40 Comments

  1. gadfly

    “Sons of God” are not the kids produced.  “Sons of God” were the angels.  Your response is beside the point consequently.  Assuming a ‘Son of God’  (esp. in the Hebrew bible) is such by special creation – such is our birth from above – then these beings, these ‘Sons of God’ could well be angels…watchers specially created.
    Why do you regard human/angel copulation a ‘bad doctrine’?

    Reply
  2. gadfly

    Sticking to the party line, eh?  Angels are referred to in the OT as Sons of God.  The sons of Seth are not.  Are you suggesting that yours is the only plausible interpretation?

    Reply
  3. gadfly

    The doctrine of election has led to hyper-calvinism.  Would you reject it because it has been misused?  If the idea of angels and humans copulating is abhorrent to you, look at how God felt about it.  He regretted (an interesting word in itself) having made any of them!!

    Reply
  4. gadfly

    I view everything not simply through the lens of the NT, but through the revelation of God in Jesus Christ…even more restrictive and unpopular.

    Reply
  5. gadfly

    yeah, yeah, yeah….  this bothers me.  Are you suggesting the references to ‘Sons of God’ in Job referred to the sons of Seth?  …or to humans at all?  does the NT really require this?  This is, after all, about HOW we interpret the Bible.  Insisting on unequivical meaning in linguistic structures that are (only) similar seems like an illegitimate hermeneutical principle to me…  Does context mean nothing?

    Reply
  6. gadfly

    Sounds like denial to me….  Whatever lets you sleep at night.

    Reply

  7. I tend to go with the “angels” interpretation. The ancient Near East had stories about human-divine figures, and I think Genesis 6 is an attempt to account for them, for it mentions “mighty men of old” (I don’t have my Bible in front of me).

    Plus, although I’m not the biggest fan of interpreting the Old Testament in light of the New, Jude and II Peter (I think) seem to nod to the story in the book of Enoch.

    As far as Arnold Murray goes, I don’t think accepting the “angels” view means we must treat any group alive today as sub-human, for the giants were wiped out in the flood, and another batch in the Conquest.

    Reply
  8. gadfly

    Interpreting the OT in light of the NT in no way determines the interpretation of Gen 6 unless I am missing something.   It is perfectly permissable to reject an interpretation because you don’t like it and all it implies.  But once one invokes personal opinion as a sufficient hermeneutical princliple, one loses all right to question another’s personal opinion.
    In fact, Gen 6 implies – if it doesn’t state outright – that the Nephillim – giants, mighty men of old – came about as a result of the union.  Doesn’t sound like regular progeny.  God’s reaction seems to be over the top as well if this was ‘normal’ sexual relations.  We have no reason to assume the sons of Seth were not to marry the daughters of Cain.

    Reply

  9. Because, it has lead to such things as the serpent seed doctrine of Arnold Murray. I understand that it is assumed that the sons of God were angels in the Hebrew Bible, but the point of this post was that we should interpret things through the New Testament. Of course, I understand that to be somewhat controversial, but that doesn’t concern me much.

    I am of the opinion that the sons of God were those of the line of Seth while the daughters of men were of the line of Cain. (Not going to get into a debate upon the literal understanding of Genesis).

    Reply

  10. Of course it’s the only plausible interpretation!

    Seriously, however, while Enoch does easily state that the ‘sons of God’ are angels (watchers?), I do not think that it is the only interpretation available. I would prefer to see things through the New Testament.

    Reply

  11. Depends on what ‘election’ you mean? I see your point, Gadfly, but for me, by viewing the ‘sons of God’ through the lens of the New Testament – which may not be popular – I find an interpretation that I can believe in.

    Reply

  12. Context does mean a great deal, Sonny, and no, sons of God in Job doesn’t mean the line of Seth. There is one passage in Job which I think possibly could mean angels, but again, it could be those that followed God.

    I think context plays a large part, as does the interpreter. I don’t believe that the NT ‘requires’ anything of the sort, but it is my personal choice to interpret rather difficult passages – against, separating history and faith – through the NT. Historically, yes, I do believe that ‘sons of God’ were thought of as angels, as we see in Rabbinic writings as well as some Church Fathers, but in the end, because the outcome of that peculiar doctrine, I see a better interpretation through John’s prologue.

    Context means a great deal – take the reference about women being saved through child birth. Because of Roman laws at the time, it might very well mean physical redemption rather than salvational.

    Reply

  13. Perhaps, but I prefer to find a better consensus on interpretation than I have seen produced through this peculiar doctrine.

    Reply

  14. Well, I guess that does ease the pain a bit in accepting the historic interpretation as angels. (I believe Irenaeus accepted that interpretation without causing him harm.)

    Reply

  15. I’m not sure when the “sons of God are sons of Seth” idea came into being, though it does seem as if the Reformers (i.e., Luther) held to it.

    Reply

  16. Isn’t it all personal opinion, Gadfly?

    I reject the historical position – and I do know full well that the historical interpretation does explicitly state that the sons of God in Gen. 6.1-4 were angels – because I see it through the lens of John 1.13, where in we could all become the children of God.

    Of course, if you use the LXX, the historical position becomes more sure, as twice ‘sons of God’ in the Hebrew is clearly seen as ‘angels’.

    I am not alone in my interpretation – although perhaps from a different starting point – in that both Chryostom and Cassian deny the angel/human copulation side of this passage.

    Reply

  17. Actually, I believe that Cassian did as well, referring to the sons of Seth as ‘angelic’ become of their obedience to God. I wonder where Augustine would fit into this at?

    Reply

  18. ezinearticles.com has an article by Meredith Lee Miller (who has a doctorate in religion) entitled, “Who Were the Sons of God in Genesis 6?” It doesn’t cite specific sourced, but it offers a decent summary of the history of interpretation of Genesis 6. According to her, Augustine fell in the “Sons of Seth” camp.

    Reply

Leave a Reply, Please!