Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 76:2 (Fall 2014)
Article: Royal Priestly Heirs To The Restoration Promise Of Genesis 3:15: A Biblical Theological Perspective On The Sons Of God In Genesis 6
Author: Rita F. Cefalu

WTJ 76:2 (Fall 2014) p. 351

Royal Priestly Heirs To The Restoration Promise
Of Genesis 3:15: A Biblical Theological Perspective On The Sons Of God In Genesis 6

Rita F. Cefalu

Rita F. Cefalu is Adjunct Assistant Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of San Diego as well as a Ph.D. candidate at Queen’s University Belfast. This article is a revised version of a paper she presented at the Far West Regional Meeting of the ETS, Costa Mesa, Calif., April 19, 2013.

The quest for the identity of the “sons of God” in Gen 6 has a long history of interpretation.1 Three main views have been advanced: (1) The line stemming from Seth, (2) angelic beings, and (3) dynastic rulers. The consensus of modern scholarly opinion favors the second interpretation.2 Meredith Kline suggests that “what has contributed most to the continuing dominance of the mythical (or at least angelic) interpretation of the passage has been the absence of a satisfactory alternative.”3

In his article “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1–4, ” Kline critiques the prevailing interpretations and lays out a refreshing alternative which challenges mainstream views.4 Drawing on ancient Near Eastern sources, he proposes that the phrase “sons of God” refers to the notion of “divine kingship” in which human kings were often regarded in some sense as divine. On this basis, Kline argues that the “sons of God” in Gen 6 are human kings that descend from the line of Cain.5 It is my conviction that Kline is right on two main points:

WTJ 76:2 (Fall 2014) p. 352

(1) that the “sons of God” is an appellation for divine kingship, and (2) that a biblical theological analysis that takes into account a contextual reading of the text confirms this interpretation.6 However, a closer reading of Gen 6:1–8 within its immediate and broader literary contexts reveals that a stronger case may be made for the line of Seth. I shall attempt to make this argument in the pages that follow.

In order to make the case for the divine kingship Sethite interpretation, I shall first provide a critique of the three main views. Then, using a contextual and biblical theological approach, I shall point out details that have been overlooked in ...