Misconceptions Clarified X; "Who Were The Sons Of God?"
Welcome to Misconceptions Clarified Episode X; "Who Were the Sons of God?"
In Genesis 6:1-2 it says, “When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.” Now, when it comes to who the sons of God are in this passage, there are many competing views on the internet, on YouTube, and even passionately discussed in social circles. Some say they are fallen angels, some say they are powerful rulers, and some say they are the descendants of Seth who intermarried with the daughters of Cain. However, all of these answers cannot be true and this episode will briefly consider the two major positions between the fallen angels and the descendants of Seth to see which piece best fits the biblical portrait.
The first position in question is the "fallen angels" perspective. Some interpret the "sons of God" in this particular passage to mean fallen angels. Now, those who side with this conclusion compare it to the passage in the beginning of Job chapter 1 and 2 where the sons of God present themselves before the Lord. According to the Blue Letter Bible, the Hebrew word for sons of God is "ben-elohiym," which includes angels as a possible definition. However, the translation for sons of God as "fallen angels" is where the ball begins to go out of bounds. For instance, the Hebrew word for fallen, "nephal" is not located in the passage, which begs the question; How can an assumption be made on the actual moral state of these sons of God minus the usage of the available Hebrew terms to describe their fallen condition, if they were truly sinful angels? For example, in Isaiah 14:12 the prophet uses the Hebrew word nephal to describe how Lucifer, the son of the dawn has fallen from heaven, but yet this is not the case for the sons of God in Genesis 6. Furthermore, the comparison by those who side with this fallen angel position of Genesis 6 and the book of Job are incoherent simply because many commentaries consider the sons of God in the book of Job to be holy angels, not fallen angels. In addition, there were three other words that could have been used in the Hebrew language to describe these sons of God as angels to include keruwb, seraph, and malak, and yet none of these words were used either. Which means that if the sons of God were really angels, why use ben-elohiym? This appears to be a very odd and inconsistent interpretation for the author to describe the sons of God as fallen angels while avoiding the Hebrew terminology used to describe them as fallen angels.
If anything, the connotations associated with the description for the "sons of God" in scripture suggest the opposite of an upright moral being versus a fallen one. For instance, John 1:12-13 says that "all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become sons of God, children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God." Which means, that if we use the Lord's interpretation of who the sons of God are for Genesis 6, it would suggest a holy connotation instead of a fallen angel interpretation. It doesn't appear to be scripturally consistent for the sons of God in Genesis 6 to be morally depraved angelic beings while the sons of God in John 1 or even Job to be morally upright. In other words, if the sons of God in Genesis are truly sons of God, they cannot also be fallen angels. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 10:21, "you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons." And this same concept can be applied in this episode to mean that you cannot interpret the "sons of God" as fallen angels. Therefore, if the sons of God in this passage were indeed fallen angels, it would make sense that God would have guided the author to use the available Hebrew terminology in order to avoid any confusion. But, then again, even if that was the case, other arguments would have surfaced to confuse the matter.
Another problem with this viewpoint of the fallen angels interpretation pertains to how they were able to produce children from a biological standpoint with the daughters of men, especially when Jesus said to the Sadducees in Matthew 22:30, "that at the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like angels in heaven." Meaning, if God created the institution of marriage between male and female, and if that marriage dynamic is eliminated at the resurrection where God's people will be like angels, then this idea that the fallen angels reproduced children with the daughters of men doesn't appear to be likely. However, there are other instances in scripture of angels appearing in human form such as Jude 1:6-7 and 2 Peter 2:4-8. There's also a reference in the book of Enoch 6:1-3 which is a very popular Jewish account that speaks of "the sons of heaven saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: Come let us choose us wives from among the children of men and have children with them." So, there's definitely a held belief that there were angels that intermingled with humanity, but unfortunately, this article can't prove or disprove with any certainty either position.
The second view in question is that the sons of God are really the sons of god or human beings from the descendants of Seth; in particular the sons of Enosh. Scholars who side with this position linked Genesis 4:26 to describe the sons of God in Genesis 6, which says; "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.” And according to various other passages throughout the Bible, whoever calls on the name of the Lord will not only be saved, but will also have the right to be called sons and daughters of God according to 2 Corinthians 6:18. So, the interpretation that the sons of God are actually human descendants who called upon the name of the Lord is a more reasonable explanation and finds continuity throughout the rest of scripture. It also better explains from a biological perspective the whole intermarriage dynamic. Furthermore, it makes sense that the author contrasted the sons of God (those who called upon the name of the Lord) with the daughters of men (those who didn't call upon the name of the Lord), and how that can serve as a spiritual analogy for God's people today of the importance to marry someone who is equally yoked in Christ. Whereas the contrast wouldn't necessarily fit the puzzle as tight with the fallen angels perspective.
Again, there is no conclusive evidence for who the sons of God are in Genesis 6. But, the position that gives the best reasonable explanation from the scriptures is that the sons of God are human descendants who feared the Lord. Exactly which descendants are in view in this particular passage is speculative. Nevertheless, the sons of God is best interpreted as human descendants who feared God and married human daughters of those who didn't fear God. The fallen angels theory unfortunately leaves open more questions than it gives answers.
Additionally, it's also important to clarify the misconception that the text in Genesis 6 doesn't actually state that the intermarriage between the sons of God and the daughters of men created the Niphilim, because it says in verse 4 that “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them." The Nephilim were already present in the earth when the sons of God entered into the daughters of men, not that the Nephilim were created from this inter-marital relationship. Hence, just because the Nephilim, the sons of God, and the daughters of men are grouped together in the verse, doesn't conclude such an interpretation for the creation of the Nephilim. The Nephilim were in the earth in those days and even after according to the text. So, it's extremely important to stick with what the Bible actually says and be careful not to add or take away from the text by making unbiblical assertions.
Lastly, the issue of who the sons of God are, or who the daughters of men represent, or whether or not the Nephilim were created by this marriage, is much larger than what this episode described. The real issue at hand is Satan who wants the body of Christ to focus and debate these secondary matters that have no bearing on salvation and have no bearing on exercising the Great commission to reach the lost. The more Satan can get the body of Christ to focus on these secondary matters, the less time spent on the battlefield winning souls for Jesus. Now, this is not to say that Christians shouldn't cast down every argument that sets itself up against the knowledge of God or to be prepared to give an answer for the hope that is within you as this episode has clearly tried to do, but that these secondary doctrines shouldn't provoke sharp disagreements or allow them to take us away from the true mission, which is to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them everything Jesus commanded.
#Misconceptions #Clarified #FAQs #Road2TheCross.org
For more information on this particular topic, please click on the blue link below:
http://www.scriptureoncreation.org/bible-question-answer/sons-of-god-in-gen-6/?view=mobile