In
this text, to whom or what does the term “sons of God” refer?
This
question has perplexed the minds of Bible scholars for the last fifteen
hundred years, and at this time there is considerable difference of
opinion
among Bible commentators as to the identity of the “sons of God”
referred to in the above text.
I
am confident that my interpretation of the text will not bring the
readers
of this article to a consensus of opinion, or for that matter settle
the
issue for all those who are halted between two opinions regarding the
identity
of the “sons of God” of Genesis 6.
However,
being on the theological fence calls for a balancing act I find beyond
my ability to perform, and straddling the fence is painfully difficult
for me. So, in order to alleviate the irritation of my mind concerning
the matter and question before us, I began a prayerful study and
investigation
into the subject. The following comments are the results of that study.
If the reader disagrees with my comments, let him remember that his
interpretation
of the text is like mine, the interpretation of a fallible man, and
that
his disagreement does not necessarily mean I need his yardstick by
which
to measure the text. I do not claim to have all the information
available
on the question, but do believe what I have to offer is correct as far
as it goes.
THE
TWO MAIN SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT
There
are two main schools of thought as to the interpretation of the text,
and
as to the answer to the question, “Who are the sons of God?” The most
popular
view with contemporary Bible students is that, the “sons of God” are
sons
of Seth, the third son of Adam. Necessity is laid upon those who hold
this
view to make the “daughters of men,” the off springs of ungodly
Cain, and that these two spiritually diverse lines developed affinity
one
for the other, which resulted in God defying marriages and obliteration
of the distinction between the children of God and the children of the
devil.
The
second most popular view is, the term “sons of God” refers to
the
fallen angels who were in collusion with Lucifer in his original
insurrection
against the government of God. Both of these views have a number of
things
in common:
1.
They both allow that whoever or whatever the “sons of God” are,
they were used of the devil in his effort to corrupt all of mankind.
2.
Both views further claim that the deluge was God’s countermeasure
against
the devil’s diabolic effort to corrupt the human race.
3.
One other thing which both views have in common is, they both have
leveled
against them very weighty objections. Some of these objections we will
mention in further addressing the question.
My
firm conviction is, the “sons of God” are the angels who left
their
own habitation, and came down to earth, where they cohabited with the
daughters
of men. This cohabitation produced a race of beings, that was neither
man
nor angel, but demigods. The objector retorts: “That view is too
weird!”
Not really, one of the cleverest ruses of the devil is to get people to
believe he does not exist, and second to that is, to get those who do
believe
he exists to deny his power. “And no marvel, for Satan himself is
transformed
into an angel of light” (II Corinthians 11:14). Does that
sound
strange?
I
believe the serpent which Satan used in tempting Eve was a beautiful,
shining,
flying serpent, which actually talked with Eve. Does that sound weird?
It is against the nature of serpents to talk, but the serpent of Genesis
3 talked, and that most convincingly. The supernatural powers of
Satan
are displayed in the overthrow of our first parents in the Garden of
Eden,
which by comparison to his use of fallen angels to cohabit with the
depraved
and fallen daughters of men is seen to be no great feat.
In
adhering to the view that the “sons of God” are fallen angels, I
do not mean to imply that I fully understand all that relates to the
subject,
or that my dogmatism has deaf ears.
Following
are a number of reasons which I believe support the contention that the
“sons of God” are fallen angels who had illicit intercourse with
the daughters of men.
1.
FIRST, ANCIENT ISRAEL, AND ISRAEL CONTEMPORARY WITH CHRIST, HELD THAT
“THE
SONS OF GOD” WERE FALLEN ANGELS.
The
book of Enoch, dated 200 years before Christ has in Genesis 6:2 &
4, “Angels of God,” rather than “Sons of God.”
Josephus,
the great Jewish historian, wrote, “Many angels accompanied with women,
and begat Sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good”
(Antiquities of the Jews - 3:1, pg. 28). William Whiston, translator of
Josephus, says, “This notion, that the fallen angels, were in some
sense,
the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity.”
Two hundred years of archeological excavation has proven the
reliability
of the historical account of Josephus.
Philo, who was contemporary with the
apostles
held that it was angels who cohabited with the daughters of men, rather
than sons of Seth. It was the view of the great majority of Rabbinic
writers,
and it is the prevailing view of present day Orthodox Judaism.
2.
SECONDLY, THE COMMON BIBLE OF THE DAYS IN WHICH PETER, JUDE, AND THE
OTHER
WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT LIVED, WAS THE SEPTUAGINT.
The
Septuagint is a pre-Christian Greek version of the original Hebrew
Scriptures.
Several passages of the Old Testament which are quoted in the New
Testament
are taken verbatim from the Septuagint. “Several passages of the Old
Testament,
which are quoted in the New, are taken thence; and, being thus noticed
by the writers of the New Testament, from their mode of using it, we
may
infer that it was in general circulation among the apostolic churches”
(History of the Bible, By John Kitto DD. - Pg. 45). The Septuagint was
the version in circulation among the New Testament churches, and was
read
publicly among them. So, when Christ says, “Search the Scriptures”
(John 5:39), it is very likely that He referred immediately to
the
Septuagint, and indirectly to the original Old Testament. It is agreed
by reputable scholarship that Jesus quoted more than once from the
Septuagint.
Now, I want you to note, while the K.J.V. and most modern versions read
in Genesis 6:2 & 4 “Sons of God” the
Septuagint
reads, “Angels of God.”
When
Jude in verse 6 speaks of the angels “which kept not
their
first estate, but left their own habitation,” he then adds, “Even
as Sodom and Gormorrah, and the cities about them in like manner,
giving
themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set
forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire,” (Jude
7). The language of Jude 7 demands adherence to the
Septuagint,
and the ancient view of Genesis 6:1-4. It is said by the
inspired
writer, that the people of Sodom and Gormorrah went after “strange
flesh
even as,” or in like manner as the fallen angels “which kept not
their first estate” (Jude 6). It is said of the angels of Jude
6 and 7, that they are “reserved in everlasting chains
under
darkness ... suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” All
fallen
angels (Revelation 12:7- 9) are not at this time locked
up
in Tartarus, some are still on the earth working with their nefarious
head,
Satan.
Alford,
commenting on Jude 6 & 7 in his Greek New
Testament,
says, “In like manner to these ... the angels above mentioned. The
manner
was similar, because the angels committed fornication with another race
than themselves.”
The
Twentieth Century New Testament (1898), taken from the Greek of Wescott
and Hort, of which Philip Schaff said, it is “The purest Greek.” Reads
in verses 6 & 7 of Jude, “And that even
those
angels that failed to keep their own station and left their proper home
have been kept by Him for black darkness. They are like Sodom and
Gormorrah
and the towns near them, which, as the angels did, gave themselves up
to
fornication, and went in search of beings of a different nature, and
now
stand out as a warning, undergoing as they are, punishment by enduring
fire.”
3.
THE EARLY CHURCH BELIEVED THAT THE “Sons of God” OF GENESIS 6:1-4, WERE
FALLEN ANGELS.
Justian
Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Lactantius, and the great
majority
of the early church fathers believed that the “Sons of God” of Genesis
6:1-4, was a reference to reprobate angels. One of the
reasons
that unanimity prevailed among the early churches as regards this issue
was that no other viewpoint was heard of until the latter part of the
fourth
century.
The
Sethite theory, the view that the “Sons of God” were the godly
line
of Seth was first introduced in the latter part of the fourth century
by
Juihus Afracanius, a contemporary of Origen. He wrote, “What is meant
...
in my opinion, is that the descendants of Seth are called the sons of
God”
(Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol. 6, Pg. 131). The Sethite theory spread
rapidly
and widely, and became the prevailing view of the dark ages.
Eusebius,
the great church Historian took exception to the Sethite theory, and
declared
his position in the dispute by saying, “The original position of the
church
is correct” (Jude - The Acts of the Apostates, Pg. 38 - S.M. Coder).
The
popularity of the Sethite theory has perpetuated itself, and is today
the
most common view among Bible students. However, many of these students
are having doubts as to the correctness of their conclusions in this
matter,
and a re-study of the problem has led a large number to adopt the
position
which the early church held.
There
is nothing in the context which suggests, or infers that the Sethites
were
distinguished for piety. Neither is there anything in the context which
implies that the “daughters of men” were more ungodly than the
daughters
of Seth. In fact, the term “Daughters of men” is general, and
includes
the daughters of Seth as well as the daughters of Cain.
The
Sethites were not exempted from the charge of general wickedness which
precipitated the flood.
“And
God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that
every imagination of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis
6:5) The terms “man” and “his” in this text are used
in the generic sense, and includes both Sethites and Cainites.
“And
God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh
had
corrupted his way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12).This text
does
not say “All flesh has corrupted his way upon the earth, except the
Sethites.”
No, it is “all flesh,” and the family of Seth comes under that
heading.
Josephus,
says of the Sethites, “In process of time they were perverted, and
foresook
the practices of their fathers, and did neither pay those honors to God
which were appointed them nor had any concern to do justice towards
men.
But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they
now
showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness” (ANTIQUITIES OF
THE JEWS, Pg. 28). All the Sethites, with the exception of one family
perished
in the flood.
It
is not denied that the Sethite apostasy was fueled by the unlawful
marriages
of the godly line with the children of Cain, but what is denied is,
that
these marriages is what is referred to in Genesis 6:1-4.
The Sethite apostasy did not originate during the days of Noah, but had
been long in process, and in league with the children of Cain,
corrupted
the whole earth. But it was the illicit marriages and intercourse of
the
aliens of the air, the denizens of devil, with the “daughters of men”
that is referred to in Genesis 6:1-4, and it is this
marital
action which opened up the judgmental skies of God and immersed the
earth
in water.
4.
THE TERM “SONS OF GOD” IS USED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT OF
ANGELES.
“Now
there was a day when the Sons of God came to present themselves before
the Lord, and Satan came also among them.” (Job 1:6)
“Again
there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before
the Lord ...” (Job 2:1) The Septuagint renders the term “Sons
of God” found in Job 1:6 and 2:1, “angels of God.”
“Give
unto the Lord, O ye mighty, give unto the Lord glory and strength.”
(Psalms 29:1) The Hebrew word for “mighty” in this text is “ben,
bane” and means “sons of God” or sons of the Mighty One.”
Many,
in an effort to avoid the force of this argument have equated texts
from
the New Testament which refer to regenerate persons as “Sons of God”
with the Old Testament expression. In order to do this sound rules of
exegesis
are violated, and men must be introduced into Job 38:7, where “all
the sons of God shouted for joy” at the primordial creation of the
earth, when as yet, men did not exist. The “Sons of God” of Job
38:7 is clearly a reference to angels.
5.
THE HEBREW WORD FOR “GIANTS” IN GENESIS 6:4 IS “NEPHILIM,” WHICH MEANS
“FALLEN ONES.”
Genesis
6:4 could have been correctly
translated,
“There were fallen ones in the earth in those days.” The term “fallen
ones”
must be distinguished from mankind, for all of mankind was in a fallen
state, and exceedingly wicked at this time. The term “fallen ones” has
no significance unless it refers to something else other than the
fallen
ones of Adam, for they were present, not only in “those days,” but had
been present since the expulsion from Eden.
The
distinguishing feature in the text (“There were fallen ones in the
earth
in those days”), is they were in the earth at this time, rather than in
heaven. The words constitute an indirect reference to the angelic
apostasy
in heaven, but is a direct reference to fallen angels on earth.
The
Hebrew word “Nephilim” translated “giants” in the King James version
and
“giantes” in the Septuagint occurs only one other time in Scripture (Numbers
13:33), and has to do with the great size and stature of the sons
of
Anak. “... And all the people we saw in it are men of a
great
stature. And there we saw the giants (nephilim - same as Genesis
6:4), the Sons of Anak” (Numbers 13:32 & 33).
This is, as no one can honestly deny a reference to the gigantic size
of
the Sons of Anak, and in no sense speaks of their fame or exploits. As
it is here, so it is in Genesis 6:4.
It
is without doubt that these “fallen ones” did great exploits which made
them renown, but from all of these great feats they became exhausted
and
needed a super king size bed to rest in, thus it is, we read of one of
their bedsteads being thirteen feet long (Deuteronomy 3:11).
“For
only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his
bedstead
was a bedstead of iron;
is it not in Rabbath of the children
of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the
breadth
of it, after the cubit of a man.” (Deuteronomy3:11) The
conservative
cubit of eighteen inches would have king Og’s bed to be thirteen and
one
half feet long, and six feet wide. It is plain that these dimensions
are
given to draw attention to the physical size of Og, and unmistakably
identifies
him as a descendent of the “fallen ones” of Genesis 6:4.
At
the first appearance of this race of monstrosities, God sent a flood
and
destroyed them. At their second appearance God orders His people to
utterly
destroy them, and the prophet Amos in retrospect, quoting God, says, “Yet
destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height was like the
height
of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed
his
fruit from above, and his roots from beneath” (Amos 2:9).
“There
were giants in the earth in those days.” The “giants” spoken of
here
are literal, not mere men of renown, but men of exceedingly large
stature.
The question which logically follows, is, seeing that marriages of
believers
with unbelievers in our day do not produce actual giants, why should
such
a union beget them in the days of Noah?
The
Sethite theory does not facilitate Satan’s purpose to prevent the
entrance
of the promised Seed of the woman, which was to bruise his head. Cain
was
of that wicked one, and was used of his spiritual father to slay Abel,
for he knew or thought it was through Abel that Christ would come into
the world. In the same way, Pharaoh and Herod were used of Satan in an
effort to destroy the seed through whom the promised head bruiser would
come. All of Satan’s efforts to prevent the coming of Christ into the
world,
miserably failed, and “when the fullness of the time was come, God
sent
forth His Son, made of a woman ...” (Galatians 4:4). Christ
was born of a woman who had a depraved nature, a godly woman, and
certainly
not as steeped in sin as the antediluvian Sethites, but nevertheless,
depraved.
Human depravity, even in its most intensified state, is never presented
in Scripture as something in itself, per se, that Satan would ever
think
could be a deterrent to the fulfillment Genesis 3:15, for it
was
to depraved people the promise of a Redeemer was made. Satan knew that
it would take something more than the total and ultimately intensified
depravity of the human race to prevent the incarnation of Christ. Satan
knew, the cohabitation of fallen angels with the daughters of men could
eventually abort the human race, and leave no entrance for the Son of
Man.
What Satan did not know, was, that God would send an earth wide flood
and
drown all of his monstrous half brothers and sisters, and that God
would
make an example of their fallen angelic daddies, by shutting them up to
the vengeance of eternal fire (Jude 7). Yet, Satan will try
anything
to avert his own destruction as spelled out in Genesis 3:15.
All
that the Sethite theory of Genesis 6:14 does, is teach the
doctrine
of the intensification of human depravity. The depraved state of the
Sethites
at the time of the flood was every bit and grain as terribleas
that of the Cainites, and only one man among them found grace in the
eyes
of the Lord (Genesis 6:8).
6.
THE APOSTLE PETER CONNECTS THE SIN OF ANGELS WITH THE FLOOD.
“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; [5] 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;” (II
Peter 2:4-5)
