Sons of God

[justaname]

I am currently studying in the book of Genesis. At Genesis 6:1-4 an interesting expression occurs as it refers to the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful. My question is what is your interpretation of this text. Who are the sons of God? Who are the daughters of men? I have read many commentaries and will give my opinion later, but I want to hear your explanations.

I really think this is going to be fun and interesting.
Shalom

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Literal translation:
And it came to be that the man [האדם; ha adam] started to be a multitude upon the face of the ground; and daughters were born to them, And sons of the Elohim [i.e., the godly seed of Adam] saw the daughters of the man [האדם; ha adam] because they were good ones; and they took women to them from all whom they chose. ... They became the distinguised ones in the land in those days. And also after that sons of the Elohim came to the daughters of the man [האדם; ha adam], and they gave birth to them, the masterful men who are from a vanishing point [a distant age; out of sight], mortals of the name [השם; ha shem; i.e., YHWH]. Genesis 6:1-4

 

[Angelina]

Hey Justaname!

The "Son's of God" are mentioned only three times in the OT. Job1:6, 7. when they presented themselves before the Lord. [not on earth] and when the foundations of the earth were laid. Job 38:6, 7. These verses indicate that the "Sons of God" were not human but angelic beings...

The third time "Son's of God" are mentioned is when God spoke to Hosea, a prophet of the northern tribe of Israel, regarding things that would occur in the future...

Hosea 1
[sup]9[/sup]Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.

[sup]10[/sup]Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

Shalom!!! :)

 

[tim_from_pa]

I agree with Angelia on this point, i.e. sons of God were angelic beings. In all cases in the OT the "sons of God" were referred to as angelic beings EXCEPT in Hosea. But if you look at the Hebrew, the "sons of God", God is singular in Hosea, but plural in the other translations involving angelic beings. In Hosea's case, I prefer to translate the singular as the Father and we are his (the father's) sons just as Christ was. But in the other cases, the angels are "sons" (because they are created I presume) to the Triune God (plural).

The apocryphal book of Enoch, which is accepted as scripture by some minority Christian groups, ascribe these sons of God to angels. Many apocryphal works agree on this and nobody gets this idea by dreaming this up-- the vast number are in favor of this idea gives me assurance that these "sons of God" are not merely those of Adam.

 

[Rach1370]

I don't think the 'sons of God' are angelic beings. There is absolutely nothing in scripture to suggest that angels can reproduce, or that they would eve want to.
I think the more correct interpretation here is that "sons of God" are men who followed God, and that the 'daughters of men' are women who are pagan. It's not the first time that men who claim to be Christian have been led astray by beautiful but unholy women!

 

[HammerStone]

I believe very much that sons of God refers to fallen angelic beings. I think the point that angels are not supposed to reproduce is a strong one, but we know there was rebellion in heaven at some point prior to this (Satan was in the garden afterall) and thus there is some degree of power that angels had. I believe, quite firmly, part of this was the attempt to overthrow God's order in how things were supposed to work. Angels were not to be intertwined with man. (They left their first estate as Jude 1 says.)

My support for that drawn from the Bible is probably strongest in the fact that it immediately refers to the Nephilim. The Nephilim are giants and the word itself means fallen. The sons of God, if taken as the sons of Adam were fallen themselves, so I don't see the need for distinction. Of course the sons of the fallen are fallen, so why draw attention to that unless their fallen nature derived from something else?

Furthermore, the Hebrew word meaning of old or ancient refers to an interesting time period. It's drawing on the idea that the beginning of these mighty men is not really known. I believe many of the tales of ancient gods and goddesses are the descendents of men and women who did some amazing feats. Again, it's uncomfortable for me to simply say these people were something special with just being the result of men mixing with women.

Last, but not least, the Hebrew word for man is 'adam which is the word used of men. It's the same word used in Genesis 2:7 when Adam was created. There's just no precedence to base sons of God = Adam's line in the prior chapters. I understand the suggestion of later uses of the term, but the emphasis is only the relationship, which the fallen angels would have had at the outset.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Why is scripture so often ignored for the sake of human doctrine?

Unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? ... Hebrews 1:5​

 

[justaname]

Bump. Kinda busy right now, and would like more responses.

 

[Angelina]

Why is scripture so often ignored for the sake of human doctrine?

Unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? ... Hebrews 1:5​

http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Hebrews 1.5​

Good question...which of the Son's of Adam [Seth] did he say that to??? :huh:​

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Good question...which of the Son's of Adam [Seth] did he say that to??? :huh:

That too is a good question. IMO, Genesis 6:2. Remember Adam was called the son of God. His godly seed would also be called sons of God because all of faith are sons of God. Those not of faith are sons of men.

​And Jesus, [when he] began [his ministry], was himself about thirty years [old], being the son (as it was believed) of Joseph the [son] of Eli, ... the [son] of Enosh, the [son] of Seth, the [son] of Adam, the [son] of God. Luke 3:23, 38​

 

[Lively Stone]

I am currently studying in the book of Genesis. At Genesis 6:1-4 an interesting expression occurs as it refers to the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful. My question is what is your interpretation of this text. Who are the sons of God? Who are the daughters of men? I have read many commentaries and will give my opinion later, but I want to hear your explanations.

I really think this is going to be fun and interesting.
Shalom

These are not references to the Nephilim, much to many fantasy-loving people's dismay.

 

[Angelina]

The word Bene Elohim [Hebrew] occurrs four times in the OT. Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1and Job 38:7
This word refers specifically to angels [angelic beings].

The bible says that God made "everything after it's kind. It would then be impossible for normal human parents to produce giants such as the Nephilim were and there is no evidence in the bible or in history that can prove that marriages between believers and unbelievers could spawn offspring who were giants exhibiting great strength and might...

Think about it! ;)

 

[justaname]

Here is part of what I wrote in a paper on this study.

In conclusion I will share my view on this interpretation. Let me first refer to the biblical text that warrants my attention. Jude 6-7 NASB “And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bounds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire”.
For the reference by Jesus in Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25 both references to angels are “angels in heaven”. That is not to say fallen angels could not take physical form, just as Satan did in the form of the serpent in the garden. Nor is it to say these fallen angels did not possess or indwell antediluvian men.
Notable is the fact that the phrase when used in the book of Job is translated as angels. Also in extra-biblical texts the phrase is translated the same way. And as the phrases present themselves in variant forms throughout the bible always it is understood to mean angels. The first time I read this passage I understood it in this manner.
To answer the dilemma posed in verse 3 presented by Kline is to look at the text plainly. Never is a verdict of sin given to “the sons of God”, simply the strife God has with man is cut because man is also flesh. The strife God has with man is sin, a continuance of sin that began in the garden and culminated when the “sons of God” came into the “daughters of men” and bore the Nephilim. Interesting to note here is the fact Nephilim can be translated fallen ones.
For me to understand the phrase to be tyrannical kings does not make sense. Why would Moses call the members of the line of Cain “sons of God”? I would think the term El would be used as opposed to the term Elohim. I believe the title to be too distinguished to be given to a cured line. Also the Nephilim being the offspring of this union does not constitute a race of giants as described in Numbers if both parents are of a natural origin.
Another portion of text I find interesting is found in the “toledot of Adam” particularly verse 1-3. In verse one it explains that God made man, in the likeness of God. In verse 3 Seth is said to be a son after his father’s image being stressed twice. When this toledot concludes it is followed by this problem passage. This does seem to preclude the author’s intent to refer to the Sethite line as “the sons of God”. This is supportive to the ecclesiastical view. The difficulty I have again is the Nephilim progeny, yet if the Nephilim are viewed as giants in power and might as opposed to stature this difficulty is overcome. As for the isolation of the context in Genesis I wish to give passages:
2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chronicles 17:13; Hosea 1:10; Deuteronomy 14:1
As for the specific text as “the sons of Elohim”, the covenant was not formed yet with Abram thereby the text would not reflect that relation.
I am not completely positive on which way I understand text, yet I have concluded how I do not view the interpretation. Possibly through gaining a deeper understanding of the Hebrew through further studies I will have a more precise interpretation. Until then I am torn between these two interpretations.

Where Kline is mentioned. Meredith G. Kline
Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4


[sup][sup][1][/sup][/sup] , vol. 24, Westminster Theological Journal Volume 24, 2 (Philadelphia: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1961), 186-99.

 

[Lively Stone]

The word Bene Elohim [Hebrew] occurrs four times in the OT. Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1and Job 38:7
This word refers specifically to angels [angelic beings].

The bible says that God made "everything after it's kind. It would then be impossible for normal human parents to produce giants such as the Nephilim were and there is no evidence in the bible or in history that can prove that marriages between believers and unbelievers could spawn offspring who were giants exhibiting great strength and might...

Think about it! ;)

Yes, God did make everything after its own kind, and that includes the angelic order. Angels can take on the appearance of men, but they don't produce sperm and procreate with humans, nor do they take on a female apprearance and gestate.

 

[Angelina]

Hey LS!

The bible says: " At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."Matthew 22:30
The angels in Genesis 6 were fallen ones. Why would they then continue to follow rules applying to angels in heaven since they were in rebellion to God???

Jude 1 says:
6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

The angels in Jude, abandoned their assigned place of residence to invade another that was off limits to them. the author Jude writes of these angels who sinned and then parallels their sin with sexual immorality.

The Hebrew word for "sons of God" is Bene Elohim. This term is specifically used for angels and occurs 4 times in the OT in the Septuagint - Greek trans of Hebrew scriptures. These angels were male, not female...

Angels in the physical form of man could eat Genesis18, walk and talk, touch Genesis 19:10, 16 if they are able to carry out bodily and physical functions as a humans do, then it is reasonable to suggest that they can do other human-like acts...

No...angels were not created to fill the earth just as us humans were not created to have knowledge of good and evil [the tree gate scenario] but now we do and scriptural evidence shows that when these angels fell, they had the ability to have babies with daughters of men. That is probably why God had to destroy all human life except Noah's because his line had not been tainted with fallen ones DNA.

Shalom!!! ^_^

 

[Lively Stone]

While angels appear as men and women, they cannot procreate, nor bear human offspring. Angels that serve God, of course are messengers and are all about fulfilling the word of God concerning us. Demons are all about intercepting God's will, His answers to prayer and creating chaos, loss and even death among human beings. They are unable to procreate new life. That is something only humans can do after their own kind.

If the Nephilim were somehow born of demon 'seed', then why were there still these people after the flood, as mentioned in Numbers 13:33?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

If the Nephilim were somehow born of demon 'seed', then why were there still these people after the flood, as mentioned in Numbers 13:33?

That little detail of logic destroys their argument.

 

[justaname]

While angels appear as men and women, they cannot procreate, nor bear human offspring. Angels that serve God, of course are messengers and are all about fulfilling the word of God concerning us. Demons are all about intercepting God's will, His answers to prayer and creating chaos, loss and even death among human beings. They are unable to procreate new life. That is something only humans can do after their own kind.

If the Nephilim were somehow born of demon 'seed', then why were there still these people after the flood, as mentioned in Numbers 13:33?

From Genesis 6:4 we know the Nephilim, or fallen ones, were going to return after the flood. Easily this can be explained from the eight, and the curse given by Noah. Surely one of the wives could have come from the line of Cain.

To approach from the other side, maybe the angels didn't stop their attempt to thwart God's plan.

 

[Lively Stone]

From Genesis 6:4 we know the Nephilim, or fallen ones, were going to return after the flood. Easily this can be explained from the eight, and the curse given by Noah. Surely one of the wives could have come from the line of Cain.

To approach from the other side, maybe the angels didn't stop their attempt to thwart God's plan.

It is not part of God's plan to have a hybrid human race. Jesus didn't die for angels.

 

[HammerStone]

That little detail of logic destroys their argument.

Actually the very same can be said going the other way on that argument for a moment. Where did we get the races from after the flood? (Other than postulating that the tower of Babel included race when it only talked about language, which goes outside of the language far more than understanding sons of God to mean angels.)

I'm merely pointing out the ambiguity of the flood to show that we don't know all of the details. I personally witness that the Bible talks about the flood for a variety of reasons. The very obvious is the "traditional" and simple view that God flooded the world because of man's unrighteousness. Yet the Bible goes further to hint at some "deeper" things, if you will. I've seen two very good cases made for the flood being entirely global and then another for it being regional to the area of the earth where humans lived.

Jude 1:6-7 seals this together, I won't rehash what Angelina has already stated very well.

I would add to the discussion:

I Corinthians 11:7-10 NRSV
For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

I've seen people try to read a weird spiritual contortion into this passage, but I prefer to take it at face value. The passage does not randomly deviate from talking about the physical nature (IE: attraction) of men and women, but clearly addresses an issue where angels are also attracted. I chose the NRSV because I think the version is pretty clear about it all - even the margin notes that there is no consensus of this passage. There is no consensus, I submit, because it makes people uncomfortable.

While it was clearly setup for angels and humans to remain seperate, there are some not-so-subtle clues that this did not happen. God also setup several books worth of laws to follow, and how well did that work out for us as humans? We are told precious little about how Satan got from point A (light bearer, cherubim) to point B (devil). What little bit we are told is highly figurative and thus we don't have a crystal clear narrative of why Satan ended up in the garden to deceive.

The Bible goes out of its way to talk about adultery. There are no coincidences with the Word of God.