sons of God and daughters of men

[reformedman]

I was talking about this with a friend at work for his bible institute assignment. The assignment is over already but he is not satisfied with any of the three popular views.
That was 2 weeks ago and today I researched here on pb and found this closed thread- http://www.puritanboard.com/f40/genesis-6-1-2-question-19861/

My contention for a few years has been kind after its own kind.
I don't believe celestial angels are our kind.
If they were our kind they would be included in the need of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
But since God allows them in His heavenly presence, I don't believe that they are sinful.
Out of woman(eve), would be the messiah and this was the promise of adam and eve's salvation, not of angels of which pre-existed Adam and eve. Since they pre-existed adam and eve, they are not a part of the fall and are not under that lineage of sin. All this to say that this proves that they are not the same "kind" as human kind. They are a different kind. The bible says kind after its own kind.

 

[BobVigneault]

But an angel has appeared as a serpent, a donkey, a man. How much they are able to mimic kind is speculation. Satan walked right into God's throne room, stood in the Creators presence, filled and stinking with sin.

 

[reformedman]

But an angel has appeared as a serpent, a donkey, a man. How much they are able to mimic kind is speculation. Satan walked right into God's throne room, stood in the Creators presence, filled and stinking with sin.

We don't have proof that a serpent nor donkey have ever procreated with anything outside of their own kind, so that first argument doesn't really work.

As for satan being in God's throne room, I did not know that he was in God's special presence. I will have to take a closer look at Job to see that. I understood that we are all in the creators presence but that no one is in his special presence; that which no man can stand to see face to face or they die. That's the particular presence that I thought no sinful being has ever been in front of. But again I could be wrong. But that second point would not(in my opinion) solve the problem of procreation of angelic beings outside of their kind.

 

[BobVigneault]

There is no proof either way that will solve the problems posed by Genesis 6. I favor the plain reading without all the speculation. My 'sentimental' hermeneutic favors the conclusion that these were angels who mated with humans to recreate an unredeemable race of monsters who needed to be wiped out in the flood. I view the Book of Enoch as having some commentary value but quickly recognize that it is not canonical and is mostly fiction. This is a fascinating portion of scripture to argue about but in the end it has little application and no solid ground for dogmatism.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

In my OT01 class at PTS (not RPTS) it was posited that the "Deuteronomist Historian" was recalling stories of Neanderthals coming down out of Central Europe into Canaan.

 

[BobVigneault]

They were called 'Sons of God' so I'm thinking they must have been Mormon Neanderthals.

This thread was a pretty good discussion of the same passage.

In my OT01 class at PTS (not RPTS) it was posited that the "Deuteronomist Historian" was recalling stories of Neanderthals coming down out of Central Europe into Canaan.

 

[BobVigneault]

This is off topic. I've been thanked '666' times. I'm not superstitious but it's distracting me none the less. Could someone please thank me? Just one would do. I'll thank you back.

 

[BobVigneault]

You mean thing!

 

[BobVigneault]

Thank you Ben, thank you James. I got an email from Hal Lindsey who was eying my thank count with a modicum of suspicion.

 

[BobVigneault]

OH OH! HICKS!!!!!! You're not too big to spank! 'GIRLY-MAN BEER' DRINKER!!!

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

 

[tdowns]

I love the PB....

Good for a thought, good for a chuckle....

 

[MOSES]

I hold to the position that the Sons of God were the rulers, kings, governors, that were appointed by God. They mis-used their power. In marriage they took any woman they wanted as their wife.

6 I said, [to the Governors] “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you
Psalm 82

Jesus also say's to the pharisees, concerning man/men being called "god" or "sons of god."

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
John 10

Rulers, kings, judges, etc...were throughout the ancient world (pagan or jewish) thought of as "gods" and/or "sons of god."

I believe this is the same thing that is found in Genesis 6

 

[BobVigneault]

Well MOSES, you ought to know. YOU WROTE THE BOOK!

The problem there is the meaning of Bene Elohim within the context. What does Bene Elohim mean in Genesis, then the Pentateuch, then Job? A lot of time and kings and rulers have gone by when we get to David's Psalms and then using the NT to explain OT expressions puts us on shaky ground.

 

[MOSES]

Well MOSES, you ought to know. YOU WROTE THE BOOK!

The problem there is the meaning of Bene Elohim within the context. What does Bene Elohim mean in Genesis, then the Pentateuch, then Job? A lot of time and kings and rulers have gone by when we get to David's Psalms and then using the NT to explain OT expressions puts us on shaky ground.

I think the concept is true...even if we fail to understand the etymology of the word.

Just a quick look over at pagan literature shows us that kings, rulers, mighty men, etc...were considered either "gods" or "sons of gods".

Note: though looking at the use of the word from Moses to David is important. I do agree.

 

[BobVigneault]

There's an old saying, "Pictures never lie and liars never pic....." no, wait a minute, it goes..... uh, hey here's another. Ask me if I've got a match.

 

[MOSES]

Well...I have been to some of those web-sites that show these pics of "Nephilim" bones. With stories of farmers finding them even in the US...(the reason why is pre-flood, there was only one giant continent...so we can find Nephilim bones in the US or china or anywhere)

The funny thing is, a lot of the same web-sites have picture of UFO's, Big foots, etc...
Actually, they even have a theory that "as it was in the day's of Noah, so it will be before the son of man comes"
They take that saying, and say the Nephilim will return,,,but this time the sons of god, demons, will be aliens, coming down and inpregnating humans..and....it has already begun! That is why there are ufo abductions.

Lot's of crazy stuff out there.

 

[BobVigneault]

I put the pictures up for laughs Shawn. I know exactly what you mean. I'm an imaging specialist, Photoshop is my tool of the trade.

 

[Wannabee]

I've spent a little time on this. Obviously that doesn't make me an authority, it just gives me familiarity. There is much speculation with any view. However, simple (emphasis on "simple" ) exegesis of the Hebrew cannot give any but the view that "sons of God" refers to angelic beings. Although many other arguments are persuasive and credible, this one seems to me to line up with Scripture best (though it does make people uncomfortable, as does much of Scripture). All the views that I know of are treated here on one level or another.

Here's an interesting article.

And I got this from a friend.

A tough passage. Here's food for thought from Hard Sayings of the Bible:

Genesis 6:1-4. Who Married the Daughters of Men?

Few texts in the history of interpretation have aroused more curiosity and divergence of opinion than Genesis 6:1-4. It is at once tantalizing and deeply puzzling.

What is most difficult is the identification of the main participants in this short narrative—the “sons of God,” the “daughters of men” and the “Nephilim” (or “giants”). An impressive array of scholars has lined up for each of the three major positions taken on the identification of these three groups of participants. The three positions may be labeled “the cosmologically mixed races view” (angels and humans), “the religiously mixed races view” (godly Sethites and worldly Cainites) and “the sociologically mixed races view” (despotic male aristocrats and beautiful female commoners).

By all odds, the view that may perhaps claim the greatest antiquity is the cosmologically mixed races, or the angel theory, view. The pseudepigraphal and noncanonical 1 Enoch, dating from around 200 b.c., claims in Genesis 6:1-7:6 that two hundred angels in heaven, under the leadership of Semayaz, noticed that the humans had unusually beautiful daughters. These they desired for themselves, so they took a mutual oath to go down to earth together, and each took a wife. They taught these wives magical medicine, incantations, the cutting of roots and the care of plants. When the women became pregnant, they gave birth to giants that reached three hundred cubits. The giants in turn consumed all the food, thereby arousing the deep hatred of the earthlings. The giants turned to devouring the people along with the birds, wild beasts, reptiles and fish. Then it was that the earth, having had enough of these huge bullies, brought an accusation against them.

The famous Jewish historian Josephus (born 37 b.c.) also appears to follow this angel theory. He wrote, “Many angels accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust” (Antiquities 1.3.1). Likewise, the Greek translation of the Bible of the third century b.c. reads “angels of God” for the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2. In spite of the antiquity of the cosmologically mixed races view, there are such overwhelming problems with it that it is not recommended as the solution to this problem. While it is true, of course, that the term “sons of God” does occur in Job 1:6, Job 2:1 and Job 38:7 with the meaning “angels” (and that the phrase “sons of the mighty” appears in Psalm 29:1 and Psalm 89:7 with the meaning “angels”), it does not fit well here for several reasons.

Nowhere else in Scripture are we told that angels married humans. In fact, our Lord specifically stated that angels do not marry (Mark 12:25). And though the Septuagint translated the expression as being equivalent to “angels,” it is in fact only the Alexandrian manuscript that does so. The critical edition by Alfred Rahlfs does not reflect the angelic interpretation.

Even more serious is the problem of why judgment should fall on the humans and on the earth if the angels of heaven were the cause of the trouble. God should have flooded heaven, not earth. The culprits came from above; the women seem to have been doing nothing except being beautiful!

Some, however, will appeal to the New Testament passages of 1 Peter 3:18-20, 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6-7 for further support of the angel theory. But these passages do not say anything about angelic marriages. To argue from the phrase “in a similar way” in Jude 7 that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is the same as the sin of Genesis 6:1-4 claims too much, for the sin of sodomy is not the same thing as marrying a wife from another part of the universe! In fact, “in a similar way” does not compare the sin of the angels with the sin of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah; instead, it compares the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah with the sins of “the cities about them” (that is, Admah and Zeboiim; see Deut. 29:23 and Hosea 11:8). Thus the sins of Jude’s angels (Jude 6) and the sins of the five cities of the plain (Jude 7) are held up as warnings of the judgment that could come to others. The fall of the angels that Jude mentions is that which took place when Lucifer fell. To connect this fall with the time of the flood because of the proximity of the references in Jude 4-7 would demand that we connect the flood with the overthrow of the five cities of the plain. But the events listed in Jude are successive, not simultaneous: (1) the fall in eternity of Satan (Jude 4), (2) the preaching of Noah prior to the flood (Jude 5) and (3) the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 6).

To allege that “giants” were the results of such sexual unions is once again to go beyond any data we possess in Scripture. Did the angels procreate without the use of natural bodies? Or did they already possess natural bodies? Or did they create for themselves natural bodies by the use of some mysterious, intrinsic, but rebellious power? Any and all answers to such questions would be purely speculative. To use extracanonical evidence such as 1 Enoch as a witness against or even for Scripture would be unprecedented.

The religiously mixed races view identifies the “sons of God” as the godly line of Seth. Given the sin they committed, they are generally looked on as the apostate line of Seth. “The daughters of men” are equated with the ungodly line of Cain. The sin condemned, then, would be the sin of being “unequally yoked”—that is, the marriage of believers to unbelievers.

This view also fails to meet the test of consistency with the biblical data and context. It uses the term men in Genesis 6:1-2 in two different senses: in Genesis 6:1 “men” is used to indicate humanity generically, while in Genesis 6:2 it is understood to refer to the Cainite line specifically. Suggesting such an abrupt change in meaning without any indication in the text is unwarranted.

But even more alarming is the problem of the offspring. Why would religiously mixed marriages produce nep̄ilı̂m-gibbôrı̂m (or, as some translate this Hebrew expression, “giants”)? Does the mixture of pagan and godly genes assure that the offspring’s DNA will be wild and grotesque?

This religiously mixed view should be abandoned as well as the cosmologically mixed view. Neither one can stand the weight of the evidence of the passage.

The preferable interpretation of this passage is the sociologically mixed view. “Sons of God” is an early, but typical, reference to the titularies for kings, nobles and aristocrats in the ancient Near Eastern setting. These power-hungry despots not only lusted after power but also were powerfully driven to become “men of a name” (or “men of renown”—Genesis 6:4).

In their thirst for recognition and reputation, they despotically usurped control of the states they governed as if they were accountable to no one but themselves. Thus they perverted the whole concept of the state and the provision that God had made for some immediate amelioration of earth’s injustices and inequities (Genesis 6:5-6; see also Genesis 10:8-12). They also became polygamous, taking and marrying “any of [the women] they chose” (Genesis 6:2).

What evidence can be produced for the correctness of this view? There are five lines of evidence. (1) The ancient Aramaic Targums render “sons of God” as “sons of nobles” (Targums of Onkelos), and the Greek translation of Symmachus reads “the sons of the kings or lords.” (2) The word gods (Hebrew elōhı̂m is used in Scripture for men who served as magistrates or judges (“Then his master must take him before the judges [elōhı̂m],” Exodus 21:6; see also Exodus 22:8; Psalm 82:1, 6). (3) Structurally, the account of the Cainite Lamech (Genesis 4:19-24) and that of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 are very much alike. In each there is the taking of wives, the bearing of children and the dynastic exploits. The former passage ends with a boast of judgment by Lamech, and the other ends with God’s decree of judgment. Lamech practiced bigamy (Genesis 4:19), and he enforced his policies by using tyranny. The portraits are parallel and depict states of tyranny, corruption and polygamy. (4) Near Eastern discoveries have validated the pagan use of all sorts of gods’ and goddesses’ names in order to give more clout and prestige to the governments of Egypt and Mesopotamia—hence the title “sons of God.”

The fifth and final line of evidence concerns the nep̄ilı̂m / gibbôrı̄m of Genesis 6:4. The word nep̄ilı̂m occurs only here and in Numbers 13:33, where it refers to the Anakim, who were people of great stature. The root meaning of the word nep̄ilı̂m is “to fall.” However in Genesis 6:4 the nep̄ilı̂m are associated with the term gibbôrı̄m. The word gibbôrı̄m comes from gibbôr meaning “a mighty man of valor, strength, wealth or power.” Nimrod, in Genesis 10:8, was such a gibbôr. He also was clearly a king in the land of Shinar. Hence the meaning of nep̄ilı̂m / gibbôrı̄m is not “giants,” but something more like “princes,” “aristocrats” or “great men.”

Genesis 6:1-4, therefore, is best understood as depicting ambitious, despotic and autocratic rulers seizing both women and power in an attempt to gain all the authority and notoriety they could from those within their reach. Their progeny were, not surprisingly, adversely affected, and so it was that God was grieved over the increased wickedness on planet Earth. Every inclination of the hearts and thoughts of humanity was evil. Thus the flood had to come to judge humankind for the perversion of authority, the state, justice and human sexuality.

“the cosmologically mixed races view” (angels and humans)

Angels in heaven do not marry.
Marriage isn't necessary for procreation (need we actually be reminded?).
They weren't angels of heaven, they were fallen.
This does not necessarily mean "giants." It could be "mighty ones."
There does seem to be an obvious contrast between the daughters of men and the sons of God. Where else is this terminology used?

DA Carson - The New Bible Commentary
In the ancient world, stories were often told of sexual intercourse between the gods and human beings; and the semi-divine offspring of such unions were held to have abnormal energy and other powers. In Mesopotamia and Canaan, divine-human marriage was celebrated in the sacred marriage rites that took place in the temples. These rites were supposed to ensure the fertility of the soil and ordinary marriages. They involved fathers dedicating their unmarried daughters for service in the temple. In practice these girls served as sacred prostitutes giving pleasure to priests and wealthy worshippers.
Vs 1–2, 4 describe these practices. The sons of God refers to spirit beings (translated ‘angels’ in Jb. 1:6; 2:1, though they are not benevolent either here or in Job). Sometimes in the OT Israel (Deut. 14:1) or kings (2 Sa. 7:14) are called ‘sons of God’, but neither meaning is appropriate here. The daughters of men refers to ordinary human women. The Nephilim are the ancient supermen supposed to be the offspring of these spirit-human unions. Some Nephilim were in Canaan when Israel invaded (Nu. 13:33).
This practice of sacred prostitution is, according to Genesis, both unnecessary (men were already increasing in number, v 1) and an abomination to God (5). Consequently, the normal span of human life was reduced to 120 years (3) and the Lord announced a plan to wipe out mankind and other living creatures (7).
Sacred prostitution is viewed here as the culminating sin in a series that began with Adam’s eating the forbidden fruit and was continued by Cain’s murder of his brother and Lamech’s unbridled vengeance. Looking at human beings God concluded that they were incorrigibly wicked and that every human thought was bent towards evil. V 5 spells out the doctrine of human depravity with frightening bluntness, but similar views are expressed by psalmists, prophets, Jesus and Paul (Ps. 51:3–6; Je. 17:9–10; Mk. 7:15; Rom. 1:18–3:20). What is more, human sinfulness provokes a fierce reaction in God, a bitter indignation (his heart was filled with pain) akin to that felt by brothers after their sister’s rape (Gn. 34:7), or that of a father after his son’s death in battle (2 Sa. 19:2). God, therefore, made a decision to destroy his creation. Nevertheless, as with earlier decrees of judgment (3:15; 4:15), there was a glimmer of hope—Noah found favour in the eyes of the Lord (8).

Carson, D. A. New Bible Commentary : 21st Century Edition. Rev. ed. of: The new Bible commentary. 3rd ed. / edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970. 4th ed., Ge 6:1. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary
6:2. The sons of God (bƒnê ˒Elōhı̂m)... daughters of men. Wickedness was increasing on every hand. Cain’s descendants became exceedingly godless and pagan. A powerful race of giants, called “Nephilim,” came into prominence. The verb nāpal, “to fall,” has been considered the source of the noun, and so these gigantic creatures have been thought of as “fallen ones.” The reference to the bƒneÆ <EloµhéÆm has occasioned marked differences of opinion among scholars. ˒Elōhı̂m is plural in form. It is usually translated “God.” But it can be translated “gods,” as, for instance, when it refers to the gods of the heathen neighbors of Israel. It can, also, denote the heavenly circle of beings in close fellowship with Jehovah, residents of heaven, assigned specific duties as God’s assistants (see Job 1:6). In some cases in Scripture “sons of God” may be identified with “angels” or “messengers.” Jesus is the Son of God in a unique sense. Believers are called “sons of God” because of their relationship to him. In the OT, however, “sons of God” are a special class of beings that make up the heavenly court.
The reference to the marriages of bƒnê ˒Elōhı̂m to the daughters of men has been dealt with in many ways. To translate it literally would make the passage say that members of the heavenly company selected choice women from the earth and set up marriage relationships with them, literally and actually. This can be the only interpretation of Job 1:6. There, the bƒnê ˒Elōhı̂m were plainly the members of God’s heavenly court. S. R. Driver maintains that this is the only legitimate and correct sense that can be accepted. Jesus’ reply to the Sadducees, in Mt 22:30, seems to make this view untenable. He said that the angels “neither marry nor are given in marriage.” The statement in Gen 6:2 makes it clear that permanent marriage is described. Women were chosen and forced to become parties to the unnatural relationship. Bible students who have rejected this solution have resorted to other explanations. Some have said that a union of Seth’s godly line with Cain’s godless descendants is described. Still others hold that these words refer to marriage between persons of the upper class of society and those of a lower or less worthy class. In the light of the facts and the accurate rendering of the words of the text, we conclude that some men of the heavenly group (angels or messengers) actually took wives of the earthly women. They used superior force to overpower them, to make the conquest complete. The “sons of God” were irresistible (cf. II Pet 2:4; Jude 6).
Pfeiffer, Charles F. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary : Old Testament, Ge 6:2. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

The idea that angels cannot procreate is not any less speculative than the idea that they can. It's also interesting that there is no evidence of female angel (besides feel-good shows and Hallmark cards). And the idea of differing species not procreating together can't be supported any more than the idea that a horse and donkey can't procreate. The union produces something unusual and apart from original creation (mules, as a rule, cannot procreate).

This is the view I prefer -

A Brief Study of Genesis 6:1-4

By William D. Barrick, Th.D.


The Reason for the Flood (Gen 6:1-12)
There were two basic reasons for God's destruction of mankind by the flood: (1) the sins of “the sons of God” and (2) the sins of mankind in general. It is clear from the Scriptural record that God looked upon the sins of man as being so corrupt that He had no choice but to destroy them.

The Sin of the Sons of God and the Daughters of Men (Gen 6:1-4). One of the greatest questions of the Book of Genesis is: “Who are the ‘sons of God’?” There have been three major answers to that question from Bible scholars: (1) kings and nobles, (2) godly men of the line of Seth, and (3) angelic beings. The following chart gives a summary of the various aspects of these three interpretations:

SUBJECT KING VIEW SETH VIEW ANGEL VIEW
Sons of God
KING VIEW These were dynastic or kingly rulers of the line of Cain. According to some translations judges and administrators are called “gods” in Exodus 21:6; 22:8, 9, 28; and Psalm 82:1, 6. Kings are often referred to as sons of deities outside the Bible.
SETH VIEW These were spiritual sons of God, believers of the line of Seth. This concept of sonship is referred to in the Old Testament (see Exodus 4:22; Deut 14:1; Psalm 73:15; Isaiah 1:2; Hosea 1:10).
ANGEL VIEW These were angelic beings. Angelic beings are called “sons of God” in the oldest book of the Old Testament (see Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psalm 29:1; 89:6). The phrase "sons of God" is not found in any of the passages listed in the previous two views!

Daughters of men
KING VIEW These were daughters of the godly line of Seth. They were being forcibly taken by the Cainite nobles and kings.
SETH VIEW These were daughters of the ungodly line of Cain. They were unbelievers.
ANGEL VIEW These were human women.
Marriage/Physical Relations
KING VIEW These marriages were carried out against the will of the godly people whose daughters were being seized and forced into marriage with unbelievers. It may have also involved polygamy. It was contrary to the will of God that believers should be married to unbelievers (see Gen 24:3, 4; 27:46; 28:1-3).
SETH VIEW These marriages were contrary to the will of God for those who are godly believers. These men did not live in accordance with God’s will. They may have had a believing wife, but also took, at their own will, wives from among the unbelievers.
ANGEL VIEW Contrary to the created order which separated different kinds of “flesh” (bodies) and had forbidden physical relations between them, these fallen angelic being defied God’s order and had relations with human women. This was not marriage, it was fornication.

Nephilim: Offspring or Giants
KING VIEW The offspring of these unions were an unruly brood who used their kingly line to their advantage in continuing to oppress the common people as tyrants. They "fall" upon (attack) innocent people.
SETH VIEW The offspring of this intermarriage became notable military men. They were known for their strength and fighting ability.
ANGEL VIEW The offspring of this illegitimate union were a physically perverted form of giant stature. They were not totally human. They were an unnatural and evil mutation.

New Testament Reference
KING VIEW See 2 Cor 6:14-18.
SETH VIEW See 2 Cor 6:14-18.
ANGEL VIEW See 1 Peter 3:18-20; 2 Peter 2:4-6; Jude 6, 7; and, 2 Cor 6:14-18


It is clear from Genesis 6:1-4 that the “sons of God” chose whomever they wished as wives. They may have even forcefully taken some of the women. This was contrary to the customary method of selecting a wife in the Old Testament. The normal method was for the parents to make a marriage contract for a specific man to marry a specific woman. In this passage there is nothing indicating that the normal method was being followed, no matter who the individuals were. What is described is the fulfillment of lust in committing a sinful union with the women.
“There were Nephilim in the earth in those days and also after that” (6:4) is a statement by which Moses tells us that these kinds of relationships took place before the flood of Noah came and also after the flood of Noah. This sin was repeated again after the flood. The offspring of this illegitimate union are to be found after the flood of Noah's day as well as before the flood. The Nephilim are mentioned in Numbers 13:33 and Deuteronomy 2:10, 11. Notice that the offspring appear to have only been male. No female offspring are mentioned. There is nothing natural or normal about this whole occurrence:
• There were no normal marriage arrangements. The Bible describes a sinful union by means of forbidden physical relations.
• Only human women were involved. While it can be argued that "sons of God" is a phrase that might be applied to a number of different kinds of groups, "daughters of men" cannot have any other reference in the Hebrew language other than simply to human women without respect to any line.
• Unnatural offspring were produced who were giants. They are described as "fallen ones" due to their evil nature.
• The normal mixture of sons and daughters (see the list in Genesis 5) was not produced—only sons.
If a believer has a sinful union with an unbeliever today we do not expect to have this kind of result. So what would make us think that a descendant of Seth and a descendant of Cain could produce this kind of result? The Nephilim in Numbers 13:33 are called Anakim. In Deuteronomy 2:11 the Nephilim are called Rephaim. These three names are used of the offspring of the unions of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men." Many translations give the meaning as "giants." The name Nephilim means "fallen ones" while the name Rephaim means "stitched together ones." The two terms indicate that the offspring had a half-angel (or demon) and half-human nature united through the angelic-human physical relations and that they were fallen beings incapable of doing good. These offspring were evil. In the Old Testament they are always connected with the enemies of God. In 2 Samuel 21:15-22 we learn that Goliath's family were Rephaim. They were very tall (Goliath was 9 feet 9 inches tall) and they had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot.
If angels were involved in this sin, why is there no mention of their judgment in Genesis 6? The purpose of God in Moses' writing of Genesis is to give a history of man, not a history of angels. As far as that goes, the creation of angels is not mentioned in Genesis either. The judgment of the fallen angels is brought out in other contexts in Scripture where it is more pertinent to the purpose of the writer (see Jude 6, 7). God did put the fallen, evil angels who committed these sins into chains (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6) and prison (1 Peter 3:19). Since the time of David God has evidently prevented other evil angels from committing the same sin.
How can angels have a physical relationship with women? Do not the Gospels teach that angels cannot marry (see Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35, 36)? There is no need for marriage among angels since their number was created once by God and there have been no deaths among their number. The angels have no need to increase their number, therefore marriage is unknown among them. Angels do have the ability to produce for themselves a physical human body when they need to deal with humans. These bodies they make for themselves are capable of eating food (see Genesis 18:8 ). Not only did these bodies eat food, their feet became dirty and could be washed (18:4). After their walk to Sodom they ate again (19:3). The wicked men of Sodom believed the angels had bodies which could be used in committing the sin of homosexual relations (19:5). There is no reason not to believe that the bodies used by these angels were capable of being involved in a physical relationship with human women. The testimony of Jude 6 and 7 is the ultimate proof that the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 is quite possible and to be preferred.
The oldest interpretation in the history of the Jews and the Church is that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were angelic beings. It is already proclaimed in the Book of Enoch two centuries before Christ. Philo, Josephus, most of the rabbinic writers, and the oldest Church fathers (Justin, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Lactantius) all held to this interpretation. A large number of modern evangelical Bible scholars also hold to this view.

An interesting thought - some consider the possibility that demons are the result of these relations. This would explain the different aspects of demons. Of course, this also involves speculation. But it does tie up many loose ends.

 

[MOSES]

I put the pictures up for laughs Shawn. I know exactly what you mean. I'm an imaging specialist, Photoshop is my tool of the trade.

I thought you might of been one of those Christians that locked his wife and daughters up to keep them from being seduced by fallen angel/aliens...

feeewww...

 

[MOSES]

Side Note

It's also interesting that there is no evidence of female angels (besides feel-good shows and Hallmark cards). .

Just thought I would throw this out for you to consider.

9 Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold, two women coming forward! The wind was in their wings. They had wings like the wings of a stork, and they lifted up the basket between earth and heaven.
Zecheriah 5

Looks like female angels lifting up the basket.

Of course this is apocolyptic imagery (not a didactic on female angels)...but angels do have a role in apocolyptic imagery, e.g., John's Revelation.

 

[Wannabee]

It's also interesting that there is no evidence of female angels (besides feel-good shows and Hallmark cards). .

Just thought I would throw this out for you to consider.

9 Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold, two women coming forward! The wind was in their wings. They had wings like the wings of a stork, and they lifted up the basket between earth and heaven.
Zecheriah 5

Looks like female angels lifting up the basket.

Of course this is apocolyptic imagery (not a didactic on female angels)...but angels do have a role in apocolyptic imagery, e.g., John's Revelation.

Thanks for pointing that out. I had forgotten that passage. It came up in this discussion before elsewhere. As you noted, the nature of the vision obviously doesn't lend itself to literal beings taking a literal basket with a literal woman in it, so I'm not sure what we could do with it. Let me clarify - Every time Scripture clearly and unmistakably mentions angels they are not female. Better?

 

[AV1611]

The key to understand who the sons of God were is found in Genesis 4:

Genesis 4:26 "And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD."

The key is "call upon the name of the LORD" which is better translated as "then began men to be called by the name of the Lord". So now those who followed God were called the "sons of God" in the same way we are called "Christians".

 

[pilgrim3970]

This is definitely one of the most enigmatic passages in scripture.

Another explanation I've read (Handbook on the Pentateuch, Victor Hamilton) is that the "sons of God" referred to the line of Seth and the "daughter's of men" referred to the line of Cain and that this speaks of an inter-marrying between the two.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Another explanation I've read (Handbook on the Pentateuch, Victor Hamilton) is that the "sons of God" referred to the line of Seth and the "daughter's of men" referred to the line of Cain and that this speaks of an inter-marrying between the two.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best one, in my opinion.

 

[Wannabee]

This is off topic. I've been thanked '666' times. I'm not superstitious but it's distracting me none the less. Could someone please thank me? Just one would do. I'll thank you back.

Off topic -
That's funny. I recently asked for prayer for the house we're trying to buy and it ended up being post number 666 (resisting the urge to mention the unimaginable number of posts that were purged in the great purge wars). I posted again just because it sorta struck me odd. Old habits... Hmmmm, I wonder if we won't get that house now. Maybe it's haunted... possessed... cursed. I already read your thoughts Joshua...

 

[KMK]

I thought this debate was settled with the movie "Starman".

 

[MW]

Luke 3:36-38, "... Noe, which was the son of Lamech, which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the Son of God."

1 John 3:12, "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous."

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I had to do an exegetical paper on this passage for Prebytery for licensure. It was a doozy! Then I had to preach on it to the Presbytery!!! Yikes! Anyway, out of all the 3 major views (demonic, royal dynasty, or Sethite) I came down on the Sethite view. Frankly, there is nothing else in the context to indicate the royal dynasty or demonic view.

The demonic view especially doesn't fit at all in the immediate context. The entire focus of the passage for 6 chapters has been "man." Some reference to demons would come out of nowhere contextually. Exegetically, the sons of God are "taking wives" (vs. 2) hence MARRIAGE. Angels do not marry. The language used here is standard marriage language, not the language used for fornication (See also Luke 17:26-27, where Jesus describes their "marrying" not fornicating with demons). Further more, the only way to come to the conclusion that the Nephilim are the offspring is to reword verse 4 from the original Hebrew. It just doesn't fit. The verse is introducing the second problem of Noah's day (the first being the sons of God marrying unbeleivers). The second was that the the world was ruled by "mighty ones" both before and after the sons of God began intermarrying. Further these mighty ones are called "men" not giants. The LXX translates Nephilim as giants, but the same word in Numbers 13 is used to describe large feirce warriors, not some sort of superhuman hybrid.

Further, if angels were involved, then why weren't they judged? Why was only man judged? The only time an angel interfered (i.e. Gen 3) with man clearly resulted in judgment upon him too. Exegetically it's just not possible. And theologically it's just doesn't fit with the other Scriptural data we have about angels and demons, particularly with the words of Jesus.

Some of the royal dynasty views are possible grammatically, but there is simply nothing in the context to support it. We find no such mentions of kings or dynasties at all until much later.

Immediately preceding this chapter we have the two lines of men set forth. One is identified by their association with God through Seth, hence "sons of God." In the immediate context, there is simply no other place to associate the name other than what has immediately happened before.