "ben denotes membership of a guild or society (or of a tribe, or any definite class). Thus benei haelohim (of Genesis 6 and Job) properly means not 'sons of god(s),' but beings of the class of elohim." Many references are found in the Old Testament to "sons (followers) of the prophets." Even in the New Testament, Paul called Timothy his "son" (or disciple). It may not, therefore, be out of line to suggest that a follower of a temple-order would be a "son" of the order (or "class", as Kautzsch calls it), including the priest-king. But, in the latter's case, he would be called "son of the god so and so . . ." For instance, the city of Ashur -- which became the center of the Assyrian Empire -- had a patron god also named Ashur. In the seventh-century BC/BCE, the well-known Assyrian emperor, Ashurbanipal, came to power and took upon himself a name which means "Ashur Has Made a Son."

While this might sound plausible, it, again, must be reconciled to the context of the passage and there is no justification for trying to bring into the narrative the figment of someone's imagination.

So who were they "sons of God"?

I believe the only reasonable conclusion is that they were Sethites who had found the Cainite women attractive and alluring and took them for their wives. To speculate further would be to ignore the context of the narrative to try and justify our own fantasies.

[1] Keil, D.E. Delitzsch, F., Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1, p. 128, Wm b Erdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

[6] "The fact that an historical theme so prominently treated in the Sumero-Babylonian epic tradition finds no counterpart (or connection with) Genesis 3-6 according to standard (traditional) interpretations is itself good reason to suspect that these interpretations have been missing the point (p. 199)."