Who are the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2,4?

[Amy.G]

New Testament examples:

Gal. 3:26 "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus."
Romans 9:26 (quoting Hosea) "...There they shall be called sons of the living of God".
Matt 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God."

Old Testament example:

Hosea 1:10 "Yet the number of the sons of Israel will be like the sand of the sea....You are sons of the living God"

Each of the these references are to people to believe in God, not angels.

peace to youraying:

I said it was a Hebrew term. I was talking about the OT Hebrew references to the son's of God.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but since the brother of the Lord (Jude) spoke of the book of Enoch, don't you think it would be beneficial to read it? It was a book that the Jews were very familiar with. If it were untrue, would God have referenced it in His word?

 

[canadyjd]

Whining? That struck me funny. God destroyed the earth because of whining? :laugh:

I was making a joke. Cain whined about his punishment for killing Abel.

The passage says God destroys the earth because of the wickedness and evil of the people who, just 3 verses earlier began to intermarry. Seems to be a strong connection, in context, imho.

We will just have to disagree. It's a difficult concept.

Ok.

peace to youraying:

 

[Amy.G]

Here's an excerpt from the book of Enoch.

And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Samîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. These are their chiefs of tens.


And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

LINK

 

[canadyjd]

I said it was a Hebrew term. I was talking about the OT Hebrew references to the son's of God.

Well, Ok, Hosea says that the sons of Israel will be called the Sons of the Living God.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but since the brother of the Lord (Jude) spoke of the book of Enoch, don't you think it would be beneficial to read it? It was a book that the Jews were very familiar with. If it were untrue, would God have referenced it in His word?

I haven't read it. Does it say the angels married the human women? (edit: I see you posted a quote while I was posting).

The writer of the book of Enoch appears to have held to the same theory concerning the angels. No doubt it was a popular theory among the Jews as it is today.

I don't believe the point Jude is making is to agree with everything in the book of Enoch. Paul quotes pagan philosophers to make a point. That doesn't make those writings scripture.

Jude's one clear reference (if I remember my studies) concerns the archangel Micheal disputing Satan over the body of Moses, which is making the point that God is the ultimate Judge of the ungodly (both angels and men).

I can see why it is appealing to refer to Jude's quote from Enoch to support the theory. I will give it some more thought, but I don't see it as definitive in the debate.

peace to youraying:

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

This is great—now here’s a question—there is clear historical evidence that the angelic theory of Gen 6 existed during the NT (cf 1 Enoch 6-19; Jubilees 4: 15, 22; 5: 1; Damascus Document 2: 17-19; 1QapGen 2: 1; Testament of Reuben 5: -7; Testament of Naphtali 3:5; 2 Barach 56: 10-14)—further some of these same writings describes the angels as being locked away in chains (similar to 2 Pet 2:4 & Jude 6)—could someone—anyone please give another possible idea (biblical or historical example) of angels being locked in chains besides the ones from Gen 6 in historical/biblical thought that would have been relevant to the NT audience. As Thomas R. Schreiner explains in regard to 2 Peter 2:4, “Peter’s readers would naturally have understood the account in terms of such tradition unless Peter indicated clearly that he was departing from the common understanding of his day.” In addition, the simple fact that Peter followed his account of the sinning angels with a description of the flood, allows a natural connection to be drawn between 2 Pet 2:4-5 and Gen 6:1-4. Are we to imagine that Peter just coincidently makes this connection & that there is this “unknown” group of chained angels that the NT audience knew about that has no historical evidence what so ever? Even more to the point (as Amy mentioned) Like 2 Peter, Jude also gives a biblical account of certain angels that rebelled against God and received as their punishment imprisonment. Although Jude does not follow his description of the sinning angels with a reference to the flood, he does show familiarity with 1 Enoch by quoting the work in Jude 14-15. This is important because 1 Enoch treats Genesis 6:1-4 as the sin of the angels. 1 Enoch also describes the fallen angels from Genesis 6 as imprisoned (e.g. 1 En 10:4-7, 12-14; 19:1; 20:2-3; 21:10). Based on his reference, Jude should offer an explanation to his readers if he holds any other view. Basically—if there is a possible alternative historical example that the NT audience would have known about (in regards to chained angels)—I’d request someone show me—or we’re left with a hypothetical unknown group of chained angels that are not related to Gen 6, that the NT writers refer to without explanation.

 

[Amy.G]

Good post Gabriel.

I will be out of town for most of the day tomorrow, so I'll check in on this thread tomorrow night. Thanks for starting this thread. It's super interesting and hopefully something we can all discuss without all the un-niceness (yes, that's a word; I made it up myself) we have in other discussions.

 

[Amy.G]

I don't believe the point Jude is making is to agree with everything in the book of Enoch. Paul quotes pagan philosophers to make a point. That doesn't make those writings scripture.


peace to youraying:

I believe that Jude's reference to the book of Enoch is valid or it wouldn't be in God's word. He speaks of it as truth in the same way that Jesus spoke of Noah, the flood, Jonah..ect.


I'm not arguing with you. Just giving my opinion. It's a hard concept, but I think if you keep studying you might come to the same conclusion as I have.

But you have to admit, it's a great topic of discussion!

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Good post Gabriel.

I will be out of town for most of the day tomorrow, so I'll check in on this thread tomorrow night. Thanks for starting this thread. It's super interesting and hopefully something we can all discuss without all the un-niceness (yes, that's a word; I made it up myself) we have in other discussions.

sounds good—but I’ll miss your indebt& insightful input—glad to see others are thinking about this interesting topic.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[canadyjd]

This is great—now here’s a question.... This is important because 1 Enoch treats Genesis 6:1-4 as the sin of the angels. 1 Enoch also describes the fallen angels from Genesis 6 as imprisoned (e.g. 1 En 10:4-7, 12-14; 19:1; 20:2-3; 21:10). Based on his reference, Jude should offer an explanation to his readers if he holds any other view. Basically—if there is a possible alternative historical example that the NT audience would have known about (in regards to chained angels)—I’d request someone show me—or we’re left with a hypothetical unknown group of chained angels that are not related to Gen 6, that the NT writers refer to without explanation.

So, based on the Enoch quote, God destroyed the earth and all the people in it because of the sin of a couple hundred angels that married human women?

peace to youraying:

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

So, based on the Enoch quote, God destroyed the earth and all the people in it because of the sin of a couple hundred angels that married human women?

peace to youraying:

Now that is a good question—1 Enoch as whole is not biblical for a reason—but it does demonstrate contemporary thought during the time of NT authorship—as far as the reason God destroyed the earth—Gen 6 does not specify except that man was wicked (Gen 6:5). So this was mans punishment for his part in the sin. Many object & say—what about the angels—where is the angelic punishment in Gen 6? Well in the Bible man is the focus & not angels—there are many events that angels are involved in that we are not given the full details until later. For example Moses dies (Deut 34:5-6)- but its not until Jude 9 that we find out about this controversy between Michael & Satan over his body. In Gen 3 a serpent is described-but its not until Rev12:9, 20:2 (& possibly Rom 16:20) that it is clearly referred to as Satan. David’s takes a census, while 2 Sam 24 originally does not mention Satan, 1 Chron 21 does. Although Ex 19-20 does not tell of angelic involvement with the giving of the law-- Gal 3:19, Acts 7:53, & Heb 2:2 tells us they where somehow involved. There are many times in Scripture where angels are involved & we don’t get the full details. Gen 6 is similar—although the original account doesn’t go into detail about their punishment—2 Pet 2:4 & Jude 6 does. When it comes to angels we are on a need to know basis & we always don’t need to know the details, b/c the biblical focus is on man & not angels. The flood happened to punish man—but the angels for their part were put in tartarosas (from which comes the word Tartarus). While some may object & say 2 Pet 2:4 & Jude 6 cannot prove Gen 6 talks of angels---maybe not—but 1 thing is for sure—these verses do refer to the angelic understanding of Gen 6--& if not I’d love to see another possible historical/biblical example that the NT authors could be referring too.

 

[kyredneck]

I like Pink on this. Reference in your mind Gen 3:15 and the picture story of the Woman and the Great Red Dragon of Rev 12:

“....It is a significant fact that some versions of the Septuagint contain the word "angels" in Genesis 6:2, 4......These "sons of God," then, appear to be angels who left their own habitation, came down to earth, and cohabited with the daughters of men. Before we consider the outcome of this illicit intercourse, let us first enquire into the cause of it. Why did these angels thus "sin" (2 Pet. 2:4)? The answer to this question leads us into a mysterious subject which we cannot now treat at length: the "why" finds its answer in Satan.

Immediately after that old serpent, the Devil, had brought about the downfall of our first parents, God passed sentence on the "serpent" and declared that the woman’s "Seed" should "bruise his head" (Gen. 3:15). Hence, in due course, Satan sought to frustrate this purpose of God. His first effort was an endeavor to prevent his Bruiser entering this world. This effort is plainly to be seen in his attempts to destroy the channel through which the Lord Jesus was to come.

First, God revealed the fact that the Coming One was to be of human kind, the woman’s Seed, hence, as we shall seek to show, Satan attempted to destroy the human race. Next, God made known to Abraham that the Coming One was to be a descendant of his (Gen. 12:3; Galatians 3:18; Matthew 1:1); hence, four hundred years later, when the descendants of Abraham became numerous in Egypt Satan sought to destroy the Abrahamic stock, by moving Pharaoh to seek the destruction of all the male children (Ex. 1:15, 16). Later, God made known the fact that the Coming One was to be of the offspring of David (2 Samuel 7:12, 13); hence, the subsequent attack made upon David through Absalom (2 Samuel 15). As, then, the Coming One was to be of the seed of David, He must spring from the tribe of Judah, and hence the significance of the divided Kingdom, and the attacks of the Ten Tribes upon the Tribe of Judah!

The reference in Jude 6 to the angels leaving their own habitation, appears to point to and correspond with these "sons of God" (angels) coming in unto the daughters of men. Apparently, by this means, Satan hoped to destroy the human race (the channel through which the woman’s Seed was to come) by producing a race of monstrosities. How nearly he succeeded is evident from the fact, that with the exception of one family, "all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth" (Gen. 6:12). That monstrosities were produced as the result of this unnatural union between the "sons of God" (angels) and the daughters of men, is evident from the words of Genesis 6:4: "There were giants in the earth in those days." The Hebrew word for "giants" here is nephilim, which means fallen ones, from "naphal" to fall. The term "men of renoun" in Genesis 6:4 probably finds its historical equivalent in the "heroes" of Grecian mythology. Satan’s special object in seeking to prevent the advent of the woman’s "Seed" by destroying the human race was evidently an attempt to avert his threatened doom!"

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Gleanings_Genesis/genesis_11.htm

 

[quantumfaith]

Here's an excerpt from the book of Enoch.



LINK

Thank you for sharing Amy. VERY Interesting. I will be doing some more reading on this.

Question: If this "angel theory" is accurate, how do we view the action of God himself in this, it could seem almost as though these "angels" "snuck" out of the house to do this dastardly deed.

Another evidence for me:

All that is in God's revelation to man is truth, but not all truth is contained in God's revelation to man.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Question: If this "angel theory" is accurate, how do we view the action of God himself in this, it could seem almost as though these "angels" "snuck" out of the house to do this dastardly deed.

Good question brother—but the same can be said for the existence of Satan & demonic activity in general. Why does God allow any evil spirits to exist & carry action that are focused on counteracting His will? Well the answer to this depends on who you ask—lol-but according to Scripture—Satan & demons are both very active & while they are defeated through the cross—they nonetheless “are sneaking around & doing dastardly deeds.” Although in reality I don’t know how much sneaking is really going considering God knows everything-

 

[webdog]

Put me down for the line of Seth (but Gabriel probably already knew that ) I believe they were the leaders from this line (judges).

In God's creation narrative, He created "kinds" to populate with each other. I cannot find where a human is the same "kind" as an angel, and where different species can procreate with each other.

Also, sons of God always refers to Angels...not fallen angels, just like believers are referred to as sons of God. That implies union with the Creator, not enmity, what a fallen angel would be.

 

[webdog]

If Amy will appeal to the book of Enoch, I will raise her a book of Jasher

18 And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force

from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from
the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture
of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw
the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men
and all animals."​

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Put me down for the line of Seth (but Gabriel probably already knew that ) I believe they were the leaders from this line (judges).

In God's creation narrative, He created "kinds" to populate with each other. I cannot find where a human is the same "kind" as an angel, and where different species can procreate with each other.

Also, sons of God always refers to Angels...not fallen angels, just like believers are referred to as sons of God. That implies union with the Creator, not enmity, what a fallen angel would be.

Yeah-I do know you’re a Sethiter & Since you’re my boy—I’ll be nice—:smilewinkgrin:
When fallen angels marry and engage in sexual relations with human women, they breach God’s marriage ordinance (Gn 2:24) and ignore His command for multiplying according to kind (Gn 1:11, 21, 24, 25). Scripture is silent as to what kind of procreation angels (or at least fallen angels) are capable of (or if they are incapable of procreating with other species). But they could have possessed men or in an angelophany (when invisible angels take on the form of a human) performed the action, thus the species situation would be negated. And as far as the sons of God always being angels—you are correct bene elohim does always refer to angels (never human Sethites or rulers)-. But some believe the term has nothing to do with their holiness but simply reflects their might, even saying that in Job 1:6, 2:1 Satan is considered a bene elohim. But I’ll throw this argument out & say even if we limit the bene elohim term to holy angels, we have to remember that all fallen angels were at one time holy & would have been called bene elohim. This being said, this could have been when these particular angels rebelled against God (ie the time when these bene elohim became fallen—thus the term would have been appropriate for them). When it comes to the angelic revolt its not as clear cut as many imagine it. We know Satan fell by Gen 3—but we really are not told if other angels fell with him at his initial revolt, or if there was more than 1 angelic revolt (Even if we allow Rev 12 to be about Satan’s initial revolt it does not say when or how he influenced other angels to rebel.) Nevertheless even if these angels followed Satan in his initial rebellion & had fallen by Gen 3—they still are closer to the bene elohim term than mere humans b/c at one time they were holy or classified as bene elohim.

 

[abcgrad94]

Another Sethite here.
1. I don't believe angels can reproduce offspring. They are not given in marriage. (Mark 12:25)
2. Christ died for all mankind, not the angels. If people were half human and half angel, that implies Christ would have died for angels or part-angels, and that idea is not supported in scripture.
3. Adam was referred to as a "son of God." Seth was his son, so it makes sense that his offspring would be called the sons of God. In scripture we see references to "Israel" which actually refers to the children of Israel. So, I can see that happening with the sons of Seth.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

If Amy will appeal to the book of Enoch, I will raise her a book of Jasher

18 And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force

from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from
the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture
of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw
the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men
and all animals."​

well you’ve just brought support for the judge/ruler theory—unfortunately in the process you’ve done damage to ur Sethite cause-—but I’ll get into the Jasher subject latter.

 

[webdog]

When fallen angels marry and engage in sexual relations with human women, they breach God’s marriage ordinance (Gn 2:24) and ignore His command for multiplying according to kind (Gn 1:11, 21, 24, 25).

This assumes they could inter-breed. I don't see that proof as a given.

Scripture is silent as to what kind of procreation angels (or at least fallen angels) are capable of (or if they are incapable of procreating with other species). But they could have possessed men or in an angelophany (when invisible angels take on the form of a human) performed the action, thus the species situation would be negated.

Scripture does state Angels are men, and in no place does it refer to one as a woman. I will give it is as possibility demon possessed men could have been the ones procreating, but there is still the problem with the usage of "sons of God."

And as far as the sons of God always being angels—you are correct bene elohim does always refer to angels (never human Sethites or rulers)-. But some believe the term has nothing to do with their holiness but simply reflects their might, even saying that in Job 1:6, 2:1 Satan is considered a bene elohim.

Actually, I believe that phrase is used in regards to those who are in union with God as opposed, whether it be an Angel, Israelite, or Christian. The Job 1 passage only says that Satan appeared "with" the sons of God. These could have been angels or humans, btw.

But I’ll throw this argument out & say even if we limit the bene elohim term to holy angels, we have to remember that all fallen angels were at one time holy & would have been called bene elohim.

True...but holy Angels would no longer be referred to in that light the way they are in Genesis 6.

This being said, this could have been when these particular angels rebelled against God (ie the time when these bene elohim became fallen—thus the term would have been appropriate for them)

Possibly, but this still goes back to my first reply that ability is needed, and we don't find that. In fact, when comparing Bible against Bible, and modern science, it is impossible for different species to cross breed.

One issue that needs to be brought to this discussion is "who are the Nephilim"? The fallen angel theorists state they are the byproduct of this union between fallen angels and man, but Scripture states they were already here when the sons of God took the daughters of man.

 

[webdog]

well you’ve just brought support for the judge/ruler theory—unfortunately in the process you’ve done damage to ur Sethite cause-—but I’ll get into the Jasher subject latter.

Like the cal v. arm debate...I believe it's "both" They were the righteous leaders from Seth.