series:
|
UN-“HEAVENLY”
MARRIAGES FOR
“THE SONS OF GOD”??
Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6? Are they the condemned angels cast down from Heaven recorded in Revelation 12;9? Were giants their offspring?
Why is it important that we study the matter? Fundamentally, if Truth is important, any error in understanding God’s Word, could affect our understanding of the rest of God’s Truth and His scheme of redemption. For example, Genesis 6 gives the reasons for God’s decision to destroy the Earth with a Flood (2 Peter 3). Plus, a sobering message for choosing a mate for marriage.
GENESIS 6 Genesis 6:1, 2: “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.” Who were these “sons” of God? My study persuades me that they were not angels. It is a diversionary teaching to say that the “sons of God” were the disobedient angels that were cast out of Heaven. The Bible states elsewhere clearly that such angels are reserved in chains of darkness in detention unto future judgment (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6). Their sin was not marrying but was warring against God and it was committed in Heaven (Revelation 12:7). Jesus said, according to Luke 10:18, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” Nothing is said about them marrying humans. This is the text: Genesis 6:4, 5: “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 [giants?] which were of old, men of renown. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Did God actually destroy the earth by a flood because of the sins of angels??? The facts in Genesis 6: (1) giants were before and after the marrying with children being born, followed by (2) an increased wickedness and evil in the earth, which precipitated the great world flood of destruction (1 Peter 3:20). Observe that “the giants” were before and after the marrying. The first “giant” Hebrew word nephil could mean “giants” according to Brown-Driver-Briggs, but Strong’s Dictionary adds it could also mean “a bully or tyrant.” The second description in the text is “mighty men” and is Hebrew gibbo^r, which means “strong, mighty” according to Brown-Driver-Briggs. The indication is that a strong human leadership (?despotic) was directing the flow of behavior rather than God. This has given credence to an interpretation of “sons of God” as also being “tyrants.” But the term “sons of God” is not used anywhere else as tyrants. Some do argue that it is used in the book of Job for angels but apparently this is only in the questionable 1000 year old Mesoretic text.i
WHO THEN WERE THESE “SONS OF GOD” IN GENESIS 6? Chief interpretations: (1) They are fallen angels that are cast to the earth. The consequence of them mating with humans would be the birth of giants. This idea is given in a fictional Book of Enoch, a compiled book, some of which is before or post New Testament times.ii There is even cultist myths of Nod Vampires surviving the flood.iii (2) “The sons of God” were children of Seth, who were “calling upon the name of God” (Genesis 4:26). The sequence of the names of the genealogy that immediately follow in chapter 5 implies prophetic messages of God’s gospel. But their children (of the Seth lineage) intermarries with the descendants of Cain and were influenced to be disobedient, “for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth” (6:12, 13). The reasonable interpretation to me is number 2 since it is consistent with the context which includes the preceding chapters and passages of the two genealogies in Genesis. The chapter division has been made possibly as later as the Middle Ages.iv THE CONTEXT. There are two sets of genealogies for the antediluvians in chapters 4 and 5. First, Genesis 4:17 begins that of Cain. This is followed by that of Seth beginning in Genesis 4:25. Seth’s genealogy is introduced by the statement relative to Enos that men were either calling upon the name of the Lord or they were specifically prophetically named by God. 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.” If they were calling upon the name of the Lord or calling by His name, then they would be the “sons or children of God.” Jesus reacted to those wanting to stone Him for blasphemy (John 10:34), with “Is it not written in your Law, ye are gods.” Jesus referred to the Scripture Psalm 82:6, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” “Children of the most High” is the same Hebrew and Greek of Genesis 6: “sons of God.” Faithful humans are referred to as “sons of God” in both Testaments. EXAMPLE FOR MARRYING. Chapter 6 then immediately and logically follows the genealogies by showing how the world became so sinful. Surely, the “sons of God” would be its preceding Seth’s lineage; i.e., “children of God” would be those that “called upon the name of the Lord” and were unfortunately attracted to what they perceived as “fair” or “good” among the daughters of men (Cain’s lineage). Just like the forbidden fruit of the tree in the garden was “nice”? Why was this bad? The descendants of Cain were not the ones “calling upon the name of the Lord.” Like father, like daughters. The expression reminds us of the strong influence of evil being passed down in human families. The “sons of God” would not at its outset have been disobedient ones. This is a logical interpretation. Human depravity resulting from influence of wayward women caused the flood and not that of heaven’s discarded angels. Jesus described His second coming would be like people were living as they had at the time of the flood. Matthew 24:38, “For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark.” There is no hint of wicked angel marrying. This interpretation is consistent with the following. 1. Angels do not marry. The sons of God married. Jesus teaches in Mark 12:25: “For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.” 2. Angels are spirits only, not “flesh and blood” like humans (Hebrews 1:14). After His resurrection, Jesus asserted in Luke 24:39, “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” The problematic beings of Genesis 6 are “flesh” (6:3). 3. Are angels designed to reproduce? They were not the ones of flesh created by God with ability to multiply in the beginning in Genesis 1:28. Even created flesh are different in functions. 1 Corinthians 15:38-39: “But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.” Even fleshly beasts of different kinds do not mate and continue to reproduce. Even the mule cannot reproduce. Angels, such as Gabriel, have ability to “appear” in bodily form to humans (Luke 1:19, 26) but they are spiritual beings. 4. Angels were never called “sons of God” according to the New Testament. Hebrew 1:5, “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” What about “the sons of God coming before God” in Job? The angels in Job are called “sons of God” only in the more recent 1000 year old Masoretic Hebrew compiled manuscript.v vi The more ancient Greek translation of Job, made by Hebrew scholars in Alexandria, Egypt, before Jesus came to Earth, specifically stipulates the ones reporting to God in Job were “angels”, not “sons of God.” It is concluded therefore that angels were never referred to as sons of God in the original Job Hebrew text. The Hebrew Mesoretic 1000 year old text contains several controversial verses that do not correspond to the extant pre-Jesus versions that is quoted in the New Testament (e.g., Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23, “the virgin birth”) for the Messiahship of Jesus.vii 5. The word “Children” or “sons” is the same in the Hebrew: (bene Yisrael) “children” or “sons” or “people” of Israel (Leviticus 1:2).viii It is also important to remember that unholy, condemned, and Heaven’s cast away angels (of e.g., Revelation 12) would not have been considered as “sons” or “people of God” anyway. In Psalm 29:1 the “mighty” sons are told to worship the Lord. Only judged righteous humans were called “sons of God.” Jesus is the special “Son of God” (John 3:16), and is the special labeled “son of man” of prophecy. His faithful followers are referred to as “sons of” and “children of God.” Or, “people of”: Deuteronomy 32:43, “Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.” With the exception of the recent questionable Mesoretic text only humans are referred to as “sons” or “children of God” by virtue of Jesus’ atonement. Matthew 6:9 “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.” Romans 8:14, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” 6. The sinning angels are specifically declared to have been cast down to Hell’s “prison” and not to substitute human existence. The apostle declares in 2 Peter 2:4, “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.” Down to Tartarus Hell and not to inhabit the earth’s family of men. The “devil” goes about and undoubtedly his angels also (1 Peter 5:8) but they never have cohabited with humans. 7. These “giants” were not the offspring of angels in this passage. Their character was referenced before and after the marriages. Genesis 6:4 (BSB), "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and afterward as well—when the sons of God had relations with the daughters of men." There are giants also after the flood: the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim (Genesis 14:5) probably about 1000 years after Noah; also, among the Amorites giants “as tall as cedars” (Numbers 13:29, 32; Amos 2:9,10). A couple thousand years after the flood, the Rephaim (Deuteronomy 3:11, 13), the Emim and the Zuzim (Deuteronomy 2:10-11, 20-21), Goliath and his brothers (1 Samuel 17). If Noah’s family was the only ones of people saved from the flood, how could giants have only been born of the angels. If giants caused the world to be destroyed by the flood, why did these giants not cause a similar judgment? Such giants were tall and broad but are not the type of giants of the tale of Jack and the Beanstalk fame; e.g., Og’s bed or coffin is physically described (Deuteronomy 3:11)* even as David’s Goliath is (1 Samuel 17:4–7). The story of angelic giants is obviously created by fanciful storytellers. *According to Deuteronomy 3:11, King Og of Bashan had a bed made of iron that was nine cubits long and four cubits wide (approximately 13.5 feet long and 6 feet wide). THE LESSON. Actually an obvious lesson from the passage, if anything, is a warning to Christian men and women (who are also designated as “sons” or “children” of God) to not intermarry with unbelievers. It is an illustration of the warning of 2 Corinthians 6:14, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”
iThe Mesoretic text has over the centuries been collected and edited from unbelieving Jewish synagogues. Texts of genealogies are problematic; Messianic verses quoted arguably from the LXX in the New Testament are different in the Mesoretic text. Remember the LXX is from Jewish scholars a couple centuries before Jesus came. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/errors-in-the-masoretes- iihttps://www.britannica.com/topic/First-Book-of-Enoch. Note:there are Enochs written in the genealogies but these were before the flood and thousands of years before the books of Enoch. iiihttps://whitewolf.fandom.com/wiki/Antediluvian; https://whitewolf.fandom.com/wiki/Noddism ivhttps://ehrmanblog.org/when-did-the-bible-get-chapters-and-verses/ v1. Jesus was to be born of a virgin as the Hellenistic translation says; not just a woman as the Masoretic Hebrew text says; plus other alterations of Messianic prophecies.. 2. Anti-Christ Jewish compilations of Shem genealogy of Genesis 11 do not agree with the ancient rranslations of the Torah; plus the immediate post flood aging of Shem’s original children. vihttps://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/errors-in-the-masoretes-original-hebrew-manuscripts-of-the-bible/ https://sites.google.com/site/errorsinthebible/examining-the-septuagint-and-the-masoretic-text vii The word translated “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 is ’almah, which can simply mean “young woman” depending on context. Yet interestingly, Matthew (following the Greek Septuagint) used the word parthenos, which can only mean “virgin.” https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/jesus-virgin-child-isaiah/ The 1000 year old Hebrew has been collected historically from unbelieving synagogues. Anything to hurt Christianity was obviously altered 2000 years ago. For example the genealogy of Genesis 11 was changed so that the Melchizedec could not be an example for Jesus. viii https://weekly.israelbiblecenter.com/god-sons-children. The King James, Jewish Publication Society, American Standard, and Douay-Rheims versions all say, “ … the children of Israel.” The New American Standard and Young’s Literal have instead “...the sons of Israel.” New Living and English Standard go with “...the people of Israel,” while the New Jewish Publication Society version has “...the Israelite people.” The New International Version and New English Translation read “...the Israelites.“ |
