Who are the sons of God?
Genesis 6:1-6 poses a challenging task for every student of the Bible. Whether you’re a professor, pastor, or an average Bible student, the text poses a variety of interpretive hurdles. Whether it’s an exegetical difficulty or a theological conundrum, the definitive meaning of the text cannot be held with dogmatism. However, I believe that an individual can find the most likely meaning of the text, and, as such, three primary viewpoints about this passage will be explored in this article.
Sons of God referring to Angelic beings
The first and most widely held position throughout the history of the church and Jewish rabbinical teaching is that the phrase “sons of God” (Gen 6:2) refers to fallen angelic beings. In establishing this view, there are five lines of reasoning that are typically utilized to promote this interpretation.
Reason #1
Reason number one is the context that the Bible itself provides. What I mean by this is how other phrases or words are used throughout the biblical text. As many have noted, the phrase “sons of God” appears in other texts of the Bible and, as such, can be brought to bear upon the use case in the text we are currently investigating. The phrase “sons of God” appears three times in the book of Job, which is historically considered one of the oldest books in the Bible. When the phrase appears in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7, the context of each use reveals that the only possible meaning for it in Job could be Angelic beings. Thus, the biblical context sheds light upon how Moses, the author of Genesis, may have intended to use the phrase “sons of God” in this passage.
Reason #2
The second line of reasoning used is recognizing how the Bible has been translated, specifically relating to the Septuagint. Jabini notes in his article that the LXX translates the phrase “huioi tou theou (‘sons of God’) or angeloi tou theou (‘angels of God’).” While a translation within itself is not evidence to support a claim, the reality is that when the Hebrew Bible was being translated into Greek, translators were so accustomed to this understanding of the biblical text that they were willing to translate it as “angels of God.”
Reason #3
The third line of reasoning used is a grammatical interpretation of the text. Jabini also notes that the grammatical phraseology in the text indicates that the phrase “bĕnê hāʾĕlōhîm means ‘beings of the class of ʾĕlōhîm.’” Which further supports the fallen angel interpretation of the text.
Reason #4
The fourth line of reasoning used is the literary context. Upon reading the passage, context clues can be gathered to unpack the meaning of the text. One of them is the apparent contrast between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men.” The text implies that these are two entirely different classes based on the contrasting structure of the two phrases. A further examination of the text reveals that the offspring from the two classes' breeding was a unique byproduct. Verse 4 states that the offspring were “might men” and “renown.” Upon examining the passage's context, it makes most sense to conclude that the “sons of God” are fallen angelic beings.
Reason #5
The fifth line of reasoning used is New Testament insight. As Jude writes in his epistle, he notes that there was a time when Angels “did not keep their own domain but abandoned their proper abode” (Jd 4:6). Jude goes on to directly tie their abandonment to the account of Sodom and Gomorrah as he uses the phrase “just as” as a logical conjunction to continue his point of Angels going “after strange flesh” in a sexually immoral and perverted fashion. This New Testament passage can truly synthesize and make sense of the biblical data found in Genesis 6, as it is most probable that Jude held to a “fallen angel interpretation” and, as such, provides a line of biblical support for the “fallen angel” position.
Reason #6
A sixth line of reasoning is not traditional in understanding the text. However, I find it logically compelling, so I include it here. That is, a plethora of myths establishes a “demi-God” kind of human, conceived through a “god” having intercourse with a human. Although this is not a substantial line of reasoning, some bit of weight could be used when understanding the text in question. This point is highlighted when considering how archaeologists have discovered hundreds of flood myths from various cultures, each describing a single family surviving a worldwide flood. Although myths and legends do not “prove” anything, the phenomenon of multiple cultures sharing similar stories provides some ground for reasonable insight.
Assessing Counter-arguments
There are two primary counterarguments against the “fallen angel” interpretation, and they both concern the angelic offspring. The first objection is the claim that angels cannot procreate. A proponent of this counterargument would cite Matthew 22:30, citing that angels do not have a sexual nature and couple that with Genesis 1:20, stating that angels cannot produce offspring with women since the Bible declares that everything produces after its kind. Furthermore, they will observe that “Nephilim” are found in Numbers 13:33 and conclude that if the Nephilim are found “post-flood,” then the Nephilim cannot be angelic offspring since all the angel's offspring were killed in the flood. While these arguments may appeal to some, they remain unconvincing to me and will be touched on later in the paper.
Another point of view: The Sinful Sethite perspective
The second primary viewpoint regarding Genesis 6 suggests that the “sons of God” refer to the offspring resulting from the intermarriage between the lines of Seth and Cain. The primary line of reasoning used to support this view is the context of Genesis 1-5, which can indicate that the two lines in view are the line of Seth and the line of Cain. The problem with this view is that if the text were to be understood with this line of reasoning, then some aspects of the text make no sense. For example, how can we understand a seemingly unique and “mighty offspring?” and who are the Nephilim? This perspective brings certain aspects of the text into obscurity and lacks biblical support.
Another point of view: Demonic Posession Perspective
The third primary viewpoint is that the “sons of God” refer to fallen angels/demons possessing men to interbreed with women. On the surface, this view is compelling because it answers various questions that the “fallen angel” view simply cannot. This perspective can potentially answer why the Nephilim existed after the flood and how angelic beings can procreate. The fundamental issue with this view is that it is patently un-biblical and doesn’t deal with the text of Genesis 6. While there are texts in the New Testament that refer to demons possessing humans (Mk 1:26; 5:4-5; 9:18-20,25; Lk 8:30), there is no biblical basis for them being able to produce a unique kind of offspring. Additionally, the text of Genesis 6:2 states that they “took wives for themselves.” To interpret this as a demon possessing a man and through that man marrying and having intercourse with a woman is quite the stretch and would be beyond the minds of the original audience.
The Best interpretation
The most apparent position when reading the text is the fallen angel interpretation. However, this viewpoint is not exempt from scrutiny, and responding to the counterarguments of this perspective is pertinent. Beginning with the objection of Nephilim being in existence at the time of Numbers. Upon an exploration of Numbers 13:33, it is apparent that the men of Israel likened the men who were large to the Nephilim. Ashley notes, “Connecting the men of great stature with the Nephilim is an exaggeration for rhetorical effect.”
Furthermore, the more difficult objection raised against the fallen angel view pertains to the ability of angels to participate in intercourse and produce offspring from that engagement. Admittedly, there is a difficulty embedded in embracing the fallen angel view. However, in response to the assertions made, citing Matthew 22:30 as a kind of proof text that angels definitively cannot have intercourse lacks basic reasoning. Nothing in that entire text indicates that angels CAN NOT have intercourse, but the text does indicate that they DO NOT have intercourse. This fundamental difference leaves the concept of angels having the ability to participate in intercourse open to possibility.
On the other hand, answering how angels produce offspring remains elusive. No biblical basis, or otherwise, would grant me the ability to answer this question definitively. However, angels at times take the appearance of a man and become indistinguishable (Gen 19:1), and with such an ability, two conclusions may be loosely drawn. One, they either always appear as a man because they are similar to humans, or two, perhaps angels can disguise themselves at will and appear in different forms.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to note that this article doesn’t answer the most significant objection that people have to the fallen angel interpretation of Genesis 6; however, just because the anatomy of angels is not found in the pages of scripture does not mean that we should conclude that any view about fallen angelic beings mating and reproducing is therefore false. Nevertheless, this article has attempted to examine the biblical data and demonstrate which view makes the most sense in light of it. After examining the biblical data, it is clear that the Bible supports the fallen angel view as it is supported contextually, grammatically, and through apparent connections in the New Testament epistle of Jude.
Komentarze