sons of God?

I agree. But they are obedient they are not in rebellion. And Satan only appears "among them" as one out of place. He is never called "a son of God" while in rebellion.

That is why the Bible points out that the obedient (Peacemakers shall be called the sons of God) are given that name (see Matt 5)

I agree. He was not on earth for that meeting. He was not called the son of God or one of the sons of God in that meeting. The other sons of God in that meeting are not human and they probably come from some place else. No one came from earth - but Satan in that meeting.

 

And please note - in all the places above where humans are called the sons of God and the children of God - they are always in obedience and they are never "angels".

 

This is one of those rare cases where I am going to have to agree with John Calvin.

 

Excellent point 'webdog'

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, AND Satan came also among them.

Notice the distinction the Word of God makes between holy and unholy angels - 'sons of God' = faithful, holy angels. Satan "came ALSO among them"


(the other) Ray

 

"In Moody Handbook of Theology" by Dr. Paul Enns, says that Dr. Roy Zuck, "Job" in "The Bible Knowledge Commentary", 2 volumes, (Wheaton: Victor, 1985). 1:719....says,

'Sons of God. Angels are called "sons of God" in that in their unfallen estate they are God's sons by His Creation [Job 1:6;38:7]. page 287 in the Volume, "The Moody Handbook Of Theology.

These are the hard and true facts. Dr. Hinns also points out that angels occur 103 in the Old Testament; 175 times in the N.T.; however, of men it is used only six times.

The Greek word for angels is 'angelos' and in the O.T. the word 'malak' is used.

 

Excellent points!

Never are demons called "sons of God" nor even are humans in rebellion called "sons of God".

As was pointed out from Matt 5 "Blessed are the Peacemakers for THEY shall be called the sons of God"

John Wesley was right on this one - as was Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, John Gill, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown and even Calvin!

I also agree with Ray that this can only refer to Angels in their "unfallen state" - it could never refer to fallen angels or demons.

 

I still do not buy into the "line of Seth" reasoning, because there just hasn't been good evidence (Scriptural) given other then so and so commentator says so so we must believe it.

But just let me ask this question that if sons of God can only be referring to ones that are not in open rebellion it couldn't be talking about Godly men, because they weren't supposed to be marrying these women either were they?

 

By the way I used the word marrying in my last reply, but I do not hold that these folks were getting married as per an early discussion about that verse

 

If they were fallen angels, no longer sons of God,but demons, the Bible would not refer to them as 'sons of God.'

If they were mere men, they would have been called thus.

No, they were angels, just as the account in Job 1 and Job 2 are angels

 

So you believe an angel...not in a fallen state...procreated with humans? This is even more far fetched than the "fallen angel" doctrine!

 

Really? Why are believers referred to as "sons of God" in the New Testament?

 

Very interesting reading. Would someone please address Gwen's question about Goliath being a giant after the flood. Did the angels again produce offspring with humans and Goliath and his brothers were born?

 

webdog,

You said, 'This is even more far fetched than the "fallen angel" doctrine!'

.

 

standingfirminChrist,

The reason Genesis 6:2 has reference to angelic beings who had sexual intercourse with women is because if they were men, this would be only natural and would not need a special explanation by the Lord.

Marriage is not mentioned in this Genesis explanation in chapter six. The Word only says that illegitimate children came from these unions with women.

Because of angelic wickedness and men and women committing evil, God sent the world wide Flood.

 

Ray,
So, the last part of that verse is not saying they married the daughters of men, but that they took men's wives?

I cannot buy into that theory. I believe they saw daughters of men, were entranced by their beauty, and married ones they chose.

 

I believe these angelic beings did take more than one woman, which the Bible calls 'wives' but I do not believe these were formal marriages blessed by the Lord God.

 

When a man marries a woman, she becomes his wife. She is not a wife until marriage. So, these angel's had to have married these women in order for them to be called wives. God did not sanction it, but that does not mean it was not a marriage. If that were the case, many who go through the wedding ceremony who are out of God's will could be said to 'not be married to the woman he exchanged vows with.

 

Once again the Hebrew word used there has three different meanings, of which only one is wives. It only makes sense that these were just women, not wives. They were not wives to the fallen angels and they weren't other men's wives either

These fallen angels didn't care about marrying these women and having a family relationship. They just wanted to destroy the human seed so that the Seed could not come to pass.

 

The Bible does not call these 'fallen angels', but rather 'sons of God'.

It also says it took them wifes (Hebrew word 'ishshah.' It not only means woman, but can also mean wife) of the daughters of men. I believe that means wives. In the Old Testament, to take a wife, a man only had to lay with a woman. Gen. 24:67; 2 Sam. 11:27. These 'sons of God' laid with the women; the women became their wives.

 

If sons of God means men of God, then how in Job 38:4-10 did the Lord say that 'the sons of God' were present when He created the earth? Men and women were not even created yet.

Having said this, 'the sons of God' were His good angels who minister before His throne.

The good angels in Job 1:6 & 2:1 are angels as were the beings in Genesis 6:4.

This is not difficult to understand unless you are trying to force exegesis on these passages to mean they were human men.

So you really believe in 6:2 that the women dressed in white for their weddings. Who were the officiating ministers or priests?