|
Post by cscreen on Mar 12, 2009 21:42:20 GMT -5
Mike says that he needs more topics for askmikemiller.com. Here's one: Who are the "sons of God" at the start of Genesis 6?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Miller on Mar 13, 2009 16:58:37 GMT -5
Well, as a matter of fact, I responded to that question some time ago in a thread titled "Age Old Questions." My brief answer is as follows: The "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 has for centuries been a topic of debate. Essentially, some say they are angels, since there are a few instances later in Scripture where the same term is used to refer to angels (see Daniel 3:25, for example). However, Jesus is pretty clear that angels are not sexual beings, and they don't marry (see Matthew 22:30). Also, the flood is a judgment against men, and not angels (see Genesis 3, 5-7).
Others, however, believe the "sons of God" are rulers or kings. The problems with that are numerous, however. For example, there is no indication there were kings at that time. In addition, though certain kings were referred to individually as a "son of God," this term never suggests a ruling class--either in Scripture or other literature from that time.
I fall into the camp of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and many other historical and contemporary interpreters, namely seeing the "sons of God" as godly men who were descendants of Seth. These men were marrying women who were ungodly, thus corrupting the godly family. This is a practice condemned by God throughout Scripture. There was also a follow up post: In regards to the first question asked and answered...
Do you take the passage to mean that the Nephilim were the direct descendents of the sons of God and daughters of men or were just on the earth at that time?
And if so, how would godly men marrying ungodly women produce giants?
Also, can we really infer that angels are not sexual beings just because Jesus stated they do not marry?
And finally, what do you think of the idea that the sons of God were humans, but perhaps demon-possessed or at least demonically-empowered? My answer to that: First, I do not take the passage to mean that the Nephilim were necessarily descendants of the sons of God and the daughters of men. The passage simply states that the Nephilim were on the earth at that time--the time that the sons of God and the daughters of men were marrying and having children. The Hebrew construction seems more to say that the mighty men of the last part of 6:4 were the offspring of the ungodly unions.
Second, how do you know they were giants? In Numbers 13, the spies bring back a report of Anakim, who were descendants of Nephilim, who were so large the Israelites seemed like grasshoppers next to them. Of course, this is an exaggeration, but consider that the Nephilim mentioned in Numbers 13 could not possibly be related to the Nephilim in Genesis 6. The latter were wiped out in the flood. So, this group of large people is not the same people we find in Genesis. Now, the King James translates Nephilim as "giants," as does the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament), but this is likely due more to tradition than anything. Simply, there is no indication whatsoever that the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 were giants.
Third, yes I do think we can infer that angels are not sexual beings because of what Jesus said in Matthew 22:30, but that is not the only reason I don't think the sons of God were angels. I don't think Scripture supports that idea, and it is clear that the offspring of the ungodly unions were men--not some kind of hybrid.
Fourth, I don't think anything of the idea that the sons of God were demon-possessed or whatever. Since there is nothing in the text to suggest that, any inference is unsubstantiated.
|
|
|
Post by dannydaniels on Apr 15, 2009 21:55:33 GMT -5
Job 1:6 states, "One day the angles..." The Hebrew word translated for angles also can be translated "sons of God."
In G. Henton Davies' commentary on Genesis he states, "The sons of God are meant members of the heavenly court, angelic, divine, male beings who marry human girls. The wickedness (a major theme in the story, my words) in the story then is that the heavenly beings marry at all...How they did this, whether by assuming male bodies or indwelling human males , is not stated."
|
|
|
Post by Mike Miller on Apr 16, 2009 10:29:33 GMT -5
Actually, of the 7 translations I use in my study, only the NIV translates Job 1:6 as "angels." It is translated "sons of God" (which is the literal rendering Hebrew, but interestingly, the Septuagint reads "angels of God") in the ESV, NASB, NET, CSV, KJV, and NLT. As I said in my previous post, however, the phrase is sometimes used to refer to angels, but as with any word or phrase that can have more than one meaning, context is the determining factor. Based on Jesus' words that angels do not marry, and the fact that the judgment (the flood) was against humans and not angels, and the completely foreign concept of spiritual beings having sex with humans, I stand by my original position. I think Davies is wrong on this point.
I should also point out that when Davies' commentary on Genesis-Exodus was published by Broadman, it caused quite an uproar because of its theologically aberrant teachings. For example, Davies did not believe that God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. At the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1970, the commentary was officially condemned, and Broadman was directed to stop its distribution. Of course, not all of the scholarship of liberal scholars is necessarily bad. They can provide great historical and grammatical insight, but this one commentary is not one I would use.
|
|
|
Post by dannydaniels on Apr 16, 2009 13:31:14 GMT -5
I am aware of Davies' run in with the SBC but I choose not to throw that Broadman publication in the trash even though I believe he is totally off base with the sacrifice of Isaac.
With regard to the "sons of God" question it will never be firmly answered in this life; we will all have to wait until we gather together in eternity when all these seemingly difficult questions will be answered. The most important question we will deal with in this life is "What must I do to be saved?" Hopefully we all are eager to answer that one when the occasion arises.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Miller on Apr 16, 2009 13:47:31 GMT -5
Indeed. Many unanswered questions in Scripture. That's one of the things that makes it so cool.
And believe me, I have lots of books, including commentaries, with which I do not agree--some written by non-Christians. We must be willing to learn from others. And besides, I've probably never agreed with anyone on 100% of the issues.
Thanks for the post.
|
|