Sons of God daughters of men

M10400

SONS OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN

SONS = FALLEN ANGELS, DAUGHTERS = WOMEN

SONS = LINE OF SETH, DAUGHTERS = LINE OF CAIN

SONS = GODLY MEN, DAUGHTERS = UNGODLY WOMEN

SONS = EXTRATERESTIALS, DAUGHTERS = WOMEN

GENERAL FACTS THAT RELATE:

1. The term used of Godly people is else where used in the Old Testament. Hos. 1:10 (Barnes Note’s has more on this.)

2. Angels do not marry. Matt. 22:30, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God in heaven."

Indeed the term "sons" does not fit beings that have no sex or marriage.

Does this really state that angels have no capacity for sex? NO, however the implication is quite strong.

It does say however they do not marry. This illuminates them as far as Gen. 6 is concerned. According to some - angels in heaven don't but they are good. How bout bad ones - they might.

Greek scholars mention that angels are always in the neuter instead of masculine or feminine.

They always appear as men in scripture.

Sexless beings producing offspring seems a bit far fetched to many.

. . . . .

A related problem to this is that the spirit produced a human without a human father.

Another thought is that Christ himself was produced by God a spirit and a human mother. If you say these evil spirits produced many offspring with human mothers you have multitudes of theological and Biblical problems.

. . . . .

Another slight problem would be this - why did all those fallen angels decide to become males and none of them females? Strange!

3. "giants" = Strong's number 5303 = "nef-eel'" = bully or tyrant.

Num. 13:33, mentions that the spies that entered the promised land found these giants in the land. This is post flood times.

Ezra 2:20 shows the term translated "Gibbar". Some feel that the term has the idea of great in stature. They could have been evil or good. Goliath would have been one of the evil ones.

NASB shows that the giants were there before the marriages came to pass.

KJ also shows this. How can the giants come from the union? They can't.

Giants could refer to great things that they did and not stature.

4. "mighty men who were of old, men of renown" were the offspring of the union not the giants.

5. "Demonic creatures" and "half-man half-demon creatures.

There is not a shred of evidence from the scriptures that this is at all possible.

There is no indication that Spirits can have sex much less produce creatures of this description.

THESE WERE CASES OF DEMON POSSESSION.

So how could giants, Demonic creatures or any thing except normal children come from the union of a man and woman even if one or both were demon possessed? The physical functions are not disturbed by possession to the point of producing weird creatures.

6. There is no real reason nor indication that we should see anything wrong with this union.

If there is show it to me.

7. Angels are called Sons of God.

Job 1:6

2:1

38:7

Dan. 3:25

Men are called sons of God.

Jo. 1:12 (Old KJ.)

Ro. 8:14,19

8. The context mentions nothing of any creature except man. Gen 6:3; 6:12

Why would a good writer like Moses be running along in his account and suddenly dump in a new type of creature - angels and ungodly ones at that - in such vague terminology?

9. The text of scripture does not mention angelic beings previously nor for quite some time in scripture.

If this the first time? I would doubt that God would introduce any thing so ungodly without some explanation.

10. Angels are bound. Jude 6; II Pet. 2:4.

(If all fallen are bound where did demons come from?)

11. The terms "took them wives" "signifies a lasting marriage," (per Dr. Scofield in his New Scofield Reference Bible p 22 note 1.)

12. Most positions see that the trouble was caused by Satan to thwart the Messianic line. He accomplished this except for the fact that he missed Noah.

13. The thought comes to mind is how can you have all the earth involved in fallen angels having relations with all the women and no men around - much less Noah and his wife and their family having a normal family relationship.

Indeed where was the Godly life of Seth that we decided lived up to the time of Noah? Why aren't they mentioned when Noah is mentioned as righteous.

We saw that someone may have helped Noah with the ark. The judgment of 6:7 took place long before the ark was built and completed.

14. There is a serious problem theologically with having a spirit being and a human being producing a child. There would be no fallen nature. The fallen nature comes through the human man and not the woman. Thus you would have a whole group of beings without a sin nature. NO WAY CAN THIS BE ACCEPTABLE!

You would require the flood to be a judgment upon creatures that had no sin nature. Indeed they may have been sinless for all we know!

15. Some see "wives" as polygamy, the real sin of the text.

16. The text in Job seems to make a clear distinction between the sons of God and Satan. Would indicate they were good angels.

In chapter 38 they are good angels - rejoicing over creation. Thus sons of god cannot be fallen angels.

17. If the nephillim are offspring of angels and women, how come they were there before the unions of the couples. (6:4)

18. If the nephillim were destroyed in the flood, how come they are listed in Num. 13:33? Would God be so foolish as to allow this same thing occur again? NO! If indeed, it happened the first time.

19. I Pet. 3:18ff is a context of man type spirits and there is no hint of anything else present.

20. II Peter 2:4 mentions the fall of angels in connection with Noah per some. You should note that Peter is listing three separate falls. That of angels, that of Noah and that of Sodom and Gomorrah.

21. If Jude 6 is speaking of the supposed fall of angels in Gen 6 then we must understand that the parallel with verse seven must also follow. If the angels of vs. 6 went after strange flesh as did the men of Sodom and Gomorrah. the fallen angels would have been marring the men of Gen 6 not the women.

There seems to me a far distance between leaving an abode and following strange flesh. It is hard to see how you can equate these two ideas.

The interpretation that might be better and more fitting might go along this line.

The angels left their proper abode or heaven. Their wrong was leaving their abode not taking women as mates!

There is no hint of women in the text.

This seems to be two illustrations of God's punishment upon two different groups - one angels and the other men of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Jude 6 & 7 is not related to Gen 6.

22. The term sons of god in the New Testament are the "exact Greek equivalent of the Hebrew" terms used in Gen 6. Matt. 5:9 is the Greek word. (Baxter p 177)

23. Men of renown and mighty men are common Old Testament terms for good men. (Baxter p 179 for more info.)

24. The term wives has been mentioned as being plural. This was a problem in the days of Noah. You might look at Matt. 24:37,38 and Luke 17:26,27 so see that plural wives was a problem in Gen. 6.

25. A man named George Raphin suggests that the sons of god of Job 1 & 2 were actually men that had gone to meet God for worship. Job is a contemporary with Gen. and possibly way back in Gen. The men were just meeting God as Cain and Abel did.

26. Zondervan Picture Dictionary vol. 5 mentions old Hurrian legends that mention pagan gods that had relations among themselves and at times humans. They do not hold that this is what Gen 6 has in mind. Just for your interest.

They go on to state that sons of god was a term at times used of pagan rulers in ancient times.

27. If there is something wrong with angels mating with women and this is a possibility later than the flood why didn't God mention this wrong in the Law where He is quite explicit in sexual relationships that are right and wrong?

SONS = FALLEN ANGELS, DAUGHTERS = WOMEN

THOSE HOLDING THE POSITION:

Benson, Dr. John (Accent Press)

Pink

Pember, G.H.

Bullinger, Dr. E.W.

Miller, Dr. David

Ambrose

Tertullian

Justin

Athenagoras

Clemens of Alexandria

Lactantius

Phillips

Ryrie ties the s of g to angels of II Pet. 2:4 so must hold to this position.

This position has been running around since 200 BC according to Baxter in his STUDIES IN PROBLEM TEXTS.

The book of Enoch mentions it I am told, but I do not have the specific reference.

Some report that the Septuigent translates it the angels of God.

Josephus 1:3:1 (p28 our book) mentions the discussion.

"...for many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and depisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength, for the tradition is that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and , being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better;-but, seeing that they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land."

Fallen angels - "the sons of God" - married into the human race and produced a race of demonic human beings. This contamination, if it extended to the entire populace, would destroy the possibility of redemption through a member of the human family." (1 P 14 He allows for Line of Seth/line of Cain in a side note. Adult student)

"Satan instigated a plan whereby a certain segment of the fallen angels should take upon themselves human flesh, marry into the human race, and produce a race of half-man half-demon beings." (p 21 Benson Adult teacher.)

The position states usually that the flood was to destroy all of mankind except Noah and family who alone had remained untainted and that the fallen angels were cast into the abyss. I Pet. 3:19; II Pet. 2:4; Jude 6.

This was the only reason for the flood.

PROBLEMS:

1. There is no scripture which says angels have the ability to take on human flesh.

There is nowhere that Satan is given this type of power.

If this was a possibility why isn't it happening all the time. Satan would use a tool like that constantly I would think.

2. If the judgment of the flood came upon the union and as a result of it, then why did man get judged for the wrong and the angels aren't mentioned as being judged.

(The answer to this is that the angels did get judged - they are in the pit.

Indeed, they aren't even reprimanded if they are a part of the catastrophe.

3. If this was a possibility why didn't one of the writers of scriptures tell the poor women of the world how to tell these creatures from men so they would start hanging out with them in the first place?

4. The terminology "Sons of God" is not consistent with fallen angels!

5. If the fallen angels are the ones in the abyss then we have a question.

When did the angels fall? The normal answer is when Satan fell pre-fall of man.

So, if this be true where did these Gen. 6 angels come from.

Are they part of the original fall? If they are then we have the possibility that the occurrence can happen again today. How can a decent girl know when she is going with a fallen angel? COME ON THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!

The only alternative left is that there were more angels that fell - a second falling away from God by the angels.

There is no indication in the Word that there was more than one fall. Indeed the texts concerning the fall seems quite conclusive that some fell and others chose to stay with God.

Again, even if we had a second fall we have the possibility of a third and forth etc. This is an untenable position to me!

6. To say that the flood was due to fallen angels is to say men had to die because of the angels wrong. This redefines God's justice if it be true. Especially in light of the fact that God states that it was man's sin that would bring judgment. (God would not hold a possessed man guilty of things that he did because the demon forced him to do it.

6:5,6)

7. If the sin is with the angels why is God not going to strive with man. 6:3?

8. If you have the flood coming to kill off spirit beings - A PROBLEM EXISTS! HOW DO YOU KILL A SPIRIT BEING OR INDEED CAN YOU?

YOU CAN'T!

9. If a spirit could indeed join with a woman and produce offspring why assume that it would be grotesque or a giant?

10. Moses knew the idea of angels and used the term in 16:7; 24:7. So why didn't he use it here if these were indeed angels?

11. How can a spirit being change it's nature and become flesh?

God didn't do it. Christ came through a woman.

Our physical is a container of our spiritual being. Death separates and we can not rejoin our body, till God glorifies it.

SONS = LINE OF SETH, DAUGHTERS = LINE OF CAIN

THOSE HOLDING THE POSITION:

Thiessen

Jamison, Fausett and Brown (Vol. 1 p 88 col. 1)

Chrystom

Augustine

Luther

Calvin

Henstenberg

Keil

Faber

Rice, John R.

Poole

Scofield

McGee, James Vernon

This position lists usually three main arguments.

1. The setting of the passage. It follows the two lines that are mentioned. That of Cain and Seth in the previous chapters.

2. "the weakness of the objections", per Baxter p 170.

3. "the untenableness of any suggested alternative" (also Baxter p 170. He hadn't heard of my view.)

Two and three are not really arguments at all and I'm surprised that he listed them.

Zondervan Picture Dictionary p 494 mentions that the term for god in Gen 6 is the term used elsewhere in scripture for God himself, thus this would eliminate any idea of wrong to the sons.

PROBLEMS:

1. If you hold this position you must view all Seth's line as male and godly and all Cain's line as female and ungodly.

You might say not all but then you have ungodly in Seth's line and godly in Cain's line.

2. If you say that the flood is due to this text then you have the judgment of God upon the godly line of Seth.

This contradicts II Pet. 2:5 which mentions, "...bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly."

Gen 6:7 also indicates they all were ungodly.

3. If Godly men line intermarries ungodly women and it ends in flood:

You need either several generations for all peoples to become corrupt or you need all godly falling at one time.

Either all go at once or you have possible - several hundred years in this text. (Noah lived 950 years -- 350 after the flood.)

You need hundreds of years to have a whole civilization to decline to total wickedness.

SONS = LINE OF SETH, DAUGHTERS = WOMAN IN GENERAL

THOSE HOLDING THE POSITION:

H. C. Leupold DD in Barnes notes commentary series.

PROBLEMS:

1. If you hold this position you must view all Seth's line as male and godly and all Cain's line as female and ungodly. Really not different that Seth/Cain.

You might say not all but then you'd have ungodly in Seth's line and godly in Cain's line.

2. If you say that the flood is due to this text then you have the judgment of God upon the godly line of Seth.

This contradicts II Pet. 2:5 which mentions, "...bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly."

Gen 6:7 also indicates they all were ungodly.

SONS = GODLY MEN, DAUGHTERS = UNGODLY WOMEN

THOSE HOLDING THE POSITION:

Jews

They feel that the sons were princes, nobles, and people of honor while the daughters were females of low birth.

PROBLEMS:

1. If you hold this position you must view all godly as male and all ungodly as female.

2. If you say that the flood is due to this text then you have the judgment of God upon the godly.

This contradicts II Pet. 2:5 which mentions, "...bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly."

Gen 6:7 also indicates they all were ungodly.

Ancient Mesopotamia - 1st dynasties claimed to be sons of God. Is it possible Daughters of men were godly marrying these ungodly men? (Sargon and later)

Quite possible.

Haven't seen anyone holding to this view yet.

SONS = EXTRATERESTIALS, DAUGHTERS = WOMEN

THOSE HOLDING THE POSITION:

Seventh day Adventists hold that Job 38:4-7 proves there is life on other planets thus they would believe women married extraterrestrial beings.

SONS = CAINITES, DAUGHTERS = SETHITES

THOSE HOLDING THIS VIEW:

Bishop Ellicott

SONS = ISRAELITES

THOSE HOLDING THIS POSITION:

Chriswell

PROBLEMS:

1. Israel hadn't come into existence!

FINAL POSITION TO BE DISCUSSED:

THERE IS NO PROBLEM TO BE FOUND IN THIS TEXT.

THOSE HOLDING THIS POSITION:

HELP! I'M LONELY! WON'T ANYONE JOIN ME?

The problem is a figment of your imagination and desire for the bizarre.

Most assume there is a problem here because someone has told them there is a problem here.

1. SONS = in general males of God's creation making union with daughters of men in the same way that Adam and Eve produced Cain and Abel.

In beginning -- "woman" was derived from "man".

Here is seems - "daughters" would have a similar relationship to "sons".

Luke 3:38, "Adam, who was the son of God" (The term son in this case is italics however it is indicated by the use of the term in the rest of the genealogy.)

2. Try this outline on for a moment.

6:1 is indicating the time of Adam and this text is telling us that daughters began to be born of Adam and Eve's union.

6:2 is speaking of marriages of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve and soon after the son's and daughter's of other unions.

6:3 is a statement of God that He won't always strive with man because he is flesh. This is looking to the day when man would begin to die naturally due to the aging process.

God at this point was dealing on a Spirit/flesh basis and soon due to death He would be dealing on a Spirit/spirit basis.

Indeed, there may be a large gap in time between 2 and 3.

6:4 is later in time and is referring to some of the godly men of the time that were doing great things for God.

6:5 is not connected to verse four in any way other than it is a continuation of the record. It is simply beginning a new phase of what Moses is recording for the Lord. It may be generations later as far as that goes.

This is a time when man followed his true sinful nature to the depths that God had to judge.

3. The possibility of intermarriage between the Seth and Cain line may be there.

The phrases, "they were fair" and "took them wives of all whom they chose" may indicate that there may have been problems that developed into the wickedness that God judged later however there is no hint that any mutants were around.

I don't personally feel that there is any wrong indicated even in the above phrases.

4. We state that we believe in literal interpretation which takes the easy plain meaning of a text as the proper meaning.

How in the world can you read into this text so much and still hold to the literal, plain, and easy meaning of scripture?

5. In reference to Job and his use of sons of god can this position answer the term being used of angels. YES!

The term "son of man" is used over and over in Ezek. for a human prophet while it is used over and over by the Lord Jesus to identify Himself the God of the universe. There can be a dual usage of terms in the Bible.

In Gen 6 it is a term for men while in Job it is a term that Job used to describe angels.

I would say that Job is in the time of the early patriarchs and not as early as Gen 6.

6. In reference to Job and his use of sons of God:

The term sons of god can have a dual usage. Job seems to use it of angels. Gen 6 uses it of men and men only.

Hosea 1:10 says of Isr. "sons of the living God" men. New Testament uses the term of men 6 times.

I suspect that Job is a contemporary of the patriarchs rather than of this generation. The idea of the sons of god in Job 1 being men is interesting, but I'm not sure Job could be dated back that far.

The fact that terms can have a dual usage is seen in the term "son of man.

Son of man is a title that is used repeatedly in the book of Ezek. for Ezekiel himself, yet in the Gospels the term "son of man" is used exclusively by Christ of Himself. We have in Ezek. the term applied to a man and in the Gospels applied to God.

7. Intermarriage has never culminated in such judgment - Solomon, Ezra/Nehem. times, today we have intermarriage between peoples and races and no judgments are forthcoming.

This would be at best an unequally yoked marriage of saved and unsaved.

IT MIGHT BLOW YOUR MIND TO KNOW THAT Davis in his book states that there is not enough evidence to say which position is correct. Again, I might mention that he hasn't heard my position.

8. We have seen that the Seth or Godly idea demands probably hundreds of years so why not give the text literal interpretation and hundreds of years?

If the Seth position can have them so can I!!!!

9. Notice that chapter five returns clear back to Adam for an introduction of the chapter.

It would not be out of line to say that 6:1-4 are introductory to the rest of chapter 6.

You will find that the Old Testament writers introduce things then go back and fill in details. They also take great pains to intro things. Indeed the New Testament writers of the Gospels took great pains to introduce the Messiah. One even goes back to Adam.

10. Notice that Adam is referred to as created by God.

If you go back to 2:22 you will notice that woman is made of man, by God.

This could well explain the thought of the terms. Sons of God referring to the men created by God and daughters of men referring to the fact that woman came from man.

11. The men of renown of verse four are far removed from the total corruption of verse five.

Something drastic had to have happened between the two verses and the only logical explanation to me is that there is a great period of time between the two verses.

Again to have amounts of time between verses is not uncommon in the Old Testament. Indeed some of the prophets talk about the coming of Christ in relation to his birth and manhood, yet in the same verse refer to his return in glory 1900 + years later.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. There is no problem in this text unless you read one into it.

2. Beware commentators that find more than a text gives. They are not uncommon!

3. Yes, I'm comfortable being the one and only that holds to this position!

Paranoid yes, but comfortable.