Age old questions

[gparker]

Hey Brother Mike,

I'd like to ask your opinion on some age old questions that have been debated for centuries if I may.

Who do you think were the sons of God" in Genesis 6:2?

Do you think it was Jesus who appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18?

What about Melchizedek?

Who do you think took a really hot sauna with three others?

Are you just waiting till you get there to find out?

Thanks.

[Mike Miller]

Well, please understand that the following answers are brief:

1. 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.

2. I think the three visitors are the Lord and two men (see Genesis 18:22). Now, was this a "Christophany"--a preincarnate appearance of Jesus? Probably, but we're left to speculate.

3. What about him (Melchizedek)? All we know is that he was a priest in Salem (Jerusalem), and he is a shadow of the kind of priest that David was (Psalm 110) and Jesus is (Hebrews 5, 7). All this means is that he foreshadows that kind of priesthood in that he had no certain predecessor or lineage, since he came before Levi. Similarly, the priesthoods of both David and Jesus were instituted directly by God. Melchizedek was a priest of God who was apparently appointed by God. Everything else is pretty much just speculation.

4. I'm guessing you're talking about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego? If so, I think it's another Christophany (see number 2).

These are fun topics to discuss, but yes, I am looking forward to the day when all will be clear. Thanks for posting.

[gparker]

Thanks for your reply. I knew a Preacher once that felt very strongly that Melchizedek was in fact Christ.

Yes, I was referring to the book of Daniel, that would have been so wonderful to witness.

[Mike Miller]

Yeah, I'm aware of the opinion that Melchizedek was Jesus, but I don't think it holds water in light of Hebrews 5 and 7, which seem pretty clearly to differentiate between the two.

[gparker]

Hey Brother Mike,
You might find this same post somewhere else because I forgot to logon but, I couldn't find it.

Anyway, I don't like the term Christophany. I have long thought that it sounds disrespectful making a play on the Saviors name or title. I will tell a small child yes ma'am or sir in hopes they will repeat it. Being raised in the Deep South I was taught to address people formally. This training eludes me when I drive though. Somehow Christmas doesn't bother me but this does. Weird I know.

Hope your day is going great!

[Mike Miller]

Thanks. The day has been hectic, but I just spent about an hour and a half alone with the Lord, so my day is great.

About Christophany. We in theological cirlces also use terms like Christocentric and Christology. No disrespect is intended. They are like the terms theology, theophany, theocentric, and theism when referring to issues related to God. We also use the term "peneumatology" when referring to the Holy Spirit.

[BigWaveDave]

Hey, Bro Mike,

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?

I know that's a lot of questions, so I'll be patient in waiting for those answers.

[gparker]

I am aware of the terms and that no disrespect is intended. I still don't like them.

[Mike Miller]

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.

Thanks for the questions, and thanks for your patience. I know I'm having fun.

[BigWaveDave]

Bro. Mike,

Thanks for your input. I just had a couple of questions come to me after reading your response.

I'm not very familiar with Hebrew, so I was wondering if the term "sons of God" in Genesis is the same term used in the beginning of Job when the "sons of God" gather before God (I read online that it is, but I wanted an opinion I can trust) And if it is, how do you explain that?

I've done some research and read that some believe the Nephilim were not a people group (which is how they can be mentioned before and after the Flood), but that the term was more of a descriptive term, describing the warlike nature of two different tribes. What do you think of that?

[Mike Miller]

Well, I'm sorry, but I just typed a very lengthy response to your query, and I somehow lost it all--twice. I'll respond later. Please be patient. I really do appreciate your questions.