The “sons of God” issue

The “sons of God” issue

The idea that angels had sexual relations with humans is the product of poor Biblical interpretation or a willful act of deception. On the side of “poor Biblical interpretation” I would include those who are caught up in the excitement of the moment and those unwittingly coerced by religious charlatans.

Before any discussion on the topic begins there must be a thorough study on the text in question. However, invariably I find a shallow, and even intentionally misleading, study. For example: one such study says, “the phrase ‘sons of God’ is used 5 times in the Old Testament and every time it means angels.” However, the only time it means angels, without debate, are the 3 occasions it is found in Job when the angels are before God in heaven. The other two times it is used are the times we are researching. So, these two cannot be counted as proof since their definition is still in question and are in fact “the question” we are trying to solve. One cannot say they mean “this” when the meaning of “this” is what one is attempting to solve.

Second, the angels gathering before God in Job are His angels. Satan is also allowed to come but is referred to independently. The fallen angels (demons) have been cast out a long time before this episode. And so, in Job, the phrase “Sons of God” is used to clarify the distinction between God’s angels and Satan. Satan had once been an angel as well, but here he is not included in the phrase “Sons of God.” Those angels cast out of heaven long before the events of Genesis chapter six occurred, have never enjoyed such honorable titles as this one. To say that “Sons of God” refers to demons or fallen angels, would be the greatest of errors. Can anyone really believe that in Job 38:7 there was reference to fallen angels shouting for joy over God’s creation? Before their fall they may have shouted for joy. But never after their fall, and after their fall is where we find the phrase in question. The “Sons of God” does not ever refer to demons or fallen angels.

And third, context often contains the answer to such questions. So, let’s turn back to Genesis 4 where the lineage of Adam is shown. Of course, this is where we find the story of Cain and Abel. After Abel is slain and Cain is removed to the land of Nod, we are given some of his lineage beginning in verse seventeen. (Please bear in mind that chapter and verse divisions are not in the original text, this is actually a running commentary.)

In chapter four and verse 25 we are told that Adam and Eve bore another son, Seth. So, we are given the lineage of Cain (the one who was cursed) and we are given the lineage of Seth who, as far as we know is not cursed. Before this moment in time we had Adam and Eve worshipping God, Abel offering a proper sacrifice to God as an example of that same worship, and Cain with an evil murderous heart. As soon as Abel is killed, we are shown that there was another born after Adam who would carry on in the same faith. And so, we are then given his lineage in chapter 5. Why was the author giving us this history? Chapter five (remember this is a flowing commentary, there is no division between 5 and 6 just a continuous thought) ends with the introduction of the family of Noah. The writer stopped there because he wanted to share the story of the flood (6:8). But, how does one go from a simple lineage to a world-wide flood? There must be an explanation before destroying the world. And so, in Genesis 6:1-4 we are given a very brief explanation of events and then we go straight into the consequence.

A great deal, on the side of sensationalists, is made of the term ‘Sethites.’ This is an argument which has no value. Simply stated Adam and Eve were blessed of God. Cain fell away and was cursed after killing Abel who would certainly have been the blessed side of the family. With Abel’s death Seth was then brought into that side of the family simply to be the means by which the Savior would come. Which is certainly why this list is present today. Cain, and those who were with him, or of him, were cursed. Those who followed God came from Adam, and in this case, Seth’s side of Adam since Abel no longer existed here. Adam and Seth were followers of God as were at least some of those in their family. Which is certainly why the author took time to list the family tree before exposing the judgment. Seth’s lineage does not have to show perfection in order to be the line to the Savior. In every generation there only needs to be one person who qualifies as a predecessor. God was able to preserve the line of Christ back to Eve through Seth. The vast majority of mankind had become wretched and vile. Yet, God had a  remnant even here…even if it was only one.

Genesis 6 tells about the degradation of the hearts of men. Shortly after the birth of Seth there were, undoubtedly, some good people in the world. However, as time passed and civilization grew so did the wickedness of man. Good men began believing it was acceptable to marry ungodly woman. The results were precisely what God had always warned they would be. (The following is from my “very personal” paraphrase.)

Genesis 6:1 Says, “when people began to have babies”

Genesis 6:2 Says, “godly men began checking out ungodly women and marrying them.”

Genesis 6:3 Says, “God will not always deal patiently with man, but will cut their life spans down to

almost 1/10^th of what is was before because of their sinful hearts” (this is confirmed with “he

also is flesh” and the fact of the severe nature of the judgment.)

Genesis 6:4 Says, “Back then, when the godly and ungodly were marrying, giants were common in the land, there were very strong men and men of great reputation also in the land”  

In verse two there is absolutely no reason at all to leave the natural intent of the verse. We have been discussing natural, sinful, people and their lineage in chapters four and five and are about to see God’s judgment come upon these natural humans in the next verse while continuing a discussion on men and their sinful hearts. To suddenly mention angels (especially by attributing this Godly title to fallen angels) and then switch immediately back to humans is a distortion of the text. It is done without warning, without the use of commonly accepted terms (like “angels” or “demons”) and without any explanation of why it was stated and then abandoned. God is speaking about wicked men continuously in this text.

If the term ‘giants’ is the term of concern, then let me assure you they have always existed. Nephelim is only used 3 times; once in Genesis 6:4 and twice in Numbers 13:33.

Numbers 13:33  And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Deuteronomy 2:11  Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.

Deuteronomy 2:20  (That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims;

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.

Deuteronomy 3:13  And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants. (See also: 2Samuel 21:16; 2Samuel 21:18; 2Samuel 2:20; 2Samuel 21:22; 1Chronicles 20:4; 1Chronicles 20:6; 1Chronicles 20:8; Job 16:14; Joshua 12:4; Joshua 13:12; Joshua 15:8; Joshua 17:15; Joshua 18:16.) 

The use of “Nephilim” in Genesis 6:4 may more likely be a reference to the nature of mankind by the time of the flood. It does not always mean a really tall person. Nephilim can also be a reference to evil, violent or cruel men. Strongs Concordance defines it as follows:  nephı̂yl or nephil properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant. This translation would fit more properly into the clear intent of the passage.

Are we as concerned for midgets, pygmies, or dwarfs? Why is there no talk of what evil may have brought them into existence? What about a host of other anomalies? They are not discussed because they could not have been made into such a grand tale. The text! Go back to the text and read it within the context and it simply says, when godly people married ungodly people sin began to fester and grow until God had to bring it to an end. Bad sin, real evil, the product of men turning their backs on God collectively, was so terrible that it produced what is only encapsulated in verse 4-5.

In the angelic-spawn debate, nothing beyond this verse matters!!! All the other “proof” texts fail to have importance because they rest upon this one verse, a verse that cannot possibly support the premise. If this did not happen then neither did any of the myriad tales that have been so wantonly tied to it.

Genesis 6:2  That the sons of God (men who were once godly) saw the daughters of men (women who were clearly ungodly) that they were fair (very pretty); and they took them wives of all which they chose. 

Genesis 6:3  And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. (God’s declaration of judgment was against man not angels.)

Genesis 6:4  There were giants (Nephilim: cruel, heartless, violent men) in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (even though godly men, from the time of Adam onward, fell to temptation) came in unto the daughters of men (ungodly women), and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (The ungodly offspring became the leaders in both politics and warfare.)