WHO WERE THE SONS OF GOD IN GENESIS CHAPTER 6:2 I believe that the sons of GOD WERE THE ANGELS because of the giants in those days.

Panoramicromantic's picture


The use of the phrase "sons of God" Or "Bene HaElohim" in the Old Testament is always in reference to angels, never in reference to the sons of men/Seth. Job 1:6, 2:1 and 38:7 are undoubtedly in reference to angels. Nowhere is the term used for human beings. Sons of men is used numerous times to differentiate men from angels (Ps. 4:2, 31:19, 33:13 cf. Ps. 8:5). The book of Enoch is a type of midrash on Genesis 6. 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 follow this tradition; Jude 1:14-15 being a direct quotation of the book of Enoch. This is irrefutable to all but the most willfully blind fundamentalism. That Jude quoted Enoch was well known by the early church fathers as evidenced by the witness of Tertullian. Anyone who knows anything about the early church knows this to be true.
Luke 20:35 does not undermine the angelic interpretation in anyway. Jesus was firstly talking about human beings, not expressly about angels. Quite rightly Jesus said that the angels were not to be married, but one must realize that the angels spoken of in Genesis 6 committed a sin by taking human wives, as pointed out in Enoch. When angels appeared in the Old Testament they were described as being men (Genesis 18:2). These angels were said to have even ate with Abraham (18:8). It stands to reason that when angels appeared they were fully human, not only in appearance but internally as well. Also, it cannot be explained by the Sethite interpreters why the sons of Seth would have giant offspring from simply procreating with other human beings. The term Nephilim literally means the fallen but had taken on additionally the meaning giants; this is evident in Numbers 13:33. This tradition is seen in Deuteronomy chapters 2 and 3 and Joshua chapters 12-18. Nowhere in any of these verses are the giants accorded any connection with Seth in any way, shape or form; nor to Cain. The Septuagint translated "nephilim" as giants. This meaning is also seen in the apocrypha as well.
As far as church tradition goes, the angelic interpretation is far older than the sons of seth interpretation and has the most support. Augustine simply borrowed the sons of Seth notion from Rabbinic Judaism but it's antiquity cannot be validated beyond late Rabbinic Judaism. Justin Martyr, Clement Of Alexandria, Tertullian, Athenagoras, Origen, Tatian et al -all supported the angelic interpretation; in fact, no other interpretation is even mentioned by them. Indeed, the dead sea scrolls support that this was the interpretation that was held in Judaism first. Augustine's interpretation is just one more example of how Rabbinic Judaism was often erroneously seen as being authoritative for OT interpretation. If these verses are about fallen angels, and they most certainly are, the rival interpretation would probably be pleasing to them because it suggests that there is absolutely no record of fallen angels in the OT. They would certainly want to erase any record of their fall. It seems in the minds of some they were successful.