The 'Sons of God' of Genesis 6:1-4

  • Thread starter Thread starter DylanO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DylanO

Guest
"And after that men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them,* The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose. And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown."
*I’ve heard many say that this refers to the fallen angels and others say it refers to the sons of Seth but, what exactly is the historic Catholic teaching on this passage?
 
"And after that men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them,* The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose. And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown."
*I’ve heard many say that this refers to the fallen angels and others say it refers to the sons of Seth but, what exactly is the historic Catholic teaching on this passage?
D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 1. Daughters. These had borne equal proportion with the males from the beginning; but here they are particularized, because they were the chief instruments in corrupting the descendants of Seth. (Haydock) — Even the sons of these libidinous people were so effeminate, as to deserve to be called women. (Menochius)

Ver. 2. The sons of God. The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called Sons of God, from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men. The unhappy consequence of the former marrying with the latter, ought to be a warning to Christians to be very circumspect in their marriages; and not to suffer themselves to be determined in choice by their carnal passion, to the prejudice of virtue or religion. (Challoner) — See St. Chrysostom, hom. 22, &c. Some copies of the Septuagint having the angels of God, induced some of the ancients to suppose, that these spiritual beings (to whom, by another mistake, they attributed a sort of aerial bodies) had commerce with women, as the pagans derived their heroes from a mortal and a god. But this notion, which is borrowed from the book of Henoch, is quite exploded. (Calmet) — The distinction of the true Church from the synagogue of satan, here established, has been ever since retained, as heretics are still distinguished from Catholics. (Worthington) (St. Augustine)

Ver. 3. His days shall be, &c. The meaning is, that man’s days, which before the flood were usually 900 years, should now be reduced to 120 years. Or rather, that God would allow men this term of 120 years, for their repentance and conversion, before he would send the deluge. (Challoner) — He spoke therefore to Noe in his 480th year. (St. Augustine) — Those who suppose, that he foretold this event 20 years later, think with St. Jerome, that God retrenched 20 years from the time first assigned for penance. The Spirit of the sovereign Judge was fired with contending; or, as others translate it, with remaining quiet as in a scabbard, and bearing with the repeated crimes of men. He resolved to punish them severely in this world, that he might shew mercy to some of them hereafter. (St. Jerome, 9. Heb.) (Calmet) — If we suppose, that God here threatens to reduce the space of man’s life to 120 years, we must say, at least, that he did it by degrees; for many lived several hundred years, even after the deluge. In the days of Moses, indeed, few exceeded that term. But we think the other interpretation is more literal, and that God bore with mankind the full time which he promised. (Worthington)

Ver. 4. Giants. It is likely the generality of men before the flood were of a gigantic stature, in comparison with what men now are. But these here spoken of, are called giants, as being not only tall in stature, but violent and savage in their dispositions, and mere monsters of cruelty and lust. (Challoner) — Yet we need not imagine, that they were such as the poets describe, tearing up mountains, and hurling them against heaven. Being offspring of men, who had lived hitherto with great temperance, but now gave full scope to their passions, and the love of the fair daughters whom they chose, we need not wonder that they should be amazingly strong and violent. Nephilim, rushing on, as Ag. translates. That there have been giants of an unusual size, all historians testify. Og, Goliah, &c. are mentioned in Scripture, and the sons of Enac are represented as much above the common size, as the Hebrews were greater than grasshoppers, Numbers xiii. 34. If we should suppose they were four or five times our size, would that be more wonderful that they should live nine or ten times as long as we do? See St. Augustine, City of God xv. 9, 23; Calmet’s Dissert. &c. Delrio affirms, that in 1572 he saw at Rouen, a native of Piedmont, above nine feet high. (Haydock) — Of old. The corruption of morals had commenced many ages ago, and some of the sons of Seth had given way to their lusts; so that we are not to suppose, that these giants were all born within a hundred years of the flood, as some might suppose from their being mentioned here, after specifying the age of Noe, chap. v. 31. (Haydock)
 
Here’s a link to where this passage is referenced in the works of some of the early Church Fathers, as well as the documents of the Church:

clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/9abszif.htm

Not all the references are direct commentaries on the passage in question (in fact, most of them probably are not), but hopefully it might help a little!
 
The statement (Genesis 6:1) that the “sons of God” married the daughters of men is explained of the fall of the angels, in Enoch, vi-xi, and codices, D, E F, and A of the Septuagint read frequently, for “sons of God”, oi aggeloi tou theou. Unfortunately, codices B and C are defective in Genesis 6, but it is probably that they, too, read oi aggeloi in this passage, for they constantly so render the expression “sons of God”; cf. Job, i, 6; ii, 1; xxxviii, 7; but on the other hand, see Ps., ii, 1; lxxxviii, & (Septuagint). Philo, in commenting on the passage in his treatise “Quod Deus sit immutabilis”, i, follows the Septuagint. For Philo’s doctrine of Angels, cf. “De Vita Mosis”, iii, 2, “De Somniis”, VI: “De Incorrupta Manna”, i; “De Sacrificis”, ii; “De Lege Allegorica”, I, 12; III, 73; and for the view of Genesis 6:1, cf. St. Justin, Apol., ii 5. It should moreover be noted that the Hebrew word nephilim rendered gigantes, in 6:4, may mean “fallen ones”. The Fathers generally refer it to the sons of Seth, the chosen stock. In 1 Samuel 19:9, an evil spirit is said to possess Saul, though this is probably a metaphorical expression; more explicit is 1 Kings 22:19-23, where a spirit is depicted as appearing in the midst of the heavenly army and offering, at the Lord’s invitation, to be a lying spirit in the mouth of Achab’s false prophets. We might, with Scholastics, explain this is malum poenae, which is actually caused by God owing to man’s fault. A truer exegesis would, however, dwell on the purely imaginative tone of the whole episode; it is not so much the mould in which the message is cast as the actual tenor of that message which is meant to occupy our attention.
newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm
 
robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm

See the tables at this link, some of the church fathers say it is line of seth, others say fallen angels. So, both are historical positions. To my knowledge among Jewish scholars they are fallen angels.
The Apocrypha claim the disembodied Nephilim are the origin of demons, and accuse them of many crimes. Jubilees places the blame for the Flood squarely upon the fornication of the Watchers and the iniquity and bloodshed of the Nephilim. “And now the giants who were born from souls and flesh will be called evil spirits upon the earth,” charges I Enoch XV-XVI, “From the day of…the slaughter and destruction of the giant Nephilim, the mighty ones of the earth, the great famous ones, the spirits that have gone out from their souls as from the flesh will destroy without judgment.” Even the mortal women who are their mothers are cursed to become sirens and demonesses. In Jubilees X:1-6, Noah’s sons beg him to protect their children from “unclean demons” who are “leading astray, blinding and killing” them; Noah, petitioning God to “let not wicked spirits rule over [my grandchildren] and destroy them”, adds, “Thou knowest what thy Watchers, the fathers of these spirits, did in my day…” making it clear that the demonic spirits and the Nephilim are considered one and the same. (One wonders if Kainam was one of these grandchildren being “led astray” by a “demonic” Nephilim familiar. Maybe it was helping him interpret the stone…)
bibleprobe.com/nephilim.htm

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=24&letter=F
 
I strongly believe that the “Sons of God” in Gen 6:1-4 were in fact angels who sin and left heaven. I came to this conclusion by the following:
  1. “Sons of God” is use for angels in the OT, while the same phrase means humans who submitted to God’s Will in the NT. There is no reason to believe, after knowing the usual meaning of the word in the OT, that they refer to anything but angels
  2. Two NT text (2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6-7) refer to angels who sin and are locked up in the lower regions of Hell. This cannot refer to Lucifer and the angels that rebel with him since Scriptures tells us that they are currently loose in the world. What was St. Peter and St. Jude talking about? In Jude 6-7, the Greek text supports the angelic view.
  3. The text in Gen 6:1-4 mention the children were Giants. No critical explanation has been forthcoming to explain how regular human beings can create unnatural children.
“There were the giants, those renowned men that were from the beginning, of great stature, expert in war. The Lord chose not them, neither did they find the way of knowledge: therefore did they perish.” (Baruch 3:26-27)

Some Fathers did believe it was in fact angels.

And The Jewish Fathers, when interpreting this expression from Genesis 6:2, invariably interpreted it as “angels.” No less an authority than W.F. Allbright tells us that:

“The Israelites who heard this section (Genesis 6.2) recited unquestionably thought of intercourse between angels and women.” (From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1940), p. 226).

The Church has not issue any dogmatic interpretation on this text, so far as I know, a Catholic is free to choose which interpretation he wants to believe. I find the angelic view the most biblical one.
 
I strongly believe that the “Sons of God” in Gen 6:1-4 were in fact angels who sin and left heaven. I came to this conclusion by the following:
  1. “Sons of God” is use for angels in the OT, while the same phrase means humans who submitted to God’s Will in the NT. There is no reason to believe, after knowing the usual meaning of the word in the OT, that they refer to anything but angels
  2. Two NT text (2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6-7) refer to angels who sin and are locked up in the lower regions of Hell. This cannot refer to Lucifer and the angels that rebel with him since Scriptures tells us that they are currently loose in the world. What was St. Peter and St. Jude talking about? In Jude 6-7, the Greek text supports the angelic view.
  3. The text in Gen 6:1-4 mention the children were Giants. No critical explanation has been forthcoming to explain how regular human beings can create unnatural children.
“There were the giants, those renowned men that were from the beginning, of great stature, expert in war. The Lord chose not them, neither did they find the way of knowledge: therefore did they perish.” (Baruch 3:26-27)

Some Fathers did believe it was in fact angels.

And The Jewish Fathers, when interpreting this expression from Genesis 6:2, invariably interpreted it as “angels.” No less an authority than W.F. Allbright tells us that:

“The Israelites who heard this section (Genesis 6.2) recited unquestionably thought of intercourse between angels and women.” (From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1940), p. 226).

The Church has not issue any dogmatic interpretation on this text, so far as I know, a Catholic is free to choose which interpretation he wants to believe. I find the angelic view the most biblical one.
I agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top