What do popular figures in Christendom like John MacArthur, Al Molher and others believe about the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6? Find out here!
In this article, we break down the views of 10 modern conservative Bible commentators and pastors on the mysterious Nephilim and the puzzling “sons of God.”
Get ready to unravel the mysteries of this biblical passage with straightforward and diverse insights from these respected voices in the church.
1. John MacArthur
John MacArthur, a prominent pastor, provides a unique perspective on Genesis 6:1-4. While he acknowledges the supernatural origin of the “sons of God,” MacArthur diverges from the conventional angelic interpretation, proposing a case of demonic possession.
Quote:
“But what is interesting here is that these sons of God, these spiritual beings who exist in their own realm, saw the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Now you have the perversity here of these spiritual fallen angels, these demon beings, overstepping the boundaries of their realm. They defy God by leaving the defined realm that God has placed them, their spirit world, and they enter the human realm.”
MacArthur emphasizes the spirtual origin the ‘sons of God’, characterizing them as fallen angels engaging in demonic possession later on in his sermon on the topic. He underscores the defiance of God’s boundaries as these beings step out of their designated spiritual realm into the human domain.
2. Mike Winger
Mike Winger, a well-known pastor on YouTube, also has discussed the controversial passages of 1 Corinthians 11:10 and Genesis 6, exploring the notion that head coverings were meant to prevent angelic lust after women, referencing the events of Genesis 6. He shares his insights on the identity of the “sons of God” and Nephilim in Genesis 6.
Quote:
“Genesis 6:2 it does refer to Angels, it seems, marrying women… I’m inclined to believe that these were angelic beings in this passage. That’s my understanding of it. 1 Peter reinforces this as well. There were these angels that have been kept in chains, it seems, so that they cannot repeat the issues that were going on in Genesis 6:2.” – Mike Winger
In this quote, Winger explicitly leans towards the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6:2, asserting that angels were involved in marrying women. He draws connections with 1 Peter, suggesting that certain angels have been restrained to prevent a repetition of the events described in Genesis 6:2. Winger’s perspective sheds light on the interconnectedness of biblical passages, offering a cohesive understanding of angelic interactions and their consequences.
3. Tim Mackie
Tim Mackie, co-founder of The Bible Project, brings his infectious enthusiasm for scripture to the discussion of Genesis 6:1-4. Recognized for his contributions to various educational platforms, Mackie’s perspective on this passage provides valuable insights without engaging in significant debate.
Quote:
“So remember the concept of God’s heavenly staff team, the divine council, or the sons of God? In the Hebrew Scriptures, we’re told that some of these rebelled too. After the snake comes the rebellion of the sons of God in Genesis 6. We’re told that they have sex with women who then give birth to violent warrior giants… Ancient readers knew exactly what was going on. The ancient kingdoms around Israel claimed to be founded and protected by giant warrior kings who were part human, part god and filled with divine wisdom.” – Tim Mackie
Mackie introduces the concept of God’s heavenly staff team or divine council, connecting the rebellion of the sons of God in Genesis 6 with a broader biblical narrative. He highlights the link between these rebellious beings and the birth of violent warrior giants, emphasizing that ancient readers would have recognized the cultural and historical context. This perspective adds depth to the understanding of Genesis 6, aligning with earlier entries that explore the supernatural elements in the biblical narrative.
4. Al Mohler
Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, stands as a prominent figure in evangelical Christianity. Mohler’s perspective on Genesis 6:1-4 aligns with the traditional view, emphasizing angelic beings exercising free will and sinning by cohabiting with women, leading to the emergence of the Nephilim.
Quote:
“They [the Nephilim] are described as beings who were on the earth in those days, ‘when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and bore children to them.’ This appears to be an indication that rebellious angels had sexual intercourse with human women, who bore sons described as ‘the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.’ This understanding of the Nephilim seems to be affirmed in the New Testament in Jude, verses 6-7.” – Al Mohler
Mohler supports the idea that the Nephilim resulted from the union of rebellious angels and human women. He points to the description of the Nephilim as the offspring of the sons of God and daughters of man, emphasizing their significance as “mighty men of old, men of renown.” Additionally, he notes the affirmation of this understanding in the New Testament, citing Jude 6-7. This aligns with earlier entries that explore the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 and the implications of such interactions.
5. Dr. Peter Gentry
Dr. Peter Gentry, an Old Testament scholar, provides a straightforward perspective on Genesis 6, emphasizing the identity of the ‘sons of God’ and the Nephilim.
Quote:
“So it seems very clear, Genesis 6 is telling us that these are angels who are marrying humans and Jude and Peter are telling us that is the correct interpretation.” – Dr. Peter Gentry
Gentry unambiguously supports the interpretation that the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6 are angels marrying humans. His assertion aligns with the views of other pastors who have emphasized the angelic nature of these beings. Additionally, Gentry references the New Testament books of Jude and Peter, suggesting that these passages affirm the correctness of the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6. This connection reinforces the consistency among many modern pastors and scholars in understanding the supernatural elements in this biblical narrative.
6. Doug Wilson
Doug Wilson, a conservative Reformed and evangelical theologian, challenges later human-origin interpretations in his article “The Nephilim, Hades, and Other Oddments.” He proposes that the Nephilim were the result of an unnatural union between celestial beings (bene elohim) and human women.
Quote:
“I am arguing here that the Nephilim were the gigantic offspring of an unnatural sexual union between celestial beings (bene elohim) and human women… There is no reason to resort to the contrived idea that the bene elohim were actually descendants of Seth who apostatized by intermarrying with the daughters of Cain. Elsewhere in Scripture, the phrase bene elohim always refers to celestial beings. The line of Seth argument doesn’t really come into its own until the modern era—which is precisely when some of these ancient tales began to be a tad embarrassing for us big kids.” – Doug Wilson
Wilson challenges interpretations suggesting that the ‘sons of God’ were descendants of Seth. Instead, he firmly asserts that the Nephilim were the product of an unnatural union between celestial beings and human women. He rejects the idea that the bene elohim were fallen descendants of Seth, highlighting that, in other biblical contexts, this phrase consistently refers to celestial beings.
7. Dr. Michael Heiser
The late Dr. Michael Heiser, renowned for his research on unconventional biblical topics, offers a straightforward perspective on Genesis 6:1-4, emphasizing the supernatural nature of the ‘sons of God.’
Quote:
“…the ‘sons of God’ are supernatural beings. They are not people. That’s probably the shortest way to answer that… They were members of the heavenly host who transgressed the boundaries of heaven and earth with disastrous effects. We tend to fixate on the weird Nephilim stuff but in second temple theology (this includes the New Testament), the real damage of Genesis 6 was the proliferation of human depravity not the weird Nephilim stuff.” – Dr. Michael Heiser
Heiser succinctly clarifies that the ‘sons of God’ are supernatural beings, rejecting the notion that they were human. He highlights their identity as members of the heavenly host who transgressed boundaries, resulting in disastrous consequences. Unlike some who focus on the Nephilim, Heiser emphasizes that, in second temple theology, the primary concern of Genesis 6 is the proliferation of human depravity rather than the peculiarities surrounding the Nephilim. This perspective aligns with earlier entries that stress the significance of the angelic transgressions in shaping the narrative of Genesis 6.
8. Dr. Douglas Petrovich
Dr. Douglas Petrovich, a biblical scholar, outlines 13 arguments in his article “Identifying the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6:1-7,” supporting the interpretation that the ‘sons of God’ are angels, not descendants of Seth.
Quote:
“From Moses’s retrospective perspective, these ‘sons of God’ predated creation. They did not die, but continued to exist after creation. Had the line of Seth always existed? Were they present before creation? No, they were people who lived and died, lived and died, and lived and died. Therefore, the term ‘sons of God’ can be used of angels, but it cannot be used of Seth’s line… The technical term ‘sons of God’ is never used of mankind in the Hebrew Bible, only of angels. A reference in Genesis 6 to mankind would be unique for the entire Hebrew Bible.” – Dr. Douglas Petrovich
Petrovich challenges the idea that the ‘sons of God’ could be descendants of Seth by emphasizing their pre-creation existence and continuity after creation. He argues that the term ‘sons of God’ is technically used only for angels in the Hebrew Bible, making a reference to mankind in Genesis 6 unique. Petrovich’s 13 arguments collectively reinforce the angelic interpretation of the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6, aligning with the perspectives of other scholars who emphasize the supernatural nature of these beings.
9. Tim Chaffey
Tim Chaffey, a Christian apologist and author, has extensively explored the identification of the ‘sons of God’ and Nephilim in Genesis. He supports the Fallen Angel position, considering it the most popular theory and the earliest one known.
Quote:
“The Fallen Angel position is the most popular theory concerning the identity of the sons of God. This is clearly the earliest position that we know of. It was promoted in apocryphal works written before the time of Christ and by every church father who commented on it until the 3rd century. Although the Fallen Angel view is repulsive to most, it is important to understand what the text actually states. The term ‘sons of God’ is from the Hebrew bene ha ‘elohim. This particular term is only used three other times in Scripture and in each case, it clearly refers to heavenly beings.” – Tim Chaffey
Chaffey not only supports the Fallen Angel position but also provides historical context, noting its popularity from apocryphal works before Christ to the 3rd century. He addresses the repulsive nature of this view to some and emphasizes the importance of understanding the text’s actual statements.
10. William F. Cook
William F. Cook, Professor of New Testament at Southern Seminary, supports the Angel view, suggesting that evil spirits took possession of the bodies of wicked men for their sinful purposes.
Quote:
“But in light of examples we see in the New Testament, it seems best to assume that these evil spirits took possession of the bodies of wicked men and used them for their own sinful purposes… Of course, I may be wrong, and the Sethite interpretation may be correct after all. I certainly grant that the ancient view seems strange to our modern ears. But since Peter and Jude both appear to have held it, it seems to me the best interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4.” – William F. Cook
Cook presents an alternative perspective, similar to that of MacArthur’s, suggesting that evil spirits took possession of wicked men’s bodies, aligning with examples from the New Testament. He acknowledges the possible validity of the Sethite interpretation but leans towards the Angel view, citing support from the biblical books of Peter and Jude. Cook’s position resonates with earlier entries that explore the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 and its connections to later biblical texts.
Conclusion: Navigating the Mystery of Genesis 6
In the exploration of Genesis 6:1-4 and the enigmatic figures of the Nephilim and ‘sons of God,’ we’ve heard the diverse perspectives from modern conservative Bible commentators and pastors.
To further research this topic, we encourage you to explore our comprehensive databases for a wealth of unsensationalized information. Here, you’ll find a curated collection of ancient references to the Nephilim and ‘sons of God,’ insights from modern commentators, myths, and scholarly research. This repository serves as a valuable resource for those seeking a balanced and nuanced understanding of a subject that has sparked curiosity and debate throughout the ages.
Uncover the layers of history, theology, and cultural context that contribute to the complexities of Genesis 6, and empower yourself with a deeper, well-informed understanding of this enduring mystery.
