Bishop's Epistle: Sons of God and the Daughters of Men

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. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 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 which were of old, men of renown. —Genesis 6:1-4

Of all the controversial passages in the Bible, Geneses 6:1-4 has to be right up there close to the most controversial of all. Not because it is difficult to understand, but because it is a challenge to accept. The language is clear enough. It’s the possibility of the language that is a challenge to wrap our earthbound minds around.

Applying an inductive approach to this text we would first make observations; second, interpret those observation; and third, apply our interpretation to understanding the meaning of the text.

Observation

The reconnaissance of this text yields some fascinating information.

We are told that men began to multiply over the face of the earth (v1) and females were born to them (v1) . We are further told that these daughters of men were of considerable beauty (v2). We are next introduced to the sons of God (v2) who were attracted to the daughters of men (2). The language seems to be clear enough that the sons of God and the men were of different categories of beings. The sons of God took for themselves wives from among the female descendants of men (v2). The narrative informs that there were “giants” in the earth as a result of the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men (v4). These giants were the mighty men of renown of the ancient times before the flood. From v3 the narrative indicates that Yahweh was not pleased with these unions and was allowing 120 years for repentance. The following verses (vv5-8) informs the reader that God brought the flood upon the earth to correct this wrong which must have been a great iniquity before God.

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. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. —Genesis 6:5-8

Interpretation

Of course the question at the root of this narrative is: Who are the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men”? It is that question that this essay is attempting to answer.

There have been three primary interpretations offered on the passage: 1. The “sons of God” were the godly line of Seth; the “daughters of men” were the females of the ungodly line of Cain. 2. The “sons of God” were powerful human rulers; the “daughters of men” were the daughters of the common people. 3. The “sons of God” were fallen angels; the “daughters of men” were female humans.

In favor of either #1 or #2 and militating against #3 is the argument made from Matthew 22:30 that angels do not marry: “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” However, militating against #1 and #2 and in favor of #3 is the argument that this particular union produced abnormal offspring, i.e. giants; and mating between normal humans, as #1 and #2 suggests, does not produce such abnormalities.

#1. The “sons of God” were the godly line of Seth; the “daughters of men” were the females of the ungodly line of Cain.

While this view is the most popular explanation, it has some very serious things against it. Firstly, the Bible makes no such distinction between the blood line of Seth and blood line of Cain. The idea that the descendants of Seth were all righteous and the descendants of Cain were all unrighteous is simply injected into the discussion and has no warrant in holy Scripture. It would be strange, indeed, to consider only the Cainites as men, and the Sethites as sons of God. Secondly, whom ever these two groups were the union between them displeased God to the extent that He sent the flood upon the earth to wipe out their offspring and the lawlessness they brought into the human race and upon the earth. Nowhere does the LORD forbid marriage between the descendants of Cain and Seth in the antediluvian age. And the marriage between human men and human women would be carrying out the plan and purpose of Yahweh to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28); and would be no cause for God’s proscription. Thirdly, this particular union produced abnormal offspring, i.e. giants; mating between normal humans, as #1 suggests, does not produce such abnormalities.

In my humble opinion, this view has the least going for it of the three.

#2. The “sons of God” were powerful human rulers; the “daughters of men” were the daughters of the common people.

Here, the idea is that the nobility of the human race (kings, governors etc.) were considered gods. While this would have been true in Egypt in the time of Moses and the exodus, there is no reason to project this view back to the time of the flood. Those who hold this view suggest that the “sons of God” where the rulers of the people and the “men” were the common people who were ruled over. By the “sons of God” taking the “daughters of men” is meant that the rulers were creating harems to solidify their rule. In this view the “giants” were men who possessed great power to rule, and were very ungodly in their administrations.

The “sons of God” being the despots of the earth does seem to have merit at first sight. However, the merit of this view melts away under the lights of close examination. First, although this suggested system of ruler and ruled did exist in Egypt at the time of Moses, and he could have borrowed the language from the popular understanding. I say: “he could have;” it is very unlikely that he did. I can say it is unlikely because Moses recorded the event in a matter of fact manner. He did not qualify his statement in any way. He simply wrote, “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.” Moses never referenced Pharaoh as a god or as a son of god. Though this was the belief system of Egypt, it appears nowhere throughout the Torah. It would be more than strange for it to appear here, and only here, without any qualifier whatsoever. Second, The despot view of the “sons of God” requires the “giants,” that were the offspring of the union between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men,” to be only unrighteous rulers. However, the bible student should permit the Bible to interpret itself whenever possible. The Hebrew word, here, translated “giants” is “Nephilim.” This word only appears one other time in holy Scripture (Numbers 13:33). The art and science of Scripture interpretation demands that the Law of Context and Law of Clear Text Interprets the Unclear be applied in this and every other case. In Numbers 13:33 we read, “And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” This is a clear text, with no ambiguity at all: Nephilim is “giants.” Third, with it established that Moses’ Nephilim are actual giants, the despot view of “the sons of God” is discredited, because this particular union produced abnormal offspring, i.e. giants; mating between normal humans, as #2 suggests, does not produce such abnormalities.

#3. The “sons of God” were fallen angels; the “daughters of men” were female humans.

The fallen angels view of the “son of God” is the understanding that the natural reading of the passage presents. All other views, including the two I have already visited, attempt to escape the natural reading of the passage by taking it out of its own language. In my estimation this is a mistake and will result in missing what the Holy Spirit is saying through the narrative.

The language of the text is clear, and the story is told by Moses in a straightforward manner. The Lawgiver writes, “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth… .” There is nothing covert or esoteric about this language. In the previous chapter, leading up to this narrative, Moses has just given a quick run through from Adam to Noah. Now, here, he is introducing the flood and the events leading up to this great calamity. He mentions that men began to multiply and spread over the face of the earth. There is no reason to think that by “men” Moses means anything other that the garden variety Homo sapiens. Now, when men became numerous and daughters were born to them (not that daughters were not born until men became numerous) the “Sons of God” (from now on capitalized in this writing). took notice of them because of their beauty. Apart from the human, then, Moses introduces a different category of being, i.e. the “Sons of God.”

Biblically, the phrase “Sons of God” is applied only to angelic beings in the Old Testament. (We might say that the phrase “Son/s of God” is limited only to beings that are a direct creation of God. Not until the New Testament are humans called “sons of God.” The cognomen is extended to Adam, by Luke (Luke 3:38), because he was directly created by God. But this is not an Old Testament reference. The title "Sons of God" is only applicable to humans [apart from Adam] as they become new creations through the new birth. See, Romans 8:14; Galatians 3:26) To apply the title “Son of God.” as found in the Old Testament, to any but angels is to break biblical context; a text without its context is a pretext. Even W. H. Griffith Thomas, who holds the Cainite/Sethite view, says: “Verse 2 speaks of the two lines by inter marriage. Some writers regard the phrase “sons of God” as referring to the angels, and it is urged that in other passages: e.g. Job 1:6; Ps 29:1; Dan 3:25, and, indeed, aways everywhere ... , the phrase invariably means angels.” Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1946), p65. So, then, one would see how contrived it would be to assert that the “Sons of God” of Genesis 6:1-4 were anything but rebellious angels.

I might start by addressing the only real objection to the “fallen angels” understanding of the Sons of God. That objection would be Matthew 22:30, ““For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” In this text, Jesus has been challenged by those attempting to trap Him in a doctrine quagmire concerning the resurrection. The question posed to him concerned one woman being married to seven men who each died in turn. The question was; Whose wife will she be in the resurrection? Christ points out the foolishness of the question, for in Heaven no one is married but are like the angels. It is assumed by this that Jesus is stating that the angels are sexless. But this is simply not true. Jesus only stated that Angels in Heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage. Jesus said nothing about angels being sexless. In very fact the Scriptures often state that angels take human form. Hebrew 13:2 admonishes believers to be hospitable to strangers, because it could be that they would be entertaining angels and not be aware to it. Moreover, the angels that went to rescue Lot and his family had taken human male form. The men of Sodom wanted to have sexual relations with them (Genesis 19:1ff). The Bible presents this sexual act as a possibility. Lot thought it likely, and offered his daughters to his neighbors instead. So, then, these Sons of God, being of the same category as the fallen angels, taking human form with human body parts could cohabit with human women.

The Talmud, simply put, is a commentary on the Torah. The Talmud is in two main versions: the Babylonian and the Jerusalem. These are not always reliable because the Jews were blinded to the meaning of their own scriptures at many points (2 Corinthians 3:14). In that the New Testament often quotes the Torah and gives commentary on its meaning, we may say with assurance that the New Testament is the Christian Talmud of the Torah. Concerning the narrative of the Sons of God and the Daughters of Men the Christian Scriptures are not silent. In fact both Peter (the chief apostle) and Jude (the half brother of Christ) give us insight into this account from the Torah.

Peter references the Sons of God from Genesis 6:1-4 when he writes, “For … God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2 Peter 2:4-5). Jude, also, echoing the same commentary: “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day” (Jude 1:6).

Here, both Peter and Jude shed light on our narrative from Genesis six. These writers of the New Testament relate how this group of fallen angels are a separate lot from Lucifer and his underlings. A contingent of the one third of the angels that were cast out of heaven with Lucifer, for sure; but separate from the main body of the fallen in the sense that this bunch crossed a line in God’s creative order that brought an abrupt arrest and incarceration. Peter tells us that they are bound in “chains of darkness;” Jude describes their bonds as “everlasting chains under darkness.” Peter even gives the location of their prison as Tartarus (ταρταρώσας), a special compartment of the underworld. We may know that their sin was of a sexual nature, for Jude compares the angels’ transgression with that of Sodom and Gomorrha. Jude writes it this way, “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities” (Jude 1:7-8). Notice Jude’s “Even as… .” This “Even as” conjunction parallels (and identifies) the sin of the Sons of God with the Daughters of Men with/as “fornication” and “going after strange flesh.” Jude, further, sheds light on how spiritual beings, like angels, could assume a physical body and have sex with human women, and produce offspring. He writes that they “kept not their first estate,” or their first form. Further, they left their “own habitation.” In plain language; these wicked angelic beings left their own realm of existence and took on another state of being other than their original state. This group had so transgressed God’s order of creation that they are now in chains in a special prison awaiting the judgement. This group has crossed a line that even Lucifer has not crossed. (In case some think that I have crossed over into never-never land, just look at the perversion of our own day with the LGBTQ community, who are physically altering their bodies and thumbing their noses at God’s order of creation so that they can be physically enabled to perform that which is unnatural with their fellow perverts.)

Peter is clear that these “angels that sinned” actually caused the flood to be brought “upon the world of the ungodly.” This is because the blood line of the human race was in danger of becoming completely corrupted by the Sons of God. Noah was chosen to be brought over the flood, not because he was deserving of salvation when no one else was. No. The Bible states clearly in Genesis that “Noah found grace.” So, then, if Noah was not chosen because he was deserving, then why? The Bible states that Noah was perfect in his generations. Notice the word in the KJV is plural: generations (Genesis 6:9). Genealogy is in view. Throughout Noah’s generations back to Adam he was “perfect” in the sense that he was completely … human. Noah’s blood line had not been corrupted by the Sons of God.

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ

Hello friends, I am a full time biblical researcher. I rely on freewill love offerings (from those of you who benefit from my work) and book sales for my support. Would you please consider leaving a small donation at the link provided here? Thank you for your support. -JLH

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4EXSWA2A47ARC

Ancient Jewish History

The ancient history of the Hebrews reflect all three of the interpretations I have presented. So this debate has been with us from ancient times. There are ancient records, however, of the Nephilim being, some say the descendants of the union between fallen angels and human women, some say the fallen angels themselves. Here I will share some of what Encyclopedia Judaica has to contribute.

NEPHILIM (Heb. נְפִילִים), a race of giants said to have dwelt in pre-Israelite Canaan (Num. 13:33). Genesis 6:1–2 relates that the "sons of gods," i.e., divine or angelic beings, took mortal wives; verse 4 continues, "It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared [lit., were] on earth–when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes [Heb. gibborim] of old, the men of renown." … (so, e.g., Morgenstern, in HUCA 14 (1939), 85ff.). The above translation, however, follows an ancient tradition in equating the Nephilim and the gibborim as offspring of the union of *angels and mortals .In apocryphal writings of the Second Temple period this fragmentary narrative was elaborated and reinterpreted. The angels were then depicted as rebels against God: lured by the charms of women, they "fell" (Heb, nfl. נפל), defiled their heavenly purity, and introduced all manner of sinfulness to earth. Their giant offspring were wicked and violent; the Flood was occasioned by their sinfulness. … Because of their evil nature, God decreed that the Nephilim should massacre one another, although according to another view most of them perished in the Flood. One version asserts that the evil spirits originally issued from the bodies of the slain giants. These giants, or their offspring, are identified as Nephilim (See I En. 6–10, 15–16; Jub. 7:21ff.)…. The Targum renders both gibborim and Nephilim by gibbaraya; the Midrash (Gen. R. 26:7) lists seven names applied to giants. The Babylonian Talmud mentions the names of Shamhazzai, Uzza, and Uzziel, the leaders of the fallen angels in Enoch , … : Yoma 67b alludes to the sins of Uzza and Uzziel; Niddah 61a states that Sihon and Og were descendants of Shamhazzai. In Deuteronomy 3:11 *Og is described as a giant, and this theme was developed to a large degree in aggadic legend. In post-talmudic literature (cf. Rashi, Yoma 67b) the long-suppressed myth came to the surface again. The Palestinian Targum gives the orthodox rendering of Genesis 6:1, but translates verse 4 as: "Shamhazzai and Uzziel fell from heaven and were on earth in those days"–identifying the Nephilim as the fallen angels rather than their children. The same identification is found in a late Midrash, which calls the fallen angels Uzza and Uzziel; … The Zohar (1:58a) also identifies the Nephilim with the fallen angels. … Some variant opinions about the "sons of God" are offered–e.g., that their distinction was not only social, but physical and even moral, and that the offspring were called Nephilim because they "fell short" of their fathers in these respects (Nahmanides, Abrabanel). — Encyclopedia Judaica

Church History
Early church writers such as Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Commodianus believed that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 were fallen angels who engaged in unnatural union with human women, resulting in the begetting of the Nephilim. (J. D. Douglas 2011, Zondervan Illustrated Bible dictionary, p1384)

In the total of the forgoing argumentations I have presented the contextual, grammatical and historical basis for the Sons of God being identified with fallen angelic beings and the Daughters of Men being identified with human women. Having, then, made our observations and having interpreted what we observed, we will now set upon the application.

Application

Why?

I am often amused at the difference in Western and Eastern philosophies. The Eastern mind is usually content to permit hard concepts to lie unexplained in the mist of mystery. The Western mind, not so much. We will dog a concept until we have hounded it through all and every avenue through which it attempts to escape our comprehension. We ask, “Why.” What is more, we expect to find an answer. So, here, in the Sons of God and Daughters of Men narrative of Genesis, I ask, “Why?”

Now, I will acknowledge that there very well may be no “Why?” apart from the sinfulness of rebellious creatures wanting to mar the beauty of Yahweh’s creation. But I cannot help but feel in my knower that some grand scheme motivated the horrendous evil that destroyed a world and almost eradicated the human race. In the absence of a stated reason for the Sons of God taking Daughters of Men for wives, apart from simple old fashion lust—that is, we may do well to consider the projected outcome of the adventure had it succeeded.

The Bible’s story is the narrative of redemption. Mankind, who was made in the likeness and image of God fell from that pristine state. But God, in His unbounded love, did not desert man whom he had make in His own image, but provide a means of salvation. The angelic host have no such hope of reclamation. Once they fall, their fall is complete with no redemption, as far as we know. Make no mistake about it, Satan was present in the Garden when the LORD informed Eve that through her seed one would come who would make all things right again between mankind and God. This must have twisted the dagger that was already in Satan’s heart. Humankind could be redeemed but he and his kind could not. The long and short of the plan was that through the auspices of a blood covenant the lost fellowship with the Almighty would be restored. Now in a blood covenant the parties actually cutting the covenant are the federal heads of the covenant and all who are represented by those federal heads are beneficiaries of the covenant. Yahweh’s promise to Eve materialized on the rock strewn, wind swept hill of Golgotha: where the Son of Eve (the virgin born man) became the federal head of the entire human race. Because the blood of Christ was human blood, only humans are beneficiaries to the covenant. But, and this is a big,”What If”: What if the Sons of God had planned to be included in the blood covenant of Calvary? If they were successful in corrupting the entire human race with their DNA the federal head that cut the covenant in behalf of the race would have provided redemption for them as well—if Yahweh allowed it. But that is allowing for there to have been something good in the Sons of God: I.e. a desire to have renewed fellowship with their Creator. In this scenario they did not intend to destroy the world and mankind, but were attempting to assure a redemption for themselves.

Yet, there is a more sinister possibility. Both Christianity and Islam cast Satan in the role of a jealous entity who positioned himself, from the beginning, as the spoiler of man whom God made. Islam has a story that is certainly not true, yet succeeds in giving a true picture of Satan’s attitude of humanity. In this story God had formed Adam’s body but had not yet breathed life into it. Satan had an occasion to walk by and spit upon it in contempt. This abhorrence of the human race is revealed throughout human history. In the Judaic/Christian tradition Satan takes the form of the Serpent and beguiles Eve, who in turn causes Adam to fall as well. So, then, the Sons of God cohabiting with human women may be no more than that contempt being acted out. The seriousness of this circumstance, however, is that, again, if successful, the plan of Yahweh would have been foiled. This is true in that the federal head of the covenant in man’s behalf had to be perfect human. A corrupted blood line would, most likely, not have been acceptable in the covenant.

The flood, then, in the days of Noah was God protecting the future covenant of redemption.

As I bring this all down to a fine point, the Apostle Paul’s words to the Corinthians sound in the echo chambers of my soul: “For this reason, and because the angels are watching, a woman should wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority” (1 Cor. 11:10, NLT). The order of creation is important to God and he expects the lesson of headship to be a visible one in His church. Paul gives several reasons (in 1 Corinthians chapter eleven) why Christian women must wear head covering in the assembly; however, among the most important reason is “because of the angels” (KJV). It is true that the main purpose of headcovering is to demonstrate headship. Headship was established in the order of creation. Man is the head of woman because man was first created, then woman. Man was created for certain functions, as was woman. The Judaic/Christian Scriptures are clear that Satan has found a weakness in the female psyche that is susceptibly to his wiles of deception. In the Garden the enemy found an opportunity to destroy humankind through the Serpent deceiving Eve. Again the Sons of God easily convinced the Daughters of Men to break God’s order of creation and do that which was unnatural. Today the dark spirit world continues to work to undermine the plan and purpose of the Almighty, and he is using the same door to infiltrate the human family: i.e. woman. The human male is now, as in the time before the flood, being circumvented in order to work an agenda that could only have been designed in hell. (Just this week, as I was writing this essay, I watched a scientist in the media giving a speech on how and why we were going to colonize the planet of Mars. He ended his presentation by saying: “Ask any third grade school girl if is she would like to go to Mars, and she will say yes.” Now the problem with that statement is that it is an unnatural statement. What about the little boys? Males have been the adventurers, the risk takers because of natural inclinations placed into the male psyche. It would have been natural to reference the little boy. But no. Not in our world today. To reference a third grade boy as the explorer and adventurer would have been politically incorrect. Our society devalues the male starting at the earliest possible age.) The enemy (Satan) is prosecuting a war against masculine men in the media and corporate echelons; worldly women are his foot soldiers. The “Me Too” movement is only the tip of the iceberg.

Headcovering held the wall against feminism for almost 2,000 years in Christian countries. Because it taught the God ordained order in the home, church, and government. When the "teacher' (the headcovering) was removed the lesson it taught was forgotten. The result is women run amok. The modern woman sees childbearing as counter productive to their mission of obtaining equality with men. The sex revolution in the 60's of the last century has made the modern woman as sexually aggressive as males, however pregnancy is seen as an unfair consequence to their sexual freedom, so any attempt to stem the pandemic of abortion is cried against as anti woman.

The removal of the headcovering was a watershed moment to this downward spiral into hell.

I have already mentioned the LGBTQ community that is working feverishly to force a way of cohabiting upon our society that is unnatural, and goes against God’s created order. Satan and his fallen cohorts hate humans and are working overtime to depopulate the planet of our kind. This jealousy is no doubt brought on by the knowledge that we, not them, populate the stars and establish the eternal Kingdom of God. Mark it well, there is no other explanation of why society is ready to actually destroy any enterprise, or person, that does not celebrate the abomination of same sex marriage, and of lesbians’ and queers’ right to adopt children, etc.. There is no other explanation of why educated women by the 100s of thousands, even millions, march in the streets of our major cities for the right to kill their own unborn babies. What explanation could there possibly be except: It is a movement to remove humans from the equation, inspired by the spirit world, once again.

Apostolically Speaking

☩☩ Jerry L Hayes

(Mar David Ignatius)

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ