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

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"

 

Brother "Heartstrings,"

 

Actually, an angel is mentioned in both Job 1:6 & 2:1.  Satan is specifically mentioned in both verses, and he is a created angel (although an unrighteous one).  In fact, both verses provide a two-fold statement.  First, these verses make the statement that "the sons of God" (whomever they may be defined to be) "came to present themselves before the Lord."  Second, these verses make the statement that Satan (being himself an angel) "came also" among these "sons of God" also "to present himself before the LORD."  The indication that Satan came also among these "sons of God" seems contextually to imply that these "sons of God" are of a similar nature as Satan.  Since Satan is an angelic being, the contextual implication is that these "sons of God" are also angelic beings. 

 

In addition, Job 1:7 & 2:2 does reveal the place from which Satan had come in order "to present himself before the LORD."  In both verses the Lord God asked Satan the question, "Whence [from where] comest thou?"  In both verses Satan gave the answer that he had come "from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it [in the earth]."  This seems to indicate that in coming to present himself before the Lord God, Satan was no longer "in the earth," but had come from the earth to some other location. 

 

Such are the contextual reasons that I would not contend against, but would agree with the viewpoint that "the sons of God" in Job 1:6 & 2:1 are indeed angelic beings in that specific context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Genesis 6 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.

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

 

I believe that Genesis 6 describes what the sons of God in Genesis 5 were doing. They were taking "wives of all" "which they chose", "begatting" sons and daughters. During their own lifetimes of several hundred years, they would certainly have seen their own families grow into huge numbers of progeny. When the population of your progeny increases exponentially for a few hundred years, that "family" has become a nation. The Bible says "mighty men" and it records "mighty men of valour" and "mighty men of wealth"(Boaz).  All of the men, mentioned in Genesis 5 would have been among the believers who began to "call upon the name of the Lord" back in Genesis 4. (see John chapter 1 also) and the names of the men in Genesis 5 are also recorded in the lineage of Christ in Luke chapter 3.  All of these believers "sons of God" were gone by the time the flood destroyed mankind with the last one, Methuselah, dying the very same year the flood came. I believe these men, though believers, were disobedient, living like the world, were practicing polygamy with heathen women(daughters of men),  and because the earth was filled with violence during this time, they were most likely involved in war too. The only one of them who survived the flood was Noah and the Bible says that he was "perfect in his generations" which I believe means that he had ONE WIFE and "generated" his three sons ONLY with her. "Generations", in this context, I believe means "procreations" (see Genesis 5:1) and Noah "generated" God's way.

 

Noah was a just man....so were all the sons of God

But unlike Enoch and their last living progeny, Noah, they weren't all "walking with God", nor "perfect in their generations"(procreations)

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.

 

Brother "Calvary,"

 

Your statement that Matthew 22:30 & Mark 12:25 speak concerning the conditions that will exist in the resurrection, but not concerning the conditions that existed in Genesis 6 is slightly imprecise.  These two verses actually speak concerning the conditions of two different groups of created beings.  The first half of each verses speacks concerning the condition of humans who will experience "the resurrection," and speaks specifically concerning their condition "in the resurrection."  However, the phrase "in the resurrection" does not grammatically have any bearing on the condition of the angels who are mentioned in the second half of these verses.  Rather, the grammar of these two verses presents a comparative between the two groups mentioned.  The first group in the first half of these verses encompasses the humans who will be "in the resurrection."  The second group in the second half of these verses encompasses the angels, who are described as being "in heaven" at the very time that Jesus was speaking.  In this manner, our Lord Jesus Christ, in this comparative, revealed something about the very nature of the angels (or, at least about the nature of righteous angels, those "in heaven"). 

 

Now, the nature of angelic beings is central to this discussion:

 

1.  Do, or even can, angels engage in a marriage relationship (with one another, or with humans)?

2.  Do, or even can, angels engage in sexual intercourse (with one another, or with humans)?

3.  Did the Lord our God even create the angels with the physical apparatus for sexual intercourse?

4.  Did the Lord our God even create the angels with the biological genetics to procreate with humans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother "Heartstrings,"

 

Actually, an angel is mentioned in both Job 1:6 & 2:1.  Satan is specifically mentioned in both verses, and he is a created angel (although an unrighteous one).  In fact, both verses provide a two-fold statement.  First, these verses make the statement that "the sons of God" (whomever they may be defined to be) "came to present themselves before the Lord."  Second, these verses make the statement that Satan (being himself an angel) "came also" among these "sons of God" also "to present himself before the LORD."  The indication that Satan came also among these "sons of God" seems contextually to imply that these "sons of God" are of a similar nature as Satan.  Since Satan is an angelic being, the contextual implication is that these "sons of God" are also angelic beings. 

 

In addition, Job 1:7 & 2:2 does reveal the place from which Satan had come in order "to present himself before the LORD."  In both verses the Lord God asked Satan the question, "Whence [from where] comest thou?"  In both verses Satan gave the answer that he had come "from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it [in the earth]."  This seems to indicate that in coming to present himself before the Lord God, Satan was no longer "in the earth," but had come from the earth to some other location. 

 

Such are the contextual reasons that I would not contend against, but would agree with the viewpoint that "the sons of God" in Job 1:6 & 2:1 are indeed angelic beings in that specific context.

Yes, Satan was an angel that had been cast down to earth.  Luke 10: 18And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven........and the thing Satan was doing back in Job 1 and 2, is the very same thing he does now 1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: and it says he is the "accuser" of the brethren even now. So if he accuses us to God now, does he have to transport to heaven every time? Notice also that Satan never says he came "from the earth"; he says "from going to and fro....in the earth" When people meet in the Church on Sunday morning. Satan still comes in "among" the "sons of God". When we come "before the throne of grace" he hangs as close as he can then as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Pastor Markle,

My contention is that, not only can angels not marry, but they also cannot produce.

God shows us at the creation week that kind begets kind. For angels to reproduce, they would have to beget more angels...not nephilim as some would claim.

If angels are all male, (and i am of the mindset that they are) then how would they reproduce.

Also, how would they sire anything other than their own kind? Kind begets kind.

A question one would have to ask... Why would the Bible refer to fallen angels as sons of God?

Throughout Scripture, sons of God are seen to be obedient. I am reminded of that principle that we often refer to, the Law of first mention. If that applies here, then i would say it is has to be something other than angels. All other instances of sons of God appear in a positive light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother "Calvary,"

 

Your statement that Matthew 22:30 & Mark 12:25 speak concerning the conditions that will exist in the resurrection, but not concerning the conditions that existed in Genesis 6 is slightly imprecise.  These two verses actually speak concerning the conditions of two different groups of created beings.  The first half of each verses speaks concerning the condition of humans who will experience "the resurrection," and speaks specifically concerning their condition "in the resurrection."  However, the phrase "in the resurrection" does not grammatically have any bearing on the condition of the angels who are mentioned in the second half of these verses.  Rather, the grammar of these two verses presents a comparative between the two groups mentioned.  The first group in the first half of these verses encompasses the humans who will be "in the resurrection."  The second group in the second half of these verses encompasses the angels, who are described as being "in heaven" at the very time that Jesus was speaking.  In this manner, our Lord Jesus Christ, in this comparative, revealed something about the very nature of the angels (or, at least about the nature of righteous angels, those "in heaven"). 

 

Now, the nature of angelic beings is central to this discussion:

 

1.  Do, or even can, angels engage in a marriage relationship (with one another, or with humans)?

2.  Do, or even can, angels engage in sexual intercourse (with one another, or with humans)?

3.  Did the Lord our God even create the angels with the physical apparatus for sexual intercourse?

4.  Did the Lord our God even create the angels with the biological genetics to procreate with humans?

 

Brother Scott,

I have to disagree. Both verses clearly state that the context of a being after having been resurrected. There is no contextual comparison to Genesis 6 at all. One passage deals with resurrected beings, the other with beings that had not been resurrected.

Follow your own logic, if it is comparative, then I stand correct.

Matthew and Mark speak to beings that have been resurrected and to angels.

The only way to get to Genesis 6 is to state a false understanding from Matthew and Mark. Neither verse speaks to whether or not angels can reproduce, both verses merely state that in the resurrection you will be like an angel, unable to marry, due to the fact that a union between an angel and an angel is either a.) prohibited or b.) illogical considering the fact that all angels are male, hence eliminating any further discussion about unions amongst the angels. There can be none.

 

Your questions about the biological nature of angels, and whether or not they have the equipment, is also a dead end. The scripture shows they are male, to suggest they have no equipment is to oppose the word of God. Male clearly defines the biology of angels. Without the equipment, how can we thus call them "males"?

 

God bless,

calvary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I traced all the phrases "The sons of God" all through the Bible, and I believe they were the same as the "sons of God" today.  Most verse were unclear as to whether they were angels or not, but the preponderance of evidence, I believe, supports that they were men, the children of God.  The marrying of foreign women would break the Godly line, and could be an attempt to foil the Messiah from coming.  The angels that lost their first estate in Jude have no scriptural support that they are the same as those in Genesis or in Job.  We must only speculate in each case, but only the Lord knows for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

 

I am suggesting nothing.  A rather clear statement, i thought

 

 

I do not remeber seeing anywhere that this is stated.

 

Where is it stated?  Either way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I love a good fight fellers so keep it going.

 

One question: Where does the Word say angels are male? Infers, seems to indicate..maybe but where does it say? Sincere question.

 

By the way, I am learning allot from this thread and enjoying it allot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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."

They didn't translate it as "sons" in Duet. 14:1. Let's stick to what the KJV says and not what the Hebrew may have been translated as. There's a reason all the new versions of the bible say "children of God" while the KJV says, "sons of God" in passages like John 1:12. And it has nothing to do with them being a bunch of misogynists and chauvinists back in those days either. It has to do with the fact that the Son of God is male and when we are born again we are created in the image of the Son of God. True, we are children of God, but more precisely, we are sons of God. This includes our saved sisters. The only exception to the rule is the mention of "daughters" in II Corinthians 6:18 but that is speaking in a practical sense.

 

There are no "sons of God" within mankind between the fall of Adam and the new birth of John 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I love a good fight fellers so keep it going.

 

One question: Where does the Word say angels are male? Infers, seems to indicate..maybe but where does it say? Sincere question.

 

By the way, I am learning allot from this thread and enjoying it allot.

No one is fighting that I see of.

 

They are called young men on many occasions as well as being called "sons of God" in the OT.

 

Galatians 4:14- And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I love a good fight fellers so keep it going.

 

One question: Where does the Word say angels are male? Infers, seems to indicate..maybe but where does it say? Sincere question.

 

By the way, I am learning allot from this thread and enjoying it allot.

 

 

By using the pronouns "he" and "his" in every instance a pronoun is used. Not one verse in the Bible suggests femininity or asexual beings.

 

God bless,

calvary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I traced all the phrases "The sons of God" all through the Bible, and I believe they were the same as the "sons of God" today.  Most verse were unclear as to whether they were angels or not, but the preponderance of evidence, I believe, supports that they were men, the children of God.  The marrying of foreign women would break the Godly line, and could be an attempt to foil the Messiah from coming.  The angels that lost their first estate in Jude have no scriptural support that they are the same as those in Genesis or in Job.  We must only speculate in each case, but only the Lord knows for sure.

 

Irishman, perhaps you should check that concordance again :-)

 

There are 5 distinct applications of the term "sons of God".

 

1. Angels

2. Adam

3. The nation of Israel

4. Jesus Christ

5. The born again believer.

 

God bless,

calvary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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



×
×
  • Create New...