EveryVerse.online
← Browse the Bible

Chapter Study

Genesis 6

Who Were the Sons of God?

August 8, 2026

Text: Genesis 6:1–5

BIG IDEA: Regardless of how we interpret the details of Genesis 6, one truth is unavoidable — the secret mysteries of fallen angels are not the reason for our fall. We must take responsibility for our own rebellion. Jesus is the only answer.

I. Bible Reading Introduction

The question that didn't not stay quiet

  • I remember hearing this passage read as a boy, and wanting to know what my own Bible said about it.
  • My first real Bible was a Scofield Reference Bible — I can still tell you Jonah started on page 1008. I loved that Bible.
  • I found what Scofield's notes told me about these verses. I accepted it as true. Until recent years, it never occurred to me to question it.
  • "Some hold that these "sons of God" were the "angels which kept not their first estate" (Jude 6). It is asserted that the title is in the O.T. exclusively used of angels. But this is an error (Isaiah 43:6). Angels are spoken of in a sexless way. No female angels are mentioned in Scripture, and we are expressly told that marriage is unknown among angels (Matthew 22:30). The uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that Genesis 6:2 marks the breaking down of the separation between the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain, and so the failure of the testimony to Jehovah committed to the line of Seth (Genesis 4:26). For apostasy there is no remedy but judgment (Isaiah 1:2-7, 24, 25; Hebrews 6:4-8; 10:26-31). Noah, "a preacher of righteousness," is given 120 years, but he won no convert, and the judgment predicted by his great-grandfather fell (Jude 14, 15; Genesis 7:11). (slide)

Read Genesis 6:1-5

  • This sits right at the doorway of the flood. Whatever it means, it mattered enough to God to belong right here.

Sermon Introduction

Three preliminary agreements:

  • 1. The supernatural world is real. Angels who sinned and demons are both in your Bible.
    • As interested in ever in knowing what God has to say about the supernatural influences in this world
    • Sake of spiritual warfare.
    • People I love fighitng a physical, mental, and spiritual battle.
  • 2. Scripture is sufficient. God didn't hide the answer outside your Bible.
    • Do not want to be disingenous as I have already read to you from a commentary on the Bible
    • There is value in learning from others about how to understand and apply what we read. (If not this would be awkward)
  • 3. Salvation doesn't depend on settling this. You can hold any honest view here and be exactly as saved as the person next to you.
    • Not just through history but in this room their are Jesus-loving, serious Bible students with varying views.
    • These are "family matters"
    • Though not on the level of salvation - let us not speak with any issues of the Bible with apathy or lack of interest. (pan-millenial joke)
    • How you interpret any passage shapes how you interpret the next. Also, a false understanding of a passage creates momentum for more misinterpretations.

THE SECRET MYSTERIES OF FALLEN ANGELS ARE NOT THE REASON FOR OUR FALL.

Start with original context

Genesis 4–6

Before we ask who the "sons of God" are, Moses has already spent two chapters showing us what it looks like to drift from God — and what it looks like to stay near Him.

A. Genesis 4 — the line of Cain.

  • Real civilization — cities, herds, instruments, metalwork — alongside real violence.

"And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt." (Genesis 4:23)

  • Polygamy and boasting violence — the trajectory of a family walking away.

B. Genesis 5 — the line of Seth.

"And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." (Genesis 4:26)

"And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him." (Genesis 5:24)

C. The two lines, side by side — on purpose.

  • Two full chapters is not filler. It's the setup for what chapter 6 is about to show.

III. The Angelic Case

Presented at full strength

The oldest reading in the ancient world. It gets the fairest hearing this sermon can give it.

A. The lexical argument.

  • "Sons of God" names angels everywhere else it appears in the Old Testament. No exceptions.

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." (Job 1:6)

"Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD." (Job 2:1)

"When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy." (Job 38:7)

B. Early Jewish interpretation.

  • Multiple bodies of ancient Jewish writing from before and after Christ read Genesis 6 this way, near-unanimously. Not a modern invention.

C. The New Testament case.

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day; even as Sodom and Gomorrha... giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh." (Jude 6–7)

"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell... And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person... bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly." (2 Peter 2:4–5)

"By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah." (1 Peter 3:19–20)

  • Two apostles, three passages, none quoting each other — the same assumption underneath all three.

D. The "otherness" of the Nephilim.

  • Ordinary intermarriage doesn't produce a group the Bible is still talking about a thousand years later.

"And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants." (Numbers 13:33)

E. Answering the objections — from inside this view.

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Matthew 22:30)

  • Response: Jesus describes angels in their proper place. That doesn't prove rebellious angels, already out of place, couldn't take a form suited to this transgression.
  • Response to "this shifts blame": the flood still judges man — Genesis 6:5. 2 Peter and Jude show the angels were judged too, not let off the hook.

That's the strongest form of the case. It's real. Now the second view.

IV. The Demon-Possession Case

Presented at full strength

Same supernatural conviction. A different mechanism.

A. The core claim.

  • Fallen angels didn't take bodies themselves — they indwelt human men (and in some versions, women too).
  • The offspring are fully human, but demonically empowered.

B. Real, named proponents — not fringe.

  • Henry Morris — possession of both parents and offspring; possible genetic manipulation.
  • Merrill Unger — the foundational academic treatment of this model.
  • Allen Ross — possession centered on rulers and warriors → "mighty men... men of renown."
  • John MacArthur — angels entered human bodies and, through them, took human wives.

C. Its New Testament case — same verses.

"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment." (2 Peter 2:4)

  • Same evidence as the angelic view — the difference is entirely in what the "sin" actually was.

D. The theological motive.

  • Honors the NT text at full strength. Avoids the puzzle of spirit beings literally fathering children. Keeps real supernatural agency behind Genesis 6.

A Personal Word

Before I tell you where I land

  • I sat with each of these views for a long time. Turned them over. Weighed the evidence you just heard.
  • Here's what I found: landing on one of them didn't change anything major in my life, or in how I see Jesus. Any of these can be held by a careful, faithful Christian.

But here's what it did do: it reminded me that every time I interpret a hard passage, I'm not just answering that one question. I'm building a muscle — a pattern for how I'll interpret the next one, and the one after that. I want to get it right every time.

  • And here's the other thing I noticed sitting with all three: there are a couple of genuinely good options here. But there's also something worth avoiding. Let me show you.

V. The Case for the Line of Seth

Full rebuttal, then the positive case

Every real strength you just heard has an answer. Scripture supplies it.

A. Answering the lexical argument.

"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn." (Exodus 4:22)

"Ye are the children of the LORD your God." (Deuteronomy 14:1)

"There it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God." (Hosea 1:10)

  • Context controls meaning. Genesis 4–5 has just drawn two human family lines. Reading ch. 6 in continuity with them is a smaller leap than importing a brand-new category.

B. Answering the early Jewish consensus.

  • Ancient popularity isn't authority. That material was never received as Scripture by any generation of God's people, and contains clear legendary embellishment.

C. Answering the New Testament texts.

  • None of the three passages actually names Genesis 6.
  • "Kept not their first estate" can be Satan's original rebellion — assumed everywhere in Scripture, narrated nowhere.
  • "Spirits in prison" fits Noah's own disobedient generation, preached to through Noah while the ark was built.

D. Answering the Nephilim argument.

  • The word's origin is genuinely debated. "And also after that" (v. 4) fits a human group present both before and after — better than a hybrid race that should have ended at the flood.
  • Numbers 13:33 may be the spies' fear talking, or deliberate exaggeration. Nothing requires more than extraordinary — but fully human — men.

E. Answering the possession view.

"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth." (Genesis 6:5)

  • The plain narrative names human choice, not indwelling spirits. This view keeps the same externalizing tendency the Sethite view exists to reject.

F. Positive supports.

  • Literary flow: Genesis 4–5 set up exactly this collision.
  • Covenantal category: "sons of God" = those who bore His name by calling on Him.
  • Human responsibility preserved: Genesis 6:5 keeps the weight where Scripture always keeps it.

G. The decisive concern.

  • Both the angelic view and the possession view — however faithfully argued — risk shifting evil's origin off human moral agency. Scripture never does this. Not once.

THE SECRET MYSTERIES OF THE FALLEN ANGELS ARE NOT THE REASON FOR OUR FALL.

VI. The Book of Enoch

Two faults worth naming plainly

Here's the something worth avoiding I mentioned a minute ago.

A. The facts.

  • Not written by the Enoch of Genesis 5 — composed centuries later, attributed to his name. Never received as Scripture by any branch of God's people.

B. One true line ≠ endorsement.

"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these." (Jude 14)

  • Jude quoting one true line no more certifies the book than Paul quoting pagan poets certifies them:

"As certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." (Acts 17:28)

C. Fault One — Vain genealogies.

"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith." (1 Timothy 1:4)

"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies... for they are unprofitable and vain." (Titus 3:9)

  • "Vain" is a word worth sitting with. I once heard a preacher point out something I've never forgotten:

"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." (Exodus 20:7)

He said: we take the Lord's name in vain in more ways than we think — sin does the same thing vanity does. It shifts the blame. And it steals His fame.

  • Chasing Enoch's speculation over what Scripture actually says is exactly that — trading substance for vanity.

D. Fault Two — Shifting the blame.

  • Read Enoch's own explanation for what went wrong:

"Thou seest what Azazel hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were preserved in heaven, which men were striving to learn." (1 Enoch 9:6)

  • In this account, the fall isn't about human choice — it's secret knowledge angels released that humanity had no way to resist. Watchers taught it. Men merely received it.

THERE IS A SUBTLE DANGER IN ENOCH. AND A SUBTLE DANGER IS THE MOST DANGEROUS DANGER OF ALL — BECAUSE YOU NEVER SEE IT COMING FOR WHAT IT IS.

Blame-shifting is the oldest human move there is. Watch where it's first recorded — before Cain, before Seth, before any angel is even in question:

"And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." (Genesis 3:12)

"And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." (Genesis 3:13)

  • Adam blames the woman — and, underneath it, blames God for giving her to him. Eve blames the serpent. Humanity's first recorded words after sin are an exercise in shifting the blame. That instinct didn't start with a debate about angels — it started in the Garden.

E. The conclusion of this section.

  • We don't build doctrine on a book God didn't give us. We don't let its commentary rewrite the Bible's diagnosis of the human heart.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin." (Romans 5:12)

  • That's Adam. A man. Not an angel.

"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." (James 1:14)

The blame lands on you — and that's not bad news. It's what makes the good news mean something.

VII. Application

Taking responsibility

If man caused his own fall, man has to be the one who does something about it.

  • Stop searching for an external explanation that lets you off the hook.
  • Guard the distinctiveness of your household — the line of Seth was lost the moment it stopped looking different.

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14)

  • Choose close relationships — especially marriage — on shared faith and character.

Parents and grandparents: the line of faithfulness is only one generation from being lost. Genesis 5 took two chapters to build it. Genesis 6 took four verses to compromise it.

VIII. Conclusion

Jesus is the only answer

A. The bad news.

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matthew 25:41)

  • A place prepared for the devil and his angels became, through our own choosing, humanity's default destination. Not because angels dragged us there. Because we walked there.

B. The good news.

"Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son." (Colossians 1:13)

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

  • "Hath delivered." Past tense. Already accomplished.

[Closing story: a real, brief moment you watched someone step out of darkness into new life in Christ.]

C. The invitation.

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)

  • Take responsibility for your own rebellion. Then come to the only One who can rescue you from it.

REGARDLESS OF HOW WE INTERPRET THE DETAILS OF GENESIS 6, THE SECRET MYSTERIES OF FALLEN ANGELS ARE NOT THE REASON FOR OUR FALL.

We are great sinners. He is a great Savior. Come to Him.