“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 [men] were beautiful” (Gen 6:2).
The history of the antediluvian world can be viewed as a struggle between two groups: the sons of God versus the sons of men. These two groups emerged from the conflict between Cain and Abel. When, in relation to the offerings Abel “did what was right” by presenting the Lord with an acceptable offering (Gen 4:4), he distinguished himself from the ignorant worship of his brother. In that moment, God divided the two brothers — hitherto indistinguishable from one another with regard to the outward expression of their faith — into two groups: Abel came to represent those who worship God in a spirit of reverence and understanding, while Cain came to represent those who worship out of fear and ignorance.
Genesis does not initially refer to these two groups as the sons of God and the sons of men, but rather the occurrence of the phrase “sons of God” appears much later in the antediluvian narrative, especially Gen 6:2: “The sons of God saw that the daughters of humans [men] were beautiful.” This passage concerns the period prior to the Flood and is part of the 11 verses in total in Gen 6 that chronicle key antediluvian events, but not occurring earlier than the fifth generation. Although Genesis doesn’t refer to these two groups by these particular names — sons of God, sons of men — prior to the fifth generation, nevertheless they did exist in the first four generations; they were simply referred to as those who “called upon the name of the LORD” (Gen 4:26). And in that regard: if there was a group that called on the name of God, there must also have been a group that did not; hence “the sons of men.”
Yet Gen 6:2 does not refer to “sons of men,” but rather “daughters of men.” However, the expression, “sons of men,” can be extrapolated from the phrase “daughters of men,” since it is reasonable to conclude that if there were daughters of men there must also have been sons of men. And because Gen 4 and 5 chronicle only males,1it is evident that the struggle is meant to be portrayed in Genesis as one between the sons of God and the sons of men — not the sons of God and the daughters of men. That said, women most certainly played a role in this struggle, as we shall see specifically in the character of Naamah (Gen 4:22).
Heavenly Father / earthly father
The title “sons of God” in Gen 6:2 does not refer to a specific genealogy. Rather, it describes anyone, regardless of their lineage, who by their behavior demonstrates that God is their spiritual Father. Likewise, God considers anyone who calls Him “Father” to be His son. This relationship is described by Paul in his letter to the Galatians:
“Because you are His sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, ‘Abba, Father’. So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are His child, God has made you also an heir” (Gal 4:6-7).
Similarly anyone who does not call God “Father” is not His son. It then stands to reason that if we do not consider God our Father, then we must limit our definition of “father” to one of mere mortal descent. Ergo, sons (daughters) of men.
Since the designation of “sons of God” is not biological but spiritual, it cannot refer to a particular genealogy. And yet, Gen 5 chronicles a specific branch of Seth’s descendants who were faithful. This gives the impression that the reference to “sons of God” in Gen 6:2 concerns only this particular branch of Seth’s descendants. However, Gen 4:26 states that, “at that time people began to call on the name of the LORD.” The plurality of the word “people” suggests more than one “called on the name of the LORD.” Since Seth only had one son when this “calling” occurred, “people” must refer to others — Seth’s parents, and any other children (sisters) born to them before and/or after his birth.
Therefore, there were many genealogical strands of the faithful that Genesis could have focused on. But because none of these lineages produced any faithful men or women down to the 10th generation (they had, by this point become corrupted and wicked), their lineages were doomed to be wiped out in the Flood. Chronicling their lineages would thus have been pointless.
In comparison, only Seth’s genealogy — and only that branch that extended from Seth to Noah — remained faithful to the 10th generation, or the generation in which the Flood occurred. Thus Seth’s genealogy represents both a complete biological and — importantly — spiritually faithful lineage. And it is for this reason that Genesis chose to focus solely on his particular genealogy.
Seth’s genealogy
While the title, “sons of God,” is unrelated to a specific lineage, Gen 5 nevertheless focuses on a particular branch of Seth’s descendants. Genesis does so for the following reasons:
- To provide narrative continuity from Adam to Noah;
- When in contrast with a specific branch of Cain’s descendants, it illustrates the difference between the faithful and the unfaithful;
- It provides an explanation for God’s decision to destroy the earth in the Flood;
- It is, most importantly, the branch from which Christ is descended from.
Cain’s genealogy
Similarly, Gen 4 focuses on a specific branch of Cain’s descendants for two similar reasons: to illustrate the stark contrast between the faithful and the unfaithful, and to provide an explanation for God’s decision to destroy the earth in the Flood.
The sons of God versus the sons of men
“What fellowship can light have with darkness? … What does a believer have in co
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One