Who are the ‘Sons of God’

[Christina]

Here are three views of who the sons of God are. And why only the last (veiw 3) can be correct. ......Who are the ‘Sons of God’?The interpretation of verses 1-8 hinges upon the definition of three key terms, ‘the sons of God’ (verses 2,4), ‘the daughters of men’ (verses 2,4), and the ‘Nephilim’ (verse 4). There are three major interpretations of these terms which I will attempt to describe, beginning with that which, in my mind is the least likely, and ending with the one that is most satisfactory. View 1: The Merging of the Ungodly Cainite with the Godly SethitesThe ‘sons of God’ are generally said by those who hold this view to be the godly men of the Sethite line. The ‘daughters of men’ are thought to be the daughters of the ungodly Cainite. The Nephilim are the ungodly and violent men who are the product of this unholy union.The major support for this interpretation is the context of chapters 4 and 5. Chapter four describes the ungodly generation of Cain, while in chapter five we see the godly Sethite line. In Israel, separation was a vital part of the religious responsibility of those who truly worshipped God. What took place in chapter six was the breakdown in the separation which threatened the godly seed through whom Messiah was to be born. This breakdown was the cause of the flood which would follow. It destroyed the ungodly world and preserved righteous Noah and his family, through whom the promise of Genesis 3:15 would be fulfilled.While this interpretation has the commendable feature of explaining the passage without creating any doctrinal or theological problems, what it offers in terms of orthodoxy, it does at the expense of accepted exegetical practices.First and foremost this interpretation does not provide definitions that arise from within the passage or which even adapt well to the text. Nowhere are the Sethites called the ‘the sons of God.’The contrast between the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain may well be overemphasized. I am not at all certain that the line of Seth, as a whole, was godly. While all of the Cainite line appears to be godless, only a handful of the Sethites are said to be godly. The point which Moses makes in chapter 5 is that God has preserved a righteous remnant through whom His promises to Adam and Eve will be accomplished. One has the distinct impression that few were godly in these days (cf. 6:5-7, 12). It seems that only Noah and his family could be called righteous at the time of the flood. Would God have failed to deliver any who were righteous?Also, the ‘daughters of men’ can hardly be restricted to only the daughters of the Cainites. In verse 1 Moses wrote, “Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them” (Genesis 6:1).It is difficult to conclude that the ‘men’ here are not men in general or mankind. It would follow that the reference to their ‘daughters’ would be equally general. To conclude that the ‘daughters of men’ in verse two is some different, more restrictive group is to ignore the context of the passage.For these reasons and others,83 I must conclude that this view is exegetically unacceptable. While it meets the test of orthodoxy it fails to submit to the laws of interpretation.

 

[Christina]

View 2: The Despot InterpretationRecognizing the deficiencies of the first view, some scholars have sought to define the expression ‘the sons of God’ by comparing it with the languages of the Ancient Near East. It is interesting to learn that some rulers were identified as the son of a particular god. In Egypt, for example, the king was called the son of Re.84In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, is used for men in positions of authority: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges who acted in God’s name (Exodus 21:6, following the marginal reading of the NASV).God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers (literally, the gods, Psalm 82:1, cf. also 82:6).This interpretation, like the fallen angel view, has its roots in antiquity.85 According to this approach the ‘sons of God’ are nobles, aristocrats, and kings.These ambitious despots lusted after power and wealth and desired to become ‘men of a name’ that is, somebodies (cf. 11:4)! Their sin was ‘not intermarriage between two groups—whether two worlds, (angels and man), two religious communities (Sethite and Cainite), or two social classes (royal and common)—but that the sin was polygamy.’ It was the same type of sin that the Cainite Lamech practiced, the sin of polygamy, particularly as it came to expression in the harem, the characteristic institution of the ancient oriental despot’s court. In this transgression the ‘sons of God’ frequently violated the sacred trust of their office as guardians of the general ordinances of God for human conduct.86In the context of Genesis 4 and 5 we do find some evidence which could be interpreted as supportive of the despot view. Cain did establish a city, named after his son Enoch (verse 4:17). Dynasties would be more easily established in an urban setting. So, also, we know that Lamech did have two wives (verse 4:19). Although this is far from a harem, it could be viewed as a step in that direction. Also the view defines ‘the daughters of men’ as womankind, and not just the daughters of the Cainite line.In spite of these factors, this interpretation would probably never have been considered had it not been for the ‘problems’ which the fallen angel view is said to create. While pagan kings were referred to as sons of a foreign deity, no Israelite king was so designated. True, nobles and those in authority were occasionally called ‘gods,’ but not the ‘sons of God.’ This definition chooses to ignore the precise definition given by the Scriptures themselves.Further, the whole idea of power hungry men, seeking to establish a dynasty by the acquisition of a harem seems forced on the passage. Who would ever have found this idea in the text itself, unless it were imposed upon it? Also, the definition of the Nephilim as being merely violent and tyrannical men seems inadequate. Why should these men be sorted out for special consideration if they were merely like all the other men of that day (cf. 6:11,12)? While the despot view does less violence to the text than does the Cainite/Sethite view, it seems to me to be inadequate.

 

[Christina]

View 3: The Fallen Angel InterpretationAccording to this view, the ‘sons of God’ of verses 2 and 4 are fallen angels, which have taken the form of masculine human-like creatures. These angels married women of the human race (either Cainites or Sethites) and the resulting offspring were the Nephilim. The Nephilim were giants with physical superiority and therefore established themselves as men of renown for their physical prowess and military might. This race of half human creatures was wiped out by the flood, along with mankind in general, who were sinners in their own right (verse 6:11,12). My basic presupposition in approaching our text is that we should let the Bible define its own terms. If biblical definitions are not to be found then we must look at the language and culture of contemporary peoples. But the Bible does define the term ‘the sons of God’ for us.Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan also came among them (Job 1:6).Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came among them to present himself before the Lord (Job 2:1).When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7, cf. Psalm 89:6; Daniel 3:25).Scholars who reject this view readily acknowledge the fact that the precise term is clearly defined in Scripture.87 The reason for rejecting the fallen angel interpretation is that such a view is said to be in violation of both reason and Scripture.The primary passage which is said to be problematical is that found in Matthew’s gospel, where our Lord said, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:29-30).We are told that here our Lord said that angels are sexless, but is this really true? Jesus compared men in heaven to angels in heaven. Neither men nor angels are said to be sexless in heaven but we are told that in heaven there will be no marriage. There are no female angels with whom angels can generate offspring. Angels were never told to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ as was man.When we find angels described in the book of Genesis, it is clear that they can assume a human-like form, and that their sex is masculine. The writer to the Hebrews mentions that angels can be entertained without man’s knowing it (Hebrews 13:2). Surely angels must be convincingly like men. The homosexual men of Sodom were very capable of judging sexuality. They were attracted by the ‘male’ angels who came to destroy the city (cf. Genesis 19:1ff, especially verse 5).In the New Testament, two passages seem to refer to this incident in Genesis 6, and to support the angel view: For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; (II Peter 2:4).And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day (Jude 6).These verses would indicate that some of the angels who fell with Satan were not content with their ‘proper abode’ and therefore began to live among men (and women) as men. God’s judgment upon them was to place them in bonds88 so that they can no longer promote Satan’s purposes on earth as do the unbound fallen angels who continue to do his bidding.The result of the union between fallen angels and women is rather clearly implied to be the Nephilim. While word studies have produced numerous suggestions for the meaning of this term, the biblical definition of this word comes from its only other instance in Scripture, Numbers 13:33:There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.I therefore understand the Nephilim to be a race of super-humans who are the product of this angelic invasion of the earth.89This view not only conforms to the biblical use of the expression ‘sons of God,’ it also best fits the context of the passage. The effects of the fall were seen in the godly offspring of Cain (chapter 4). While Cain and his descendants were ‘in Satan’s pocket,’ Satan knew from God’s words in Genesis 3:15 that through the seed of the woman God was going to bring forth a Messiah who would destroy him. We do not know that the entire line of Seth was God-fearing. In fact we would assume otherwise. Noah and his immediate family alone seem to be righteous at the time of the flood.Genesis 6 describes a desperate attempt on the part of Satan to attack the godly remnant that is named in chapter 5. So long as a righteous seed is preserved, God’s promise of salvation hangs over the head of Satan, threatening of his impending doom.The daughters of men were not raped or seduced as such. They simply chose their husbands on the same basis that the angels selected them—physical appeal. Now if you were an eligible woman in those days, who would you choose? Would you select a handsome, muscle-bulging specimen of a man, who had a reputation for his strength and accomplishments, or what seemed to be in comparison a ninety-pound weakling?Women looked for the hope of being the mother of the Savior. Who would be the most likely father of such a child? Would it not be a ‘mighty man of renown,’ who would also be able to boast of immortality? Some of the godly Sethites did live to be nearly 1000 years old, but the Nephilim did not die, if they were angels. And so the new race began.

 

[Wakka]

Yes, and these Nephilim are ungoldy and cursed. They have an ever lasting rage, and they attack each other. When one dies, it's soul doesn't go back to God. But is damned to wander the earth and taunt humans. When a person is possessed it's a Nephilim spirit messing with them.

 

[Jordan]

(Wakka)
Yes, and these Nephilim are ungoldy and cursed. They have an ever lasting rage, and they attack each other. When one dies, it's soul doesn't go back to God. But is damned to wander the earth and taunt humans. When a person is possessed it's a Nephilim spirit messing with them.
I definately got a problem with that Wakka.Ezekiel 18:4 - Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.Lovest thou in Christ Jesus (Yahshua) our Lord and Saviour.

 

[Christina]

(Wakka;17258)
Yes, and these Nephilim are ungoldy and cursed. They have an ever lasting rage, and they attack each other. When one dies, it's soul doesn't go back to God. But is damned to wander the earth and taunt humans. When a person is possessed it's a Nephilim spirit messing with them.
I have to go with Jag here wakka where do you get this from????

 

[BeforeThereWas]

kriss wrote in post #2:
that the sin was polygamy.’ It was the same type of sin that the Cainite Lamech practiced, the sin of polygamy, particularly as it came to expression in the harem, the characteristic institution of the ancient oriental despot’s court.
You believe that polygamy was a sin?If you do in fact hold to that belief, then what do you say about Abraham, David, Gideon, and all the other great Patriarchs of our faith who left this earth having plural wives at the time of their deaths?Also, what particular category of sin do you believe polygamy fell within?BTW&DM

 

[Christina]

(BeforeThereWas;28291)
kriss wrote in post #2:You believe that polygamy was a sin?If you do in fact hold to that belief, then what do you say about Abraham, David, Gideon, and all the other great Patriarchs of our faith who left this earth having plural wives at the time of their deaths?Also, what particular category of sin do you believe polygamy fell within?BTW&DM
If you will reread my above posts #1, #2, #3, BeforeThereWas you will see I was presenting the 3 different views commonly held labled Veiw 1, 2, 3 Not necessarily stating my belief. I was teaching what the three views are I ascribe to view #3 as being Biblically correct and in line with the Gods plan

 

[RobinD69]

I personally believe the sons of God to be all those who believe in and serve the Lord.Anyone who rejects the Lord has no part in Him and are sons of the evil one.We can guess and theorize all we like but the bottom line is that there are mysteries we will never understand with our limited views until the Lord reveals the truth.Fallen angels would no longer be sons of God once they have chosen to reject Him.They have chosen their fate and God is merely an enemy to them.We must also realize that those who followed the Lord maintained a greater form of purity and sinlessness than those who chose there own ways.After hundreds of years of seperation and the saturation of sin we would have to differing physical speciman groups and many transitional mutations.Giants and mighty men could have easily sprouted from these groups.Some could have also been much smaller and weaker than even the subgroups and not survived for long.Look at our own diverging groups of people.I dont mean the races but merely the size strength and health differances.On the otherhand I could be completely wrong and the fallen angel thing could be the right answer,but I believe the Bible would have been more specific if it were angels.We can continue with our theories but only the Lord knows for sure.

 

[Christina]

(RobinD69;28297)
I personally believe the sons of God to be all those who believe in and serve the Lord.Anyone who rejects the Lord has no part in Him and are sons of the evil one.We can guess and theorize all we like but the bottom line is that there are mysteries we will never understand with our limited views until the Lord reveals the truth.Fallen angels would no longer be sons of God once they have chosen to reject Him.They have chosen their fate and God is merely an enemy to them.We must also realize that those who followed the Lord maintained a greater form of purity and sinlessness than those who chose there own ways.After hundreds of years of seperation and the saturation of sin we would have to differing physical speciman groups and many transitional mutations.Giants and mighty men could have easily sprouted from these groups.Some could have also been much smaller and weaker than even the subgroups and not survived for long.Look at our own diverging groups of people.I dont mean the races but merely the size strength and health differances.On the otherhand I could be completely wrong and the fallen angel thing could be the right answer,but I believe the Bible would have been more specific if it were angels.We can continue with our theories but only the Lord knows for sure.
It does tell us if know where to look and keep your mind open stop and think about it why would God call them something different here? tell us their was a second influx. Think about Goliath What you are describeing about everyday people is nothing new its the way its always been and still is why would God have written this when and how he did just to tell us the obvious??? No,this is something different most all scholars reconize this thats is why there are three widlely held views I have listed above But only #3 will allow you to read scripture without any contradictions. All other views you have unexplained verse's and will not be able to make sense of certain thingssaid in scripture.Example: How do you explain it took two men to carry one grape clusterin Joshua ??? Why do you think God ordered all of them(men,women,children) to be killed ???? How do you Explain Satan being with them (son of God)in the book of Job???

 

[RobinD69]

Well as for the cluster of grapes it has been proven by science recently that proper ballance of fertalization water and sunlight can produce the same effects on produce,so thats an easy one.We also know that many of Hebrew decent were of medium stature and many of us today would be considered giants to them.You figure they came from being enslaved,undernourished,and as we know this very often results in shorter stature.Look at most orientals,5 foot tall or less,a man six foot or taller would be a giant.We also must take into account that God called for the extermination of entire populations for idolotry on many levels.Please give a better example than Job,Satan is not called the son of God,it just refers to him as seperate from the rest of the angels but still showing up.If you want to look at it from another perspective Satan likes to present himself as god and the fallen angels,who are now demons,would be the sons of satan since they have rejected God just as the pharasees did.There are many explinations for many aspects of these arguements and there are many mysteries we will not understand until the Lord chooses to reveal the truth to us.We can theorize and hypothesize all we want,but in the end we must be open to His truth or we will reject it just as the pharasees did.

 

[Christina]

You can reason away whatever you like it doesnt change Gods word you can reason away the parting of the red sea that doesnt mean it wasnt a miracle and never do you get one cluster of Grapes it takes two full grown soliders to carry it also dosent fit the Hebrew used "to fall" it also dosent explain over 9'foot tall or all other refencerace as in "there were giants in those days". If you want to make Gods word fit your rationality you would have to not believe in what you can not see.