Jeremiah1five said,
"The "sons of God" in verse 2 are the human, godly line of Seth. The godly line of Seth were disobedient and took wives of the ungodly daughters of men, had children, and because of the sin nature in man and the influence of the ungodly women wives upon the children, they were without restraint of the Covenant godly line of Seth and were grown to be dictators and bullies in their society. I know Christians take "sons of God" as angels, but angels are first, a fixed number, have no genitals, and cannot mate with flesh." [/QUOTE\]
The first mention of “sons of the true God” is at
Genesis 6:2-4. There such sons are spoken of as ‘beginning to notice the daughters of men, that they were good-looking; and they went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose,’ this prior to the global Flood.
Many commentators hold that these ‘sons of God’ were themselves human, being in reality men of the line of Seth. They base their argument on the fact that Seth’s line was that through which godly Noah came, whereas the other lines from Adam, that of Cain and those of any other sons born to Adam (
Ge 5:3, 4), were destroyed at the Flood. So, they say that the taking as wives “the daughters of men” by “the sons of the true God” means that Sethites began to marry into the line of wicked Cain.
There is, however, nothing to show that God made any such distinction between family lines at this point. Corroborating Scriptural evidence is lacking to support the view that intermarriage between the lines of Seth and Cain is what is here meant, or that such marriages were responsible for the birth of “mighty ones” as mentioned in
verse 4. It is true that the expression “sons of men [or “of mankind”]” (which those favoring the earlier mentioned view would contrast with the expression ‘sons of God’) is frequently used in an unfavorable sense, but this is not consistently so.(
Psalm 4:2; 57:4; Proverbs 8:22, 30, 31; Jeremiah 32:18, 19; Daniel 10:16)
There is an explanation that finds corroborating evidence in the Scriptures. The expression “sons of the true God” next occurs at
Job 1:6, and here the reference is obviously to spirit sons of God assembled in God’s presence, among whom Satan, who had been “roving about in the earth,” also appeared. (
Job 1:7; 2:1, 2) Again at
38:4-7 “the sons of God” who ‘shouted in applause’ when God ‘laid the cornerstone’ of the earth clearly were angelic sons and not humans descended from Adam (as yet not even created). So, too, at
Psalm 89:6 “the sons of God” are definitely heavenly creatures, not earthlings.
The identification of “the sons of the true God” at
Genesis 6:2-4 with angelic creatures is objected to by those holding the previously mentioned view because they say the context relates entirely to
human wickedness. This objection is not valid, however, since the wrongful interjection of spirit creatures in human affairs most certainly could contribute to or accelerate the growth of human wickedness. Wicked spirit creatures during Jesus’ time on earth, though not then materializing in visible form, were responsible for wrong human conduct of an extreme nature. The mention of a mixing into human affairs by angelic sons of God could reasonably appear in the Genesis account precisely because of its explaining to a considerable degree the gravity of the situation that had developed on earth prior to the Flood.
Supporting this are the apostle Peter’s references to “the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient when the patience of God was waiting in Noah’s days” (
1Peter 3:19, 20), and to “the angels that sinned,” mentioned in connection with the “ancient world” of Noah’s time (
2 Peter 2:4, 5), as well as Jude’s statement concerning “the angels that did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place.” (
Jude 6) If it is denied that “the sons of the true God” of
Genesis 6:2-4 were spirit creatures, then these statements by the Christian writers become enigmatic, with nothing to explain the manner in which this angelic disobedience took place, or its actual relation to Noah’s time.
Angels definitely did materialize human bodies on occasion, even eating and drinking with men. (
Genesis 18:1-22; 19:1-3) Jesus’ statement concerning resurrected men and women not marrying or being given in marriage but being like the “angels in heaven” shows that marriages between such heavenly creatures do not exist, no male and female distinction being indicated among them. (
Matthew 22:30) But this does not say that such angelic creatures could not materialize human forms and enter marriage relations with human women. It should be noted that Jude’s reference to angels as not keeping their original position and to them as forsaking their “proper dwelling place” (certainly here referring to an abandoning of the spirit realm) is immediately followed by the statement: “So too Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example.” (
Jude 6, 7) So, the combined weight of the Scriptural evidence points to angelic deviation, the performance of acts contrary to their spirit nature, occurring in the days of Noah. I don't believe there is a valid reason, for doubting that the ‘sons of God’ of
Genesis 6:2-4 were angelic sons.
