"Sons of God" in Genesis 6: Human-Thirsty Angels?

[The blogpost above was originally published on 8/26/21. I am re-posting it now, as I had a conversation with some friends about this earlier this week.]

1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 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 man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. (Genesis 6:1-8)

Who are "the sons of God" and "the daughters of man" in Genesis 6:2? The two understandings of this text have been: 1) "the sons of God" were men from the godly line of Seth, and the "daughters of man" were women from the ungodly line of Cain; 2) "the sons of God" were angelic beings (actually demons), and "the daughters of man" were human women.

Historically, Augustine (see City of God, Book XV), Aquinas (see Summa, Part I, Question 51, Article 3), Matthew Henry in his commentary, and Charles Spurgeon (see his Morning and Evening evening selection for August 20) all identified "sons of God" with the line of Seth, and the "daughters of man" with the line of Cain.

Recently, the "sons of God"=[fallen] angels has seen a surge of popularity from evangelical scholars. Dr. Peter Gentry gives a clear and concise presentation of this latter view in the following video:

As much as I respect Dr. Gentry, I'm still not convinced of his view (and I still hold the Augustinian view). The following are my responses to particular points that Gentry raises:

Gentry: "Genesis 6 says that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, and they chose the daughters of men for themselves as wives."

In referring to Genesis 6:2, Gentry leaves out part of the verse. I don't think that he does this on purpose in order to make his case stronger, but I do think that he overlooks it, because it does not fit in with what he is trying to say. Notice that the verse does not just say that the 'the sons of God saw the daughters of man' but that they saw "that the daughters of man were attractive." The word here is the same טוֹב֩ used of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Genesis 3:6. The woman (a positive character in her unfallen state) had seen that the tree was "good/attractive," and she sinned by taking from it. The "sons of God" see that the "daughters of man" are "good/attractive," and they sin by taking them as wives. If these "sons of God" are understood as non-human, already-diabolical characters, the parallel is not nearly as strong. Also: I'm not sure in what sense demons would perceive the women as good, nor why perceiving them as good would motivate them to marry. If Moses is intentionally structuring this narrative to have a parallel, then discerning the nature of that parallel can help our interpretation of this passage.

Gentry: "The exact expression 'sons of God' only occurs four or five times in the Hebrew Bible."

"Sons of God" in Job are certainly referring to angels. However, I think the term is referring to them positively (or it, at least, has a default positive connotation). The "sons of God" are certainly presented as entirely positive characters in Job 38:7, in which they are described as shouting for joy at God's work of creation. In Job 1 and 2, the "sons of God" include at least one demonic figure "among them," but we know that because "the Satan" is explicitly indicated (and thus differentiated from the mass of the "sons of God"). In Job, we don't see an instance in which the term "sons of God" is used to indicate only (or primarily) demons, which is how the term must be understood in Genesis 6 on Gentry's interpretation. In Daniel 3, Nebuchadnezzar (whatever he knew) in speaking of one "like a son of the gods," certainly does not seem to be proclaiming that he was looking at a vile, demonic figure; again, the term seems to have a positive connotation. So: if "sons of God," referring to angelic figures in Job and Daniel, has a default positive connotation, then do we see this (positive) term likewise clearly applied to human beings in Scripture?

Gentry: "It doesn't actually say that Adam is a son of God... the only time that linguistic expression occurs in the Bible, it always and very clearly refers to angelic beings."

When Gentry says "Bible" in the above statement, he must mean "Hebrew Bible" or Old Testament. In the section just after this statement, Gentry speaks of the New Testament witness, giving his interpretation of passages in 2 Peter and Jude. However, he does not mention how the New Testament does clearly use "son(s) of God" of human beings.

Whereas the Old Testament "doesn't actually say that Adam is a son of God," the New Testament does, in Luke 3:38. Jesus in Matthew 5:9 teaches, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (I don't think that Jesus means to indicate that His disciples shall be called angelic beings.) Also, Romans 8:14 says, "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God;" this might be a general principle, applying to all rational creatures (both men and angels), but Paul definitely applies the term "sons of God" to human beings, as he is writing about our redemption and adoption in Christ.

So the overall canon DOES apply "sons of God" to human beings. And the New Testament use of the term does not pause to say: "I know we've all just been using this term of angels (and sometimes demons?) until now." Rather, the authors assume that readers/hearers will be able to understand that the term does not always have to be used only of angelic beings.

This raises the question: WHY are angels and people called "sons of God"? In the Job passages (laying aside whatever ideas Nebuchadnezzar may have had about "a son of the gods" in Daniel), are the angels called "sons of God" just because that is the common term for angels? Gentry does not get into the significance of the term. This is what I've been driving at in suggesting that "sons of God" should be understood (and would have been understood by the first readers) as having a default positive character. "Sons of God," when it is clearly used regarding human beings in the New Testament, certainly is a positive term. In the Old Testament, would it have been ambiguous to the point of being easily assumed as negative in Genesis 6? In the opening of Job, if the default understanding is positive, then what we see is an all-good and God-glorifying situation with "the sons of God" presenting themselves before the LORD, into which situation the Satan enters, sounding a discordant note. This would be consistent with that "serpent of old" entering the all-good Garden of Eden with his negative motivation. If, however, the "sons of God" in Job 1-2 are a combined group of angels and demons, then the picture is somewhat different.

Gentry: "If Peter is trying to encourage his readers from well-known stories in the Old Testament, and if the angels who sinned is not Genesis 6, then where else is the story? There is no other story in the Old Testament that it could be referring to. Some people think that it's the fall of Satan, but as we see when we're going to talk about that, there is no story in the Old Testament that describes the fall of Satan." 

It may be the case that Peter is trying to encourage his readers with well-known stories from near the beginning of history, but that not all (three) of them are clearly displayed in the Old Testament text. In general, having listened to his presentation on the OT 'Satan's fall' texts, I think that Gentry may under-value the history of interpretation on those passages; I gladly affirm his insights into those texts, but I think that they may also point to something in the angelic realm. Again: to look at New Testament passages and to consider that these passages would not have been presenting entirely unheard-of information may be helpful. In Luke 10:18, Jesus said that He saw "Satan fall like lightning from Heaven" and Revelation 12 describes a war in Heaven with Satan and his angels being cast out. Before these texts were given, the readers/hearers may have already had a concept of 'fallen angels.' Couldn't this reasonably be the background for 2 Peter/Jude (especially if other considerations would point away from Genesis 6)?

Gentry: "[Jude] refers to two events. He refers to angels who abandoned their proper dwelling place, their proper home. He also talks about the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and he says since they, in the same way as these, committed strange immorality."  

The "likewise/in the same way" language in Jude 7 definitely points to some basis of comparison between fallen angels and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, but the comparison is not necessarily on the basis of sexual immorality. The comparison could be on the basis of acting contrary to created nature, which might look different for a spiritual being than a physical being. Notice Jude 8: "Yet in like manner these people also [the false teachers], relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones." In Jude 6-7, the angelic sin might point to the rejecting of authority, whereas the human sin in Sodom and Gomorrah might point to the defiling of the flesh.

Gentry: Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25.

Gentry does well in showing how these passages don't (necessarily, by themselves) contradict the position he's advocating. However, they may form part of the fabric from which we derive a proper angelology. In that case, an important question is whether the angels in Heaven refrain from marriage as a moral choice in obedience to God's design for them, or if they don't marry as a function of their very nature, being spiritual rather than physical beings.