# sons of God and daughters of men



## reformedman (May 30, 2008)

I was talking about this with a friend at work for his bible institute assignment. The assignment is over already but he is not satisfied with any of the three popular views.
That was 2 weeks ago and today I researched here on pb and found this closed thread- http://www.puritanboard.com/f40/genesis-6-1-2-question-19861/

My contention for a few years has been kind after its own kind.
I don't believe celestial angels are our kind.
If they were our kind they would be included in the need of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
But since God allows them in His heavenly presence, I don't believe that they are sinful.
Out of woman(eve), would be the messiah and this was the promise of adam and eve's salvation, not of angels of which pre-existed Adam and eve. Since they pre-existed adam and eve, they are not a part of the fall and are not under that lineage of sin. All this to say that this proves that they are not the same "kind" as human kind. They are a different kind. The bible says kind after its own kind.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 30, 2008)

But an angel has appeared as a serpent, a donkey, a man. How much they are able to mimic kind is speculation. Satan walked right into God's throne room, stood in the Creators presence, filled and stinking with sin.


----------



## reformedman (May 30, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> But an angel has appeared as a serpent, a donkey, a man. How much they are able to mimic kind is speculation. Satan walked right into God's throne room, stood in the Creators presence, filled and stinking with sin.



We don't have proof that a serpent nor donkey have ever procreated with anything outside of their own kind, so that first argument doesn't really work.

As for satan being in God's throne room, I did not know that he was in God's special presence. I will have to take a closer look at Job to see that. I understood that we are *all* in the creators presence but that no one is in his special presence; that which no man can stand to see face to face or they die. That's the particular presence that I thought no sinful being has ever been in front of. But again I could be wrong. But that second point would not(in my opinion) solve the problem of procreation of angelic beings outside of their kind.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 30, 2008)

There is no proof either way that will solve the problems posed by Genesis 6. I favor the plain reading without all the speculation. My 'sentimental' hermeneutic favors the conclusion that these were angels who mated with humans to recreate an unredeemable race of monsters who needed to be wiped out in the flood. I view the Book of Enoch as having some commentary value but quickly recognize that it is not canonical and is mostly fiction. This is a fascinating portion of scripture to argue about but in the end it has little application and no solid ground for dogmatism.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 30, 2008)

In my OT01 class at PTS (not RPTS) it was posited that the "Deuteronomist Historian" was recalling stories of Neanderthals coming down out of Central Europe into Canaan.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 30, 2008)

They were called 'Sons of God' so I'm thinking they must have been Mormon Neanderthals.

This thread was a pretty good discussion of the same passage.



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> In my OT01 class at PTS (not RPTS) it was posited that the "Deuteronomist Historian" was recalling stories of Neanderthals coming down out of Central Europe into Canaan.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 30, 2008)

This is off topic. I've been thanked '666' times. I'm not superstitious but it's distracting me none the less. Could someone please thank me? Just one would do. I'll thank you back.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 30, 2008)

You mean thing!


----------



## BobVigneault (May 30, 2008)

Thank you Ben, thank you James. I got an email from Hal Lindsey who was eying my thank count with a modicum of suspicion.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 30, 2008)

OH OH! HICKS!!!!!! You're not too big to spank! 'GIRLY-MAN BEER' DRINKER!!!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 30, 2008)




----------



## tdowns (May 30, 2008)

*I love the PB....*

Good for a thought, good for a chuckle....


----------



## MOSES (May 30, 2008)

I hold to the position that the Sons of God were the rulers, kings, governors, that were appointed by God. They mis-used their power. In marriage they took any woman they wanted as their wife. 

6 *I said, [to the Governors] “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you*
Psalm 82

Jesus also say's to the pharisees, concerning man/men being called "god" or "sons of god."

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
John 10

Rulers, kings, judges, etc...were throughout the ancient world (pagan or jewish) thought of as "gods" and/or "sons of god."

I believe this is the same thing that is found in Genesis 6


----------



## BobVigneault (May 30, 2008)

Well MOSES, you ought to know. YOU WROTE THE BOOK!

The problem there is the meaning of Bene Elohim within the context. What does Bene Elohim mean in Genesis, then the Pentateuch, then Job? A lot of time and kings and rulers have gone by when we get to David's Psalms and then using the NT to explain OT expressions puts us on shaky ground.


----------



## MOSES (May 30, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> Well MOSES, you ought to know. YOU WROTE THE BOOK!
> 
> The problem there is the meaning of Bene Elohim within the context. What does Bene Elohim mean in Genesis, then the Pentateuch, then Job? A lot of time and kings and rulers have gone by when we get to David's Psalms and then using the NT to explain OT expressions puts us on shaky ground.



I think the concept is true...even if we fail to understand the etymology of the word.

Just a quick look over at pagan literature shows us that kings, rulers, mighty men, etc...were considered either "gods" or "sons of gods".

Note: though looking at the use of the word from Moses to David is important. I do agree.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 30, 2008)

There's an old saying, "Pictures never lie and liars never pic....." no, wait a minute, it goes..... uh, hey here's another. Ask me if I've got a match.


----------



## MOSES (May 30, 2008)

Well...I have been to some of those web-sites that show these pics of "Nephilim" bones. With stories of farmers finding them even in the US...(the reason why is pre-flood, there was only one giant continent...so we can find Nephilim bones in the US or china or anywhere)

The funny thing is, a lot of the same web-sites have picture of UFO's, Big foots, etc...
Actually, they even have a theory that "as it was in the day's of Noah, so it will be before the son of man comes"
They take that saying, and say the Nephilim will return,,,but this time the sons of god, demons, will be aliens, coming down and inpregnating humans..and....it has already begun! That is why there are ufo abductions.

Lot's of crazy stuff out there.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 30, 2008)

I put the pictures up for laughs Shawn. I know exactly what you mean. I'm an imaging specialist, Photoshop is my tool of the trade.


----------



## Wannabee (May 30, 2008)

I've spent a little time on this. Obviously that doesn't make me an authority, it just gives me familiarity. There is much speculation with any view. However, simple (emphasis on "simple"  ) exegesis of the Hebrew cannot give any but the view that "sons of God" refers to angelic beings. Although many other arguments are persuasive and credible, this one seems to me to line up with Scripture best (though it does make people uncomfortable, as does much of Scripture). All the views that I know of are treated here on one level or another.

Here's an interesting article.

And I got this from a friend.


A friend of mine said:


> A tough passage. Here's food for thought from _Hard Sayings of the Bible_:
> 
> Genesis 6:1-4. Who Married the Daughters of Men?
> 
> ...





> “the cosmologically mixed races view” (angels and humans)


Angels in heaven do not marry. 
Marriage isn't necessary for procreation (need we actually be reminded?).
They weren't angels of heaven, they were fallen.
This does not necessarily mean "giants." It could be "mighty ones."
There does seem to be an obvious contrast between the daughters of men and the sons of God. Where else is this terminology used?


> DA Carson - The New Bible Commentary
> In the ancient world, stories were often told of sexual intercourse between the gods and human beings; and the semi-divine offspring of such unions were held to have abnormal energy and other powers. In Mesopotamia and Canaan, divine-human marriage was celebrated in the sacred marriage rites that took place in the temples. These rites were supposed to ensure the fertility of the soil and ordinary marriages. They involved fathers dedicating their unmarried daughters for service in the temple. In practice these girls served as sacred prostitutes giving pleasure to priests and wealthy worshippers.
> Vs 1–2, 4 describe these practices. The sons of God refers to spirit beings (translated ‘angels’ in Jb. 1:6; 2:1, though they are not benevolent either here or in Job). Sometimes in the OT Israel (Deut. 14:1) or kings (2 Sa. 7:14) are called ‘sons of God’, but neither meaning is appropriate here. The daughters of men refers to ordinary human women. The Nephilim are the ancient supermen supposed to be the offspring of these spirit-human unions. Some Nephilim were in Canaan when Israel invaded (Nu. 13:33).
> This practice of sacred prostitution is, according to Genesis, both unnecessary (men were already increasing in number, v 1) and an abomination to God (5). Consequently, the normal span of human life was reduced to 120 years (3) and the Lord announced a plan to wipe out mankind and other living creatures (7).
> ...





> The Wycliffe Bible Commentary
> 6:2. The sons of God (bƒnê ˒Elōhı̂m)... daughters of men. Wickedness was increasing on every hand. Cain’s descendants became exceedingly godless and pagan. A powerful race of giants, called “Nephilim,” came into prominence. The verb nāpal, “to fall,” has been considered the source of the noun, and so these gigantic creatures have been thought of as “fallen ones.” The reference to the bƒneÆ <EloµhéÆm has occasioned marked differences of opinion among scholars. ˒Elōhı̂m is plural in form. It is usually translated “God.” But it can be translated “gods,” as, for instance, when it refers to the gods of the heathen neighbors of Israel. It can, also, denote the heavenly circle of beings in close fellowship with Jehovah, residents of heaven, assigned specific duties as God’s assistants (see Job 1:6). In some cases in Scripture “sons of God” may be identified with “angels” or “messengers.” Jesus is the Son of God in a unique sense. Believers are called “sons of God” because of their relationship to him. In the OT, however, “sons of God” are a special class of beings that make up the heavenly court.
> The reference to the marriages of bƒnê ˒Elōhı̂m to the daughters of men has been dealt with in many ways. To translate it literally would make the passage say that members of the heavenly company selected choice women from the earth and set up marriage relationships with them, literally and actually. This can be the only interpretation of Job 1:6. There, the bƒnê ˒Elōhı̂m were plainly the members of God’s heavenly court. S. R. Driver maintains that this is the only legitimate and correct sense that can be accepted. Jesus’ reply to the Sadducees, in Mt 22:30, seems to make this view untenable. He said that the angels “neither marry nor are given in marriage.” The statement in Gen 6:2 makes it clear that permanent marriage is described. Women were chosen and forced to become parties to the unnatural relationship. Bible students who have rejected this solution have resorted to other explanations. Some have said that a union of Seth’s godly line with Cain’s godless descendants is described. Still others hold that these words refer to marriage between persons of the upper class of society and those of a lower or less worthy class. In the light of the facts and the accurate rendering of the words of the text, we conclude that some men of the heavenly group (angels or messengers) actually took wives of the earthly women. They used superior force to overpower them, to make the conquest complete. The “sons of God” were irresistible (cf. II Pet 2:4; Jude 6).
> Pfeiffer, Charles F. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary : Old Testament, Ge 6:2. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.



The idea that angels cannot procreate is not any less speculative than the idea that they can. It's also interesting that there is no evidence of female angel (besides feel-good shows and Hallmark cards). And the idea of differing species not procreating together can't be supported any more than the idea that a horse and donkey can't procreate. The union produces something unusual and apart from original creation (mules, as a rule, cannot procreate). 

This is the view I prefer -


> A Brief Study of Genesis 6:1-4
> 
> By William D. Barrick, Th.D.
> 
> ...


An interesting thought - some consider the possibility that demons are the result of these relations. This would explain the different aspects of demons. Of course, this also involves speculation. But it does tie up many loose ends.


----------



## MOSES (May 30, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> I put the pictures up for laughs Shawn. I know exactly what you mean. I'm an imaging specialist, Photoshop is my tool of the trade.






I thought you might of been one of those Christians that locked his wife and daughters up to keep them from being seduced by fallen angel/aliens...

feeewww...


----------



## MOSES (May 30, 2008)

*Side Note*



Wannabee said:


> It's also interesting that there is no evidence of female angels (besides feel-good shows and Hallmark cards). .



Just thought I would throw this out for you to consider.

9 Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold, *two women* coming forward! The wind was in their wings. They had wings like the wings of a stork, and they lifted up the basket between earth and heaven.
Zecheriah 5

Looks like female angels lifting up the basket.

Of course this is apocolyptic imagery (not a didactic on female angels)...but angels do have a role in apocolyptic imagery, e.g., John's Revelation.


----------



## Wannabee (May 30, 2008)

MOSES said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> > It's also interesting that there is no evidence of female angels (besides feel-good shows and Hallmark cards). .
> ...



Thanks for pointing that out. I had forgotten that passage. It came up in this discussion before elsewhere. As you noted, the nature of the vision obviously doesn't lend itself to literal beings taking a literal basket with a literal woman in it, so I'm not sure what we could do with it. Let me clarify - Every time Scripture clearly and unmistakably mentions angels they are not female. Better?


----------



## AV1611 (May 30, 2008)

The key to understand who the sons of God were is found in Genesis 4:

*Genesis 4:26 *"And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD."

The key is "call upon the name of the LORD" which is better translated as "then began men to be called by the name of the Lord". So now those who followed God were called the "sons of God" in the same way we are called "Christians".


----------



## pilgrim3970 (May 30, 2008)

This is definitely one of the most enigmatic passages in scripture. 

Another explanation I've read (Handbook on the Pentateuch, Victor Hamilton) is that the "sons of God" referred to the line of Seth and the "daughter's of men" referred to the line of Cain and that this speaks of an inter-marrying between the two.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (May 30, 2008)

pilgrim3970 said:


> Another explanation I've read (Handbook on the Pentateuch, Victor Hamilton) is that the "sons of God" referred to the line of Seth and the "daughter's of men" referred to the line of Cain and that this speaks of an inter-marrying between the two.



 Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best one, in my opinion.


----------



## Wannabee (May 30, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> This is off topic. I've been thanked '666' times. I'm not superstitious but it's distracting me none the less. Could someone please thank me? Just one would do. I'll thank you back.



Off topic -
That's funny. I recently asked for prayer for the house we're trying to buy and it ended up being post number 666 (resisting the urge to mention the unimaginable number of posts that were purged in the great purge wars). I posted again just because it sorta struck me odd. Old habits... Hmmmm, I wonder if we won't get that house now. Maybe it's haunted... possessed... cursed. I already read your thoughts Joshua...


----------



## KMK (May 30, 2008)

I thought this debate was settled with the movie "Starman".


----------



## MW (May 30, 2008)

Luke 3:36-38, "... Noe, which was the son of Lamech, which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, *which was the Son of God*."

1 John 3:12, "Not as Cain, *who was of that wicked one*, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous."


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 31, 2008)

I had to do an exegetical paper on this passage for Prebytery for licensure. It was a doozy! Then I had to preach on it to the Presbytery!!! Yikes! Anyway, out of all the 3 major views (demonic, royal dynasty, or Sethite) I came down on the Sethite view. Frankly, there is nothing else in the context to indicate the royal dynasty or demonic view. 

The demonic view especially doesn't fit at all in the immediate context. The entire focus of the passage for 6 chapters has been "man." Some reference to demons would come out of nowhere contextually. Exegetically, the sons of God are "taking wives" (vs. 2) hence MARRIAGE. Angels do not marry. The language used here is standard marriage language, not the language used for fornication (See also Luke 17:26-27, where Jesus describes their "marrying" not fornicating with demons). Further more, the only way to come to the conclusion that the Nephilim are the offspring is to reword verse 4 from the original Hebrew. It just doesn't fit. The verse is introducing the second problem of Noah's day (the first being the sons of God marrying unbeleivers). The second was that the the world was ruled by "mighty ones" both before and after the sons of God began intermarrying. Further these mighty ones are called "men" not giants. The LXX translates Nephilim as giants, but the same word in Numbers 13 is used to describe large feirce warriors, not some sort of superhuman hybrid. 

Further, if angels were involved, then why weren't they judged? Why was only man judged? The only time an angel interfered (i.e. Gen 3) with man clearly resulted in judgment upon him too. Exegetically it's just not possible. And theologically it's just doesn't fit with the other Scriptural data we have about angels and demons, particularly with the words of Jesus. 

Some of the royal dynasty views are possible grammatically, but there is simply nothing in the context to support it. We find no such mentions of kings or dynasties at all until much later. 

Immediately preceding this chapter we have the two lines of men set forth. One is identified by their association with God through Seth, hence "sons of God." In the immediate context, there is simply no other place to associate the name other than what has immediately happened before.


----------

