Home » Angels and Aliens » Sons of Seth or Fallen Angels?

Sons of Seth or Fallen Angels?

The notion that Genesis 6 ‘sons of God‘ is a reference to ‘the sons of Seth’ is surprisingly popular despite the fact that the Bible is replete with evidence that the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 were fallen angels (demons) and despite the fact that all of the ancient Jewish and Ante-Nicene Christian commentators believed the “sons of God” to be referring to demons (fallen angels).

Augustine of Hippo

The first, as far as we can see, to definitively deny the sons of God as being angels was Augustine of Hippo of the fifth century, approximately seventy five years after the drafting of the Nicene Creed. Augustine did much to spiritualize the history of the Bible and twist a simple straightforward reading of the Bible. His method of Bible interpretation made a profound impact and his legacy remains even to this day. Many centuries after Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, a doctor of the Catholic Church in the 13th century, quotes in his magnum opus, Summa Theologica, from Augustine’s work City of God (De Civ. Dei xv) concerning the sons of Seth:

Many persons affirm that they have had the experience, or have heard from such as have experienced it, that the Satyrs and Fauns, whom the common folk call incubi, have often presented themselves before women, and have sought and procured intercourse with them. Hence it is folly to deny it. But God’s holy angels could not fall in such fashion before the deluge. Hence by the sons of God are to be understood the sons of Seth, who were good; while by the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain. [i] Nor is it to be wondered at that giants should be born of them; for they were not all giants, albeit there were many more before than after the deluge. Still if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed bodies, but from the seed of men taken for the purpose; as when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and afterwards of a man; just as they take the seed of other things for other generating purposes, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii), so that the person born is not the child of a demon, but of a man, [ii] (emphasis mine).

The Irish Giant 12′ Tall. Son of Seth or Nephilim?

Just as Augustine fallaciously suggested the sons of God were the so called “godly line of Seth,” the daughters of men have been labeled as being from the “ungodly line of Cain”. Augustine says, “By the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain,” (Augustine as quoted in Summa Theologica, Aquinas). We must ask the important question – where in Scripture does it say such a thing? Augustine makes the claim above that Scripture designates those daughters as coming from the race of Cain, but just where do we see that? The answer is that we simply do not. It was first tentatively considered by Julius Africanus and then completely invented by Augustine and then repeated by all who would follow in his footsteps ever since. If the term “sons of God” refers to the “sons of Seth” as so many suggest, then why does the text not simply state it? Unfortunately neither Augustine nor Aquinas substantiates the claim. They simply presume their statement to be true and offer no biblical proof. Augustine states that “Scripture designates” that the daughters of men “sprang from the race of Cain”. But where in Scripture does it say that? Sadly, their unbiblical assertion has left its mark in the modern day creating a great deal of confusion regarding what the Bible literally teaches.

Calvin’s Interpretation

John Calvin in the 17th century carried on the tradition started by Augustine that the sons of God are in fact the sons of Seth. He states in his commentary:

The principle is to be kept in memory, that the world was then as if divided into two parts; because the family of Seth cherished the pure and lawful worship of God, from which the rest had fallen. Now, although all mankind had been formed for the worship of God, and therefore sincere religion ought everywhere to have reigned; yet since the greater part had prostituted itself, either to an entire contempt of God, or to depraved superstitions; it was fitting that the small portion which God had adopted, by special privilege, to himself, should remain separate from others. It was, therefore, base ingratitude in the posterity of Seth, to mingle themselves with the children of Cain, and with other profane races; because they voluntarily deprived themselves of the inestimable grace of God. For it was an intolerable profanation, to pervert, and to confound, the order appointed by God. It seems at first sight frivolous, that the sons of God should be so severely condemned, for having chosen for themselves beautiful wives from the daughters of men. But we must know first, that it is not a light crime to violate a distinction established by the Lord; secondly, that for the worshippers of God to be separated from profane nations, was a sacred appointment which ought reverently to have been observed, in order that a Church of God might exist upon earth; thirdly, that the disease was desperate, seeing that men rejected the remedy divinely prescribed for them. In short, Moses points it out as the most extreme disorder; when the sons of the pious, whom God had separated to himself from others, as a peculiar and hidden treasure, became degenerate, (emphasis mine). [iii]

Calvin rightly describes the world as being wicked, but he vainly asserts that the world had been “divided into two parts.” Where do we see such an idea in the Bible? He also introduces his deterministic philosophy of predestination by stating that apparently the sons of Seth were adopted by “special privilege.” His denial of who the sons of God truly were creates a tremendous amount of confusion that has clouded the interpretation of the text for potentially millions of people over the centuries. Furthermore, nowhere do we see that the daughters of men are from the so called ungodly line of Cain.

Calvin continues with his unbiblical prohibition of inter-class marriages. Notice that again he does not offer any biblical support for any of his positions. He does not seek to prove his point with Scripture but with opinion and conjecture. Having simply asserted his position, Calvin then ridicules the ‘sons of God as demons [m1] ‘ interpretation.

That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious. The opinion also of the Chaldean paraphrase is frigid; namely, that promiscuous marriages between the sons of nobles, and the daughters of plebeians, is condemned. Moses, then, does not distinguish the sons of God from the daughters of men, because they were of dissimilar nature, or of different origin; but because they were the sons of God by adoption, whom he had set apart for himself; while the rest remained in their original condition, (Calvin Commentary Genesis 6:1 emphasis mine).

We have already seen how “sons of God” is used in Scripture – furthermore that there were no human “sons of God” before the resurrection of Jesus. However Calvin introduces great confusion into the text by dogmatically declaring that God’s terms are very capricious and that they sometimes mean one thing in one context and quite another someplace else. The simple biblical definition, as we have seen, is that sons of God are direct creations of God. Calvin is unable to define sons of God because of bad exegesis.

Should anyone object, that they who had shamefully departed from the faith, and the obedience which God required, were unworthy to be accounted the sons of God; the answer is easy, that the honor is not ascribed to them, but to the grace of God, which had hitherto been conspicuous in their families. For when Scripture speaks of the sons of Godsometimes it has respect to eternal election, which extends only to the lawful heirs; sometimes to external vocations according to which many wolves are within the fold; and though in fact, they are strangers, yet they obtain the name of sons, until the Lord shall disown them. Yea, even by giving them a title so honorable, Moses reproves their ingratitude, because, leaving their heavenly Father, they prostituted themselves as deserters, (emphasis mine). [iv]

Now, to support his presuppositions, he must explain away the giants (Nephilim) that are introduced in Genesis 6:4 and are the result of the sons of God (or as he would say the sons of Seth) and the daughters of men (or as he would say the daughters of Cain).

Moses does not indeed say, that they were of extraordinary stature, but only that they were robust. Elsewhere, I acknowledge, the same word denotes vastness of stature, which was formidable to those

Goliath was a Nephilim

Goliath was a Nephilim

who explored the land of Canaan, (Jos 13:33.) But Moses does not distinguish those of whom he speaks in this place, from other men, so much by the size of their bodies, as by their robberies and their lust of dominion, (emphasis mine). [v]

He downplays the fact that the fruit of the union between the sons of God and daughters of men were men of extraordinary size. He simply asserts that they were “great” in their evil. His interpretation is unfounded and he is not completely honest here for the word (Nephilim) used in both places is exactly the same. Calvin and numerous others turn to Genesis 4:26 in order to substantiate their case. Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary is very typical of those that leap to the conclusion that sons of God must be referring to the Sons of Seth.

Observe the different expressions: sons of God, and daughters of men. If you turn to Gen 4:26 you there discover that the children of Seth are said to call on the name of the Lord; including both sons and daughters; and hence, therefore, these are meant by the sons of God. [vi]

They suggest that this passage in some way proves that the term “sons of God” is really a hidden meaning for sons of Seth. Let’s take a look at the passage to see if their claims are valid.

Seth and His Sons

Seth appears a total of seven times in both the Old Testament and the New Testament (NKJV). We get a brief glimpse of his life by stringing together all of the passages [vii] that speak of him.

And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth […], and as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the LORD, (Genesis 4:25-26).
And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons and daughters. So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died. (Genesis 5:3-4, 6-8).

Here 130 years after creation, Adam has a son named Seth; then 105 years after that Seth had a son named Enosh. Thus we learn that a total of 235 years after creation men began to call upon the name of the Lord. The Hebrew term for Lord is YHWH which is the personal name of God. God told Moses: “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty [El Shaddai שַׁדָּ֑י אֵ֣ל], but by My name LORD [YHWH יְהוָה] I was not known to them,” (Exodus 6:3). Thus to think that this was the first time that humans began to worship the Lord is unfounded. Rather we simply read that they began to use his personal name at that point for some purpose. While it appears to have begun with a son of Seth, we should not infer that it was limited to that line. After all, the Hebrew text very literally says az hukhal likro beshem YHWH [בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְהוָֽה לִקְרֹ֖א הוּחַ֔ל אָ֣ז] “then was begun (the) calling by (with, in) the name YHWH” (translation mine). The term hukhal (הוּחַל) is the passive (hophal) of begin. The subject of the verb hukhal is “calling” (likro’ לִקְרֹא). The word “men” does not even appear in the text. Thus we see that apparently, up until that point, men were not invoking God by His proper name. It could be that they didn’t know it, though we cannot be sure. Nevertheless this reading of the verse does not in any way substantiate the notion that Seth’s sons were the sons of God. Another reading is possible which may clarify the passage.

A Possible Translation

Conversely, the verb hukhal (הוּחַל) comes from the root (חלל) the basic meaning is “to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate, begin” according to Brown Driver Briggs’ [viii] Lexicon of the Hebrew Bible. Thus, the alternative reading would be “then calling by the name of YHWH was profaned”. This alternative reading actually finds endorsement by the ancient Aramaic Targumim. Targum Onkelos interprets the passage as:

And to Sheth also was born a son, and he called his name Enosh. Then in his days the sons of men desisted [חָלוּ] (or forbore) from praying in the name of the Lord, (Genesis 4:26, Targum Onkelos, emphasis mine).

Targum Jonathan is similar though it amplifies that reading even more:

And to Sheth also was born a son, and he called his name Enosh. That was the generation in whose days they began to err [למטעי], and to make themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the name of the Word of the Lord, (Genesis 4:26, Targum Jonathan, emphasis mine).

While neither “began” nor “profane” supports the sons of Seth theory, the latter would seem to make more sense in light of the entire story of the Bible. The divine name seems to have been known from the very beginning of creation. Adam was familiar with it because he heard the voice of the LORD (YHWH) God in the garden after he had sinned. Calling by the name of the Lord was until that time respected and honored but it was in the days of Enosh when calling by the name of the Lord was defiled. God then destroyed the world because of the continual wickedness. Noah retains knowledge of the name and then apparently at the tower of Babel the name is forgotten or lost. God chooses not to reveal His name again until Moses has the encounter at the burning bush.

The Sons of Seth Were Not Sons of God

Regardless of which reading we take, there is simply no evidence whatsoever to support the concept that Genesis 4:26 can be used to interpret the sons of God as the sons of Seth. There is no indication that Seth’s sons were somehow more godly than the rest of humanity. Furthermore, it must not be missed that Adam lived another 800 years after begetting Seth and that he had sons and daughters. Likewise “Seth lived eight hundred and seven years and had sons and daughters,” (Genesis 5:7). All of the sons and daughters of Seth as well as the sons and daughters of Cain were in fact sons (and daughters) of Adam. Technically speaking every human ever born on this planet is a son or daughter of Adam; the Hebrew language uses the term to mean “human”. Thus the text is driving home the point that there are two dissimilar groups: the daughters of Adam on the one hand and the sons of God on the other. To suggest that the daughters of men were actually the daughters of Cain is fanciful. Rather, the daughters of Adam are contrasted with the sons of God: the daughters of men were human and the sons of God were not.

Furthermore, we can in no way infer that all of these sons and daughters remained so godly that they would be distinguished from the sons of Cain. After all, only eight people were saved out of the entire world. These sons of Seth must not have been so godly after all. Simply put, the sons of God do not refer to the lineage of Seth, but to direct creations of God, which before the redeeming work of Christ was limited to Adam himself and to angels. Therefore, the sons of God in Genesis six refers to fallen angels who had relations with human women.

Get the book Corrupting the Image. Read More Articles HereDouglas Hamp Ministries DVD Covers


[viii] Brown Driver Briggs (BDB) Hebrew English Lexicon provides the following definition. The most common definition is “1. to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate, begin”. BDB then goes on to give the various forms of how the root is used in each of the binyanim (verbal paradigms). In the a. (Niphal) it means to: 1. to profane oneself, defile oneself, pollute oneself; b. ritually; c. sexually; 1. to be polluted, be defiled; d. (Piel): 1. to profane, make common, defile, pollute; 2. to violate the honour of, dishonour; 3. to violate (a covenant); 4. to treat as common; e. (Pual) to profane (name of God); f. (Hiphil): 1. to let be profaned; 2. to begin; g. (Hophal) to be begun”(emphasis mine). The Hophal is simply the passive of the Hiphil – therefore, if the Hiphil occasionally means to let be profaned then the one occurrence of the Hophal might also be translated as profaned rather than begin.

augustine of hippo Daughters of Cain deluge genesis 6 giants history of the bible nephilim nephilim were sons of seth Sons of God sons of Seth thomas aquinas were the sons of God really nephilim

About Douglas

6 comments

  1. Hi Douglas,

    Greetings from Brazil.

    Passing just to say that I love your work and to make a note:
    In the passage:

    “Moses does not indeed say, that they were of extraordinary stature, but only that they were robust. Elsewhere, I acknowledge, the same word denotes vastness of stature, which was formidable to those

    Goliath was a Nephilim

    who explored the land of Canaan, (Jos 13:33.) But Moses does not distinguish those of whom he speaks in this place, from other men, so much by the size of their bodies, as by their robberies and their lust of dominion, (emphasis mine). [v]”

    Guess the “(Jos 13:33)” is actually Numbers 13:33.

    Sorry by my english.

    Love you my brother.

    K. Yogi

  2. Excellent study…it is clear from the text that the “sons of God” were fallen angels…were not these also the ones who appeared with Satan in Job 1? Also, Paul warns against being attractive to angels in 1 Cor.11…and Hebrews/Messianic JewsCJB, speaks of “…entertaining angels unawares which seems to point to their ability to take human form however briefly or for what exact purpose unclear…Paul also warns against believing the preaching of an angel from heaven if the contents varies from “the faith once for all delivered to the saints”…a la the claims of Joseph Smith about Moroni, etc.
    Keep up the good exegesis!
    Rev. Dr. Rav. Paul Steinhauer
    rabhazak@gmail.com…new blog: paulbika1art.com

    • Actually, this is more like eisegesis and flawed logic instead of solid exegesis. For solid exegesis, my video series makes many points that Doug simply ignores: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaoEfOwFAwk

      • Hi Arthur,

        Could you be more specific? How is the Sons of Seth argument biblical? Can you show me even one verse that speaks of the Sons of Seth and the Daughters of Cain?

        Doug

      • Arthur the video you have provided a link to uses flawed logic in its attempt to present an argument against the sons of God being fallen angels in Genesis 6:2.

        To say that this belief is “pagan mythology” is incorrect because it is clearly scriptural. Reading Genesis 6: 1 to 4 we can clearly this mingling was something new that occurred “when men began to multiply on the face of the land” (v1) that made God shorten the lifespan of mankind to 120 years (v3), and created “Nephilim”, “mighty men” (v4) so this rules out normal male – female relationships.

        To say that the flood was a judgment against humankind not Nephilim hybrids is an assumption because this isn’t stated anywhere in the Bible. In Genesis 6:1 we see that this happened “when men began to multiply on the face of the land” and it was so serious that in verse 3 God said “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” God didn’t shorten man’s life when Cain murdered so we know this is way more serious than that. To interpret this as the mingling of believers and non-believers or sons of Seth with others is reading into scripture something that just isn’t there.

        To say that each kind reproduces after its own kind is ignoring that donkeys are bred with horses to create a mule that is sterile proving that hybrids have mutations different than their parents. What mutations does that union of angels and woman bring – clearly giants. The word Nephilim occurs 3 times in scripture – 1 in Genesis 6: 4, and 2 in Numbers 13:33. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance defines Nephilim as being from the Hebrew word naphal which means “a feller (i.e. a bully or tyrant – giant)” and NAS Exhaustive Concordance defines it as “giants, names of two peoples – one before the flood and one after”. The Nephilim were “mighty [gibbor] men, the heroes of old, men of renown [shem – a name]”” Gen 6:4. The Hebrew gibbor means strong, mighty which may be partly or wholly due to the physical size of these men. We see their reputation in Deut 9:2 where it says “a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim, whom you know and of whom you have heard [it said], ‘Who can stand before the sons of Anak?’”

        The gentleman really goes to extremes in trying to deny that angels can manifest as human beings indicating that then they could have masqueraded as Christ, but isn’t that what the anti-Christ does? There are examples throughout scripture of spirit beings interacting with mankind. Jesus is one example – when he was raised from the dead he offered that Thomas could “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side”(John 20:28) proving that he was materially present even though he was spirit. Paul tells us in Hebrews 13:2 “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it” showing us that angels can materialize in the flesh. In Genesis 19 the two angels that were sent to save Lot (v1) from destruction “reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door” (v10), and in the morning “seized Lots, his wife and daughters hands and brought them outside the city (v16). I believe that scripture supports that angels are able to materialize and interact with mankind and presents us with the possibility of angels mingling with mankind in the last days when Satan is released to deceive the nations as prophesied in Rev 20: 7 & 8.

        Not only is he incorrect in stating that the ramifications of this line of reasoning are dire for the Christian faith, but the proper understanding can protect us from being deceived. Consider in Ephesians 6:12 where we are warned that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places”.

        The term “sons of God” is used in reference to angels in the Old Testament – Job 1:6, 2:1 , & 38:7, but is also used in reference to the Israelites in Deut 14:1, and born again believers in Galatians 3:26 where Paul states “For you are all sons [huios] of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” All Bible versions translate ben as son in Gen 6:4, and either son, angels (NIV) or members of the heavenly court (NLV) in the verses in Job which clearly refers to angels because it takes place in heaven. The Hebrew word ben and its Greek equivalent huios can refer to children or mature adults and for each verse in question different Bible translations pick either son or children depending on their contextual interpretation of the scripture. Through an in-depth analysis of scripture we can confirm that the term “sons of God” refers to spiritual beings – angels or redeemed mankind. I believe the confusion comes from translating these words as son in verses that are clearly referring to spiritual children. The fact that while we are flesh and blood we are not yet adopted sons of God is clearly taught by Paul in Romans 8: 14 to 24 and we can see in verse 14 that the more appropriate translation of huios is children because the spiritual condition described is unredeemed, and in verse 21 which is referring to the revealing is appropriately translated as son because the adoption is complete. Huios in Galatians 3:26 is more appropriately translated as children as it is in many Bible versions (NIV, NLT, KJ etc.). We receive the spirit of God as a guarantee and a seal of ownership as stated in 2 Cor 5:5 “God himself has prepared us for this, and as a guarantee he has given us his Holy Spirit”, and 2 Cor 1:22 that he “set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come”, also called “the Spirit of adoption” in Romans 8:15. In Luke 20:35 & 36 Jesus stated that “those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection”.

        Jude 1:6 refers to the “angels who did not keep their own domain [arche], but abandoned their proper [idios] abode [oiketerion]”. The Greek arche is defined in HELP’s Word-studies to mean “from the beginning (i.e. the initial starting point)”, idios means “uniquely one’s own”, and oiketerion means “dwelling place or habitation”. It is clear that this verse refers to angels that left their original purpose – their role as messangers, and their unique habitation – heaven. There is no other biblical indication of this occurring other than in Genesis 6:4 leading me to conclude that these are the angels being discussed. Consider 1 Peter 3 when Jesus “went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison” (v19) “who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah” (v20) which clearly refers to these fallen angels. Consider also 2 Peter 2:4 where it says “if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment” again clearly referring to these fallen angels. This leads me to the conclusion that it was angelic beings referred to in Gen 6:4 that fathered the Nephilim who were destroyed in the flood along with the rest of sinful mankind, and more angels “abandoned their proper abode” after the flood creating more giants as confirmed in Numbers 13:33.

        I would not be so bold as to discount the possibility of more intermingling of spirit and flesh, and more Nephilim.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: