Sunday, June 14, 2020

Moses 8:21 and the "non-supernatural" interpretation of the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4

 

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 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. 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 same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (Gen 6:1-4)

 

In the Book of Moses, we have a non-supernatural understanding of the "Sons of God" in Gen 6:1-4:

 

And also, after that they had heard him, they came up before him, saying: Behold, we are the sons of God, have we not taken unto ourselves the daughters of men? And are we not eating and drinking, and marrying and giving in marriage? And our wives bear unto us children, and the same are mighty men, which are like unto men of old, men of great renown. And they hearkened not unto the words of Noah. (Moses 8:21)

 

Notwithstanding the popularity of the view, popularised by 1 Enoch and other texts, that the Sons of God in Gen 6 were angelic beings (Watchers) during the time of Jesus (a view I believe Peter is subverting in 1 Pet 3—on this, see Chad Pierce, "Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ: 1 Peter 3:18-22 in its Tradition-Historical and Literary Context," Durham theses, Durham University), there is evidence against this view. Note the following from a conservative Protestant:

 

The Failure of the Supernatural Interpretation

 

A common interpretation is that the "sons of God" are supernatural beings who conjugate with human women. Significantly, the phrase "sons of God" is used elsewhere in the OT as a reference to angels (Job I :6; 2: I; 38:7; cf. Ps. 29: I; 89:7), while ancient Ugaritic literature identifies the "sons of El" as members of the divine pantheon.[14] Interestingly, however, neither the OT nor the Ugaritic literature describes these "sons" as cohabitating with humans. Nevertheless, this supernatural explanation has the support of the earliest known Jewish interpretation, the Alexandrine text of the Septuagint, Philo, Josephus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Likewise, some early church fathers also understood the passage to mean angels.[15]

 

However, the supernatural explanation does not exist prior to the influence of the Hellenistic period, which was replete with Greek mythologies of gods sexually mingling with human beings. In addition, the lexical base for understanding the "sons of God" is too small to warrant a narrow definition. It is likely that the phrase reflects an idiomatic expression that associated the "son See Ronald S. Hendel, "Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6: 1---4," JBL 106, no. 1 ( 1987): [16]; see also Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 140; Clines, "Significance," 33; 1-1. Haag, "בֵּן," in TDOT, rev. ed., ed. G. J. Botterweck and 1-1. Ringgren, trans. J. T. Willis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 2: 158. For support of the Sethite view, see Mathews, Genesis J-11:26, 329-32. (s) of X" with certain classifications and offices (e.g., "sons of the prophets," 1 Kings 20:35). Thus, the "sons of God" could be human and still belong to the category of divine representatives, such as human judges and rulers (cf. Exod 21:6; 22:8-9; Ps. 82:1).16 It is interesting to note that certain textual traditions of the Septuagint translates the phrase "sons of God" as "angels" in Job (hoi angeloi tau theou) but does not conclude the same supernatural interpretation for Genesis when it retains the phrase "sons of God" in Greek (hoi huioi tau theou).[17]

 

Finally, the supernatural interpretation does not fit the context of Genesis or the contemporary situation of the wandering Israelites. The explanation does not adequately demonstrate why God punishes humanity for the behavior of sinful supernatural beings. Though Cherubim are mentioned once in Genesis 3:24, neither angels nor the concept of a divine council are identified in Genesis in the previous passages. Likewise, the notion that divine beings are sexually active is completely foreign to the Hebrew worldview (cf. Matt. 22:30). This belief would have no contemporary significance to Moses or the original Israelite audience.[18] (Darren M. Slade, "The 'Sons of God' as a Polemic Against Royal Immortality: A Philological and Literary Comparison of Genesis 6:1-4 and the Epic of Kirta," Evangelical Journal 35 no. 2 [2017]:69-83, here, pp. 72-73)

 

Notes for the Above

 

14See Michael S. Heiser, "Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God," BSac 158, no. 629 (January 200 I): 65-8; Terence E. Fretheim, The Book of Genesis: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections, NIB (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), I :382; Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 139.

15 For a defense of the angelic view, see Willem A. VanGemeren, "The Sons of God in Genesis 6: 1-4 (An Example of Evangelical Demythologization?)," WTJ 43, no. 2 (Spring 1981 ): 320-48. Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham: Lexham, 2015), 92-109, 183-91; Huey, "Sons of God," 196-204.

16 See John H. Walton, "Are the 'Sons of God' in Genesis 6 Angels? No.," in The Genesis Debate: Persistent Questions about Creation and the Flood, ed. R. F. Youngblood (Nashville: Nelson, 1986), 188-96; see also, idem, "Sons of God," 796.

17 The Codex Alexandrinus translates Gen. 6:2 as "angels of God (hoi angeloi tau theou)"; see Haag, "בֵּן ben," 2:157.

18 See Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 326-28; Clines, "Significance," 34.

 

Note also the following from a leading Christadelphian apologist:

 

Here you are assuming the sons of God are angels (not to mention illegitimately reading Job in the context of Revelation). While this view is held widely in the literature, there is Scriptural precedent in Genesis 6:2 for understanding the sons of God as human members of the covenant community,[279] in favour of which there are several lines of evidence: there is no Ancient Near East precedent for divine beings marrying or cohabiting with mortal women;[280] punishment for the sin of the sons of God falls exclusively on humans (not on celestial beings);[281] Genesis 4:26 has already identified a community identifying itself as ‘calling on the name of Yahweh’ as a means of differentiating itself from the non-covenant mortals.[282] (Jonathan Burke, “Satan & Demons: A Reply to Thomas Farrar,” February 2015, pp. 69-70, copy in my possession)

 

Notes for the Above

 

279 ‘The royal interpretation was introduced into Jewish exegesis about the middle of the second century A.D., partly, it seems, out of conviction that angels could not indulge in sexual intercourse and partly to suppress speculation about them (P. S. Alexander, JJS 23 [1972] 60–71.) It subsequently became the most usual rabbinic view and has a number of Christian advocates as well (e.g., F. Dexinger, Sturz der Gottersöhne; M. G. Kline, WTJ 24 [1963] 187–204).’, Wenham, ‘Genesis 1–15’, Word Biblical Commentary, volume 1, pp. 139-140 (1998); ‘The identification of the “sons of God” in 6:2 is problematic. One interpretation is that they are angels; another, that they are kings. The best interpretation is that the “sons of God” are descendants of Seth. That marriage standards among the Sethites began to erode is clear here. The “sons of God” married indiscriminately for they married the daughters of men, i.e., women from the line of Cain who did not share the spiritual values of the Sethites.’, Smith, ‘The Pentateuch’, Old Testament Survey Series (2nd ed. 1993);

 

280 ‘Gilgamesh is portrayed as two-thirds god and one-third man (1.48) and “flesh of the gods” (9.49). Nevertheless, though it is common for kings to be portrayed as having divine parentage, there is no precedent for ancient kings as a group being referred to as “sons of god.” This keeps open the possibility that this title could refer to royal elites, though a reference to members of the heavenly council certainly cannot be ruled out. Married any of them they chose (6:2). There are no examples from Akkadian or Northwest Semitic mythological texts of divine beings marrying or cohabiting with human women, so it is difficult to make the claim that this account is a vestige of ancient mythology. There are examples of kings claiming mixed ancestry of gods and humans (see previous entry), but that is a different concept.’, Walton, ‘Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy’, volume 1, pp. 43-44 (2009).

 

281 ‘Yet the interpretation does not easily fit the context of the flood, since that judgment is pronounced against humanity (cf. Gen. 6:3–5; note “flesh” in 6:3 [NIV: “mortal”]). According to Jesus, angels do not marry (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25), and although excellent efforts have been undertaken to avoid this and other objections to the angel interpretation (e.g., Brown 2002: 52–71; vanGemeren 1981), the niggles make it less than a sure thing.’, Beale & Carson, ‘Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament’, p. 1049 (2007), ; ‘It is urged that only an interpretation which identifies “sons of God” with men as opposed to angels can explain why men are judged for the intermarriages that occurred.’, Wenham, ‘Genesis 1–15’, Word Biblical Commentary, volume 1, p. 140 (1998).

 

282 ‘“To call on the name of the LORD” is used elsewhere in Genesis of the patriarchs 12:8; 13:4; 21:33; 26:25, and it seems to be an umbrella phrase for worship, most obviously prayer and sacrifice.’, ibid., p. 116; ‘This text perhaps helps to explain the presence of Melchizedek and Abimelech, who worship and are faithful even though they have not experienced the revelation which was given to Abraham and his descendants.’, Kissling, ‘Genesis’, College Press NIV Commentary, pp. 237-238 (2004). 

 

Here we see that, at least on this issue, there is strong support for the Book of Moses on this issue. For a discussion of this topic, see the section entitled "The 'Sons of God' and the 'Sons of Men,’” in Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and David J. Larsen, In God's Image and Likeness 2: Enoch, Noah, and the Tower of Babel (Salt Lake City: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2014), 203. On 1 Enoch and its influence on Jewish interpretation of Gen 6:1-4, see Archie T. Wright, The Origin of the Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6:1-4 in Early Jewish Literature.


Blog Archive