Tuesday, April 9, 2024

Who were the Sons of God Mentioned in Genesis 6:2-4?


 

WHO WERE THE SONS OF GOD MENTIONED IN GENESIS 6:2-4?

By Ezekiel Kimosop

"There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown." (Genesis 6:4, NKJV). 

Introduction

We shall begin with a brief outline of the passage context. The preceding passage of Genesis 5 conveys nine generations of the genealogy of Adam beginning with Seth. It concludes with Lamech and Noah, respectively (vv. 28-32). Noah’s three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth are mentioned in the closing section of the passage (v. 32).

In Genesis 6:1-8, the writer of Scripture describes the wickedness of the succeeding generations of Adam’s offspring and God’s judgment of man. Following the multiplication of mankind (v.1), the Bible reports that the sons of God were captivated by the daughters of men and they took wives for themselves among them (v. 2). 

God reduced the lifespan or years of men to a maximum of 120 years (v.3). This is not a prescriptive limit since Psalm 90:10 provides a related statement. 

At this point, the writer offers no further details on who these “sons of God” were. 

God was sorely displeased with the ensuing generation because of their wickedness.  The writer reveals that a strange offspring came from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men. These are described as “mighty men who were of old, men of renown” (v.4, NKJV). The fact that God determined to wipe out the entire human race from the face of the earth at this point suggests that these mighty men were part of  fallen humanity (vv. 5-7). There was one exception though. The writer records that Noah, a ninth generation offspring of Adam, found grace in the eyes of the LORD (v.6). He was part of God's remnant in a wicked society.

The succeeding passage of Genesis 7 narrates the chilling account of the forty days and forty nights of Noah's flood under which the wicked perished. Only Noah and his immediate family escaped the flood because God preserved them (vv. 13-16). The rest of wicked humanity was destroyed in the flood.

Suggested Interpretations

So, who were the sons of God described in Genesis 6:2-4?

This is a difficult question. There are two major interpretations that have been suggested by scholars in response to it. Three other minor views are noteworthy. We shall proceed to examine them below and draw a conclusion.

Sons of Seth

The first interpretation is founded on the view that the sons of God were the sons of Seth who were godly men that fell for the beautiful but wicked earthly women of that evil generation. These men had abandoned the ways of God and wallowed in wickedness. This would imply that the mention of the sons of God was a metaphorical reference to God's covenant people in this context. The sons of Seth were considered a godly lineage compared to the sons of Cain (cf. Genesis 4-5). 

In the Old Testament Scripture, the closest reference to the phrase “sons of God” is where godly people are identified as God’s sons or children (Deuteronomy 14:1; Jeremiah 3:19). There is however no text of Old Testament Scripture that expressly renders the phrase “sons of God” under a general reference to men. Some have argued that since the Canaanites are considered as descendants of Cain, their prohibition of marriage with God’s people could be evidence of the separation of the two societies. 

This interpretation assumes that the writer was distinguishing two people groups separated by religious convictions, of which the sons of God were faithful people. The results of their marriage however appears to weaken the theory because a genetic variation stands out in their offspring, suggesting that the union between the sons of God and the earthly women was extraordinary. Notice also that the women are specifically described as "daughters of men". This suggests that the sons of God were possibly distinct from members of ordinary human societies. If their moral depravity was exclusively contemplated in the description, then the choice of language would have been clearer in the narrative. 

Fallen Angels

The second interpretation holds that the phrase “sons of God” is a reference to fallen angels. This interpretation is consistent with the view held by traditional Judaism and was adopted by sections of the early church based on their treatment of some New Testament Scriptures (cf. 1 Peter 3:19-20; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6). It is further anchored on the view that the phrase “sons of God” is elsewhere used in reference to heavenly hosts (cf. Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7). Some have suggested that Jude 1:6 points to the sexual immorality committed by the fallen angels.[1] Still others consider the “Fallen Angels” view as more plausible given that Peter and Jude mention the fallen angels in their writings.  

Some scholars consider Jesus’ statement in Matthew 22:30 as a refutation against angels marrying human women.[2] This statement appears to muddle the theological standing of the second interpretation at the outset but the passage context indicates that Jesus was refuting the Sadducees’ rejection of the resurrection of believers. Notice Jesus' simile on the resurrected saints: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven" (NKJV). 

It is therefore plausible to suppose that the angelic union with fallen earthly women may have occurred in this context, given the depravity of the pre-flood society.  The fallen angels, including Satan himself, had already been expelled from heaven following their rebellion against God (cf. Genesis 3:1-6; Isaiah 14:12-17; Revelation 12:7-9).  If Satan could possess or occupy creatures, including a serpent (Genesis 3:1-5), nothing perhaps prevents the fallen angels from influencing humanity under their depravity. Notice further that Satan is described elsewhere in Scripture as the old serpent who deceives the whole world and that he was cast out of heaven together with his angels following his open rebellion against God (Revelation 12:7-9). 

It is instructive that the fall of Adam and Eve was orchestrated by Satan himself. This affirms the view that Satan's expulsion from heaven historically preceded the creation account in Genesis 1-2. His influence on the pre-flood generation was unmistakably profound. 

Other Views 

Don Stewart outlines three additional but minor interpretations that have been advanced in response to this question. 

The first view holds that the sons of God may have been ancient rulers as opposed to commoners. This distinction closely ties in with the sons of Seth theory except that it introduces a social class matrix. 

The second view considers the sons of God as humans who were demon possessed with human women. This theory is difficult to reconcile with the text of Genesis 6:2-4. 

The final interpretation construes the phrase as a reference to men and women in general.[3] . The generalization introduced by this interpretation presents a theological contrast to the clear distinctions set out in the Scripture text itself. The three additional views are oversimplified interpretations and do not lay any emphasis on the angelic or heavenly nature of  the strange beings that married human women.

Allen Ross outlines a modern interpretation strand that identifies the sons of God as lesser gods in the heavenly pantheon under Canaanite mythology.[4]. This suggestion closely ties to the fallen angels view but its connection with Canaanite mythology weakens its theological standing in Jewish thought. 

Conclusion

It is important to note that none of these interpretations presents a conclusive answer to the question. These are theological views drawn by scholars that have wrestled with the meaning of the biblical phrase from the study of the passage context and related sources. 

Suffice it however to state that the “sons of God” may refer to a species of strange pre-flood beings whose heritage is difficult to establish from Scripture. Secondly, the phrase may have been employed by the writer of Scripture to distinguished a generation of people who were faithful to God as opposed to the wicked men of their day.  The fact that Noah alone was found righteous could partly justify this theory. However, the strange biological description of the offspring and the textual distinction between the sons of God and daughters of men is difficult to reconcile in this context.

Most scholars agree that the identity of the sons of God in vv. 2-4 renders the text of Genesis 6:1-8 as a difficult passage of Scripture. 

The "Fallen Angels" interpretation appears to stand above the rest. This view is consistent with the Old Testament narratives on angelic beings assuming a human form (cf. Genesis 18-19). Besides, 1 Peter 3:19-20 and 2 Peter 2:4-5 appear to relate the rebellion of the disobedient spirits to the days of Noah, suggesting that their transgressions could be theologically connected to the events described in Genesis 6:1-8. 

The mention of "angels who did not keep their proper domain" [Jude 1:6, NKJV] has also been construed by some as evidence of the moral depravity of the fallen angels. Even though Jude's context relates to moral apostasy, his mention of sexual immorality and the illustration of Sodom and Gomorrah in v. 7 appears to tie with the passage context. This reinforces the standing of the "Fallen Angels" interpretation.

 

© Ezekiel Kimosop 2024.



REFERENCES


at

No comments:

Post a Comment