Article: Who were the "sons of God" in Genesis 6?

[Sojourner55]

You can view the page at http://bibleforums.org/content.php/1...d-in-Genesis-6

[Kahtar]

I think your study is as much a possibility as the 'angel' interpretation. A couple questions, tho.
1. What did Jude mean about the angels leaving their 'first estate'?
2. Why is the idea that fallen angels left their first estate to take on human form and then procreate such a distasteful one?
Well, okay, more than a couple questions,
3. Considering the fact that man can and does today manipulate genes so that pigs and other creatures can grow human parts, clone animals (and man if the truth were known), why is it so beyond the realm of possibility that the fallen angels were playing with the same thing?
4. Why, out of all the people groups on the planet, did God single out that one race, in which were the physical giants like Goliath, for total annihilation by Jacob's children? All other gentile nations were allowed to be prosylytes, all nations were to be blessed through the seed of Abraham, but that one nation was to be wiped out completely. Why no mercy for them?

[quiet dove]

That is a good article. I tend to lean in agreement, that there is explanation that does not involve fallen angels.

Not being dogmatic, but I don't see anywhere in the Bible that we are taught angels were created with the ability to procreate. What we are told of angles seems to lean strongly that they were not.

The argument that the flood was designed to eliminate these offspring of women/angels falls apart in that apparently it started up all over again after the flood anyway, so at what point was the human race then purged again? Plus, we are told that Noah and his family were righteous, but Noah's wife, and thus his sons, plus his daughter-in-laws? If Noah's family was the only righteous family, were the wives of pure blood also? Because if they were not, the flood, in regards to purging the tainted blood lines, would have been unsuccessful, right?

I have a lot of problems with the angel/men combo thing happening, starting with angels actually being able to biologically produce offspring.

[Sojourner55]

I think your study is as much a possibility as the 'angel' interpretation.

Both sides have their proponents, and each has its pros and cons. Because this is not a matter of Salvation, we are free to exchange our thoughts and ideas, in exploring this topic which has held a sense of mystique for many centuries.

A couple questions, tho.
1. What did Jude mean about the angels leaving their 'first estate'?

I believe "first estate" can simply refer to their estate or position within the heavenly realm--forfeited after following Satan in his vain, ill-fated rebellion against God. As "fallen" angels, their estate was unquestionably forever altered by their own actions.

2. Why is the idea that fallen angels left their first estate to take on human form and then procreate such a distasteful one?
Well, okay, more than a couple questions,

It's not so much distasteful as it is improbable. As turtledove alluded to, it seems unlikely the angels--as eternally-existing spirits, would be created with the the biological capability to actually procreate. Beings in an eternal, spiritual state have no need to perpetuate themselves biologically. As Jesus said, in spiritual, glorified bodies, we will be "like the angels," negating the need for our earthly, marital relationships. Also, we need to define what "taking on human form" actually entails. We know they were not incarnated in flesh as Jesus was; so how did they make the transition from spirit to flesh?

3. Considering the fact that man can and does today manipulate genes so that pigs and other creatures can grow human parts, clone animals (and man if the truth were known), why is it so beyond the realm of possibility that the fallen angels were playing with the same thing?

I think this point is related to the one above, and the same answer applies. We must make great assumptions and presuppositions about spirit beings interacting biologically.

4. Why, out of all the people groups on the planet, did God single out that one race, in which were the physical giants like Goliath, for total annihilation by Jacob's children? All other gentile nations were allowed to be prosylytes, all nations were to be blessed through the seed of Abraham, but that one nation was to be wiped out completely. Why no mercy for them?

I have no definitive answer to this question. However, a lot of other peoples who got between the Hebrews and the promised land were destroyed, not just giants. The Amorites, Hivites, Jebusites, and most other "ites" inhabiting Canaan, who came opposed God and His people, are no more. Any remnants of them today exist mostly within the DNA of the modern descendants of the ancient Indo-European peoples. As I said, this is an issue that will continue to be discussed for a long time. Maybe we can ask the Lord Himself one day.

[Kaboose]

I have no doubt "the sons of God" were fallen angels. The term in the Hebrew translated always refers to angels. The line of Seth theory doesn't even make sense really. Jude himself also mentions this in his book about "the angels that did not keep their first estate". Nephilim were strange offspring of woman and fallen angels, part of the reason God had to destroy the world with the flood and some of the seemingly genocide after was because of this Nephilim genetics. Search out Chuck Missler, he does a good job of explaining who the sons of God really were.

[Kahtar]

Both sides have their proponents, and each has its pros and cons. Because this is not a matter of Salvation, we are free to exchange our thoughts and ideas, in exploring this topic which has held a sense of mystique for many centuries.

Agreed.

It's not so much distasteful as it is improbable. As turtledove alluded to, it seems unlikely the angels--as eternally-existing spirits, would be created with the the biological capability to actually procreate. Beings in an eternal, spiritual state have no need to perpetuate themselves biologically. As Jesus said, in spiritual, glorified bodies, we will be "like the angels," negating the need for our earthly, marital relationships. Also, we need to define what "taking on human form" actually entails. We know they were not incarnated in flesh as Jesus was; so how did they make the transition from spirit to flesh?

I think this point is related to the one above, and the same answer applies. We must make great assumptions and presuppositions about spirit beings interacting biologically.

I more or less agree, but the thing is, we really know so very little about angels that even the things I bolded in your statement are assumptions and presuppositions. There is one thing that does lend support to the angel theory, and that is the fact that it was understood by Jude(1/2 brother of Jesus) and Peter to be so, for they quoted the book of Enoch, and Jude even alludes to the sexual nature of their offense, and many (not all) of the ancient rabbis believed it to be so. I personally do think genetic manipulation is a viable theory. But I don't know (nor do any of us) the extent to which angels are able to manipulate the physical realm.
What do we really know about the angels?
1] they are messengers of God, and do his bidding (unless they have fallen of course)
2] they have the ability to choose to turn against God, and thus fall
3] when they appear (not counting the seraphim with six wings and heads like eagles, bulls, etc.) they appear in the form of men
4] when they appear, they are so much like men that we cannot tell the difference
5] they are able to be in the direct presence of God
6] they do not die
7] they are much more powerful than we are
8] in heaven, they do not marry (says nothing at all about those who are not in heaven, ie fallen and on earth, nor does that verse where we see this say anything about their ability to procreate or lack thereof, nor does the context say anything about procreation)
9] they are able to transcend the physical/spiritual realms
10] there may be different ranks of angels, and geographical areas of responsibility (this is most evident in the fallen version of angel, where we see the 'prince of Persia' and other areas)
11]at least some of the angels have militaristic duties
That's about all I can think of.

I have no definitive answer to this question. However, a lot of other peoples who got between the Hebrews and the promised land were destroyed, not just giants. The Amorites, Hivites, Jebusites, and most other "ites" inhabiting Canaan, who came opposed God and His people, are no more. Any remnants of them today exist mostly within the DNA of the modern descendants of the ancient Indo-European peoples. As I said, this is an issue that will continue to be discussed for a long time. Maybe we can ask the Lord Himself one day.

Yes, a number of 'ites' fell into the destruction category, but all of them were within that very small area of Canaan, and all related to one another.
Good discussion tho. One we'll never come to a consensus on, but fun to speculate and consider none the less.

[Warrior4God]

I tend to believe that the "sons of God" were angels. The Bible indicates, though it doesn't elaborate on the details of how, that angels are somehow able to create physical bodies that, for all intents and purposes, look and feel human. Well, the loyal angels of God can still do this. The rebellious and fallen angels, or demons, apparently have been restrained by God from doing that now, which explains why some demons possess humans, as they obviously still desire to inhabit physical bodies of some kind. The angels are quite intelligent beings, and they probably make humans, to be quite blunt, look mentally retarded in comparison. They likely know how to manipulate matter and genetics, at least to some degree, and some were able to have sexual relations with and "impregnate" human women, which caused them to have mutant children that grew up to be "giants." Granted, as someone else pointed out, this isn't a "salvation issue." I believe that one can be saved whether they believe the "sons" were angels or whether they believe they were human. It just makes for an interesting discussion, in my opinion.

[danm]

I have no doubt "the sons of God" were fallen angels. The term in the Hebrew translated always refers to angels.

"וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי הָאֱ־לֹהִים אֶת בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ" - Doesn't that translate to "the noble sons of man" ?

These people saw themselves as "sons of G-d" by virtue of their importance and took women, whom they saw as "daughters of Man", just as they pleased. Droit de seigneur, so to speak.

[Lone Arranger]

I've been all over this Q without being comforted that either side is right. I tend to lean to the fallen angels side. The reason is because the phrase "sons of God" appears in five verses in two Old Testament books. Two verses are found in the Genesis 6 flood account. The other three verses are found in the book of Job. From the book of Job, the context clearly indicates that "sons of God" are angelic beings, since they enter directly into God's presence or existed before the creation of the earth.

In the New Testament, however, "sons of God" always refers to redeemed human beings. I would debate, however, whether the sons of Seth could be considered "redeemed" since no one could be considered to be redeemed before the crucifixion. But more to the point, what was so special about Seth's decendants in a good way or Cain's decendants in a bad way that it would cause their combined offsprings to be so spectacularly notable that a whole world full of people, save 8, needed to be utterly destroyed?

My biggest difficulty with the fallen angels theory, on the other hand, is that I simply cannot wrap my mind around angels being able to contribute the 1/2 of required chromosomes needed to create life. How could they? Either God would have created them as such - and that could have only been for the very purpose of the history of man playing out as it did. (Bear in mind that God created Satan and the 1/3 of angels that fell foreknowing that they would fall, and that was part of the divine purpose of God.) So, that God might do that is not entirely implausible since the symbolism of Noah is an important prophetic type.

The only other possibility is that Satan or the Fallen Angels would have some sort of limited creative ability (or should I say corruptive ability) to be able to manufacture in their bodies the DNA required for chromosome in sperm to impregnate human females. Again God would have had to create them capable of such. That doesn't even answer why angels should or would be attracted to human females. Some postulate that the angels simply possessed human men's bodies, which would answer the pleasure/desire issue. They would have obtained pleasure that way but they wouldn't have passed on any corrupted or monster-like DNA. Such a pregnancy would be like any other human pregnancy and produce children like any others.

As far as the statement that angels don't marry in heaven, that scripture doesn't tell us that they can't have sex, just that they don't; so I don't believe it has any direct bearing on the discussion one way or the other.

[Mrazy1]

Hebrews 1 teaches that angels are minister SPIRITs. GEneisis teaches that God created everything with its own kind. I have to agree that with this study as I have studied this myself. Angel left there first state is HEaven as they was cast to the earth with Satan. GOD BLESS

[Sojourner55]

Good points, guys. And yes, as long as we realize this is a non-salvation, gray area of Scripture that we can differ on, it's a good topic for an exchange. We don't have a lot of details to go on, but I think the fact that the Lord even mentions this incident justifies our exploring it, and my article simply presented one side of the issue. And as I hoped, a brotherly, fruitful exchange has ensued. I believe we can explain everything without the involvement of angels, however that involvement cannot be ruled out conclusively. Reflecting on our exchange so far, I have a few thoughts I'd like to share:

1. We know, according to Peter and Jude, that the angels who sinned--thereby forfeiting their heavenly estate, are presently imprisoned, and awaiting judgment. Jude tells us:
And the angels who kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after unnatural lust, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

I know that many view this passage as drawing a parallel between the sin of the fallen angels, and that of Sodom and Gomorrah. However, a great number of commentators interpret verse 7 as comparing the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah to the cities around them, rather than to the angels referred to in the previous verse. (Indeed, five other cities were destroyed with those two, with only Zoar being spared, for Lot's sake. Still other commentators see a comparison of the sin of the cities to the false teachers, who are the primary focus of the text. Grammatically, any of the three positions is possible, so we must rely on the context, which is itself, inconclusive.

All Jude says specifically about the angels is, that they left their original place in heaven, and that it was for that reason they are imprisoned. And we can reasonably conclude that if the angels were imprisoned because of the rebellion, they would not have had the opportunity for the sexual sin. (There is the possibility I suppose, that the sexual sin was going on at the time of the rebellion). But the bottom line is, a great deal of "the angel view" is riding on one, contested verse--uncorroborated, since Peter speaks only of the angels being locked up for sinning, with no connotation of sexuality. In fact, Peter doesn't even speak of the angels in the same context of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. Just something to consider.

2. Doesn't it seem a bit strange that the angels actually took "wives?" As I suggested in my article, I can see the "sons of God" marrying the "daughters of men" as another way of speaking about godly men marrying pagan women, and eventually being turned from God by following after their pagan gods--as many Hebrew men were to do later, which is why God forbade intermarriage with heathen (Deut 7:1-4). If even the righteous sons of God had become corrupt, along with the rest of humanity, it's easy to see why God would purge the whole filthy world. Thank God, Noah remained uncorrupted.

[edurda]

Sojourner55, I think you gave a bunch of us insight, thank you.

To add on to what Lone Arranger mentioned, the notion of angelic beings having the ability to conceive human babies means they would have to be able to re-create the seed that God gave to Adam. The only time in history I know of that breaks the natural arrangement God ordained is the virgin birth, and here God directly produces something special in Mary.

The mention of the O.T. phrase "sons of God" is in Genesis and the other in Job. In the book of Job, Satan is presenting himself to God and it clearly states that he is "among the sons of God". All anybody can really say about the author of Job is that he is not calling Satan a "son of God" he is referring to the manner in which Satan entered His presence. Based on the Book of Job alone you cannot determine if Satan is a "son of God" or not.

The reason why the notion of angelic beings being portrayed as fallen angels and marrying people and then conceiving babies is unlikely is because the bible clearly states that everything that was made was made by Jesus and nothing else was made outside of that. We believe angels would need to create the seed of man in order to impregnated women. For the record I don't believe the angelic version, but not because I do find it distasteful but because most, if not all, the questions get answered by supposing the "sons of God" are Godly men who made bad decisions.

[Kahtar]

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:4-7
It is quite clear here that the 'sons of God' in this verse are angels. No man existed at the time God 'laid the foundations of the earth' and 'the sons of God shouted for joy'. Satan is, presumably, a Seraphim, a class of angel, fallen of course. Since Job clearly was referring to angels in this verse, it stands to reason that he was in the other two verses as well. And the only other two instances of the 'sons of God' in the Hebrew scriptures is in Genesis.
Everywhere else in the book of Genesis where man is referred to, he is called 'man', not 'son of God'. In fact, nowhere in the Old Testament, the Hebrew scriptures, is man referred to as 'son of God'.
We can know from Genesis 3:15 that the 'serpent', ie Satan, is able to and will have seed:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Genesis 3:15
As far as nothing else being made outside of what Jesus made (meaning no other creature types), today scientists are able (and do) clone sheep and other creatures(no seed necessary, only the DNA is required). Animals are now able, through DNA manipulation, to grow human parts, or, mostly human parts. So seriously, fallen angels having reproductive capabilities is not even necessary for them to 'go in unto the daughters of men'.
As to the Jude reference, and Peter, those references are quotes from the Book of Enoch, and that book states the 'sons of God' in Genesis were angels. Peter and Jude apparently believed the same, and were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write those quotes.
'Sons of God' being men of the 'godly line' does not answer all the questions. Some of those questions I brought up in an earlier post.
But let's examine this possibility.
At the time of Noah, everyone in the 'godly line' except Adam, Seth and Enoch were still alive. That means, if we follow scripture, that all of Seth's children (except Enoch) at some point corrupted themselves, because the scripture says that all flesh had corrupted themselves, except Noah.
I would submit than none of them, including Adam and Enoch, were godly to begin with. Adam fell in the garden, and all of his offspring were born corrupt, and that would include Noah.
Exactly what is meant by 'corrupted' in Gen 6:12 is unclear, but, it is tied to two things; the sons of God/daughters of men thing, and violence.
Genesis 6:9 says Noah was perfect in his generations. We know Noah was a fallen creature same as all his forefathers, so we are not talking about sinless perfection here, although it does say that he was 'just', which according to Strongs means lawful, righteous (which itself begs the question, what law? But that's another topic). Perfect in his generations is speaking of an uncorrupted lineage. So what was his generations free from that the others were not? It can't be sin, because all men have sinned, including Noah.
If the 'sons of God' are 'godly men', who later became corrupted, did they not have daughters of their own? Or, is it just that all women are corrupt? (ducking and dodging all the stuff being thrown at me) Or maybe it's that only the daughters of men were fair, and the daughters of the sons of God were ugly? Why would the offspring of sons of God with daughters of men produce powerful and mighty, and not with the (apparently missing) daughters of the sons of God? Were there any daughters of God? What kind of offspring did they produce, weak, ugly, or perhaps just normal offspring?
And why would the mating of godly men and ungodly women produce giants? And it's clear they were in fact physically very large, as is seen later?
Why, after the flood, when the sons of God mated with ungodly women, did it continue to produce giants, and yet when the godly line mated with women of other nations, it did not? The other nations were ungodly. The Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, etc, did not produce giants when they mated with Abraham's children.
When these issues can be settled (not that they ever will) then I will be convinced. Until then, I'll remain open to at least 3 possibilities, 1]fallen angels mated with humans 2] fallen angels genetically manipulated humans 3]God changed his mind about how important the 'godly line' was and now allows the sons of God to procreate with ungodly women without destroying them or wiping out all life on the planet.

[Redeemed by Grace]

Howdy SJ,

My 2 cents on:

Genesis 6:1 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,
2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

I take the sons of God to be a reference to angels.... and here, being a reference to the fallen angels who have indwelt within men... and in that what we call demon possession today... It be hard for me to find biblical support that angels had human bodies, and thus able to procreate with earthly women, thus lean towards the text giving credence that these angels, being evil dominated sinful man's behaviors and actions, and thus bore children being human, but evil being wicked and continual.

[Kahtar]

Howdy SJ,

My 2 cents on:

Genesis 6:1 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,
2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

I take the sons of God to be a reference to angels.... and here, being a reference to the fallen angels who have indwelt within men... and in that what we call demon possession today... It be hard for me to find biblical support that angels had human bodies, and thus able to procreate with earthly women, thus lean towards the text giving credence that these angels, being evil dominated sinful man's behaviors and actions, and thus bore children being human, but evil being wicked and continual.

I think this is as much a possibility as the others (now I have to add one to my list, .) I do have a question, but I'm not looking for you to answer it, only consider it (although if you do come up with an answer, please share ): If angels are able to and did 'possess' human men and subsequently mated with women, is that not still using the seed of man, and why would that then cause either physical giants, or powerful leader types?