Sons of God, Genesis 6:2, Part I

Sons of God, Genesis 6:2:

Part I:

I have several questions for those who understand the term used in Genesis 6:2, “Sons of God,” as referring to angels, meaning spirit creatures that manifest themselves into human form, and procreated with mortals.

I will not bring Job 1:6 into this discussion. That’s another matter, for another time.

Let’s lay the foundation first.

In this discussion I will stay within the boundaries of the true definitions of both the Hebrew and Greek. Sons in the context of Genesis 6:2, is an appellation of “sons of God,” and can be applied to both angels, and kings, not just Jewish kings, but to all kings.

Genesis 6:2 reads, “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.”

Now we have three options concerning this verse, let me list them for you.

1. There is a teaching that was entertained by some of the ancient Jewish Rabbis and some Christian fathers, that “the sons of God” in this verse are speaking of angelic creatures, who had the power of taking on human form, then committed lewdness with the women of that age, producing a race of human monsters.

2. Others claim the sons of God point to the race of Seth; but I would have to ask, “Why Seth, and not Cain?” If it were Seth’s line why would they produce a race of giants, destroyers, violent men? Let’s examine the word giant.

Giants in Hebrew, nef-ell, or naw-fal, this definition comes from Gesenius Hebrew to English Lexicon; and means, falling on, attacking, warriors, or destroyers, men of violence and blood, those who pray on the weak and helpless, as in the daughters of men. Nef-ell, is of intransitive verb, which means a verb that expresses action, (they took) that is limited to the agent = (the sons of God.)  

3. Now we have a third option, that Gen.6 is pointing us to the princes, judges, and chiefs of the pre-flood era. They are in some instances dignified with the name of Elohim, thus rendered plurally “gods.” We find this in,

Psalms 82:1, “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods.”

The general sense refers to earthy princes. These are accused by God with unjust judgment; and God himself is represented (poetically) as if about to retract his words, in,

Ps.82:6, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High. But ye shall die like men (like Adam) and fall like one of the princes.”

John 10:35, “He called them gods, to whom the word of God came;” that is, who had an appointment from God as princes or judges. In the Greek from the Hebrew it speaks of kings as the representatives of God. John is quoting from and in allusion to Psalms 82:1-6; then compare this with

Psalms 82:7, “But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.”

So I would understand “sons of God” as meaning children, of the Most High,” who became so tyrannical, as to seize upon all the finest, and fairest of women they could find for their palaces; and from these sprang a race of “giants” meaning mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

So, where did the information come from concerning angels who took on the form of men, and had children with mortal women? Let’s examine this evidence to see if it truly qualifies as evidence.

1. There is evidence that comes from the Rabbins or Rabbis beginning about 200 B.C., they having no Christian influence.

2. From ancient church Father’s, and the pagan nations.

3. From the mythologies of pagan nations.

Concerning the Rabbis, I will go back to 200 B.C. What was moral condition of these Rabbins and the people during that period of time until Christ, how did they stand with God? We know from Malachi to Jesus birth about 400 years, God had not spoken to the Jews in any way. The prescribed Leviticus priesthood was for the most part abandoned. The Pharisee’s and Sadducee’s were the new appointed priests of the Temple; men appointed by men, and not God.

Concerning Herod’s Temple as beautiful as it was, the Ark of the Covenant, the mercy seat, eternal flame etc., were absent, therefore in my thinking temple worship for the Jews had no value whatsoever. In my estimation, God had abandoned the Jews for a period of 400 years; from Malachi to the birth of Christ. 

So any Jewish literature that came from Rabbis, or any other Jewish source in that period of time, I would conclude, it was not inspired of God. If this is the case, can this evidence be used to establish a true account of Genesis 6, can we give to it any merit? Personally I would not consider any Godly inspiration to be found in them. 

Enoch is said to contain some information concerning the “sons of God. The book of the Watchers”, believed to be composed about 200-300 BC.”

But I have never read the book of Enoch, therefore I cannot comment on it. But again like the rabbinical writings, I feel this book because it is not a part of the Biblical text must be set aside as improper evidence.  Concerning the ancient church fathers, there is an article called Demon semen,” that seems to be well researched. You may read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions. See bottom left hand corner, “Demon Seamon.” After I read it, all I could say was, “Wow, it can get confusing!” 

Now if we cannot trust the rabbinical writings because we know God was not speaking to them for 400 years; and concerning the early Fathers of the church there is a wide range of options, therefore inconclusive; and naturally I reject any evidence coming from ancient pagan nations. So what do we have left in order to form a correct opinion? Of course, it’s the Bible alone. 

Of the three teachings concerning the “sons of God,” two are false, one is correct. Concerning subjects like this, there should be enough information in the Bible that would clear up this mess; I base this on “God is not the author of confusion!” 

We can learn and gather a great deal of Biblical information from a verity of proven trustworthy commentators; word studies are of the utmost importance; and understanding the time, conditions, and the people involved is necessary.

How I have approached this subject in order to draw that proper conclusion was to take Genesis 6:2, backward to Genesis 1:1, and bring it forward to Genesis 6:1-2, in order to fully understand why something like this happened.

We have the Biblical records, but men seem to lack any true understanding of these records, and a lack of understanding has led to some false testimony concerning these records.  What were the conditions when the Genesis 6:1-2 events occurred; who were the characters involved; what was God’s mindset toward man; why the reason for that mindset; and what was the mindset of man toward God?

It appears the walls of our churches have been built much too high. If one was a Catholic theologian more than likely they would come to conclusions that would lean to some established Catholic conclusion; at least in many of its parts. This may not be done intentionally but because of the way that person was taught and trained. This idea can be applied to any and all other denominations, their researches and scholars.

What appears to get in the way most of the time is truth itself! Peer pressure itself! A limited amount of honest research and integrity itself; and last of all, common sense! So the question remains,

“Are we to believe men; or are we to believe the Bible?” At times this choice can be difficult especially when one’s peers are looking over their shoulders. 

I would suggest an honest examination of the phrase “sons of God” in the Hebrew, and the Greek. To what person or thing was this phrase first applied? What church’s or cults agree with any conclusion one may draw (friend or foes) and what is the underlying reasons for their continued pushing forth of the two remaining false teaching? 

Phillip LaSpino www.seekfirstwisdom.com