Zrs6--First—let me begin by saying—I’m not so naïve as to believe I am going to convince everyone of the angelic understanding of Gen 6. As long as the time & effort is put into an explanation with evidence to the contrary of my angelic Gen 6 understanding—I’m perfectly fine with saying we can agree to disagree (especially considering that this is not a first-rate doctrine). Its those who simply say-- it couldn’t be angels b/c of Matt 22, or the context is clearly about Sethite-Cainite marriages, or I just don’t see how that’s possible (ie doesn’t make logical sense)—that I classify as oversimplifying the issue without putting in the needed study to prove their points. With your well thought out questions & investigation—I can honestly say you don’t fall into this last category—so in the end if your still convinced of an alternative understanding (ie see the possibility of the angelic view but still support another interpretation) I’ll be glad to tell you where to get other reading material that will help you advance your premise. That being said—lets get into your questions
You conclude that "sons of God" in Hebrew writings 'always' translates to angels. I am not dismissing that yet, but that is a big assumption to make in my mind based on the fact that that phrase in the Old Testament is only used 4-5 times. 2 in Genesis 6 and 3 in Job (rough estimate). I say it is an assumption because you have 2 different writers, 2 different setting, and 2 different time periods. I think the context should define the term rather than word searches. I guess my question would be: Is that how you arrived at that conclusion in defining sons of God?
First I’m not saying that bene ha elohim is always angels in Hebrew writings, just limited to the use of angels when the exact Hebrew phrase is used in the OT. While the phrase is clearly Hebrew idiom for angels (based on the OT & other Jewish writings)—I’ve seen some scholars insist that it must always be limited to angels, while others say it doesn’t have to be b/c there are similar phrases (although not exact) that do refer to humans. It was this very issue that two of my professors disagreed with each other on, when I was researching my thesis. To be honest, many who support the angelic view insist that since the bene ha elohim phrase is limited to only angels in Scripture it must also be limited to angels in Gen 6:2, 4. While I think this is a noteworthy point—I don’t base my whole premise on this issue, & only use this particular evidence as a stepping stone to begin my argument. Ie-while it is true that the exact bene ha elohim phrase only appears in Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1 & without the article in Job 38:7—the Job evidence simply demonstrates that the phrase is in fact Hebrew idiom for angels--& by itself should not be used as the only evidence for an angelic understanding of Gen 6.
When it comes to the fact that you have 2 different writers in 2 different time periods—I’d caution you not stress that to much—b/c the same Holy Spirit was inspiring both authors & there are some who believe Job was the oldest book in the OT (a whole other topic in itself)—but would object to what you are saying b/c it is assumed that if it is the oldest, Moses would have known the use of Job’s bene elohim & would actually be referring to it. Now I surely don’t take it that far, but just letting you know.
As far as context is concerned in Gen 6:1-4-- Well I’ve already addressed this topic before & don’t want to sound like a broken record. Further I feel that I kinda sound like I’m trying to talk above peoples heads when I give my explanation—so I’ll try & put it into the easiest terms as possible—b/c if I don’t-- I’m really not doing anything but blowing hot air. But I always begin with 2 points—1st how Gen 6:1—linguistically is a summary statement that moves onto a new motif. 2nd-how the daughters of men should not be limited to Cainities based on the context & original language.
First in regard to Gen 6:1—I was going to copy & paste two summary statement about the introductory phrase from the articles: Helge S Kvanvig, “Gen 6,1-4 as an Antediluvian event” (2002) & Willem A Van Gemeren, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 (An example of Evangelical Demythologization?)”-but they really sounded wordy & confusing for those unfamiliar with the argument as a whole---I remember when I first read them I had to sit down with a professor & go over them to make sure I understood everything that was being said—so in summary—they talk about the introductory phrase being used as a as a macro-syntactic sign introducing the whole story, which sets a new time when humans began to multiply. Ie it is a transition from one theme to a different motif. While it certainly could be seen as summarizing & connecting to chapt 5, the important part is it is introducing a new focus—ie the daughters of men & the sons of God. Does this by itself prove that the sons of God are angels—no! But it shows that what’s important to the context is what is about to be said—not what was previously said.
Second-the daughters of men should not be limited to the Cainites. I’ve already gone over this argument several times-- but Ill try to summarize quickly—
Adham (the term used in the daughters of men phrase) is a Hebrew generic term sometimes used to denote mankind as a whole (Gen 6:1). It is highly unlikely that adham is used in Genesis 6:1 to mean all mankind and then restricted to one particular family in the next verse (6:2). The reference to the “daughters of man” cannot be limited to the genealogy of Seth or Cain (based on context & original language)—they simply belong to the category of humans of the female gender. (although some have actually connected the phrase to Sethite women, due to possible context). Since adham cannot be limited to Cainite women (due to the use of the Adham term in Gen 6:1 then again in 6:2)—there is no hint of this being Sethite-Cainite marriages—b/c adham (daughters of men) includes both Cainite & Sethite women. This is a problem that rulers/tyrants & angelic supporters are quick to point out. Even modern Sethite supporters are steering away from the Cainite women identification due to this dilemma (see Mathews, Genesis 1-11, New American Commentary).
So at this point what we have is Gen 6:1-introducing a new motif (not necessarily related to the previous chapters) that focuses on the daughters of men & sons of God, with the daughters of men being a group that are limited to females with no exact lineage described, but simply belong to the category of mankind as a whole (ie humans in general). This brings us to the sons of God identification. Well what is obvious from the context is that who ever they were—their interaction with the daughters of men was forbidden & considered a sin. The problem is—no matter what view you support (angelic, rulers/tyrants, Sethite)—nothing in Genesis up to this point has demonstrated what type of sin this could be. So we are left with a sin that is being introduced for the first time in Gen 6:2. So if it’s the context of previous Genesis description that is desired, the interpreter will be left wanting—b/c nothing is clearly defined in the preceding chapters. Now due to the lack of time—I’m not going to lay out support for all the other possible interpretations, but will simply focus on the evidence for an angelic understanding. First, there is nothing sinful about humans marrying & procreating. God has already ordained it. However, if
Angels (whether they be fallen or angels that fall at this time) 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). What Matt 22 does demonstrate is that holy angels do not marry (at least they are not suppose to) & it says nothing about their ability to procreate. So if these angels do marry they would be sinning by doing something God does not allow them to do & if they did procreate with humans they would be breaking God’s command for multiplying according to kind. The question often comes up well how is this possible that angels could even have intercourse with human women—well its possible by angels possessing men or by angels taking the form of men in an aneglophany. Further, this is the Bible we’re talking about—events that supersede human logic often take place (ie the virgin birth of Jesus, miracles in general, & the resurrection of Christ from the dead—to name a few). The inability to logically perceive an event should not limit ones possible interpretation. Next, the fact is the bene ha elohim phrase is limited to angels in Scripture, could it be a human interpretation here—that’s possible—but if we want Scripture to interpret Scripture—then the limited use of this Hebrew phrase to angels—certainly favors an angelic understanding. Further, the history of the exegesis of Gen 6:2, 4 favors an angelic understanding. (see again the article I posted for you). Sometimes people will say—well this angel theory started with 1 Enoch, but this doesn’t have to be the case—all 1 Enoch does is show that this is the oldest interpretation of the “sons of God” & gives historical evidence that this interpretation is very ancient. While the book of Jasher’s interpretation could give favor to the ruler/tyrants theory being old (the reliability of the modern translations we have on this book is debated) it does not have the supporting evidence of other Jewish writings that agree with its understanding as the angelic theory has. Further, the first clear reference to the Sethite theory does not come until Julius Africanus in the 3rd century AD. Who admitted the angel view prevailed in his day, but that he could not personally accept it. Another piece of evidence that supports the angelic view is the NT evidence & this gets to your next question.
. I think that if we try to interpret the Genesis 6 with the Bible alone it is logical to come to the conclusion of the line of Seth. None of the views are simple. When we hear the view on angels being backed by non-biblical sources of history it throws red flags, although we know extra biblical sources help us understand the Bible. I thin validation of the historical source of the book of 1Enoch would be helpful so I am looking forward to hearing your explanation.
