On the subject of “amalgamation”… who are those sons of God?

Dr Adrian Bury's blog

Christian theology, basic teachings, apologetics

On the subject of “amalgamation”… who are those sons of God?

In an earlier writing of mine (more recently on my Hungarian blog – http://bury-adrian.blogspot.com/2012/01/adventista-mesekrol-bovebben.html and on YouTube – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-sCvcRoZsY&feature=related) I mentioned that Ellen G. White taught that before the Flood there was amalgamation between man and beast resulting in the birth of “mixed” descendants. Where she got this from I guess only she knew, but it reminded me of the idea that some like to see a different kind of “amalgamation” in Genesis 6:1-4, which also speaks of the antediluvian world. I’ll quote the passage:

“When men (Hebrew – há’ádám) began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God (b’néi-há’ĕlóhím) saw that the daughters of men (b’nóth há’ádám) were beautiful, and they married (vayiq’khú láhem náším) any of them they chose. Then the Lord said: “My Spirit will not contend with man for ever, for he is mortal (básár – flesh); his days (yámáiv) will be a hundred and twenty years.”

The Nephilim (hann’fílím – some translations have “giants”) were on the earth in those days – and also afterwards – when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes (haggibórím) of old, men of renown.

The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the Lord said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth – men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air – for I am grieved that I have made them.” But Noah found favour in the eyes of the Lord.

This is the account of Noah (éleh tóldóth Nóakh).” (Genesis 6:1-9).

I have encountered this section again recently. It happened when someone, who I happen to respect and consider to be a dedicated, God-fearing man, mentioned in his sermon that – there are two theories about this story… I, on the other hand, know that there are three, and the one I happen to consider the best, he did not mention at all… But perhaps I am getting ahead of myself….

I, therefore, have encountered several, distinct (three to be exact) theories in explanation of this passage. All of them are old, originating centuries in the past, so I did not invent them, and they were not invented yesterday. So as not to be biased, let’s consider them all…

First of all I should mention verse 9. I read a book a long time ago (I have forgotten the name, so it is not in the “Bibliography”, and it was also pretty liberal as it espoused the local flood theory), but I remember something from it that was interesting. It claimed that Moses was not the author, but rather the editor of the book of Genesis. There is a repeating phrase in the book, “éleh tóldóth XY” (this is the account of XY), and although most Bible translations divide the text to put this sentence at the beginning of a passage, when compared with other ancient Near Eastern writings, and considering all the stories too, it is more likely that this marks the end of each particular person’s story. Each person (e.g. Adam – Genesis 5:1, Noah – 6:9, the sons of Noah – 10:1) would have been familiar with the information contained in the passage preceding his name, rather than the following one. This is particularly apparent in the case of Terah, whose story may be read between Genesis 11:10b) and 27a). In line with this it is possible that the original version of the text under consideration was written by Noah – this is by no means out of the question.

On the basis of this, it can be ascertained that this text, even in comparison with other sections of the Bible, is very old. I dare say Noah and his contemporaries knew exactly what he wanted to say when he used the expression “sons of God”. In later times, however, it can be imagined that this knowledge was lost. This event happened in the period before the Flood, and apart from the Bible we have no other sources, archaeological finds or writings dating from that age which would help us better understand the situation at that time. And the earliest interpretation which we still have available dates from approx. fifteen hundred years later. Perhaps we should see, therefore, that people living at that time did not have much more of an idea what this means than do we, in the twenty first century. In any case, here are the theories…

The fallen angels theory:

The oldest interpretation which we still know about, and also the first one which I encountered, is the notion that the “sons of God” are (fallen) angels, and the “daughters of men” are human women in general. These had children, produced descendants together.

The following arguments are raised in defence of this theory:

The expression “the sons of God” (Hebrew: b’nei-há’ĕlóhím) refers to angels in other passages (e.g. Job 1: 6; 2: 1; Psalms 29:1).
This was the teaching of certain Jewish rabbis at the time of Jesus. In the inter-testamental Jewish literature such as the book of 1 Enoch dating from around the 3^rd-2^nd century BC, the story of a rebellion in heaven at the time of Noah is further developed. Details of this are also referred to by certain New Testament authors (e.g. in 1 Peter 3:19-20; 2 Péter 2:4; Jude 6-7, 14-15). Josephus and Philo also held this view.
As the same kind of mixing occurred after the Flood (verse 4), we also encounter giants later, “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.” (Numbers13:33).
The reason God destroyed mankind was that a great deal of mixing with the angels had occurred. One reason why God rescued Noah was because he was “blameless” (v. 9). The Hebrew word támím which occurs here, as elsewhere it refers to physical perfection, for instance in connection with animals for sacrifice (cf. Leviticus 1:3), is understood to mean that Noah was genetically unblemished, there had been no mixing with angelic genes in his family.
The stories about “descendants of the gods” found in the mythologies of many human cultures, e.g. Indian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman, South American, indicate that this event really was repeated after the Flood as well.
This explanation is found in the writings of the earliest church fathers, so it was the very first Christian teaching on this passage, for instance Justin Martyr, Origen, Irenaeus and Tertullian taught this.
Considering the fact that Jesus said, “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man…” (Matthew 24:37), it is postulated that there will be genetic confusion once again in the last days, and this is linked with “experiences” with UFO beings.

In spite of all this, there are also serious problems with this view:

The context of this incident indicts that God is so angry with man because of it that he plans their destruction (Genesis 6:5-7). According to the passage, however, it is man’s sin which results in the anger and judgement of God. The population of the world is not destroyed because of genetic mixture, but because of their sins.
If the destruction had come chiefly due to the sin of the angels, why does God’s punishment fall on men instead? The passage does not mention any judgement against the angels (even under the designation “sons of God”), for after all, angels don’t drown in floods, do they?
According to Jesus, angels do not marry and do not bear children (see Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34-36). Also on the basis of what modern science has discovered on the subject of reproduction and DNA, the matter seems unimaginable. Of course, angels do not submit themselves to scientific experimentation, but even so …

Let’s continue …

The lines of Cain and Seth theory:

As a number of influential pagan writers such as Celsus and the Emperor Julian the Apostate had used the traditional view discussed above to attack Christianity (well, if they believe stupid things like that…), in the 5^th century Julius Africanus figured out an alternative theory. He explained that the “sons of God” mentioned in the text were really the offspring of Seth, and “the daughters of men” were the descendants of Cain. God was angry because the god-fearing descendants of Seth had not kept themselves separate from the godless line of Cain, and thus brought the flood upon themselves. Saint Augustine accepted this theory and made it popular in his work “The City of God”. It thus became the view of the Roman Catholic Church, and later on of many Evangelicals too.

This does not have much going for it, though the following could be mentioned:

This theory avoids the notion that angels and humans together produced descendants.
Expressions similar to “the sons of God” are also applied to human beings (e.g. Deuteronomy 14:1; Isaiah 43:6; Hosea 1:10; 1 John 3:1-2), though it is true that none of these is identical to it.
The Flood resulted from the sin of men, and no angelic rebellion need be appealed to.

Unfortunately, it must be said that there are also huge problems with it:

Exegesis of the text itself, in fact.
The expression “the sons of God” in this precise form elsewhere only refers to angels and not to men.
It is also true that this expression is not used in the Old Testament to refer to “believers” or “God-fearers”.
Seth is not God and Cain is not Adam. The text says, “the sons of God” and “the daughters of Adam” (according to the Hebrew), and not “the sons of Seth” and “the daughters of Cain.” If this view were really true, why does the text not say so? Why should “the daughters of Adam” refer to the line of Cain as opposed to the whole of mankind?
The text does not indicate that one line was god-fearing and the other wicked. The Flood occurred because all men had turned to evil. If the Sethites were so holy, why did God destroy them?
God did not require separation before the Flood. This first appears in Genesis 11 in the case of Isaac. God is not capricious. He will not bring judgement because of something which he forgot to mention.
This theory does not explain the origin of the “giants”.
It appears most unlikely to me that marriages occurring between two lines of human descendants would have been such a huge sin as to be the direct cause of the great judgement of God. After all, according to the text, it is not even a matter of immorality, but just regular marriage. God commanded man, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:28). Simply marrying and having children does not contravene God’s command, in fact, it fulfils it.
Genesis 6:4 allows us to conclude that this particular sin was committed not only before the Flood, but also afterwards (cf. Numbers13:33). As the line of Cain was completely wiped out in the Flood, this would have been a physical impossibility.
This interpretation was only hit upon in the 5^th century. It appears rather artificial and contrived.

The divine kings theory:

The third option is that “the sons of God” were antediluvian rulers or princes who claimed to be the offspring of God, or of some god, and thus justified their authority. As gods they thus demanded to be worshipped, and took wives from among the common people, thus practising polygamy. After the 2^nd century Rabbi Simeon ben Yochai, this became the usual interpretation in rabbinic Judaism, and has remained so till the present day. Although it is less well known among Christians, several modern theologians have reopened the discussion since the middle of the 20^th century (e.g. Livingstone, Meredith Kline).

The same points could be used to support it as for the case of the lines of Cain and Seth, and in addition:

The expression “b’nei-há’ĕlóhím” could also be translated as “the sons of the gods.
The beginnings of polygamy can be seen in the case of Lamech (Genesis 4:19-24), who can be imagined as one of these divine king figures. It is also possible that a “cult of man” of this type goes all the way back to Cain, who built a city and named it after his son (Genesis 4:17).
The text says that the same sort of thing happened in later times too (v. 4). Although we have no archaeological finds dating from the antediluvian world (or do we …? OOPARTS?), we know from historical sources that the earliest known civilisations from after the flood were certainly dominated by conditions like those that we postulate here on the basis of this view. In the ancient Near East, the kings and rulers were regarded as “sons of the gods”, e.g. in Sumeria, Assyria, Egypt and Babylon.
A possible Biblical parallel from after the Flood could be the case of Nimrod (Genesis 11:8-12). The Hebrew text mentions three times that he is gibór – mighty – which is the same word as in Genesis 6:4. Extra-Biblical sources report that Nimrod’s wife Semiramis bore a son, Tammuz, after the death of her husband, and she claimed a supernatural origin for him. Many false religious systems have been traced to this event, each one claiming that a human woman bore a son to a divine being. If this were true, it would also explain the myths in which human girls bore demigods, avatars, or titans, without this being true in actual reality.
Livingstone claims that in these very early times, the kings and the priests working together deliberately wrote myths, basing them on earlier versions, in order to create religious systems, including a central role for the king as an offspring of the (local) god, in order to keep the common people in submission. If this is so, then this also explains the origin of the many legends.
The fact that a man would make himself into a god or the son of a god, and thus demand worship for himself, would be a form of idolatry, which God regards as one of the most serious sins. In later times, it was chiefly due to idolatry that Israel was taken into captivity. If instead of trusting in the true God, people would worship other men (see Romans 1:22-23), this could certainly have resulted in God’s judgement. This situation is definitely a believable cause for the Flood, and in addition, it counts as the sin of man.
In connection with what Jesus had to say about the last days, “As it was in the days of Noah…”, let us not forget that “the man of lawlessness is revealed… he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Thess. 2:3-4). This appears to fit this picture very well…

Against this theory would be:

The expression “the sons of God” in this precise form always refers to angels in other passages. However, there is no other verse dating from the antediluvian period which uses this expression.
This theory does not provide an explanation for unnatural offspring, or giants, either, (Genesis 6:4). On the other hand, this is rather a complex issue. Neither the Hebrew “Nephilim” nor the Greek “gigantes” found in the LXX translation means “giants” in actual fact. Perhaps this is just referring to “warriors”, as in the case of Nimrod. And what if we choose a middle road, and acknowledge the possibility that although these are not the offspring of fallen angels, they may certainly have been demonised human beings? People like that could have had supernatural strength…

On the basis of the above, the reader will have perhaps already realised that I consider this third interpretation to be the most believable.

Sources used:

Bob Deffinbaugh: “The Sons of God and the Daughters of men (Genesis 6:1-8)”

http://bible.org/seriespage/sons-god-and-daughters-men-genesis-61-8

Meredith G. Kline: commentary on Genesis, in The New Bible Commentary Revised, IVP, 1970.

David Livingstone: “Who were the Sons of God in Genesis 6?”

http://www.davelivingston.com/sonsofgod.htm

Trevor J. Major: “The meaning of ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6:1-4”, Apologetics Press

Chuck Missler: “Sons of God” parts 1-6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LI-r4mM0QU&feature=related

http://www.gotquestions.org/sons-of-God.html

http://www.learnthebible.org/the-sons-of-god-in-genesis.html

http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Genesis-6-Sons-of-God