Sons of God

What is the basis for calling the descendants of Seth the "Son's of God"

 

Cain was a vagabond... a nomad if you will. His daughters married sons of Seth.

Genesis 4 and 5 traces two geneaologies... the godly line through Seth and the ungodly line through Cain. When read in context, one can clearly see the 'sons of God' are of the lineage of Seth.

 

Though the Seth/Cain theory is popular today it is not very satisfying when you take the text at face value. What you are saying is that every descendent of Seth was good and was male. And every descendent of Cain was bad and was female. It’s almost funnyThere is no contextual reason to assume that Gen 6 is talking about these two lines. Look at the text

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. 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.


​

The most logical and straight forward observation of the text is that sons of God is used the same way it is throughout the OT – angels. And daughters of men are, well, daughters of men. The only reason to take it any other way is because we don’t want to believe that fallen angels can have relationships with human women. And there is no reason to think they can’t. Angels talk, they eat, they do everything else that a man can do when they take human form.

 

There is not one verse in the Word of God to substantiate your claim that fallen angels can take the form of men.

If you read chapter four along with chapter 5, you will see that chapter five is a continuation of geneaologies of two lines... Seth, and Cain.

 

Well, that is actually an argument from silence. There is no verse in the B ible that says they can not take the form of men. And, at the same time, there are a lot of veres that show that angels (in general) can take the form of men (Gen 18:1-2 just off the top of my head).

 

In view of eternity, does it really matter?
It is hard to debate a subject when the Bible is silent on so much of the particulars....

Whoever or whatever they were... they were wiped off the Earth by the flood.

 

Tim this is meant as no offense, but I think this line of reasoning is used way too much today to just walk away from passages of Scripture that seem to be difficult to understand.

If it's there we need to understand the importance of what God was trying to communicate with us in regard to the matter.

Does "eternity" matter? No problaby not, but it certainly helps in the understanding of what Satan was trying to accomplish and what he will try to accomplish in the future (although that may be a reality now and only grow as time goes).

We had someone in our SS class that any time something came up that was debated her stance was well that doesn't have anything to do with my eternal salvation so . . . and would leave it at that.

I somewhat understand the point in that it's not worth arguing about or breaking fellowship over, but I think that line of reasoning can be a slippery slope and I'm certainly not suggesting that you are on the downslide .

To see this as merely a human-human union makes no sense to me, because it's merely a statement of fact that is kind of pointless. If there were some men who married some women and had children what is the big deal about that? Why do we need to know that? What message does it advance in the Grand Scheme God has put forth?

 

Just say again that something had been so terrible that God "repented that He made man" and then totally destroyed mankind from off the face of the earth.

 

No offense taken, I understand what you are saying..

I have always veiwed these type questions as strictly educational.. and nothing that would seperate fellowship over...

One way we need to look at this passage is this:
When Moses wrote this down, how would the original readers have interpreted the phrase "sons of God?"

Try interpretting the phrase based on the scriptures the original readers of pre-Joshua time would have had...
That would have been most of the 5 books of moses, and Job...

Are there any clues in those books as to who the "sons of God" was.
If we can get an understanding of how the original Israelites interpreted this passage, we can then gain a better understanding...

OK, so how are we going to find out what the old Israelites thought about this passage? Maybe we could ask some people here on BB....

Say, Bitsy, Roger, JoJ? Ha,ha,ha,,, I kill me!!!

 

I'm not sure what I believe about this theory. I'm still trying to decide.

As to angels not being able to reproduce, I don't think the scriptures say that. The context is talking about heaven, and says that WE won't be given in marriage in heaven, either. We are given in marriage on earth. Does that mean that angels (who take human form) can reproduce here--just not in heaven? Just like we can reproduce here, but won't be able to in heaven?

 

Well as has already been stated I believe on this thread somewhere Job refers to the sons of God as angels.

A study on the "sons of God" and what that phrase means is very interesting.

 

In the 39 verses in the Pentateuch that Moses speaks of angels, he uses the word malak. In Genesis 6:4 the word is not malak. If Moses were speaking of angels, would he not have used the word he consistently used for angels...malak?

 

SFIC makes a fairly decent point there when he says Moses used malak to refer to angels in most of the Pentateuch. My counter would be something like this…

Moses wrote the Pentateuch. However, when it comes to the book of Genesis he was probably more an editor than an actual writer. It is thought that Moses got his raw material for the book of Genesis from authors as diverse as Adam, Noah, and Abraham, among others. The dividing line between the different contributing authors is their toledoth (genealogy). This is an ancient version of the signature block. If this is true then Noah’s own writings are probably the origin of Genesis 5:29 – 6:9. He probably wrote this history right after the flood – about the same time as Job lived.

Since Job was a contemporary of Abraham or earlier you would expect him and other authors of his time to use the same vocabulary. Well, Noah was not too much earlier than Job. Actually, if there are no gaps in the genealogies of Genesis then Noah could have known Abraham – their lives overlapped by 58 years. And Noah may have known Job for the same reasons.

I say all that to say it is likely that Job’s name for angels and Noah’s name for angels could be the same. Job called them sons of God (Job 1:6). It is very likely that Noah (the source of the part of Genesis in question) would call them sons of God.

Of course this is all speculation, but I find it interesting and a possible explanation for sons of God meaning angels in Genesis 6.

Just to help avoid flames: I am saying that Moses wrote Genesis. But, I am also saying he may have gotten his material for the things that happened before him from various authors all the way back to Adam.

 

Yes, words can, unfortunately, mean different things in different contexts. Sons of God is one of those. Actually, an unbiased reading of Job 1:6 and 2:1 pretty much demands that we see it as angels:

Job 1:6 - Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Job 2:1 - Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

​

This can only mean angels for 2 reasons that I can think of. First, humas don't present themselves before the LORD in heaven right now. Second, Satan was included in the group and he is an (fallen) angel .


Off the top of my head I can think of 3 different uses for son of God. Adam was called the son of God. Angels (Job 1:6, 2:1) are called the sons of God and, in the NT, Christians are called the sons of God.

Another word that means different things in different contexts (and kinda related to this subject) is the Greek word (ἄγγελος) translated angel. It actualy means messenger and is translated that way at times. John the baptist is called a messenger in Mark 1:2 and the two spies that went to Rahab are called messangers in James 2:25. But the word is usually translated angel (see, for example, Matthew 1:20).

 

Why is the use sons of God in Job automatically referring to angels? Couldn't it be the righteous that die who are presenting themselves before the Lord?

 

Here is another good article on the sons of God being men...

http://www.americanvision.org/bwarchive/10-05 Sons of God 2.pdf

 

...or the righteous who are just presenting themselves before the Lord here on earth? I'm beginning to think that the sons of God are not used as angels at all in the OT.

 

I believe it could be the latter.