Who are these "sons of God"? Why are they called "sons of God"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter iaskquestions
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

iaskquestions

Guest
Genesis 6:1-4

"When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, **the sons of God **saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. Then the LORD said, “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when **the sons of God **came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. "

**Who are these **“sons of God”? **Why are they called **“sons of God”?
 
Here is a good explanation:
There have been several suggestions as to who the sons of God were, and why the children they had with daughters of men grew into a race of giants (that is what the word Nephilim seems to indicate).
The three primary views on the identity of the “sons of God” are that (1) they were fallen angels, (2) they were powerful human rulers, or (3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain. Giving weight to (1) is the fact that in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). A potential problem with (1) is the fact that Matthew 22:30 indicates that angels do not marry. The Bible gives us no reason to believe that angels have a gender or are able to reproduce. Views (2) and (3) do not have this problem.
The weakness of views (2) and (3) is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary human females does not account for why the offspring were “giants” or “heroes of old, men of renown.” Further, why would God decide to bring the Flood on the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) when God had never forbidden powerful human males or descendants of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendants of Cain. The oncoming judgment of Genesis 6:5-7 is linked to what took place in Genesis 6:1-4. Only the obscene, perverse marriage of fallen angels with human females would seem to justify such a harsh judgment.
The weakness of view (1) is that Matthew 22:30 declares, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” However, this weakness can be overcome by noting that the text does not say “angels are not able to marry.” Rather, it indicates only that angels do not marry. Secondly, Matthew 22:30 is referring to the “angels in heaven.” It is not referring to fallen angels, who do not care about God’s created order and actively seek ways to disrupt God’s plan. The fact that God’s holy angels do not marry or engage in sexual relations does not mean the same is true of Satan and his demons.
View (1) is the most likely position. Yes, it is an interesting “contradiction” to say that angels are sexless and then to say that the “sons of God” were fallen angels who procreated with human females. However, while angels are spiritual beings (Hebrews 1:14), they can appear in human, physical form (Mark 16:5). The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to have sex with the two angels who were with Lot (Genesis 19:1-5). It is plausible that angels are capable of taking on human form, even to the point of replicating human sexuality – and possibly even reproduction. Why do the fallen angels not do this more often? It seems that God imprisoned the fallen angels who committed this evil sin, so that the other fallen angels would not do the same (as described in Jude 6). Earlier Hebrew interpreters and apocryphal and pseudopigriphal writings are unanimous in holding to the view that fallen angels are the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4. This by no means closes the debate. However, the view that Genesis 6:1-4 involves fallen angels mating with human females has a strong contextual, grammatical, and historical basis.
 
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)
 
Genesis 6:1-4

"When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, **the sons of God **saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. Then the LORD said, “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when **the sons of God **came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. "

**Who are these **“sons of God”? **Why are they called **“sons of God”?
An alternative view is that these are the Watchers spoken of in the Book of Enoch. They were beings who were supposed to watch out for human beings but ended up rebelling against God by mating with human women and teaching them sorcery and a whole host of other secret things. The offspring from the Watchers and human women were giants - monsters really.

Look up the Book of Enoch and see. It’s not accepted canon, but I found it very enlightening.

Peace…

MW
 
Can anyone tell me the Catholic teaching about this? Padraig says the sons of God refer to fallen angels whereas thistle says they refer to the sons of Seth. Who is right?
 
Genesis 6:1-4

"When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, **the sons of God **saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. Then the LORD said, “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when **the sons of God **came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. "

**Who are these **“sons of God”? **Why are they called **“sons of God”?
I would say “sons of God” refers to Adam’s lineage through Seth (after blessed Abel was murdered and only Cain remained). One important thing to consider is Genesis 5, the chapter right before Gen 6 :). There it gives a lineage of Seth to Noah and these men could very logically be the “sons of God”. Also, end of Ch 4 gives the lineage of Cain.

One interesting fact I just noticed is that ch 5 mentions how these men lived hundreds of years, yet ch 6:3 makes the claim to reduce men’s lifespans to 100, thus another proof sons of God refers to the men of Gen 5.

Another very interesting clue I came across a while ago for why I say Seth is in Luke 3:23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,


the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.
Doing a word search just this moment I found “sons of God” can refer to Christians: Jn 1:12; Rom 9:26. However Im not sure if thes and other places are actually in greek “sons of God” or “children of God”.

The theory of fallen angels doesnt seem to fit the evidence, in my opinion. That would require the idea that angels (pure spirits) could have relations with women, which would be impossible and could not produce humans. True the “Nephilim” (Giants) are mentioned in Ch 6, but nothing about devils and women having relations logically results in “giants”. The term “Nephilim” (Giants) appears in Numbers and it reference to a human race of giants with no hint of fallen angels involved.

Further, Gen 6 makes it clear the whole world went corrupt at that point, except Noah, and that would include Noah’s relatives. Thus this further fits the claim that the “sons of God” who are the lineage of Seth turned to wicked lifestyles themselves, where as before it was pretty much Cain’s lineage.
 
Can anyone tell me the Catholic teaching about this? Padraig says the sons of God refer to fallen angels whereas thistle says they refer to the sons of Seth. Who is right?
To my knowledge there is no “official Catholic” interpretation of this passage, but traditionally it has been seen as the lineage of Seth.

As you can see in my post above, there is pretty strong evidence for the lineage of Seth view, and not so strong evidence for the fallen angels view.
 
Another thing to consider is that the two theories are not totally contradictory. Lucifer is referred to as the king of Tyre elsewhere. It is possible that the fallen angels had so influenced a group of people, (the descendants of Cain?) so as to completely pervert them. How can a demon mate? By possession, for one.
 
Genesis 6:1-4

"When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, **the sons of God **saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. Then the LORD said, “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when **the sons of God **came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. "

**Who are these **“sons of God”? **Why are they called **“sons of God”?
When you examine Genesis, you need to keep two things in mind. One, it is mythology. Two, like most of the Pentatuech or Torah, it is comprised of two or more distinct schools of thought. In Genesis, the Yahwist, Priestly and Elohist sources are blended together. In the story of the flood, it is the Yahwist and Priestly accounts in play. There are also differing accounts of the flood among the many ancient mythologies. The one that is the closest in similiarity to the Hebrew is the story of Gilgamesh of the ancient Babylonians.

Another important thought to keep in mind is that mythologies are not tall tales and legends. They present truth, although not nec. historical truth. The particulars of history were not important to the mythologist. The relationship between the divine and mortal was. The essential difference between the Hebrew and the pagan mythologies was that in the pagan, mankind is seen as folly and afterthought. The gods gave little thought or consideration to their creations. Mankind was left on its own so long as they did not upset the gods. In the Hebrew outlook, the relationship between God and man was one of a loving parent to His child, even though this (mankind) was a disruptive and disobedient child. Genesis shows God as having breathed life into creation out of His love. He in turn entrusted this creation to His most precious creation, Man. From the start, Man dissappointed and turned his back on His creator repeatedly save for perhaps only Enoch and Noah. Enoch found favor from God and was the first to be assumed body, soul and spirit into Heaven. Noah too found favor from God and was spared from the flood by following God’s instructions. Holiness and obedience found favor from God.

But to try to answer your question, again it is mythology and such interactions between divine and mortals occur in all the various mythologies. The sons of man are the sons of Adam. The sons of God are His creations. They could be angels or they could be human. Genesis only says that Adam was the first man created. It doesn’t say he was the only one. Notice the two different creation accounts in Genesis. In the first one look to Gen 1:26-27.

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let THEM have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.”

27 God created man in his image;in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.

Them could refer to as little as two (Adam and Eve) or it could apply to many. It is not specific. The second account is the one that is more familiar. This is the account of the creation of Adam and Eve along with the story of Man’s fall. Is there a discrepancy between the two? No. These are just two different sources of tradition telling the same event. The first tells us that God did creat Man. The second is the account of the first two.

What matters then? It doesn’t matter how many humans God created or if angels had relations with human women. What matters is that God created out of love. Mankind was shown love and given examples of virtue to follow (the legends and heroes of old from Gen 6:1-4). Man instead followed his own selfish desires with no regard for God and for that he was punished. That’s the story of Genesis in a nutshell. Holiness and obedience bring us closer to God. Selfish desires separate us from Him.

The only thing I can safely say is that the sons of heaven were not fallen angels. Fallen angels would not have produced men of renown.
Take care
Dennis
 
Another thing to consider is that the two theories are not totally contradictory. Lucifer is referred to as the king of Tyre elsewhere. It is possible that the fallen angels had so influenced a group of people, (the descendants of Cain?) so as to completely pervert them. How can a demon mate? By possession, for one.
I just wanted to tag onto your post (pnewton) and expand a bit on my understanding of this.

Incubus and succubus have intercourse with humans. It is possible for spirits to move through bodily fluids, such as blood and semen. I firmly believe from experience, from the Bible and extra-canonical sources like the Book of Enoch, that the sons of God referred to here are the Watchers.

But, a person should study for themselves and ask God for direction (iaskquestions). If you really want to know, do some further study and see what you get. The important thing to remember (iaskquestions) is that God isn’t going to be mad at you if you are wrong 😉

May I ask you (iaskquestions) why you specifically want to know?

Peace…

MW
 
Genesis 6:1-4

"When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, **the sons of God **saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. Then the LORD said, “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when **the sons of God **came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. "

**Who are these **“sons of God”? **Why are they called **“sons of God”?
Here is the answer I found on EWTNs web sight when someone asked this of Fr. John Echert back in 2004
Answer by Fr. John Echert on 11-19-2004:
There is a basis in the Catholic tradition of interpretation, to include among the Church Fathers, to propose this interpretation; namely, that the “sons of God” refers to the righteous line of Seth, whereas the “daughters of men” refers to the wicked line of Cain. As a result of the righteous intermingling with the wicked, as usually happens, the good went the way of the bad. The “Nephilim” literally means “the fallen ones” and may not mean giants, as we typically imagine them, but terrifying maniacs, as one would expect from wicked parents.
Blessed Emmerich relates that the sons of God were the righteous from among men, and the daughers of men were wicked women who allowed themselves to be possessed by demons, and that their offspring were, in fact, monstrous giants with terrifying power and ability.

The jury is still out on this mystery of the past…

Thanks, Jon

Father Echert

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=419351&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2008&Author=&Keyword=sons+of+God&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=24&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
 
I would believe that the “sons of God” are from Seth’s lineage.

If you look in John 1, 12-13, we see that those who follow God are called children of God

“But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God.”
 
The shadows agree with Catholic tradition.

Since Eve was deceived, the female represents those who do not see clearly.

The Gnostic saying that women must become men just means the blind must see.

As such the “daughters” are those who are deceived, and the “sons” those who saw clearly.

When you examine all the things that you are not supposed to mix; seed in the field, cloth in your garments, milk and meat, etc., it is clear that the mixing is what God hates. Don’t mix the hot and the cold or He will spew you out…

Those who saw clearly were actively choosing to marry those who were deceived, and becoming one flesh. This is rebellion. We are supposed to become “one in spirit”.
 
Daughters of men is a term used to describe a culture that attributes mothers as the generating force on earth. They worship the power of fertility as the creative power of God. it’s origin is the maternal care Cain received.

Eve’s statement at Cain’s birth.

I** have gotten** a man with the help of God.

Eve see’s her own meaning as creative in her role as woman. She is creating man through Cain as God created man through Adam.

This meaning of reality constructs a belief system in Cain’s decendents that becomes the foundation of the matriarchal culture the author refers to as ‘daughters of men’. Daughters of men because the ‘daughters become mothers’ born in this culture are viewed as the force that generates families and culture.

Sons of God is a term used to describe a patriarchal culture.

Eve’s statement at the birth of Seth;

God has granted another offspring to replace Cain who killed Abel.

Eve viewes herself, her child and their relationship to God in a radically different way.

As Cain’s maternal care determines the view of reality his decendents inherit so it is with Seth’s.

Seth is described as Adam’s ‘begotten’ son. Also as born in his ‘father’s image’. In the immediate passage prior to this passage Adam’s image as being made in God’s is repeated. This is to make a clear line from Seth to God.

This is the meaning of reality that constructs a belief system in Seth’s decendents and becomes the foundation of a patriarchal culture the author refers to as the sons of God. Son’s of God because son’s become father’s are viewed as the force that generates families and culture.

Note of interest.

The view of youth in the author’s and his audiences minds. Humanity is described as it is generated. The offspring are designated as the generators of their respective cultures.
 
Mythology? :eek: I don’t think so, the Catholic Church doesn’t teach so.
It’s the style Genesis is written. Genesis is mythic literature. It doesn’t mean that what is written is not the Truth but it is Truth written in the mythic style of literature.
 
Mythology? :eek: I don’t think so, the Catholic Church doesn’t teach so.
The Catholic Church allows for the possibility that parts of the Bible were written in a mythological style, along with other liberal theological ideas. It does not endorse these theories, but has not spoken against them except in a narrow sense. For example, the Church has defined that Adam and Eve were two real persons who are the progenitors of the species.
 
Genesis 6:1-4

Then the LORD said, “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when **the sons of God **came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. "

"
I’d doubt these were fallen angels.

However, given the great age men lived to … is it any wonder they may have achieved gargantuan proportions.

Text calls them ‘mighty men’, men of ‘renown’. They obviously had massive sexual lusts over the women … and God was probably troubled by their machismo/pride. The more studly Kings of the Hill … probably did most of the breeding …and thus their genetics led to even more gigantic sons.

So, God cut them down to size — via reduction in lifespan & the concurrent factor of ‘male menopause’ that goes with it.
 
However, given the great age men lived to … is it any wonder they may have achieved gargantuan proportions.
The word for ‘giant’ comes from the root ‘fall’. It is plausible that the ‘Giants’ or Nephilim, were those who were named in the fall account. Someone could easily check this against a genealogical time line. Adam, Eve, Cain, Seth.* The translators really never knew what to do with the word ‘Nephilim’. Certainly those mentioned in the Holy tablets would have some word referring to them as a group. We do that now… like the Chicago seven.

The giants are a different group than the sons of God and daughters of men.

Now the children of the unholy unions became ‘mighty men’.
This is simply ‘strong’ or brave.

And men of renown, or infamy. And why were they infamous?

Gen 6:5 … that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
  • I doubt they lived to the time of Noah, but the Lord is slow to anger, so there may have been a gap between when he was angry and when Noah found favor.
 
Imagine two rival cultures on earth. Imagine that genetic mixing is impossible for generations. Two very distinct seperate structures of humanity largely blind to the wayys each other think feel and respond. Then come a generation that knows each side like they know their mother and father. No mystery there why these Nephilim would have the advantage over the whole world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top