A) INTRODUCTION.

B) GENESIS, CHAPTER SIX.

C) SONS OF GOD ARE NOT ALWAYS ANGELS.

D) GIANTS.

E) THE INFLUENCE OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

F) DON’T MISS THIS POINT.

 

 

A) INTRODUCTION

 

 

To be clear, the only true interpretation and definition Biblically of the term or phrase, “sons of God,” is found in Romans 8:14:  “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”  Any other interpretation is to be considered speculative and misleading.

 

That the “sons of God” in the Book of Genesis, Chapter Six, refers to angelic beings mating with human women was started in the false “Book of Enoch.”  The fact that this book is non-Canonical should end the argument right here.

 

Falsely interpreting the Biblical account of attributing this false theory to the “Nephilim,” a name given to what the Bible only lists as “giants” in Genesis 6:4, has caused many false doctrines to arise.

 

 

B) GENESIS, CHAPTER SIX

 

 

The Biblical fact that angels do not procreate (see Mat. 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34-36) should put an end to this discussion and the “Nephilim Theory” right away.  However, if that does not convince you, please read further.

 

According to John 1:12 (and many others like Romans 8:14; but this verse is specific), only those who “received Him [Jesus]” can “become the sons of God;” but you also must “believe on His [Jesus’] Name.”  In Romans 8:14, you are already a “son of God,” if you have responded to the Holy Spirit dwelling in you.  Therefore, when you are going to read Genesis, Chapter 6, and attempt to apply the Biblical definition of a “son of God” to these men who were once “sons of God,” until they “came in unto the daughters of men,” you would be mistaken as to the “Main Theme” of the Bible, i.e., ones “Character.”

 

Also, a main Biblical point that is underlining the account presented in Genesis, Chapter Six, that being, to not be “unequally yoked together with unbelievers,” Second Corinthians 6:14.  The key to the Bible and understanding anything in It is to understand that one’s “character” is the main point of any of It’s content.

 

Let’s read Genesis 6:4:  “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God[righteous men] came in unto the daughters of [unrighteous] men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

 

First of all, you should not even connect the first portion of the verse with the second section.  Let me give you an example.  “I went to see some giants and after that I went to see some daughters of giants.”  Do you see the two separate events?

 

Also, notice that the text clearly states that these “giants” existed before, by stating, “after that,” thus meaning that they were not then created by this union or some being that was not then upon the earth, and then came to this earth to procreate.  Thus, when “the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them,” we should then not make the unwarranted leap that these “sons of God” were fallen angels; although “sons of God” does sometimes refer to angels; all-be-it, NOT (NEVER) fallen angels.  Only righteous angels.  That “sons of God” always refers to righteous individuals we will discus later.

 

It has been argued that the Hebrew makes it clear that these were “fallen angels.”  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The Hebrew is “ben Elohiym,” with “ben” literally meaning “sons,” and “Elohiym” literally meaning “God.”  As the argument goes, “ben” only applies to “fallen angels.”  This is simply not true.  Job 1:6 points out that there came “a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,” while “Satan [who was a fallen angel and is listed as being SEPARATE from the group called “the sons of God”] came also among them.”  The same is stated again in Job 2:1.  In other words, Satan is not included in what is termed, “the sons of God,” himself being a fallen angel.  Thus, the Hebrew word “ben,” even though placed occasionally with “Elohiym,” does not then connotate into meaning “fallen angels.”

 

Also, according to Ecclesiastes 1:13, “the sons [“ben”] of man” is used to denote “sons” period; as “ben” should always be understood.  We should not then conclude that this should be translated as “fallen angels of man.”  The “Strong’s Concordance” number for the Hebrew word “ben” is “H1121.”  If you are to look up every place it occurs, and you believe “ben” only applies to “fallen angels,” you are on a platform that cannot be supported.

 

Who then are the “son of Levi,” Deuteronomy 21:5; the “sons of Eli,” First Samuel 4:11; the “sons of Abinadab,” Second Samuel 6:3; let alone every time the “sons of Belial,” appears (example First Kings 21:10); the “sons of Jeduthun,” First Chronicles 16:42; the “sons of Aaron,” First Chronicles 23:28; the “sons of Ithamar,” First Chronicles 24:5; the “sons of David,” Second Chronicles 23:3; the “sons of Athaliah,” Second Chronicles 24:7, granted these were very “wicked;” the “sons of Judah” and the “sons of Henadad,” Ezra 3:9; the “sons of Elam,” Ezra 10:2; the “sons of Asaph,” Nehemiah 11:22; the “sons of Korah,” Psalm 42:1; 44:1; 46:1; 47:1; 48:1; 88:1; the “sons of Hanan,” and the “sons of Igdaliah,” Jeremiah 35:4; the “sons of Zadok,” Ezekiel 44:15; the “sons of men,” Daniel 5:21; and many other connotations of “ben,” such as Hosea 1:10?  Surely you cannot conclude that these are all “fallen angels.”  But you would have to in order to be consistent with your false doctrine of Genesis, Chapter 6, as being or belonging to “fallen angels.”

 

 

C) SONS OF GOD ARE NOT ALWAYS ANGELS

 

 

So, let’s go through another aspect of the proposed “false doctrine,” that the “sons of God” always refers to “angels.”  As mentioned above, Hosea 1:10 does not, because it is speaking of “the children of Israel,” as being “the sons of the Living God.”  However, let’s take the term “sons of God” alone in order.

 

1) Genesis 6:2 -- Undefined; except as you determine them in Romans 8:14; therefore, all Believers.

2) Genesis 6:4 -- Undefined; except as you determine them in Romans 8:14; therefore, all Believers.

3) Job 1:6 -- The Righteous Angels; or along with the entire cosmos of unfallen worlds.

4) Job 2:1 -- The Righteous Angels; or along with the entire cosmos of unfallen worlds.

5) Job 38:7 -- All the Angels.  The Chaldean version has it as, “All the troops of angels.”  Discerning that at this point in time none had fallen into sin by following Satan; who also had not yet fallen.

6) John 1:12 -- “As many as received Him {Jesus}” = Specifically speaking of Believers on earth; but all-inclusive throughout the cosmos.

7) Romans 8:14 -- “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God” = Speaking specifically of Believers on earth; but this verse is also all-inclusive throughout the cosmos.

8) Romans 8:19 -- Undefined.  However, the context is speaking of a converted Believer, because they were a “creature,” i.e., in a sinful state, but became a “son of God,” i.e., “children of God [same thing as a ”son of God”],” when they accepted Christ in verse 21.”

9) Philippians 2:15 -- The Believers.

10) First John 3:1 -- The Believers.

11) First John 3:2 -- The Believers.

 

Therefore, the term “sons of God,” does not always or “only” refer to angels.  In fact, if we are honest, the term only refers to those individual beings that love, obey, and cherish God.  See John 1:12 & Romans 8:14 again.

 

 

D) GIANTS

 

 

Before we leave Genesis 6:4 and the discussion about “fallen angels,” let’s look at the Hebrew word translated as “giants,” in the “King James Version.”  The Hebrew word is “Nephilim,” and actually means, “a bully,” or “tyrant,” or “violent,” person; and in a more literal sense, “evil persons,” not responsive to the calling of the Holy Spirit.

 

This would fit better with the context, in that verse 11 states that, “the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence,” with people, not angels, being responsible for the “violence.”  Also, verse 13 tells us that God told Noah that He was going to put an end to all people, “for the earth is filled with violence,” of men, not fallen angels, for we are told in verse 3, “And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh.”  The word “flesh” is applied specifically, and as such, is referring only to mankind.  To conclude then, that these were some specially endowed, or physically superior beings, other than being more “violent” people than others before them, is to linger too far from the truth.

 

Another indication that these were not fallen angels is the fact of verse 6 stating:  “And it repented the LORD that He had made man.”  The obvious conclusion is that, if God had “repented” also “that He had made” fallen angels, He would have drowned them in the world-wide flood also.

 

However, if you insist upon staying with the “giant” assumption, something to consider is that even today, when excavations find bones of pre-flood mankind (as we Christians know them to be, but secular scientists know them only as ancient mankind or apes), they are seen to be 9 to 12 feet in height.  The conclusion is, that mankind has been deteriorating and losing its strength from that original spark from Adam and Eve, and Moses referring to them as “giants,” would not be out of line for him and his height, as he saw them in vision, being a prophet (Deu. 34:10).

 

Just as the term, “Son of man” was applied to both Ezekiel (see Ezekiel, Chapter 2) and Jesus (Matthew 8:20), this does not make Ezekiel an angel, nor Christ a sinner.  Therefore, by application, the term “sons of God,” applies both to “righteous” mankind and angels only.  The point is, context and a proper understanding of the rest of God’s Word as identifying those who are obedient and those who are not is in order.

 

Consider again the fact that angels do not procreate (see Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34-36).  With this Biblical fact established, I do not see how this idea about evil angels procreating can even hold merit.

 

 

E) THE INFLUENCE OF THE SEPTUAGINT

 

 

Another problem of understanding this passage correctly has come about because of the influences of the “Septuagint,” in that it renders the phrase “sons of God,” as “angels.”  That this Greek interpretation of God’s Word should have any authority here is highly questionable in the first place.  HERE IS A MAIN POINT NOT TO BE MISSED.  What God really cares about throughout His entire Word is -- character.  If you have not understood this fact yet in your Christian experience, then at least understand that God wants your heart to be directed towards Him.

 

Those who are obedient to God (whether angels or men, see verses below) are those whom God can claim as belonging to Him, and He can call/claim them as His “sons” and “daughters” (see Exodus 4:22-23; Job 38:7; Isaiah 56:5; Matthew 5:9; Luke 3:38; 20:30 & 36; John 1:12; 8:38-44; 11:52; Romans 8:14 [especially see this one], 16-17 & 19 & 21; 9:8; Second Corinthians 6:18; Galatians 3:26; 4:5-7; Philippians 2:15; First John 3:1 & 2 & 10; 5:2).

 

If we also were to consider Cain’s statement in Genesis 4:14, “and it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me,” it would appear to be clear that Cain would not have chosen to use the word “anyone,” if only Adam and Eve were to be his only rivals.  Meaning, Adam and Eve had more men and women children than are mentioned, and there were more alive than just them.  Thus, “daughters of men,” equals those who reject God’s grace, such as “the children of Belial” (see Genesis 11:5; Deuteronomy 13:13; Jud. 19:22; First Samuel 2:12; First Kings 21:10; Mat. 23:31; Romans 9:8; Revelation 2:9; 13:17); as opposed to being or becoming “sons of God.”

 

Remember that Jesus said there is no marriage (or procreation, Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34-36) in Heaven.  Therefore, Satan’s angels would not be in a position to exercise the act of procreation with the “daughters of men.”  What really happened, is that when mankind multiplied upon the earth, the descendants of the righteous line of Seth saw that the unrighteous daughters of the descendants of Cain were very beautiful (or enticing, such as when Balaam instructed the Moabite women to deck themselves out and go party with the Israelites, Numbers 25:1-3; 31:16; Revelation 2:14), and they departed from God and displeased Him by taking wives as they chose from the idolatrous race of Cain.

 

Thus, the Biblical point is that descendants of Seth were called, the “sons of God,” because it was this line of mankind that remained faithful to Him; while the descendants, or daughters of Cain if you will, were called “the children of Belial,” because they were disrespectful and disregarding of our Lord and His admonitions, choosing instead their own thoughts, ways, and ideas.  “Be not unequally yoked.”  Second Corinthians 6:14.

 

 

F) DON’T MISS THIS POINT

 

 

Another very important thing to consider about this passage in Genesis, Chapter Six, is the context (as mentioned above) in which it is set.  The entire Genesis, Chapter 6, is focused upon, “[5] And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth. . . [6] And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth. . .” verses 5 and 6.  The subject is man, not some angels or spirits other than men.  To attribute the phrase “sons of God,” to anything other than mankind, is to ignore the context and subject, that being:  mans “character,” the real subject of this Chapter (and the entire Bible).  Let us then stick to the plain teachings of God’s Word, considering what is important to our Lord (such as righteousness, the context of this passage), and we will not come up with these types of fanciful ideas or let other people influence us with them.

 

I hope that you see from this discussion of Genesis, Chapter 6, that you can now determine for yourself, who the “sons of God” are, and who the “sons of men [Belial]” are.

 

From my favorite Bible Commentator:  “The descendants of Seth were called the sons of God -- the descendants of Cain, the sons of men.  As the sons of God mingled with the sons of men, they became corrupt, and by intermarriage with them, lost, through the influence of their wives, their peculiar, holy character, and united with the sons of Cain in their idolatry.  Many cast aside the fear of God, and trampled upon His Commandments.  But there were a few who did righteousness, who feared and honored their Creator.  Noah and his family were among the righteous few.”  3SG:60.2; 1SP:66.1; ST, February 27, 1879, paragraph 1.