Posted on 08/06/2015 5:58:59 AM PDT by Gamecock
In the twentieth century, the German biblical scholar Rudolf Bultmann gave a massive critique of the Scriptures, arguing that the Bible is filled with mythological references that must be removed if it is to have any significant application to our day. Bultmann’s major concern was with the New Testament narratives, particularly those that included records of miracles, which he deemed impossible. Other scholars, however, have claimed that there are mythological elements in the Old Testament as well. Exhibit A for this argument is usually a narrative that some believe parallels the ancient Greek and Roman myths about gods and goddesses occasionally mating with human beings.
In Genesis 6, we read this account: “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose… . The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown” (vv. 1–4).
This narrative is basically a preface to the account of the flood God sent to eradicate all people from the earth, except for the family of Noah. Of course, the flood narrative itself is often regarded as mythological, but this preparatory section, where we read of the intermarriage of “the sons of God” and “the daughters of man,” is seen as blatant myth.
The assumption in this interpretation of Genesis 6 is that “the sons of God” refers to angelic beings. Why do some biblical interpreters make this assumption? The simple answer is that the Scriptures sometimes refer to angels as sons of God, and it is assumed that the reference in Genesis 6 means the same. This is certainly a possible inference that could be drawn, but is it a necessary inference? I would answer no; I do not believe this text necessarily teaches the idea of sexual relations between angels and human beings.
To understand this difficult passage, we have to look at the broader application of the phrase “sons of God.” Pre-eminently, it is used for Jesus Himself; He is the Son of God. As noted, it is sometimes used to refer to angels (Job 1:6; 21:1; Ps. 29:1). Also, it is sometimes used to speak of followers of Christ (Matt. 5:9; Rom. 8:14; Gal. 3:26). So, the concept of divine sonship in the Scriptures is not always linked to a biological or ontological relationship (relationship of being). Rather, it is chiefly used to set forth a relationship of obedience. This means Genesis 6 could simply be speaking about the intermarriage of those who manifested a pattern of obedience to God in their lives and those who were pagans in their orientation. In other words, this text likely describes marriages between believers and unbelievers.
The immediate context of Genesis 6 supports this conclusion. Following the narrative of the fall in Genesis 3, the Bible traces the lines of two families, the descendents of Cain and of Seth. Cain’s line is recounted in Genesis 4, and this line displays proliferating wickedness, capped by Lamech, who was the first polygamist (v. 19) and who rejoiced in murderous, vengeful use of the sword (vv. 23–24). By contrast, the line of Seth, which is traced in Genesis 5, displays righteousness. This line includes Enoch, who “walked with God, and … was not, for God took him” (v. 24). In the line of Seth was born Noah, who was “a righteous man, blameless in his generation” (6:9). Thus, we see two lines, one obeying God and the other willfully disobeying Him.
Therefore, many Hebrew scholars believe that Genesis 6 is describing not the intermarriage of angels and human women but the intermarriage of the descendents of Cain and Seth. The two lines, one godly and one wicked, come together, and suddenly everyone is caught up in the pursuit of evil, such that “every intention of the thoughts of [man’s] heart was only evil continually” (v. 5). We do not need to surmise an invasion of the earth by angels in order to make sense of this chapter.
Resolving the interpretive difficulties of Genesis 6 reminds us to be very careful about drawing inferences from Scripture that are not necessarily warranted. The descriptive terms “sons of God” and “daughters of man” do not give us license to make the assumption of interaction between heavenly beings and earthly beings. We have to be very careful when we look at a difficult text like this to see how the language is used in the broader context of Scripture. It is a very important principle that Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture.
This morning we have something just a little different.
Blessing to all!
Good post. I hate it that those passages are twisted that way.
That’s a good summation by R.C. I’ve long thought that the scripture in question referred to a liaison between believers and daughters of pagans. I wish he had said more about the Nephilim.
Matthew 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
This is about as close as it can come to saying angels do not marry so I would say the sons of God are not angels.
It could be referring to Seth and Cain although I see no reason it would produce giants.
I have not changed my mind, I still believe God created man
on the sixth day which was not literal but a time period.
And created Adam at a later date, who`s descendants were called the sons of God.
And it is obvious in order to believe this I can not believe in the young earth theory which I would not be inclined to believe in anyway.
I like R.C., and he’s generally right-on in most things, but here he’s stretching things a bit too far.
Clearly the term “Sons of God” is meant to describe beings different from man, and no where else in the O.T. is the term used for believers.
I’m not sure that it refers to angelic beings either, but R.C.’s exegesis is very weak here and a “bridge too far.”
When scripture is not clear in what it is saying, we simply have to accept it, and accept not understanding its meaning. One day we will see clearly. Too arrive at a conclusion as R.C. does here, we need far more scripture to support the position.
The implicit contrast between “Sons of God” and “daughters of men” in the one phrase by itself strongly suggests beings that are very different in nature and make-up.
In my Old Testament course in college I was taught the line of Seth view of “Sons of God” in Genesis 6 and, as far as I can remember, no pastor or teacher ever contradicted that so I never gave it any more thought. A few years back I ran across a debate on the subject somewhere online, perhaps here at Free Republic. That was the first time I was made aware of anything other than the line of Seth view. The text seemed so cut and dried that, frankly, I thought the fallen angel folks were nutters, so I dismissed the entire topic.
While I vacation last year I stumbled into a sermon series on the topic by Pastor Bob Vincent, a Presbyterian I often listen to via Sermonaudio.com. I presumed Bob would affirm my view, but he did not. What he did was open my eyes to the fallen angel view.
Bob’s series didn’t convince me, but he persuaded me to study it a lot more, which I have done. Since that trip in early 2014 I’ve read the Bible, studied commentaries, studied Jewish and Christian history, listened to sermons, read the Book of Enoch (ancient pseudepigraphal text), and I’ve gone over the issue with my own pastor in his office. I discussed it with mature Christian friends, mostly Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists. I discussed it with a reformed seminary professor who teaches Old Testament. I listened to a number of talks by ancient language expert Dr. Michael Heiser and I’ve read his articles on the topic. The truth is this topic got under my skin and I gave it more time than it probably deserves. This topic almost inevitably leads to other ideas, other ideas that made me very uncomfortable.
I believe great humility is in order here. Genesis 6 Sons of God is a topic which just should not be treated with the dogmatism I have seen by people in every camp. Some of the louder voices in the fallen angel camp connect dots without sufficient support. They seem to always run with the most fabulous interpretation. Maybe they are correct, but their methodology often undermines their position. Most Christians accustomed to careful exegesis are bound to dismiss their arguments. Had I not started with Bob Vincent, a man I know to be careful with the Word, I would have never listened to what these men have to say.
And in the other camps (line of Seth view or powerful human rulers view), I have encountered a lot of closed minds and incredible dogmatism. Some preach entire sermons on the topic and skip over major texts that might serve to undermine their view. They dismiss opposing arguments with simplistic responses.
All that being said, over time I have become persuaded by the arguments for the fallen angel view, albeit begrudgingly. I am still wary of many of the fantastic claims and connections some out there are making.
For anyone interested, below is a link to Part 1 of Bob Vincent’s Sons of God series.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=8305222842
“sons of God” are human beings, not angels. “sons of God” are those who are faithful to God. “daughters of men” are the female offspring of the unbelieving.
“He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:11-13)
“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?” (Hebrews 1:5)
To translated “sons of God” is a mistake. The bible never refers to angels as “sons of God.” This is an interpretation the basis of which is Jewish tradition. The septuagint makes this mistake when it translates sons [bara] as angels [angeloi].
This Genesis 6 unequal yoking leads to disaster. In the NT we are similarly warned against such yoking.
I’ve wondered about this Scripture, if it is related:
“I said, “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, like men you shall die,
and fall like any prince.”—Proverbs 82
Article states what I think is the point needed to be taken from the scripture...
....Genesis 6 could simply be speaking ‘about the intermarriage of those who manifested a pattern of obedience to God in their lives and those who were pagans in their orientation.’... In other words, this text likely describes marriages between believers and unbelievers.
Genesis records many of the “firsts” which followed throughout history. This then being the “first” intermarriage between believers and unbelievers.
Wow, so far the part 1 is well arranged! Thanks for the link.
This is just funny. Along with a long list of other commentators who poke at Biblical miracles and acts of God as "violating the laws of nature".
Miracles, by definition, are God's suspending the laws of nature in order to accomplish some purpose. If God didn't have the ability the suspend or alter natural laws, then He would not be God.
If you need to remove miracles from the Bible, then you might as well toss the whole thing. Without God, what would be the point of the Bible?
Just finished part 3. Very informative series, especially on Angels, and of course on fallen angels, aka demons. It is interesting to weigh what the pastor teaches with/ in contrast to the L.A. Marzulli assertions on the Nephilim.
"Nephilim" does not necessarily refer to giants. According to Wikipedia (I know, it's not an authoritative source):
The Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon gives the meaning of Nephilim as "giants".[1] Many suggested interpretations are based on the assumption that the word is a derivative of Hebrew verbal root n-ph-l "fall". Robert Baker Girdlestone [2] argued the word comes from the Hiphil causative stem, implying that the Nephilim are to be perceived as "those that cause others to fall down". Adam Clarke took it as a perfect participle, "fallen", "apostates". Ronald Hendel states that it is a passive form "ones who have fallen", equivalent grammatically to paqid "one who is appointed" (i.e., overseer), asir, "one who is bound", (i.e., prisoner) etc.[3][4] According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, the basic etymology of the word Nephilim is "dub[ious]", and various suggested interpretations are "all very precarious".[5]
The majority of ancient biblical versions, including the Septuagint, Theodotion, Latin Vulgate, Samaritan Targum, Targum Onkelos and Targum Neofiti, interpret the word to mean "giants".[6] Symmachus translates it as "the violent ones"[7][8][9] and Aquila's translation has been interpreted to mean either "the fallen ones"[7] or "the ones falling [upon their enemies]".[9][10]
So, instead of giants, the nephilim could merely be "fallen ones", "violent ones", etc, rather than "giants" I do not think there is a definitive answer to this. I think some of the confusion comes from translations that are a tad too definite in their choice of words, using "there were giants in those days" as the KJV does, rather than the vague word Nephilim. I still think R.C.'s explanation makes sense, and it is what I believe; but there is not a lot to go on in the small passage we have to work with.
I’m glad you got something out of it. I’ve listened to L.A. and I like him. I’ve seen most of his “watchers” series and he deals with some fascinating stuff. I’m not sure what I think about all of it, but I’m no longer dismissive.
Yes, as it mentions Seth and Cain and their respective lineage.
Correct. IIRC, Adam was referred to a a ‘son of God’ - one would have to suppose he wasn’t human either (I’ll avoid the Mormon thingy turning him into a ‘christ’ at Adam-Ondi-Ahman).
but there is not a lot to go on in the small passage we have to work with
Perhaps there is more in the scriptures that we just have not awakened to. Have you ever seen a pre-trib Rapture believers mention Luke 21:36 as a foreshadowing of the Rapture and Bema Seat? Neither have I, but if you read it thinking of those events it jumps out at you! Jesus not only introduced the Rapture notion in the Upper Room Discourse, He gave a huge hint of it in the Temple Discourse right before the Olivet Discourse!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.