|
The sons of God |
|
The question is quite often asked: "Who were these beings who are called the sons of God"? |
|
There are at least two possibilities as follows:- |
|
This explanation is very improbable. If it is argued that Adam was a son of God on the basis of Luke 3:38 the ground is very weak because the words "son of" are not in the original so all we really have is "of Seth, of Adam, of God". In any case, if generation from Adam is invoked Cain could claim as much. The same applies to other Scriptures such as Psalm 82:6 "All of you are children of the Most High". Note the word all. |
|
If it is argued that it was only the progeny of Seth to whom the term sons of God is applied then we have got to say that they should not have intermarried with any of the line of Cain. There was no such prohibition. There was nothing particularly special about the progeny of Seth and no reason why they should have produced giants. They almost certainly intermarried with the line of Cain. All those, including Seth's line, who were living at the time of the flood were destroyed save eight persons. |
|
The Giantism that came into the human race through intermarriage with those called sons of God was carried over at least to some extent after the flood (Genesis 6:4; Numbers 13:32/33). This was no doubt due to the marriage of the forebears of Noah's family with those who had 'genetic' connection with women who had married the 'sons of God'. |
|
Finally, it may be pointed out that 'sons of God' are put in contrast to 'daughters of men'. All the male line of Adam's race were men and therefore 'sons of God' must be beings distinct from them. |
|
|
|
The ground for thinking that the sons of God were angelic beings is quite strong and many passages leave little room for doubt that this is what they were. The following is the main evidence. The term son of God is apparently used as a synonym for angel by Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 3:25 & 28) and Christ (Luke 20:36). Further, those who came before God in Job 1:6 were called sons of God and Satan came among them. He was apparently an evil angel (2 Corinthians 11:14; Revelation 12:7-9). |
|
Scripture speaks of the angels that sinned (2 Peter 2:4). Who were they if not the beings spoken of in Genesis 6 ? The fact that Peter speaks of them before referring to the flood in verse 5 points to them as being the ones spoken of at the beginning of Genesis 6; the flood being spoken of later in that chapter. Jude 6 is similar. There the angels are said not to have kept their own original estate which agrees with the fact that the sons of God involved themselves with the daughters of men who were on the earth. The result of the liaisons were giants; the meaning of the word in the original being 'fallen ones or fellers' (see Young’s Concordance). |
|
Apart from this it is worthy of note that Paul says a woman should have a covering on her head on account of the angels (1 Corinthians 11, particularly verse 10). May not this mean that angels looking down from on high should be able to see that the women are for the men, lest they be tempted to appropriate them as the beings in Genesis 6 did ? Some may think this far fetched, but in Genesis 6 the cause of the fall of the sons of God was the fairness of the daughters of men. Today, in the Western world at least, the covering of the woman's head is being abandoned. May not there be hidden dangers in this of which people are not aware. Paul at least hints at it. Although not conclusive evidence, the writers of the (so-called) dead sea scrolls held views similar to those set out above. Thus we have: "Because they walked in the stubbornness of their heart the Heavenly Watchers fell; they were caught because they did not keep the commandments of God. And their sons also fell who were tall as cedar trees and |