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

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

Yes, this was what I was trying to attempt to explain when I mentioned about the "sons of God" being a direct creation of God. In all these groups that is the case.

 

The problem is, brother Mitchell, is that a lot of the brethren believe a man could be born again in the OT. So because of this they will continue to insist that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were born again Christians of the line of Seth.

 

This is nothing but a radical attempt to bolster the teaching of separation IMO. Either that or they are afraid of the ridicule they will receive if they teach that the sons of God were fallen angels.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Moderators

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

If that's the case, then we can contend that God the Father procreates sexually, because He is called 'He" and 'Father.' Yet, He is Spirit, as are angels. He appeared as the Angel of the Lord, apparently in the flesh, yet He is Spirit. Is it actual flesh or Spirit in the appearance of flesh? So also with the angels-are they truly flesh, or merely the appearance of flesh as males? Even Jesus, after His resurrection, proved He was not spirit, by eating-something that, apparently, even a spirit with the appearance of flesh, must not be able to generally do, else Jesus' example would not have made sense.

 

God appeared in what appeared to be flesh, to Abraham,with angels, and they ate-this is the only example of such, and perhaps only possible because God Himself was present with them; and the angels went to Sodom to meet with Job-what sort of flesh were they in? spirit-flesh? Is this something that only angels obedient to God can do, because, while we see many examples of angels from Heaven doing this there is not ONE time we see any indication that any fallen angel ever appeared in any sort of flesh, in the scripture-even when Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, there is no reason to believe that he had to be in the flesh to do so. Not one example can be given of a wicked spirit, a fallen angel, appearing in flesh, except this assumed time in Genesis. Otherwise, it seems that they need to take a human host, as it were, like the demoniac of the Gadarenes.

 

Another question in this line: if fallen angels can just take human form and take wives, and produce giant, evil mighty men, resulting in such great evil that God has to destroy the earth, why don't they do it any more? Why only once? Seems like a great way to see the earth destroyed and the people killed, which is Satan's desire. Why have they never done it again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Another question in this line: if fallen angels can just take human form and take wives, and produce giant, evil mighty men, resulting in such great evil that God has to destroy the earth, why don't they do it any more? Why only once? Seems like a great way to see the earth destroyed and the people killed, which is Satan's desire. Why have they never done it again?

 

I believe they have done it again. It's called the executive and judicial branches (half the legislative also)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Oiketerion (οἰκητήριον) is only used in two places in the N.T.:

For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house oiketerion which is from heaven: 2 Cor 5:2
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation oiketerion,
he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Jude 6

So, the "angels that sinned" left their glorified mult-dimensional bodies,
and we as believers long for our glorified multi-dimensional bodies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I love a good discussion 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.

 

There is no  fight, so please, don't infer there is a fight going on, that will just incite fight, we need not go down that road. Heated discussion, yes.

 

Please notice, i edited what you started above, & that is what you should have said, there's no sense in using the word fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

By the way, nephilim are seen again after the flood. Were they too, fallen angels? And, like UM said, why is such a union with man not continued today? Seems to me if satan did something to anger God and it worked to the point of Him destroying mankind, satan would want to try that again.

 

Satan tried every way possible to mess up the blood line leading to Jesus, but he failed.  And it seems angles can take on the form of both serpent, & a man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If that's the case, then we can contend that God the Father procreates sexually, because He is called 'He" and 'Father.' Yet, He is Spirit, as are angels. He appeared as the Angel of the Lord, apparently in the flesh, yet He is Spirit. Is it actual flesh or Spirit in the appearance of flesh? So also with the angels-are they truly flesh, or merely the appearance of flesh as males? Even Jesus, after His resurrection, proved He was not spirit, by eating-something that, apparently, even a spirit with the appearance of flesh, must not be able to generally do, else Jesus' example would not have made sense.

 

1 Corinthians 15 - not too great a mystery really.

 

God appeared in what appeared to be flesh, to Abraham,with angels, and they ate-this is the only example of such, and perhaps only possible because God Himself was present with them; and the angels went to Sodom to meet with Job-what sort of flesh were they in? spirit-flesh? Is this something that only angels obedient to God can do, because, while we see many examples of angels from Heaven doing this there is not ONE time we see any indication that any fallen angel ever appeared in any sort of flesh, in the scripture-even when Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, there is no reason to believe that he had to be in the flesh to do so. Not one example can be given of a wicked spirit, a fallen angel, appearing in flesh, except this assumed time in Genesis. Otherwise, it seems that they need to take a human host, as it were, like the demoniac of the Gadarenes.

 

Another question in this line: if fallen angels can just take human form and take wives, and produce giant, evil mighty men, resulting in such great evil that God has to destroy the earth, why don't they do it any more? Why only once? Seems like a great way to see the earth destroyed and the people killed, which is Satan's desire. Why have they never done it again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Genesis 4:26 (KJV)
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.


This is another case where the King James translators simply didn't "get it right".
The best translation would be:"then began men to PROFANE the name of the Lord".
Perhaps it could be translated: men began to curse the Lord (using God's name "in vain").

I believe that as we get closer to the return of the Lord, that many things that we have "taken for granted",
as often repeated, will be revealed as incorrect, in order to prepare us for the great DECEPTION by Satan during the Tribulation.

NOTE: The KJV translators relied somewhat on the Latin Vulgate, which relied upon the
Septuagint LXX, which had been corrupted in Alexandra, Egypt, following the birth of Christianity.
There is no good reason why they didn't simply use the Hebrew "nephilim", except they had
NO IDEA what the word meant - in which case they relied upon the Greek O.T. (LXX) and the word "gigantes",
which CLEARLY meant "earth-bound" from the Classic Greek legends of the Titans (hybrid man-gods).
Strong's Concordance is your friend.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Amen, for once I agree with SFIC!

 

There were many attempts of Satan to stop the birth of the Messiah, and at least one (in my opinion) AFTER the resurrection.

 

To categorize the phrase. the "sons of God", merely confuses the issue a little more.  "Sons" shows relationship--close relationship, a Father-son relationship.

 

Who Are the Sons of God
(Genesis 6)

Gen 6:1  And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2  That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.


    There seems to have been much controversy over the question that introduces our theme, “Who are the “sons of God?” (v.2 and 4).  Some say they were fallen angels, and argue that the “giants” referred to in v. 4 are literal giants, and were the seed of the angels.  This theory has a few problems, however:  

First: Our Lord Himself said that angels neither marry, nor are given in marriage. Mark 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.”  I don’t think that it was any different in the Old Testament, lest the Lord be a changeable God.  There is no legitimate reason why dispensations or law should effect a change either.  It seems that angels were made that way for eternity.  

Secondly: If you were to trace the words, “The sons of God” throughout the Bible, you would discover that it almost always refers to men and not angels.   In the New testament especially, it refers to the church, and those that make up the body of Christ.  I wish to emphasize that the phrase, “The sons of God” (plural sense) is mentioned  eleven times in the Bible.  A careful study of the phrase will reveal that all of the mentions of the Son of God (in the singular, and capital “S“) speak of Christ, and is mentioned forty-seven times in the entire Bible, with only one in the Old testament (Daniel 3:25).   Neither those in Job, or those in Genesis refer to angels, but are the same phrase that is used concerning believers in Christ.  There are six verses in the New Testament that speak of us as “the sons of God”, the other five are Old testament Scriptures, several of which have already been alluded to.  The New testament verses are as follows:

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:”  (John 1:12)

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” (Rom. 8:14)

“For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.” (Rom. 8:19)

“That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;” (Phil 2: 15)

“Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:1, 2)



This would affect v.4 in the sense that the “giants” are “great men of renown” as the text implies in the same verse; it is used metaphorically, but has some validity in the text.   We have heard the phrase “A giant among men” even in modern times; I believe this is the case in Genesis 6:2; 6:4 and Job 1: 6; 2:1 and 38:7 concerning “the sons of God.”  By the way, whenever the Bible speaks of angels, they are always called just that, “angels”.

The third problem would be that the Bible again clarifies itself in the matter, as we refer to a genealogy in Luke 3:38; it begins with Jesus, and traces the genealogy back to Adam, and refers to him as “the son of God”--the same phrase that is used a few chapters later concerning “The daughters of men“!

Luk 3:38  “Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.”

I must be fair and admit that there are other theories as to the “sons of God”, but these two are the most common and perhaps the most plausible. The others, in my opinion, are hardly worthy of mention.  

    The “Daughters of men” (also v. 2) could not have married angels, as we have seen, and why should such a noble being as an angel be wooed and charmed by mortals?  Notice that the “daughters of men” are called so in contrast to the “sons of God”.  Obviously, the one speaks of male gender, and the other of the female.  Though women can be “children of God”, they cannot be “sons…”   Angels live amongst the beauty of heaven, and need not a helper, as man does, since they dwell in the very presence of God, and enjoy the utmost of blessings.   It is possible that the godly line (men) had never ventured out into the world and came into contact with the daughters of men until this time, and they were smitten!   Surely we see the same thing concerning Dinah, in Genesis 34:1: “And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.”   Dinah had, no doubt, been protected from the worldly women of her times, and got herself into trouble when she ventured “out of the fold” so to speak.   It is possible that the same was true in Genesis six with the sons of God when they beheld the “daughters of men” and saw that they were “fair”, and took them wives without the counsel of the Lord.  Of course, this is speculation on my part, but very feasible and practical when you give it a bit of thought; it fits the story line very well.  Could this theory (angels) have originated in mythology where the gods desired the daughters of men who were mortals?

        
Those who hold to the view that the sons of God were angels, often refer to the fact that they met with God (somewhere in heaven) to present themselves before Him, (Job 1:6 and 2:1), and Satan came among them.   This could not have been Heaven, because the New Testament says no evil can enter there, neither corruption (Satan was cast out forever).  God’s laws are eternal, and He would not have changed that in the another so-called dispensation.  Therefore, it must have been somewhere on earth, where it was an established meeting place when they wished to commune with the Creator.  Today we meet in the church, but they need not have had a building, merely a place to meet with God, although later synagogues were built for that purpose.  It would have been logical that the sons of man would meet with the Lord in their own domain, where God had assigned them to (earth).  It would also be easier to accept that Satan could mingle among them, since we know he was cast down out of heaven, and earth had become his domain also.  This is not conclusive evidence, of course, but as far as any of us can tell, there is none that is considered conclusive on either side of the issue.  I believe it best supports the theory that the sons of God were only men, and the sons of men, that God had adopted unto Himself, as also mentioned in the New Testament.   Man became a child of God by faith, just as he does today (Gen. 6:8), although faith was not as obvious as obedience, the proof of faith.  

Here is my take on the matter:
    As men began to multiply daughters became numerous, and other men began to notice.  Weddings may have been pre-arranged, as in Abraham’s case with his sons, who, in turn, arranged marriages for their sons.   Esau, apparently being spiteful, married whom he would, and broke the godly line in his side of the family.  This, of course, must have displeased his mother, who chose Jacob over him.  Giants were already (Gen 6:4) there, and after that when the “sons of God” came in to the daughters of men. (Note the similarities and differences in the phrases “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men”.) After that, they bore children “men of renown”.  Then God saw the wickedness of man, that “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”(v.5).  This verse must be linked to verse four, and apparently had something to do with the choices the men made in marrying “all of which they chose”, (v.2).  Immediately after verse two, the Lord says that His Spirit “shall not always strive with man” because he is flesh.  God knew that is no good could ever come of mere flesh; his days (after pursuing the daughters of men) will now number only one-hundred twenty years.    So, what significance do “giants have in this passage?  Wickedness!  Giants always brought fear, and were the epitome of ruthlessness, and barbaric acts.  “The same” (v.4) refers to giants, and “after that” was an after thought to clarify the fact that the sons of God took to themselves the daughters of men, and bare children unto them.  The phrase “which were of old” (again, v.4) teaches us that the renown men already were there, and were not the angels born of men.  
    I must be honest here, and say that another place in Job is not as clear as to who the sons of God are; that is Job 38:7 where we read “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”  The verse previous to this speaks of events before creation, and therefore could refer to angels, but “fallen angels”  I doubt it.  God cannot claim fallen angels as His own.; they belong to Satan.  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Oiketerion (οἰκητήριον) is only used in two places in the N.T.:

For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house oiketerion which is from heaven: 2 Cor 5:2
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation oiketerion,
he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Jude 6

So, the "angels that sinned" left their glorified mult-dimensional bodies,
and we as believers long for our glorified multi-dimensional bodies.

The word 'oiketerion' speaks of a dwelling place, particularly spiritual-it doesn't mean that the angels lost the body of spirit, just that they left their spiritual dwellinglace, which was Heaven. However, being that they are reserved unto darkenss in chains tells me that these spoken of here certainly did NOT procreate with human women, or they would not be in everlasting chains in darkness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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

 

Brother Mike,

 

In post #10 you made the following statement:

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.

 

Your closing statement that "there could be questions raised as to what angels could or could not do when taking on a physical form" does appear to suggest at least the possibility that angels, when in "physical form," could engage in sexual relations and could procreate with humans.

 

Your statement that "there could be questions raised" communicates exactly what I am doing -- raising questions.  My questions concerning physical apparatus and biological genetics are raised in relation to the account of Genesis 6:2 & 4 because this Biblical account requires that whoever the "sons of God" were, they must have had these things.  Genesis 6:2 indicates that these "sons of God" "took them wives of all which they chose" from among the "daughters of men."  Thus these "sons of God" did enter into the union of marriage, else there would not be a reference to "wives."  Furthermore, Genesis 6:4 indicates that these "sons of God" "came in unto the daughters of men," which appears to be a Biblical reference to sexual intercourse.  Thus these "sons of God" did have the physical apparatus for such intercourse.  Finally, Genesis 6:4 indicates that "the daughters of men," whom the "sons of God" had taken in marriage as wives, "bare children" unto these "sons of God."  Thus these "sons of God" did have the biological genetics to procreate with human women, "the daughters of men." 

 

Now, many claim that these "sons of God" were angelic beings.  However, the following questions must then be raised --

 

1.  Did the Lord our God and Creator create the angels as spiritual beings or as physical beings?  If they were origianlly created by the Lord our God to have a spiritual nature as spiritual beings, then they would not possess the physical apparatus for sexual relations.

 

2.  Did the Lord our God and Creator create the angels as a different "kind" than mankind?  If they were originally created by the Lord our God as a different "kind" than mankind, then according to the Biblical principle of procreation after one's own "kind" (which is revealed in the very same context of the book of Genesis, only five chapters earlier than chapter six), then they would not possess the biological genetics to procreate with humans.

 

So then, if the angels were originally created to have a spiritual nature as spiritual beings and as a different "kind" than mankind, and if thus they would not possess the physical apparatus for sexual relations or the biological genetics to procreate with humans, then the "sons of God" could not have been angelic beings.  Indeed, then the viewpoint that they were angelic beings would be contrary to the created nature of angels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

 

Brother "Heartstrings,"

 

First, allow me to state that my discussion with you thus far has only concerned the phrase "sons of God" in the particular contexts of Job 1:6 & 2:1.  I myself, as I have previously indicated, do believe that this phrase in this particular context does refer to angelic beings.  However, I hasten to add that I myself do not believe that the phrase "sons of God" in the particular context of Genesis 6:2 & 4 refers to angelic beings, but to human beings.

 

Second, concerning your statements above --

 

1.  Yes, I do believe that our adversary the devil, as "the accuser of the brethren," does indeed make his accusations before the throne of God in heaven. 

 

2.  Furthermore, you seem to indicate that the case of Job 1:6 & 2:1 is similar to a present day occasion, wherein believers today meet for a church service, and the devil comes in among them.  In such cases, we would recognize that the devil comes in among such a gathering of believers in order to spiritually hinder it in some fashion.  However, Job 2:1 does not indicate that Satan, in that context, came among the "sons of God" with the purpose of "accusing the brethren" or of hindering them spiritually.  Rather, Job 2:1 indicates that Satan, in that context, "came also" among the "sons of God" for the exact same purpose as those "sons of God" had come -- "to present himself before the LORD" just as they had come "to present themselves before the LORD."  If (as you seem to be suggesting) the gathering of the "sons of God" in Job 1:6 & 2:1 was some form of worship service gathering, then those "sons of God" would have been presenting themselves "before the LORD" in some manner of righteousness.  Yet Satan, that wicked devil, would not have been presenting himself "before the LORD" in some manner of righteousness.  Therefore, since Job 2:1 indicates that Satan presented himself, in that context, for the exact same purpose as the "sons of God," I would contend that the "presenting" of this context was not for some form of righteous worship "before the LORD", but was for some form of personal accounting "before the LORD."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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



×
×
  • Create New...