Genesis 6:1-4 The sons of God
Genesis 6 begins with a difficult passage. The message of the chapter seems clear enough. Humanity was evil continually. God’s heart was grieved that He had made humans. The sins of humans had corrupted (polluted?) the earth. Therefore, our Creator decides to destroy everything that has the breath of life, but Noah and his family were spared because he had found grace in God’s eyes and was obedient to build a large boat (ark) according to God’s plan.
Now, anyone who has been reading my posts will know that I can’t leave it there. So, here I will consider only verses 1-4. Please read it carefully and consider how mysterious it sounds. There are things here that we do not understand, yet ancient readers surely had some knowledge that the author is taking for granted.
This entry will be limited to considering, “Who are the sons of God?” There have been three primary theories among theologians. The honest Bible student should begin by saying, “I don’t know,” before proceeding to consider the theories.
Some promote the idea that “sons of God” refer to earthly kings and powerful men of the day. Personally, I think we can forget about that one, because their mating with the “daughters of men” is implied as being unnatural and that their children were Nephilim. The KJV translates Nephilim as “giants.” The ancient Hebrew roots suggest that it might mean, “fallen ones.” In any event, they were mighty men of renown, and were the offspring of the mating of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men.
Others have suggested that the “sons of God” were the descendants of Seth, and the daughters of men were the descendants of Cain. Consequently, some figure, that believers were marrying unbelievers. The Bible does caution against that repeatedly. Still, it seems unreasonable to suspect that a marriage of an unbeliever and a believer should yield offspring of greater stature, renown, or might, than other matrimonial pairings. I’m not too crazy about this theory, either.
The most intriguing theory is that the “sons of God” were fallen angels. I am not claiming that this theory is correct, but it does fit better than the previous two theories. Let’s consider this more carefully.
“Sons of God” here is translated from the ancient Hebrew, ben elohiym. ~yhil{a/ !Be This title occurs five times in the Old Testament; twice here in Genesis 6 and three times in the book of Job. Each time it is used in Job, it is used to mean angels. Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:25. Note also, that in the first two Job passages, Satan is mentioned as being among them. Then in Daniel 3:25 we have the Aramaic, bar ellah, Hl'a/ rB; translated in the KJV as “the Son of God.” Your KJV footnotes will likely say that Nebuchadnezzar described the fourth man in the fire as “like the Son of God” because he thought an angel was protecting Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. In the KJV, “the” is added along with the irregular capitalization of son. A better translation might be “a son of the god(s).” So, was this an angel, or was this Christ? I don’t know. This is only Nebuchadnezzar’s testimony and not the proclamation of the prophet, Daniel.
Therefore, for consistency, we should at least consider that in Genesis 6 “sons of God” refers to angels, cherubim, seraphim, or some mixture of these sorts of heavenly beings. But, aren’t angels supposed to be the good guys? Well, not all of them. Remember, Satan is an angel and he has angels in his camp.
2 Peter 2:4-10 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Here, however, is a wrench that someone might throw into this theory.
Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
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.
Jesus, though, may be speaking only of obedient angels of God in heaven. He does not say that angels cannot have sexual desires. This suggests that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are those angels that disobey God and follow Satan. Still, they were created by God.
Consider
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Two men were set upon this earth yet their existence was unrelated to sexual intercourse.
Luke 1:34-35 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 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.
So, what’s my point with this? Just that “sons of God” might refer to living beings that emanate directly from God without intervention by men, such as angels. It’s just a thought. What do you think?
Now, anyone who has been reading my posts will know that I can’t leave it there. So, here I will consider only verses 1-4. Please read it carefully and consider how mysterious it sounds. There are things here that we do not understand, yet ancient readers surely had some knowledge that the author is taking for granted.
This entry will be limited to considering, “Who are the sons of God?” There have been three primary theories among theologians. The honest Bible student should begin by saying, “I don’t know,” before proceeding to consider the theories.
Some promote the idea that “sons of God” refer to earthly kings and powerful men of the day. Personally, I think we can forget about that one, because their mating with the “daughters of men” is implied as being unnatural and that their children were Nephilim. The KJV translates Nephilim as “giants.” The ancient Hebrew roots suggest that it might mean, “fallen ones.” In any event, they were mighty men of renown, and were the offspring of the mating of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men.
Others have suggested that the “sons of God” were the descendants of Seth, and the daughters of men were the descendants of Cain. Consequently, some figure, that believers were marrying unbelievers. The Bible does caution against that repeatedly. Still, it seems unreasonable to suspect that a marriage of an unbeliever and a believer should yield offspring of greater stature, renown, or might, than other matrimonial pairings. I’m not too crazy about this theory, either.
The most intriguing theory is that the “sons of God” were fallen angels. I am not claiming that this theory is correct, but it does fit better than the previous two theories. Let’s consider this more carefully.
“Sons of God” here is translated from the ancient Hebrew, ben elohiym. ~yhil{a/ !Be This title occurs five times in the Old Testament; twice here in Genesis 6 and three times in the book of Job. Each time it is used in Job, it is used to mean angels. Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:25. Note also, that in the first two Job passages, Satan is mentioned as being among them. Then in Daniel 3:25 we have the Aramaic, bar ellah, Hl'a/ rB; translated in the KJV as “the Son of God.” Your KJV footnotes will likely say that Nebuchadnezzar described the fourth man in the fire as “like the Son of God” because he thought an angel was protecting Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. In the KJV, “the” is added along with the irregular capitalization of son. A better translation might be “a son of the god(s).” So, was this an angel, or was this Christ? I don’t know. This is only Nebuchadnezzar’s testimony and not the proclamation of the prophet, Daniel.
Therefore, for consistency, we should at least consider that in Genesis 6 “sons of God” refers to angels, cherubim, seraphim, or some mixture of these sorts of heavenly beings. But, aren’t angels supposed to be the good guys? Well, not all of them. Remember, Satan is an angel and he has angels in his camp.
2 Peter 2:4-10 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Here, however, is a wrench that someone might throw into this theory.
Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
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.
Jesus, though, may be speaking only of obedient angels of God in heaven. He does not say that angels cannot have sexual desires. This suggests that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are those angels that disobey God and follow Satan. Still, they were created by God.
Consider
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Two men were set upon this earth yet their existence was unrelated to sexual intercourse.
Luke 1:34-35 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 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.
So, what’s my point with this? Just that “sons of God” might refer to living beings that emanate directly from God without intervention by men, such as angels. It’s just a thought. What do you think?
posted by Nick | 4:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home