Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

The "sons Of God" In Genesis 6:2 & 4 Are Angelic Beings?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

It is often taught among Independent Fundamental Baptists that the phrase "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 & 4 are angelic beings.  What definitional, grammatical, contextual, or Biblical evidence supports this viewpoint?

 

(Note:  I am seeking for a thoughtful Biblical discussion, not for a contentious fleshly argument.  Please maintain a gracious spirit throughout this discussion.  Thank you for your consideration.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

From "Things Hard To Be Understood":

Things Hard to be Understood
Ge. 6:1-4

“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” – Ge 6:1-4

The attempt to identify “the sons of God” in this passage has produced considerable variety of opinion through the centuries. There are three common interpretations: (1) angels, (2) the godly line of Seth, (3) kings and aristocrats. We will consider each of these views.

View # 1 --— The sons of God were angels

The following support is offered for this view: (a) The term “sons of God” is elsewhere used of angels in the Old Testament (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). We must hasten to add that the term “son of God” is also used of Adam (Lu 3:38). (B) It is possible that the New Testament refers to this event in 2Pe 2:4 and Jude 1:6-7. Jude describes the fallen angels as having “left their first estate” and he connects their sin with that of sexually immoral Sodom and Gomorrah. “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 Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” This description appears to fit the events of Genesis 6. In fact, no other biblical event explains the passage. Pastor David Moore of Belfast, Northern Ireland, comments on 2Pe 2:4 and Jude 1:6-7: “Angels who were mingling the supernatural world with the natural could certainly be accused of ‘not keeping their first estate and leaving their own habitation.’ Also, we add in support of this view 2Pe 2:4. ‘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.’ Clearly not all fallen angels are in hell today, so some must have been made a special example of. What was their sin? It can only be that given in Jude 1:6-7 and Genesis 6.” © The union between the sons of God and the daughters of men appears to have produced giants (Ge 6:4). If indeed this were the case, it appears that these strange offspring were destroyed in the flood of Noah’s day, and the fallen angels were consigned to imprisonment in “everlasting chains” (Jude 1:6). “Why would polygamy or the unequal yoke provoke God to destroy the world by flood? After all, these sins have been upon the earth almost since time began and God has yet to directly intervene concerning them. But if the creation itself was being tampered with by evil spirits, it is not hard to see God judging them, destroying their offspring and followers, and starting afresh with godly Noah following the flood” (David Moore).

The arguments for the angel view have merit and I once held that view, but I have come to reject it. Following are the problems with it. (a) The Bible says angels do not marry (Mt 22:30). How can Christ’s statement in Matthew be reconciled with the view that angels cohabited with women in the early history of mankind. It is possible that Christ was referring to the natural state of angels, whereas Genesis 6 is referring to an unnatural state. It is also possible that Christ was referring only to marriage and that He was not saying that angels could not have sexual relations if they were perverted from their created design. By creation, men do not “marry” men, but we know that homosexuality perverts the natural condition of the man so that he does things God did not create him to do. In describing the fall of certain angels in Jude 1:6-7, the Bible connects their sin with that of Sodom. It is possible that both involved a perversion of the natural created state. While this could possibly explain the apparent contradiction between Mt 22:30 and the view that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were fallen angels, we do not believe that it does for the following reason. (B) Nowhere else in Scripture are we told that angels cohabit with the human race. Genesis 6 does not say that the “sons of God” merely had sexual relations with women, it says they “took wives” of them. If they were demonic spirits, they would have had to have taken permanent physical bodies and settled down into marital relationships in this world. I do not believe the Bible taken as a whole supports this possibility. © The Bible says that kind reproduces only after its own kind (Ge. 1). For the angels to be able to cohabit with human beings and to reproduce offspring would appear to be contrary to this law of nature. (d) Ge 6:4 does not specifically say that the giants were the product of the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men. The verse indicates, in fact, that the giants were already in the land. The union between the sons of God and the daughters of men is specifically said to have produced men of renown. Thus there is no reference to an unnatural product of this union. (e) Even if the offspring were giants, this does not necessitate the view that the sons of God were angels or that the union produced something monstrous and unnatural. Giants are frequently mentioned in the Old Testament without any hint that they were the product of an angelic-human union. (f) While the term “sons of God” does refer to angels in the Old Testament, it appears only to refers to good angels, not fallen angels. This would appear to argue against the use of “sons of God” in Ge 6:2,4 being a reference to fallen angels.

View # 2 --— The sons of God were the godly line of Seth

Matthew Henry describes this popular view: “The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done, both for the preservation of their own purity and in detestation of the apostasy. They intermingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain.”

The following support is offered for this view: (a) Genesis traces two genealogies in chapters four and five, the godly line through Seth and the ungodly line through Cain. The Bible also speaks of the two seeds--—the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent (Ge 3:15). According to this view, the sons of God refers to the godly lineage which took daughters of the ungodly families and thereby intermingled the two seed. Since a little leaven leavens the whole lump, the entire human race quickly became corrupt because of the lack of separation. (B) The sons of God could not have been angels because of Mt 22:30 and the law of kind reproducing after kind. The conclusion is that the sons of God must have been men. © While it is true that the term “sons of God” refers to angels in the book of Job, it appears only to refer to good angels. Thus for “sons of God” in Genesis 6 to describe fallen angels is unprecedented in Scripture. (d) The flow of the context from Genesis 4-6 describes the downward progress of the human race, and to insert something about angels into this context would be peculiar.

The chief problems with this view are as follows: (a) The term “sons of God” appears to be something different from the “men” in Ge 6:1-2. It appears unnatural to interpret the “sons of God” here as men in this immediate context. (B) The term “sons of God” is used exclusively in the Old Testament to refer to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). The only exception is a reference to “my sons” in Isa 43:5, and this is not the same expression. © Why would the intermingling of the line of Seth and the line of Cain produce giants or mighty men? (d) To what does Jude 1:6-7 refer if not to these events?

View # 3 --— The sons of God were kings

The book Hard Sayings of the Bible (InterVarsity Press, 1996) prefers this view, saying: “The ‘Sons of God’ is an early, but typical, reference to the titularies for kings, nobles and aristocrats in the ancient Near Eastern setting. These power-hungry despots not only lusted after power but also were powerfully driven to become ‘men of a name’ (or ‘men of renown’--— Ge 6:4). … they perverted the whole concept of the state and the provision that God had made for some immediate amelioration of earth’s injustices and inequities (Ge 6:4-5; see also Ge 10:8-12). They also became polygamous, taking and marrying ‘any of [the women] they chose’ (Ge 6:2).”

Hard Sayings of the Bible offers the following evidences in support of this view: (a) Some ancient Aramaic Targums, which are Aramaic translations of the Hebrew text, render “sons of God” as “sons of nobles.” (B) The word “gods” in Hebrew (elohim) is used in Scripture for magistrates or judges (Ex 21:6; 22:8; Ps 82:1,6). © The account of Lamech in Ge 4:19-24 is similar to that of the account in Ge 6:1-4. “In each there is the taking of wives, the bearing of children and the dynastic exploits.”

We believe this is the weakest of the three views. (a) Certain remote Aramaic translations aside, the fact remains that the Hebrew Bible nowhere uses the expression “sons of God” to refer to nobles. (B) While it is true that the single Hebrew word elohim is sometimes translated gods in reference to men, it is not true that the complete expression “sons of God” is used of nobles in the Old Testament. © The similarities between Ge 4:19-24; 6:1-4 are not sufficient to demonstrate that they are speaking of the same thing. To us, this view appears to be foisted upon the passage by those who don’t like the first two views and who therefore are constrained to search out an alternative view, instead of being derived from the most natural interpretation of the passage itself.

As we can see, there are problems with each of the popular interpretations of this passage. We believe the first two views are both possible. Each view can be defended from Scripture. If the sons of God are angels, the chief lesson of the passage is the wickedness of unnatural sexual relationships, with not being content with God’s created order. It is a warning to this present immoral generation which believes it is free to pursue any form of perversion which feels good. If, on the other hand, the sons of God are the godly line of Seth, the chief lesson of the passage is the danger of intermingling truth with error, godliness with unrighteousness. It is a testimony to the importance of biblical separation. It reminds us of the Bible’s command to “come out from among them, and be ye separate” (2Co 6:14-18).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sons of God are a direct creation of God. Adam, the angels and Jesus. Of course, with Jesus we are talking about his humanity, not his deity.

 

We are called "sons of God" because at the new birth we become a new creation of God. And some day we shall receive new bodies which will be a direct creation of God patterned after his dear Son.

 

Everyone after the fall of Adam are no longer called "sons of God" because they are no longer created in God's image despite what you have been taught. They are physically created after the image of Adam (Genesis 5:3) with a dead spirit. In some cases (at least in the case of unsaved religious leaders) that spirit is created in the image of their father the devil (John 8:44).

 

Angels are said to be "sons of God" and apparently look a lot like Jesus Christ (Gal. 4:14)  i.e. 33 year old wingless males. This would explain why on many occasions in the OT any pre-incarnate appearance of the Son of God is called "the Angel of the Lord".  Also, one possible reason that the angels of heaven don't get married is because they are all male. You won't find any female angels in the bible. But this doesn't men they don't have the capability to procreate. 

 

As far as the "godly line of Seth", this is pure speculation that can't be supported with scripture. And even if it was the case this wouldn't explain why you have a situation where only the godly males of the line of Seth are marrying ungodly females ("the daughters of men") and not the other way around and why this would produce a race of giants (in the scripture "giants" means giants as in really tall men, not "might warriors").

 

Hollywood itself has already made a movie called, "City of Angels" where an angel, ironically named Seth, leaves heaven (he is basically casted out) to hooked up with a woman on earth he falls in love with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Job 2:1

 

"Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord."

You would think this would be enough but, lo, speculation is taken over "scripture with scripture" because people are concerned that someone will think they are nuts for believing that the "sons of God" of Genesis 6 are angels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Job 2:1

 

"Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord."

 

You would think this would be enough but, lo, speculation is taken over "scripture with scripture" because people are concerned that someone will think they are nuts for believing that the "sons of God" of Genesis 6 are angels.

 

So then, the primary Biblical evidence would be the use of the phrase "sons of God" in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 as a reference to angelic beings.  Would the opening line of Deuteronomy 14:1 have a factor at all in this matter, recognizing that the Hebrew word (ben) from which the word "children" is translated is the same as that from which the word "sons" is translated in Genesis 6:2 & 4 -- "Ye are the children of the LORD your God."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Also, one possible reason that the angels of heaven don't get married is because they are all male. You won't find any female angels in the bible. But this doesn't men they don't have the capability to procreate. 

 

So then, did the Lord our God and Creator originally create at least some of the angelic beings with the physical apparatus to engage in sexual intercourse, even though He had no original intention that they should actually do so?

 

So then, did the Lord our God and Creator originally create at least some of the angelic beings with the biological genetics to procreate with humans, even though He had no origianl intention that they should actually do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Job chapters 1 and 2 both say that "sons of God" came to present themselves "before the Lord"........and I've heard it said many times that this was "angels coming before God's throne in Heaven". But neither Job 1 nor 2 mentions any angels, a throne or Heaven. As the following verse attests you don't have to be in Heaven to be "before the Lord"

 

Genesis 18

And the LORD appeared unto him (Abraham) in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;..............22And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Job chapters 1 and 2 both say that "sons of God" came to present themselves "before the Lord"........and I've heard it said many times that this was "angels coming before God's throne in Heaven". But neither Job 1 nor 2 mentions any angels, a throne or Heaven. As the following verse attests you don't have to be in Heaven to be "before the Lord"

 

Genesis 18

And the LORD appeared unto him (Abraham) in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;..............22And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.

 

Just a couple of points for thought.  In Job, the "sons of God" presented themselves.  They went to God.  Where He was.  Infer Heaven.

 

In Genesis 18, God specifically cam to us mortals and appeared to Abraham.  God came to him, where he was.  Earth.

 

Just different ways of looking at things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So then, did the Lord our God and Creator originally create at least some of the angelic beings with the physical apparatus to engage in sexual intercourse, even though He had no original intention that they should actually do so?

 

So then, did the Lord our God and Creator originally create at least some of the angelic beings with the biological genetics to procreate with humans, even though He had no origianl intention that they should actually do so?

 

I do not remeber seeing anywhere that this is stated.  God's word says that angels are not given in marraige, says nothing about apparatus or original intent.  There could be questions raised as to what angels could or could not do when taking on a physical form, and always in male form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Exodus 16:9...come near before the Lord

Exodus 16:33...lay it up before the Lord

Exodus 23:17 ..all the males shall appear before the Lord

David "danced before the Lord"....and there are dozens more. Here's another, not an exact phrase but the meaning should make it clear... Psalm 100.2 says "Serve the Lord with gladness: come before His presence with singing". God is everywhere, brother. and in Job 1 and 2; there is no mention of angels, a throne, or Heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Everyone after the fall of Adam are no longer called "sons of God" because they are no longer created in God's image despite what you have been taught. They are physically created after the image of Adam (Genesis 5:3) with a dead spirit. In some cases (at least in the case of unsaved religious leaders) that spirit is created in the image of their father the devil (John 8:44).

 

I somewhat disagree here.  Genesis 9:6 indicates that even after the fall man has retained at least some semblance of the image of God.  This institution of capital punishment occurred before both the Law and Christ.  James 3:9 shows a similar comparison without qualifying who is made in the similitude/image of God, thus appears to be talking about both the regenerate and unregenerate.  I think these verses show that even the unregenerate still possess something of the image of God, even though they are born dead in spirit. 

 

Therefore to be made in the image of God must go beyond having a spirit.  I believe being made in the image of God speaks more to the humanity being created with three parts (body, soul, spirit) after the manner of His trinitarian nature, but that's a discussion for another thread since we're talking about the term "sons of God" here.

 

Regarding the OP, I think John 1:12 and Romans 8:14 speak of the "sons of God" in terms of the adoptive aspect of salvation (cf. Galatians 4:6; Philippians 2:15; 1 John 3:1-2). Whether it is a valid comparison to the "sons of God" phraseology in Genesis, I'm not immediately sure.  Perhaps one bridging passage can be found in 2 Samuel 7:14 in which God tells David that He will adopt Solomon as His son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Exodus 16:9...come near before the Lord

Exodus 16:33...lay it up before the Lord

Exodus 23:17 ..all the males shall appear before the Lord

David "danced before the Lord"....and there are dozens more. Here's another, not an exact phrase but the meaning should make it clear... Psalm 100.2 says "Serve the Lord with gladness: come before His presence with singing". God is everywhere, brother. and in Job 1 and 2; there is no mention of angels, a throne, or Heaven.

 

No argument there.  Many verses on both sides of the aisle.

 

But, when looking at the 5 times in the OT that "sons of God" is used, particularly Job 38, compared to the 6 times in the NT, there appears to be a distinct difference, and never do the two paths cross, so to speak (or at least appear not to).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I do not remeber seeing anywhere that this is stated.  God's word says that angels are not given in marraige, says nothing about apparatus or original intent.  There could be questions raised as to what angels could or could not do when taking on a physical form, and always in male form.

 

Brother Mike,

 

So then, are you suggesting that angelic beings, when in spirit form, do not possess the physical apparatus for sexual intercourse and do not possess the biological genetics to procreate with humans, but that they do possess such physical apparatus and biological genetics when they take on physical form?  (Note: I do acknowledge that angelic beings are always presented in the male form.)

 

Concerning the matter of our Lord God's original intent in His creation of the angels -- The Lord our God created humans and the animals with the apparatus and biology to procreate, and then instructed them to be fruitful in such procreation.  So then, we must consider whether the Lord our God also intended for the angelic beings to be fruitful in procreation.  If he did not, then we must consider whether the Lord our God would have created the angelic beings with the apparatus and biology to procreate, although He did not originally intend that they should do so.  Yet this does not even consider whether the Lord our God would have created the angelic beings with the biology to procreate with humans.  So then, we must consider whether the Lord our God intended for the angelic beings to procreate with humans.  If he did not, then must consider whether the Lord our God would have created the angelic beings with the biological ability to procreate with humans, although He did not originally intend that they should ever do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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

Mar 12:25  For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
 

 

Neither verse states what angels on earth can do or did.  The verse also state that these conditions exist in the resurrection, not in Genesis 6. To make the leap that not given in marriage means all of us will be eunuchs in the resurrection is a strange conclusion. I will bear the image of Jesus Christ, his likeness and his spiritual body. I do not presume to understand that Jesus could not pro create. (With all due deference and respect to my Savior). I have never understood the poor un-biblical conclusions forced upon the word of God by dragging marriage, reproductive organs and other smoke screens into this polarizing issue.

 

I also notice that in Genesis the sons of God "took" wives, no one gave them in marriage. Matthew 22 and Mark 12 only indicate that there are no unions of couples in heaven, due to the fact that that angels are male. Always. That is the inference in the 2 verses, all other conclusions are the surmising of people who want the Bible to say what they already believe.

 

God bless,

calvary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...