One of the most interesting and perennial debates around biblical interpretation surrounds a mysterious passage in Genesis 6 about the ancient, primordial history of humanity:

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. Then the Lord said, ‘My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years. 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. (Gen. 6:1-4)

There have been a variety of interpretations about this verse, including the idea that it is talking about aliens coming to earth and sleeping with human women. But the main two interpretations among serious Bible scholars is around the question, “Who are the sons of God?” My experience is that the most popular view in our generation is the one championed by the late Mike Heiser in his widely read The Unseen Realm. Heiser was a brilliant scholar and student of the ancient world, and his book has tons of helpful insights. Heiser believes that the sons of God are arch-angelic members of the divine counsel who went into human women, and that is why their progeny are the giant race of the nephilim. Here is one quote of how he understands who the sons of God are:

“In the ancient Semitic world, sons of God (Hebrew: beney elohim) is a phrase used to identify divine beings with higher-level responsibilities or jurisdictions. The term angel (Hebrew: mal’ak) describes an important but still lesser task: delivering messages.” (The Unseen Realm, p. 24)

Now, there is so much material to interact with in his book that I can’t address it all in this article. In short, this understanding of the phrase “sons of God” deeply informs how Heiser reads the Old Testament. But Heiser admits that his view is not the most prominent historical interpretation in the church, which is most famously found in Augustine’s City of God. Augustine saw all of human history as the great conflict between the two lines of the children Adam and Eve: the line of Seth (believers) and the line of Cain (the seed of Satan). These two lines represent the city of God and city of man, respectively. In this interpretation, the main problem in Genesis 6:2 is that believers were intermarrying with unbelievers. This was, of course, a major issue throughout the Old Testament (for example, the Israelites’ intermarriages with the Moabites in Numbers 25, Solomon’s apostasy as he took wives from the pagan nations, or the disobedience of the exiles in Nehemiah). 

“But that those angels were not angels in the sense of not being men, as some suppose, Scripture itself decides, which unambiguously declares that they were men. For when it had first been stated that ‘the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them as wives of all which they chose,’ it was immediately added, ‘And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall not always strive with these men, for that they also are flesh.’” (City of God, Book XV.23)

Augustine also mentions that there are many accounts of “giants,” even in what was recent Roman history to him. The existence of the Nephilim is not sufficient to say they had angelic parents. Heiser acknowledges Augustine’s view “has been the dominant Christian position since the late fourth century AD” (p. 94). 

By letting Genesis interpret Job, and not the other way around, the most natural reading is that these sons of God are humans.

How can we decide which interpretation is the right one? Are the “sons of God” worshipers of Yahweh who have intermarried with pagans, or are they angels who have gone into human women? I think there are a number of reasons why Augustine is right on this one, and Heiser is wrong. Unfortunately, Heiser dismisses Augustine's view quickly after interacting with it for only about three pages (generally not a good idea). In this article, I’d like to explain the rationale for the traditional reading.

Always Start With The Immediate Context

My impression of The Unseen Realm is that Heiser begins with an interpretation of Job 38:7 and Psalm 82:6 which mentions the sons of God, and reads that interpretation back into Genesis 6. (I will address those two passages later in this article.) But a general hermeneutical principle is that the immediate biblical context should always be prioritized in the interpretation of any passage. In this case, does the immediate context of Genesis 6 give us any interpretative clues about who the sons of God are?

The answer is strongly yes—the chapter just before it, Genesis 5, should be the main clue. Read these verses and tell me who you think the sons of God are:

“When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.” (Gen. 5:1b-3)

A son is a person who bears the image of his father. Adam was “made in the likeness of God” and Adam’s son Seth was fathered “after his own likeness.” The reader of Genesis will have just read these words before coming to Genesis 6:1-4. The most natural answer to “Who are the sons of God?” is: they are Adam, who is God’s son, and his sons in the line of Seth. Heiser does not even interact with the pattern of sonship in these verses, which seems strange. Why go to Psalms or Job before interacting with these verses?

If this is not convincing, it may be helpful to know that this reading of the early chapters of Genesis is shared by other biblical authors.

What Do The Gospels Say?

Does this view—that the sons of God are the line of Seth—appear anywhere else in the Bible? Do other biblical authors explicitly reference these early chapters of Genesis? I think the most important reference is in the gospel of Luke, Jesus’ genealogy:

“...the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” (Luke 3:38)

When Luke reads the early chapters of Genesis, who does he say are the “sons of God”? Clearly, it is Adam and his sons through the line of Seth. 

It is remarkable that Heiser says, “nothing in Genesis 6:1-4 or anywhere else in the Bible identifies people who come from Seth’s lineage with the descriptive phrase ‘sons of God.’” In fact, only once in Heiser’s whole book does he cite Luke 3:38, and that is only parenthetically. He does no exegesis on this verse. Despite neglecting such an important verse, Heiser relies heavily on extra-biblical books (like 1 Enoch) for his interpretation.

I should mention: Heiser would argue that 2 Peter 2:1-10 and Jude 5-7 should actually be our guides here, which mention angels being judged during the time of Noah. I will admit, these verses make his strongest case. Those are important passages, but they never actually say anything about angels marrying humans or being called sons of God. He thinks it is hinted at or suggested. It does refer to other events which included sexual immorality (Gen. 19; Num. 25:1-9), but those involved humans. When a passage seems unclear we must look to the clearer passages, such as those I have already mentioned above. 

Genesis Should Help Us Interpret Job And Psalms, Not The Other Way Around

Generally speaking, reading the Bible should be done in order. Genesis lays the foundation for reading the rest of the books. So, Genesis should guide our reading of other passages, not the other way around.

How does this work, for example, in the book of Job where the sons of God are mentioned? Let's look at the two important verses. First:

“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.” (Job 2:6)

Many people read this verse assuming that this is happening in heaven and that it is a group of angels. That doesn’t seem obvious to me at all. This sounds like God’s people gathering for worship, which is a much more common event in the scriptures. 

Someone might wonder, “Well, what about Satan being there?” One of the most striking moments to me in the book of Job is when one of Job’s friends, Eliphaz, admits that he has had a strange encounter with a spiritual being who planted in Eliphaz’s mind the accusation against Job:

“Now a word was brought to me stealthily;

my ear received the whisper of it.

 Amid thoughts from visions of the night,

when deep sleep falls on men,

dread came upon me, and trembling,

which made all my bones shake.

A spirit glided past my face;

the hair of my flesh stood up.

It stood still,

but I could not discern its appearance.

A form was before my eyes;

there was silence, then I heard a voice:

‘Can mortal man be in the right before God?

Can a man be pure before his Maker?’”

(Job 4:12-17)

He said a spirit glided past his face and whispered in his ear. This sounds like Satan. Could Eliphaz have been one of the sons of God in that worship service where Satan came among God’s people? By letting Genesis interpret Job, and not the other way around, the most natural reading is that these sons of God are humans. 

Now, the strongest argument against this reading is that the “sons of God” are then mentioned again later in Job, and to most people, this seems like an obvious reference to angels:

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?

Tell me, if you have understanding.

Who determined its measurements—surely you know!

Or who stretched the line upon it?

On what were its bases sunk,

or who laid its cornerstone,

when the morning stars sang together

and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”

(Job 38:4-7)

Someone might ask, “How could humans have been shouting for joy at the creation of the world?” Well, if we let Genesis guide our interpretation, go back to Genesis 1 and tell me if you read about humans or angels in the creation story. If the sons of God are Adam and his sons, we read all about them in the dawning of the world. And it even says that they began to worship: “To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD” (Gen. 4:26). The creation story has more about humans than about angels. 

The other passage that Heiser relies heavily on is in Psalm 82:

I said, “You are gods,

sons of the Most High, all of you;

nevertheless, like men you shall die,

and fall like any prince.” (Ps. 82:6)

I take this as a reference to earthly rulers among the Israelites. The most obvious reason is that these sons of God will die. Angels don’t die. Human rulers do—even though they can begin to think of themselves as untouchable. 

We can consider all these things, but the strongest reason to read this passage as referring to humans is because it is quoted by Jesus himself.

What Does Jesus Think?

Just in my own personal devotions, I was reminded of two places where Jesus talks about the sons of God, and here again he points us to a human interpretation, not angelic. And I suppose there really isn’t a commentator on the Old Testament who we should trust more than our Lord.

The main reference is in John 10:

The Jews answered him, ‘It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (John 10:33-36)

Jesus is quoting Psalm 82 in these verses. And he says that the reference to “gods” (which is in parallel with “sons of the Most High”) is referring to those “to whom the word of God came.” These are humans, God’s covenant people. Heiser’s reading of Psalm 82 is not the same as Jesus’. (Heiser addresses this question in a footnote in his book—but I don’t believe his explanation is adequate. It seems this reference should carry more interpretive weight than he gives it.)

But one other place that Jesus refers to sons of God is in connection to angels. And in this passage, I could see an interpretation either way. 

And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.  But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.  Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him.” (Luke 20:34-38; emphasis added)

These verses are interesting because they say a few things:

1. Angels neither marry nor die. (Which means the sons of God in Gen. 6:1-4 and Ps. 82:6 are not angelic beings.)

2. Sons of God are equal to angels in the resurrection. (This does make an interesting connection between sons of God and angels.)

3. The sons of God are humans who are sons of the resurrection. (He clearly says sons of God, in the plural, are human.)

All of this put together says that the traditional view, dating back at least to Augustine, is the most biblical. Some like Heiser's view because it re-enchants our world with a greater emphasis on angels, making our world more supernatural, or even “magical.” But actually, the view I propose—that humans who worship Yahweh are sons of God—re-enchants humans. Humans are not only created with an incredible purpose; in Christ, they can also have an incredible future. We don’t need extra-biblical materials to shape our worldview. The Bible explains itself, and in this case it leads us to answer the question, “Are the sons of God of Genesis 6:1-4 angels?” with a confident “no.”