Genesis 6:2 - The "sons of God"

by rocketman 23 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  rocketman

  While reading the NIV Study Bible recently, I came across some interesting notes on Genesis 6:1-4, concerning the situation before the Flood in which the "sons of God saw the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose."

  From what I had always understood (mainly by reading WTS literature) these "sons of God" were angels that sinned by taking the daughters of men as sex partners. However, the NIV Study Bible, and some other bible commentators, mention that there were other possibilities:

  1. That the "sons of God" referred to in Genesis 6:2 were actually decendants of Seth who chose to marry decendants of Cain. Some of the reasoning on this (from what I've gathered from a couple of online Bible commentaries) is evidently based on Hebrew writings stating that Seth's decendants took to living in a mountainous area, while the decendants of Cain took to living in a valley area. In time, according to these stories, the Sethites took some of Canaanite daughters as wives. The idea of sons of Seth as "sons of God" comes primarily from Genesis 5:26, which states that after the birth of Seth's son Enosh "At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD". Though the WTS has always postulated that this was a derogatory type of name-calling, the NIV and other commentaries seem to portray it in a positive light.

  2. That the "sons of God" may refer to men of some 'royalty' at the time, who, taking after the boastful Lamech (Genesis 4:19-24), carried on polygamy and established harems for themselves.

  Included in the above reasoning is the assumption that angels could not have desired the daughters of men, with the verse at Matthew 22:30 (Jesus' words that the resurrected will be like "angels in heaven" and thus not be married).

  However, the NIV does point to Jude's words in Jude 6,7 concerning angels that "did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home" as possibly supporting the idea that it was indeed angels who were referred to in Genesis 6:2. On the other hand, it can be noted that Jude does not specifically state what these angels did, and some commentators offer that their sin took place when they joined Satan's rebellion at an earlier time.

  While fallen angels are also mentioned at 2 Peter 2:4, again their specific deeds are not mentioned. Despite the fact that the next verse comments on the judgement of God in Noah's day, again most commentators' works that I've checked do not make an association between the two. So I'm not totally sure whether 2 Peter 2:4 confirms the supposed angelic act of cohabitation with the daughters of men recorded at Genesis 6:2. WTS literature of course always makes the association between the two verses.

  I'm continuing to research this matter. Any thoughts or research or comments from anyone would be greatly appreciated!
• 

  LittleToe

  Bear in mind that we are here interpreting something far in the past, concerning links between an ancient text and what Peter interpreted about it - an interpretation of an interpretation, if you will.

  I can't remember if it was Leo or Nark who posted a thread on this very subject.
• 

  zen nudist

  I have listened to the bible answer many several times discuss this topic and claim it is impossible for angels to be the ones involved, because that would violate so many of his cherished beliefs and make it possible for demons to impersonate the risen christ and for other reasons, but his stance is not based on the bible alone, but on saving his own beliefs, because he freely admits that peter and jude quote Enoch which specifies that these were indeed angels.
• 

  rocketman

  I checked Leolaia's posts and did find this thread, which comments somewhat on the matter.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/68556/1.ashx

  In her thread the basic assumption that seems to be made is that Genesis 6:2 refers to angels, in conjuction with 2 Peter and Jude. I'd like to see what she thinks of the other possibilities mentioned in the NIV Study Bible. Calling Leo!
• 

  Narkissos

  The "angelic" interpretation is itself secondary: in the original, polytheistic context of the story the sons of gods and the daughters of men are respectively gods and women. Only in a later monotheistic reinterpretation do the sons of gods become heavenly creatures = the watchers or angels of 1 Enoch, Jude, 2 Peter etc.

  This has been thoroughly discussed in a number of threads but they are not so easy to find. Here's one post by Leolaia, but there is more down on the same thread and elsewhere.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/66584/1033545/post.ashx#1033545
• 

  Leolaia

  The Sethite explanation that you mention is a much later Christian interpretation (expressed first by Julius Africanus, later by Luther, Calvin, and so forth) that is quite alien to the context, the concepts embedded in the passage, and its early Jewish and Christian interpretation. This Christian interpretation is related to an earlier demythologizing interpretation that regards the "sons of God" as aristocratic families (e.g. the use of dunasteuontón in Symmachus to render "sons of God").
  

  (1) Within the immediate context, bnwt h-'dm "daughters of men" cannot have a narrower reference in 6:2 than it does in v. 1 (where the unqualified h-'dm "men" refers to humanity), and thus bny h-'lhym "sons of God" cannot refer to a subdivision of mankind; they are external to it. (2) Within the OT, bny h-'lhym, bny 'lym "sons of God" or "sons of El" are clearly divine beings, members of the divine council, otherwise called "gods", "holy ones", the "sons of Elyon", "stars of El", etc. (cf. Deuteronomy 32:8, 43, 33:2-3; Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; Psalm 16:3, 29:1, 58:2, 77:14, 82:1, 6, 89:6-7, 93:5; Isaiah 14:13), and the equivalent expression bn il(m) "sons of El" refers to exactly the same thing in Ugaritic texts; therefore, the expression derives ultimately from Canaanite mythology. Similar myths of human intermarriage with gods occur in the primeval myths of Sumer-Akkad, Greece, Phoenicia (and possibly Canaan depending on how the texts are interpreted). (3) In the LXX the phrase bny h-'lhym is rendered as hoi angeloi tou theou "the angels of God" (Genesis 6:1-2), reflecting the traditional understanding that these were divine beings; this is the version used most often in early Christianity. (4) Intertestamental works like Jubilees and 1 Enoch (written originally in Aramaic) also interpreted the phrase as referring to angels. See, for instance: "In those days, when the children of man had multiplied, it happened that there were born unto them handsome and beautiful daughters. And the angels, the children of heaven, saw them and desired them; and they said to one another, 'Come, let us choose wives for ourselves from among the daughters of man and beget us children.' ... And they were altogether two hundred; and they descended into Ardos, which is the summit of Mount Hermon" (1 Enoch 6:1-2, 6). The passage in Jude 6-7 is directly influenced by 1 Enoch, as can be seen in the plentiful allusions and verbatim quotations from 1 Enoch in that epistle:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/85223/1.ashx

  And since ch. 2 of 2 Peter was plagiarized from Jude (just compare the two verse by verse, and note how time and again the point of Jude is lost in 2 Peter), the Enochic influence is found in 2 Peter as well, tho the author was also influenced more directly by the Greek mythology of Hesiod (as can be seen in the phrases "Tartarus" and "under dense darkness").

  You might also be interested in my post on the Nephilim, which shows clearly that a mythological motif is involved, as they are equated with the nefarious Rephaim elsewhere in the OT:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/68224/1.ashx
• 

  rocketman

  Excellent clarification Leolaia. Clearly, the weight of evidence favors an interpretation of Genesis 6:2 as referring to angels as the "sons of God". Thank you.

  Kind of makes me wonder how bible commentators miss the mark on this, but as you allude to, they seem to be following a more "Christian" interpretation.

  The NIV Study Bible was not dogmatic on any one interpretation but simply pointed to the others as possible understandings of the verse. Interestingly, in its introduction to Genesis, the NIV Study Bible points to numerous similarities between the events recorded in Genesis and their similarity to ancient mythological and secular accounts from Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Canaanite writings.
• 

  Spook

  Getting fuzzy on the interpretation allows fundamentalists to ignore the mythological roots. When related to various semitic myths, it makes a striking continuity of shared origins with the local "pagan" origins.
• 

  Terry

  In ancient times there was no Internet!

  There was no television or radio or satellite news coverage.

  There were no newspapers or PEOPLE magazines.

  There was no science.

  There was only rumor and word of mouth.

  There was group-think, fables, mythos and mystery.

  Ancient gods and heros abounded.

  Hercules, for example, is still with us.

  He was on of the many "sons of god" (in this instance, Zeus).

  The exploits of these characters stimulated all surrounding nations who fashioned their very own local version of these colorful tales.

  The Book of Enoch is not in the Bible canon; but, the flavor of its tale lingers with us.

  Genesis 6:2 is but a footprint of something that passed away a long long time ago.

  Today, if we want silly rumors we can go to the World Wide Web. (Or, read the Bible).

  T
• 

  A Paduan

  Sons of God ?

  • God is Spirit
  • Daughters of men are man's souls - could be married or a widow ( whose 'word' has died ), a virgin or unmarried {eg. the maid at the door (of his heart) said to Peter, "Do you not know him?"}
  • ".....though I was their husband", said the Lord...

  should be able to figure that out from there