The Sons of God . . . Men or Monsters?

Hey everyone! I want to address a topic today that some people may be familiar with, but that has been debated among biblical scholars, Bible teachers, and just Christians in general. This topic is about who exactly the sons of God in Genesis 6:1 are. I hit on this a bit in my post about Jesus’s birthday, but it was a very quick mention that didn’t really address this issue in any meaningful way. Before I get into the meat of this issue, I guess we should just look at what the passage says. This comes at the beginning of God’s announcement of the upcoming Flood which will clean the earth of the pervasive evil that has taken root in the hearts of men. Here is what Genesis 6:1-4 say:

“1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 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.”

I will be the first to admit that this passage is cryptic. There is little doubt that these verses are intended to be an explanation of why God brought the Flood on the world, since what follows is God’s choosing of Noah and His announcement that He was about to destroy all life on earth. Whatever this passage means, we need to understand it as a problem that is severe enough to warrant the wiping out of every living thing.

Who are these “sons of God”? Well, as I said this is a debated issue in the Church. There are two prevailing views that have been brought forth to explain this passage. The first (the Sethite view) is that the sons of God are those of the line of Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve. It has been the dominant view since about the 4th century A.D. This view sees the line of Seth as the Godly line of man, those who remained faithful to Yahweh. The daughters of man, then, are the line of Cain, those who had abandoned faith in God. The idea is that these marriages between faithful and unfaithful were seen as an abomination to God.

The second view (the fallen angel view), while not as accepted in the world of academia today, is more . . . supernatural. In this view, the sons of God are seen to be divine beings who came down and had sexual relations with human women. Now, I need to explain here the when I use the word “divine,” I am not saying that these being were divine in the same sense that Yahweh is divine. They are created beings who are lesser than the God of the Bible. No, when I say divine, all I mean is that they are spiritual beings who, at least up until this point, resided in Heaven with Yahweh.

So, which view is correct? Well, let’s first look at the first view and how it is held and explained by a few Bible scholars and commentators. Trevor J. Major, M.Sc., M.A. writes, “Thus, after the generations of Cain and Seth have been outlined in chapters four and five, and 6:2 then speaks of two groups of people, is it not reasonable to conclude that the earlier familial division is being carried on into the later discussion?” His point is that the previous chapters outlined the lines of Cain and Seth, so it would be reasonable to conclude that this passage is carrying this forward.

Ayantunde Olaoluwa Meshach of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria writes in the Pharos Journal of Theology, “. . . when we take the sons of God to be fallen angels, everything looks like falling into place . . . But the interpretation of the sons of God as godly male descendants of Seth is more appropriate because it is due to the sin of men and not of angels.” He sees the rationale for the Sethite view as the idea that the Flood was because of the sin of man, not angels (divine beings).

On a surface reading, this view seems to have some merit. Some argue that angels or divine beings are never mentioned in the narrative up to this point (an idea that I will deal with in a later post); therefore, it is wrong to see them in this passage. Others argue that it would be impossible for spiritual beings to have physical relations with human beings. While I can see where this view comes from, and why some may hold it, I believe that it lacks both the historical and textual support to be the correct view. Let’s move on the second view.

Again, this view states that some members of Yahweh’s divine family rebelled and came down to earth, having sexual relations with human women. Where do we find support for this view? Well, the best place to look is the rest of the Bible.

Let’s start with the book of Job. In Job 1-2 we see a divine council scene in which the Satan comes to challenge Job’s devotion to Yahweh. The operative verses are Job 1:6, 2:1: “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them,” and, “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD.” Now, there is no dispute that these two verses describe divine beings coming before God which are called the sons of God. We also have Job 38:7: “when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” This is describing the divine beings who were with God when He created the world.

Those are the only places in the Old Testament where the phrase “sons of God” is used, and they all refer to divine beings. There is also Psalm 82 where they are referred to as “sons of the Most High.” Interestingly, though, we can also find support for the “fallen angel” view in the New Testament. Two writers, one an Apostle and the other a brother of Jesus, both make reference to this event and take the supernatural view.

2 Peter 2:4-10 reads, “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.”

Peter talks about the “angels when they sinned.” There is really no other reference in the Old Testament that could be about angels (plural) sinning. He goes on to compare their sin to that of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah who wanted to “know” the angels who were visiting Lot. Verse 10 also is a clarifying phrase in which Peter says that this is about “those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.” If we see divine beings or fallen angels in Gen. 6:1, that is exactly what they did. They gave into their lusts and despised the authority of God who made a separation between the spiritual and physical worlds.

The second New Testament author to make mention of this is Jude, the brother of Christ. In his one chapter book, he says in verses 5-7, “Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

Jude mentions the “angels who did not stay within their own positions of authority, but left their proper dwelling.” These angels left their spiritual realm and the authority of God in order to transgress the separation God had put in place. In case we weren’t sure what they did when they left their proper dwelling, v. 7 tells us that they, just like Sodom and Gomorrah, indulged in “sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire.” In other words, they pursued sexual relations with physical, human beings which is unnatural for a divine being to do.

Now, this part is going to be slightly controversial, but I want to bring it up because I believe it gives historical support to this view. In 1 Enoch (commonly called the Book of Enoch), chapters 6-8 tell the same story as Genesis 6:1, but in more detail. I’m not going to quote any of it. If you’re interested, I suggest you find a way to read it. It’s interesting, to say the least.

I need to make a disclaimer here. I know there is a lot of disdain in the conservative Christian community for the Book of Enoch. I am in no way claiming this book is Scripture. Rather, I believe, as others do, that it gives insight into the beliefs of the Jewish people in the 2nd Temple era (the time between the Old and New Testaments). The story told in Enoch points to the fact that the ancient Jews also held to the supernatural/fallen angel view of Genesis 6. Other 2nd Temple texts also refer to this event, such as Jubilees and the Book of the Giants. They are all interesting reads, but they are not Scripture and should not be taken as though they are. They are simply a glimpse into the worldview of the people who read and studied the writings of the Old Testament. It is also important to note that Jude actually quotes the Book of Enoch verses 14-15 of his letter, showing that he was familiar with the book and gave it at least some credit as having valuable information.

With all that being said, I think that the evidence points to the fact that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are rebellious beings who left God’s divine council in order to corrupt humanity and satisfy their own lusts. I feel like we, as Christians, should not be afraid of this view. We believe in a supernatural God and should have a supernatural worldview. This view should not present a problem to us. Not only that, but it seems to be what the people who wrote and read the Bible believed.

There is a lot more that can be said of this, but for now, I think this will do. I hope you got something out of this and enjoyed it. More than that though, I hope you draw close to God today, that you strive to live and look like Jesus, that you make every effort to love and minister to those around you, and that, if you don’t know Jesus, that you look into the claims of Christianity and get to know Him. That is the best I could hope for anyone, because it is the only way to find true joy and fulfillment in this life. I love you all. I hope you have a great next few days, and I will write more shortly.

Is it OK to Read the Book of Enoch?

I have a confession. This post isn’t really about the Book of Enoch . . . OK maybe a little bit. I just said that to get your attention though.

Before I move forward in my planned topics (yes, I have a plan), I wanted to address something that some people may have take issue with. I think that twice now in other posts I have mentioned the Book of Enoch. Now, I know that there is a LOT of controversy surrounding this book among Christians. Some people believe that it is one of the “forbidden books,” kept out of the Bible by the “evil” Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicea. Others think that it is, in and of itself, an evil forgery and no Christian should come within 30 miles of it for fear it will corrupt them.

OK, that one might be a bit hyperbolic, but you get the point. The views range from “It should be in the Bible” to “No Christian should ever read it.” I would submit that the truth is somewhere in between. No, I don’t think it should be in the Bible, although that view was held by several early Church fathers. I also don’t see any reason to avoid it as long as you keep it in proper perspective. I even believe it can be helpful to biblical study. Just to reinforce my heretical nature (I’m kidding), I also believe that ancient documents such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, Enuma Elish (the Babylonian creation myth), the other books of the Apocrypha and Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (such as the 1-4 Maccabees, the Book of Jubilees, the Psalms of Solomon, 4 Ezra or Esdras, Baruch, Sirach, and more).

I’m sure most of you are now shaking your head and asking why I would think that I need these books from outside the Bible. Isn’t our God-give Scripture enough? Didn’t God say all He needed too? It’s not like he forgot to include something, right? That’s right! I don’t believe that the Scripture is insufficient or lacking anything. I think God said all He wanted to. I think that the Bible is exactly how God intended it to be. Finally, I believe that if you were a person living at the time that these 66 books were written, you would understand exactly what the author was trying to say . . . but we aren’t . . . and we often don’t. I saw a meme today that said, “200 years from now, people won’t know the difference between a butt dial and a booty call . . . and that’s why the Bible is hard to understand.” It’s funny, but it makes my point perfectly!

What would you say if I told you that the first two chapters of Genesis bear striking similarities with the Egyptian and Babylonian creation narratives? What if I told you that the Temple had several of the same elements as Canaanite temples (with a little Egyptian thrown in there)? Why wasn’t Abraham surprised or shocked when God asked him to sacrifice Isaac? What does it mean that the cherubim surrounding God’s throne in Ezekiel 1 have the faces of a lion, an eagle, a human, and an ox? What are the Behemoth and the Leviathan in Job 40 and 41? Does the Bible teach the earth is flat, and, if so, what does that mean for us?

All of these questions have to do with the culture and worldview of the people of the ancient Near East. You see, God didn’t come along and just change everything the Israelites knew and believed. Instead He revealed Himself in ways they would already understand. The worship of Yahweh wasn’t some new way of worshiping that these people had never heard of. Yes, there were new meanings to many of the rituals. For example, the Canaanites sacrificed at their temples hoping to receive blessing from their gods. Yahweh, rather, told the Israelites that their sacrifices where meant to purify the sacred space of the tabernacle/temple in order for God to dwell with His people. His presence was the blessing! The fact that there were sacrifices didn’t change. That’s what the people understood. However, Yahweh introduced new meaning to the practice of temple sacrifice.

The same types of things can be seen in the New Testament. Why did people think that demon exorcism as a sign of the Messiah. Why does Jesus say, “On this rock, I will build my church?” Why does John call God (and Jesus) “the one who is and who was and who is to come”? Again, information that helps to clarify the answers to these can be found in writings outside the Bible, especially in what is called 2nd Temple (or Intertestamental) Literature that was written between the 4th century B.C. and the 2nd century A.D. or in Greek and Roman myths of the time.

When studying the Bible, it is important to understand the historical and cultural background of what you’re reading. Any Bible teacher, pastor or professor or otherwise, will agree with this. To a certain extent, I think we all try to do this. We acknowledge that things were different back then. We recognize the governmental, religious, or linguistic differences. What I think we sometimes fail to do is to understand the actual worldview of the authors of Scripture. We forget that they lived in a pre-scientific world, that they didn’t have the same questions or concerns that we do today, or they didn’t “do” history in the same way we do today. Things like this, and more, can really stunt our comprehension of much of the Bible.

I am in no way saying that we have to believe that these other writings are true, or that they are on the same level as what is taught in the Bible. What I am saying is that if you want to understand the worldview of an ancient Israelite coming out of 400 years of Egyptian slavery, it might be helpful to understand what kind of spiritual and cultural teaching they would have been exposed to in Egypt. If you want to understand the laws that God gave to a group of people about to be surrounded by the pagan practices of the Canaanite tribes, you might want to understand those practices as well.

The last thing I want to address here is this: Do I need this to understand the basic message of the Bible? Absolutely not! The Gospel comes through loud and clear without immersing yourself in the study of ancient Near Eastern and 2nd Temple worldviews. However, I will say this: incorporating this into my study has deepened by appreciation for the Bible and the truth that it contains. It has also clarified so much of what I didn’t understand.

Well, that’s really about all I have to say about this topic right now, but if you are interested in learning more about this scope of study, there are several resources that can help. I have some of them listed on the “Helpful Resources for Study” menu, but here are just a couple that I would suggest: Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament and The Lost World of . . . series. Both of these are by Dr. John Walton, and should be very helpful in understanding the worldview of the Old Testament authors. For the New Testament, I would suggest a commentary called Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament by G.K. Beale. He typically incorporates some 2nd Temple sources as well.

I hope this was interesting, eye-opening, or at least killed some time for you. I find this stuff fascinating, but I’m a nerd. I’m going to get back to some more theology topics in the next couple days, but I felt like it was important to address this. So . . . until next time, I love you all (and I really mean that), and I hope you continue to grow in your faith and knowledge of Jesus!