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.
