Who Were the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis?

I updated this post yet again. Who were the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis? This post also covers the “sons of the Most High” in Psalm 82 and the “sons of God” in Job 1-2 and other verses. Earlier update: This post also looks into the phrase “because of the angels” in 1 Cor. 11:10.

Here are the verses:

When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (Gen. 6:1-2, NIV)

There are four possible interpretations: (1) The “sons of God” are rebellious angels who “somehow” fell and bred with human women. (2) They are ancient kings, who claimed descent from the gods (“sons of the gods”) or who saw themselves as semi-divine. (3) They were ungodly descendants of Cain through Lamech. (4) They were humans who descended from the godly line of Seth. They sinned by marrying into the line of Cain. (HT to BTSB for this quick summary)

Please consider Addendum #1 and the video link (below) because the youtuber argues that the “sons of God” were kings who thought they were semi-divine (the second interpretation). The youtuber is much more thorough than I am here in the above summary. I prefer this interpretation, but the third one also appeals to me.

However, in this post, I mainly argue that the first interpretation, though popular now, is the least likely one than the other three, biblically speaking.

But as usual, I write to learn.

1.. Do spirit beings (angels or fallen angels) have human DNA, so that they can  produce the right sperm with human women’s ovum, to create satanic / human hybrids?

In Gen. 6:2, the “sons of God” saw that the “daughters of humans” were beautiful and married them. Because of the sharp contrast in the phrasing and the appearance of the phrase—sons of God v. daughters of humans—many Bible teachers say that these were fallen angels (or some sort of spirit beings). Some of these interpreters even speculate that the fallen angels were given male body parts by which to procreate. One fiery TV preacher claimed that their fallen, angelic bodies were “somehow” transformed or reconstituted, so they could breed.

The “fallen angels” interpreters cover this difficulty usually by saying “somehow” fallen angels could have this ability, but they stop short of explaining the “somehow.” I don’t think they could be transformed to have human DNA. Here’s why, based on biblical teaching, not on modern science of which the people of the ancient Near East knew nothing.

Gen. 1:20-25 says that creatures breed according to and with their own kind:

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. (Gen. 1:20-25, NIV)

And then this verse covers humans breeding with their own kind:

28 God blessed them [mankind and womankind] and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number (Gen. 1:28, NIV)

The people of the ancient Near East may not have known anything about modern genetics, but they knew enough to see the cows bred with cows and horses with horses. So I don’t believe that angels, who are spirit beings (Heb. 1:7), even after falling, can have human DNA and produce sperm that can fertilize a woman’s ovum (see Matt. 22:30).

Next, I don’t believe that these hybrid spawns of satanic and human beings wandered around the earth. No, ancient Greek and Near Eastern myths do not convince me that gods really kidnapped women and had sex with them (e.g. Zeus and Europa). Studying ancient culture is a benefit and can clarify some things, but let’s not over-apply it.

Further, I don’t believe that these cross-bred, hybrid satanic / human beings are needed to turn the world into a place of violence so quickly (Gen. 6:5). How long did it take for human Nazis to commit their atrocities? Fifteen or twenty years? Human Chinese communists to commit their atrocities? Twenty to thirty years? Stalin and his atrocities? All in all, it took much less that one hundred years–from 1917 (the Russian Revolution) to 1976 (end of the Chinese cultural revolution)–for the communists and Nazis to destroy half the planet. Satan obviously led these movements, but Satan or his demons did not have sex with human females. Biblical narratives often compress time in their story-telling, but it would not take long to see evil and wickedness and violence spread completely throughout the biblical author’s known world between Gen. 6:2 to 6:5.

Moreover, Matt. 22:30 says that humans in heaven will not marry or be given in marriage, but will be like the angels, with the natural implication that angels don’t marry or are given in marriage, either. It is true that these angels whom Jesus mentioned were faithfully performing their roles in heaven, but it is convoluted and forced reasoning to say that after being thrown out of heaven or sneaking out of heaven, the bodies of fallen angels were transformed or reconstituted, so they could breed and produce human DNA with their sperm. And there is no word on fallen angels marrying human women and raising families and their doing the daily grind of agricultural labor or such like.

For me, piling on myths and strange beliefs becomes ridiculous. I prefer a streamlined interpretation of Scripture.

And therefore, by process of elimination I opt for the second interpretation: it is very probable that the phrase “sons of God” in Gen. 6:2 refers to heroic or a special class of men who collected women in their harem. This has the beauty of simplicity and other biblical support. All the Scriptures in the next sections match this conclusion.

2.. The phrase “sons of God” means angels.

Let’s look at the phrase “sons of God” (and variations) throughout the Bible. The upshot: It means either angels or men (but never fallen angels).

In Pss. 29:1 and 89:6 “sons of God” refers to either powerful men or angels. Most translations assume they are heavenly beings (e.g. NIV and ESV). But no fallen angels are envisioned here.

Job 1:6 and 2:1 say that Satan appeared with the sons of God, and they were angels. How do we know? The next passage supports this claim.

Job 38:4-7 says, God speaking:

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
    or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
    and all the angels [sons of God] shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7, NIV)

The word angels in v. 7 could be more literally translated as “sons of God.” So this means that the sons of God in Job 1:6 and 2:1 were probably angels because humans were not around when God created the heavens. Note that the phrase here does not say or imply “fallen angels.” And in Job the sons of God are never shown to have bred with women. But Satan (the Adversary) does appear among them (1:6 and 2:1). He is never called a “son of God,” and in fact was distinguished from them. He didn’t belong there and in that group.

In Dan. 3 the three Hebrew men were thrown into the fiery furnace and king Nebuchadnezzar saw a fourth person in the flames:

He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.” (Dan. 3:25, NIV)

We have to be careful about building theology on a pagan king’s exclamation. The Hebrew reads the “son of elohim” or “the son of God” (or “son of the gods”). I prefer to interpret as his being either the Son of God or an angel of God. In any case, there is no fallen angel and no breeding in the furnace!

Please note: In 1 Kings 22, a spirit appeared before the throne of the LORD, and he volunteered to deceive King Ahab and Jehoshaphat. But this spirit is never referred to as a “son of God,” but simply as a “lying spirit.” He is not said to have the ability to breed.

3.. The phrase “sons of God” (and variations) mean men.

In Ex. 4:22 God says Israel is his firstborn son.

Deut. 14:1 calls the people of God “sons of the Lord.”

Ps. 2:7 is about one Son, the anointed of God, but he is not a fallen angel.

I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
    today I have begotten you. (Ps. 2:7 ESV)

Is. 43:6 says that God calls his sons and daughters back to the land of Israel.

In Jer. 31:9 God again says Israel (Ephraim) is his firstborn son.

In Hos. 1:10 the restored Israelites will be called “sons of God.”

In Hos. 11:1 Israel is yet again called God’s son, when the LORD led them out of Egypt.

Ps. 73:15 clearly refer to ordinary sons of the Almighty who are men, neither angels or fallen angels.

Prov. 14:26 says that the sons of the LORD can take refuge in him. This does not refer to angels or fallen angels, but to men.

Let’s go to the New Testament.

In Luke 20:34-36, men of the resurrection and of that age (the age to come) are called sons of God, while in contrast angels are just called … angels.

34 And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 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, 36 for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34-36, ESV)

Other verses that say the “sons of God” are men follow: Rom. 8:14, 19; Gal. 3:26. I only included Luke 20:34-36 because of the resurrection and the kingdom age and the angels.

To conclude this section, the evidence is that the titles “sons of God” or “of the Lord” or “son of God” refers to men, and never fallen angels. 

4.. How should we interpret Psalm 82?

Some interpreters speculate that the phrase “the sons of the Most High” in Ps. 82:6 refers to angels or even Canaanite deities. Here is the psalm in its entirety:

God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:
“How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
“The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
“I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”
Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance. (Ps. 82, NIV)

Surprisingly, the New English Translation (NET), which is normally very reserved and conservative, says that in Ps. 82 God presided over some sort of a Canaanite Deity Council. However, this is not likely since God tells these Canaanite deities that they need to judge justly and uphold the cause of the poor and oppressed and rescue the weak and needy. Thus, this interpretation gives legitimacy to these gods ruling over Israel. However, all throughout the Old Testament, these deities have no legitimacy, and the ancient Israelites were told by prophets never to worship or obey their ways.

But what if the “gods” are angels or fallen angels? They can’t be angels because angels don’t die (v. 7). And how could unfallen angels judge unjustly? And why would God have to tell unfallen angels to get their act together? And why would he set up fallen or unfallen angels as a council of judges over humans in the first place? None of this makes sense.

Therefore,the best answer says that the Hebrew word elohim (plural) has a flexible meaning. It is most often translated as “God,” but in a few places it elevates humans. In these next passages the elohim are human rulers and judges: Ex. 21:6; 22:8-9; Ps. 45:6. In Psalm 82, in conjunction with Psalm 58, the context teaches that the judges thought of themselves as gods, but God says they will die like every other ruler. They were earthly judges who presided over human disputes but dispensed injustice. Their unjust rulings will catch up to them after they die like the humans they were. Therefore, they were not angels or fallen angels or Canaanite deities. They were mortal men, rulers over Israel.

Finally, in John 10:34-36 Jesus refers to Ps. 82:6 and says that God called men “gods,” so why were his listeners, the Jews, upset when he said that he is God’s Son? If Jesus thought these elohim were men, then who am I to disagree with him? The NT always interprets and filters the OT. This is the soundest method.

See my interpretation of John 10:34-36 at this link:

John 10:34-36 and Psalm 82: Who Were the ‘Gods’ and ‘Sons of Most High’?

The scholars at that link are unanimous that Jesus interpreted the ‘gods’ and ‘sons of the Most High’ as not being celestial gods or angels. Then who were they? Click on the link to find out.

5.. What about Deuteronomy 32:8-9?

Who were the sons of God in v. 8?

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
    when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
    according to the number of the sons of God
But the Lord‘s portion is his people,
    Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deut. 32:8-9, ESV, emphasis added)

Putting together all the evidence and its respective contexts so far, these are either angelic beings overseeing territories in the heavenly realms, or they are powerful, godly men. But as I explain below, the terms “sons of God” and “fallen angels” are a contradiction. Satanic beings are not sons of God, by definition.

My interpretation is that the context of Deut. 32:8-9 indicates these are down-to-earth realms, and it is a far leap to assume that the sons of God are angels that rule over them. The sons of God were prominent men (humans) because the rest of Scripture teaches that angels do come down and give messages but do not become humans and rule over people for extended period of times, as if they were angel-kings. It makes me wonder if there are angel-leaders or angel-politicians existing today. I doubt it.

However, I still have enough room in my interpretation to say that it is possible that angelic beings could oversee the human realms from a spiritual realm, so I don’t wish to categorically exclude this possibility, as the next point shows.

6.. How does this entire theology relate to Dan. 10:13, 20 and the Prince of Persia hindering Michael and the messenger-interpreter?

The prince (or ruler) of Persia that hinders Michael and the messenger from God cannot be another angel. It must be a demonic being. Yet the belief that the sons of God are satanic beings is a contradiction. If they are satanic, they are not sons of God, definitionally. And nowhere in Dan. 10 does the phrase “sons of God” appear.

Therefore, once again, the ruler over Persia was a demonic being, but not a “son of God.” In contrast, the sons of God in Deut. 32:8 are either angelic beings overseeing a territory in the heavenly realms (but not incarnated as humans-kings in disguise) or they are nonangelic, prominent men.

Either way, I don’t deny that evil spirit beings can rule over an area. What I deny is that they are fallen angels who sneak down to earth, breed with women, and produce satanic-human hybrids. The verses in Daniel do not offer a hint that they did this.

7.. What about 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 and sinning angels?

First, 2 Peter 2:4 refers to angels that were thrown into hell: “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” …. (2 Peter 2:4, ESV)

Second, Jude 6 repeats what Peter wrote: “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” (Jude 6, ESV).

In both verses, God contained these sinning angels, who broke their assigned jurisdictions, in eternal chains and in gloomy darkness. Whatever or whoever these angelic beings were, and wherever they are kept, whether literally in chains and gloomy darkness or metaphorical, spiritual chains and darkness (note the phrasing “eternal chains until”), it is hard to see how they could have had time to marry and breed and raise a family with the daughters of men and do agricultural labor or order commoners to do it. Stated differently, if they were angelic sons of God in Genesis who did not keep their station, God would not allow them to marry and raise families, for he would put a stop to this sinning before then. The evidence in the previous sections would not allow fallen angels to be called “sons of God.”

God confined “criminal” angels before they could intermarry and breed with humans and raise a family and plow fields behind a team of oxen and raise livestock, shear sheep and cook food and wipe the sweat from their brow and maybe become spirit-demonic-kings on earth somehow.

Should we skip over the day-to-day details and the implications of their elaborate mythologies? The Bible does not skip over Abraham’s story, which indicates how these strange humans would have had to live in an ancient agrarian society. Even before Abraham, Abel and Cain had to grow crops and raise livestock after the fall. The whole scenario of fallen angels living like this and doing agrarian things becomes ridiculous.

And even if they forced slaves to do the grunt work, the flood of Noah wiped them out, which is the main point of Gen. 6-9 anyway. Then where did the Nephilim or descendants of Anak, who were very large, come from after the flood (Num. 13:22-33)? We should look for a more natural explanation and tentatively say they were genetic anomalies. Or we don’t know.

Then where do demons come from? They may be spirit beings who were not confined but allowed to roam the earth or inhabit a low-level heavenly realm. Some interpreters point to Is. 14 and Ezek. 28 as hints of their fall. Apart from that, the answer is unknown.

Satan and Demons: Origins

But there is no word on the men of Is. 14 and Ezek. 28 breeding with women.

The two verses in 2 Peter and Jude are silent on these “criminal” angels having sex with women by first getting, somehow, the right body parts and human-ish DNA after they fell, because in heaven they don’t marry or are given in marriage (Matt. 22:30). Retrofitting their bodies by a strange, supernatural-natural process is farfetched. It seems these Bible interpreters are working too hard to protect their hypothesis at all costs. They are over-applying their thesis.

8.. What does the phrase “because of the angels” in 1 Corinthians 11:10 refer to?

The verses read:

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels.  (1 Cor. 11:7-10, NIV, emphasis added)

Throughout their own commentary on the Greek text of 1 Corinthians, word by word, Timothy A. Brookins and Richard W. Longenecker do a remarkable job of looking into a huge number of commentaries. They say there are two main explanations. (1) The heavenly hosts participate in worship with the Christians in the assembly (cf. Ps. 138:1; Luke 15:7, 10:2:8, 9), and based on parallel texts in the Qumran community. (2) Women ought to have their heads covered in some way (either by a veil or by their hair; see 1 Cor. 11:15) because angels are examples to women when the angels veil or cover themselves in worship (see Is. 6:2). Modesty and decorum must be maintained, and decorum will be Paul’s main thesis in 1 Corinthians 14.

Then, after their lengthy discussion, Brookins and Longenecker paraphrase the important clauses:

Woman is the glory of man; therefore woman ought to have the power of protection over her head, for, with the angels being present, her covering herself is the only way for man to keep the glory he is due (p. 37).

Incidentally, these two scholars don’t even entertain the idea that angels are lusting after the women in Corinth. Of course they are right.

Timothy A. Brookins and Bruce W. Longenecker. 1 Corinthians 10-16: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Baylor UP, 2016).

Their paraphrase reminds me of Psalm 8:4-5:

what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
    human beings that you care for them?
5 You have made them a little lower than the angels
and crowned them with glory and honor. (Ps. 8:4-5, NIV)

When Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:7 that womankind is the glory of mankind, the woman wearing her head covering reflects his glory. This tells the angels who participate in worship and maintain the created order that humankind is crowned with glory and honor that angels are not accorded–at least in the same way that humankind is. Only humankind can be redeemed and worship freely (cf. 1 Peter 1:12). First Corinthians 4:9 and 1 Timothy 5:21 teach that angels are involved in human interaction, but no word on their lusting after women.

In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Gordon Fee also rules out “at once” the “lustful angels” interpretation of Gen. 6:2-3 imported into 1 Corinthians 11:10, as follows:

On the whole, this interpretation seems foreign to Paul and to the context. How are they envisioned as present so that they should become lustful? And what difference would it make in any case? Would they follow through on their lust? That is, are the women somehow to be understood as being in jeopardy? One is hard pressed to find such ideas in Paul and the rest of the NT. (p. 576, note 123)

Fee implies that this oddball interpretation women may be in jeopardy from rape simply does not fit the context in Paul’s entire corpus when he discusses angels. And yes, Fee too is right.

Gordon D. Fee The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Rev. ed. (Eerdmans, 2014).

Anthony Thiselton, who wrote a huge commentary on 1 Corinthians, says that Paul’s use of “angels” as evil or lustful runs into contrary lexicographical evidence, particularly with the definite article: the angels, which appears in Greek in v. 10. Evidently he means that in Paul’s writings, the definition of angels as being evil or lustful is not found, particularly when the noun is used with a definite article (comment on 11:10).

Anthony C. Thiselton. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Greek New Testament Commentary (Eerdmans, 2000).

Craig Blomberg amplifies what the lexicographical evidence means:

The suggestion that they are fallen angels who might be sexually seduced or human messengers or church leaders go against the consistent meaning of angels used without qualification elsewhere in the New Testament. It is better to see them as the angels who remain God’s servants, watching over creation and protecting the worship of his people. They in particular would want to see services proceed with appropriate dignity and decorum. (p. 212)

Craig Blomberg. 1 Corinthians. The NIV Application Commentary (Zondervan, 1994).

Craig S. Keener says that “because of the angels” is a shorthand expression or quick reminder of 1 Corinthians 6:3, which says, “Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!” (1 Cor. 6:3, NIV). Since women have authority over their own heads, they should be able to make simple decisions about head coverings. They shall, after all, judge angels in the future (see Col. 1:18; 2:10; cf. 1:15-17). Keener says this makes much more sense because of the context of 1 Corinthians in its entirety than the interpretations about angels overseeing order in the church service or lusting angels.

Craig S. Keener. Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul. (Hendrickson, 1992), pp. 39-42.

Now let’s return to Gordon Fee. In his essay “Praying and Prophesying in the Assemblies,” in the book Discovering Biblical Equality: Biblical, Theological, Cultural and Practical Perspectives (ed. Ronald W. Pierce, et al.), pp. 126-45, he expands on Paul’s theology of angels in 1 Corinthians. He says that the Corinthians may have believed that they spoke with the tongues of angels (13:1). Angels and men can observe the weakness of the apostles (4:9). And, as noted in Keener’s comments, the Corinthians will judge angels in the eschatological future (Fee, p. 142).

So, Fee argues, Paul is simply taking the Corinthian women’s viewpoint that they are like angels. They too have authority over their own heads. […] “Paul is here momentarily allowing the rightness of the Corinthian perspective: that because of their ‘angelic’ status they have the right to put what they please (or not) on their own heads” (p. 143). Fee has moved way past the “lustful angels” interpretation and found a better, more reasonable interpretation.

Personally, I believe that the “lustful, evil angels” interpretation is being over-applied, throughout the Bible, all the way even to 1 Cor. 11:10. The problem with this interpretation is that Paul should have taught it throughout his churches because angels can lust after women in Christian communities beyond the assembly in Corinth. Paul should have warned them that women are in jeopardy, but he did not.

I don’t necessarily deny that some angels can become or have become evil, but I deny that they can sneak around and have sex with women. And so I agree with these high-quality commentators and steer clear of this interpretation, even though it has been making the rounds on youtube for a number of years now and has become popular.


Yes, I believe in a spirit world because it is clearly taught in Scripture (e.g. Eph. 6:11-12 and Col. 2:10, 18-20 and Luke 4:1-13 and Matt. 4:1-11). But I don’t believe in the elaborate mythology that some teachers are creating from a few undetailed verses in Genesis 6:1-4.

Based on all of the above evidence, the most likely explanation is that in the biblical worldview the sons of God in Gen. 6:1-4 are heroic men, not lusting, fallen angels who sneaked around and had sex with women and by human-ish DNA “somehow” created a satanic hybrid of human-like creatures. They were not necessary for evil to prevail, which provoked God to send the Flood. Just consider how little time it took for the Nazis and communists to turn the world evil and to commit deadly atrocities against millions of people.

In Genesis, the “sons of God” have a special relationship with God, though this relationship is not clarified beyond just their title. They might have been mighty warriors of sorts, to maintain peace on earth (cf. Gen. 6:4), though they could not hold back all the ungodliness, so the flood was sent in judgment. Evil and violence eventually prevailed. Human degradation.

In no instance throughout the Bible does the title “sons of God” refer to fallen angels (unless one assumes that Gen. 6:2 does, but the rest of Scripture says no).

Boiled down:


Sons of God = Angels


Sons of God = Mighty Men


Sons of God = Fallen Angels

Those terms are mutually exclusive, by definition.


Fallen Angels ≠ Sons of God

The sons of God are endorsed by God, which explains why they are called his sons.

How does this post help me know God better?

This post indicates that Bible interpreters can have differences and still remain in Christ. You are allowed to come up with your own interpretation or are free to accept the one that says the sons of God in Gen. 6:2 were specially powerful men who married beautiful women. You can even believe that the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 were indeed fallen angels, as many OT scholars still do.

This post is for specialists. It does not affect your salvation and your guarantee of heaven by your remaining in Christ and your victorious living by Christ empowering you in the here and now. The NT takes over the phrase “sons of God” and applies it to believers in Christ who are adopted by God the Father.

Christ alone is central to your salvation, not disputes about such tertiary, peripheral issues.


John 10:34-36 and Psalm 82: Who Were the ‘Gods’ and ‘Sons of Most High’?

See my posts about Satan in the area of systematic theology:

Bible Basics about Satan and Demons and Victory Over Them

Satan and Demons: Personal

Satan and Demons: Theology

Satan and Demons: Origins

Bible Basics about Deliverance

Magic, Witchcraft, Sorcery, and Fortunetelling


The sons of God may refer to ancient Near Eastern kings, who, it was believed, descended from the gods (though biblically and naturalistically speaking they actually did not). Here is one sample table:

Table Six: Sumerian King List

King City Length of Reigns
1 Alulim Eridu 28,000
2 Alalgar Eridu 36,000
3 Enmenluanna Badtibira 43,200
4 Enmengalanna Badtibira 28,000
5 Dumuzi Badtibira 36,000
6 Ensipazianna Larak 28,000
7 Enmenduranna Sippar 21,000
8 Ubartutu Shuruppak 18,600
8 Kings 5 Cities 241,200 years

The Sumerian King List is dated around 2000 B.C.

These kings lived before the Sumerian version of the flood.

The rest of the Sumerian King List says: “These are five cities, eight kings ruled them for 241,000 [sic] years. (Then the flood swept over [the earth]).”

After the flood, thirty-nine kings rules for a total of 26,997 years.

However, the Bible trims the antediluvian ages, such that no one lived over a millennium, indicating their humanness, not demigod status.

For other tables, go to this link and scroll down to Tables Seven and Eight:

5. The Real Significance of Genealogies in Genesis 5-11

These men were not fallen angels, though they, no doubt, claimed to be sons of the gods.

Please see this video from Inspiring Philosophy, written and produced by Michael Jones, for the argument supporting this first addendum:

It is excellent. It argues that the “sons of God” in Gen. 6:2 are not fallen angels, but semi-divine kings who became rapaciously polygamous and bred with whichever women they desired. That is, people of the ancient Near East may have believed they were semi-divine, but biblically they actually were not. Gods, like Zeus or Apollo, coming down to the earth in a countless numbers of weird incarnations and breeding sessions oppose the True Incarnation, doctrinally speaking.


Some interpreters point to the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha to secure their interpretation that the sons of God in Gen. 6:2 were fallen angels (see, e.g., 1 Enoch 6-7 and Testament of Reuben 5). However, the Pseudepigrapha were written much later than Genesis and even embellish on the older text. The chronology is all wrong.

Second, the Pseudepigrapha hold no authority greater than the Bible, at least not to me. These writers let their imagination run wild with speculations. So appealing to these spurious writings does not influence my interpretation here. Once again, there is no verse in the Scriptures where the phrase “sons of God” clearly means fallen angels. The author or authors of these writings did not get their biblical theology straightened out. The terms “sons of God” and “fallen angels” are mutually exclusive.

The video, above, explains this issue very well.


Works Cited

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s