by Tyler Sposite
I've been doing alot of study on the topic of "Satan" and "fallen angels" in scripture, and want to publish my findings for others to consider. I've decided to break this down into a series of write-ups, since there are multiple facets to this topic, and really alot of bases to cover. So, with that being said, we're going to start with examining who the "Sons of God" are in Genesis 6 and Job 1-2, & 38. This is because of the fact that the primary basis for the doctrine of "fallen angels" is founded upon Genesis 6 and the premise that Angels are sons of God.
For the sake of transparency, I will state at the beginning that I do not believe that the 'sons of God' in Genesis 6 or in the book of Job are Angels. This viewpoint has typically been labeled the "Sethite" view. I'm sure that most of my readers are familiar with the controversy over the proper interpretation of this passage and are therefore familiar with both proposed interpretations. However, I'm writing this firstly for those who might not be familiar with the issue, or who are undecided on how to understand it, and secondly for the sake of publicly and officially stating my own view on the subject, as a basis for the rest of the articles that will be written in this series.
What I intend to show here is both that, not only is there no basis for concluding that angels are the sons of God in Genesis chapter 6, but also to show that the concept of God's covenant children intermarrying with those outside of covenant is actually a common theme in the Tanakh, and this passage is simply the first reference to it.
So then, let's take a look at this text:
Genesis 6:1-8 KJV And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, (2) That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. (3) And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. (4) There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (5) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (6) And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. (7) And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. (8) But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
The objections to the "fallen angel" interpretation are rather simple and straightforward, they are the following:
1. The word MaLaK (Angel/Messenger) is never used in Genesis chapter 6
The first problem with suggesting that the sons of God in this passage are angelic beings is that angels are never actually mentioned anywhere in the text. This is a very basic point, but one well worth considering, because this means that the context must then establish who or what the 'sons of God' are; given the fact that Angels are never actually mentioned, it seems like a mere assertion to claim that they must be Angels by default
2. The text consistently shows God's anger towards MAN
The next issue is that, right after we are told about the 'sons of God' marrying the 'daughters of men' in verses 1-2, verse 3 shows that God is grieved with mankind over this event:
Genesis 6:3 KJV And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
The word used for "man" in this chapter is ADAM, denoting human beings. Everytime the word "man" or "men" appears in Genesis with reference to Angels the author uses the word IYSH (denoting a male figure). Thus the immediate context strongly suggests that it was human beings who were involved in the event, rather than angels and humans. This is strengthened by the fact that all throughout the rest of the passage, we continuously see God being angry with MAN, and MAN's sin being great upon the earth, etc. etc. It is always ADAM that is mentioned within the text as being at fault.
3. Verse 4 plainly says that there were giants upon the earth BEFORE the sons of God married the daughters of men
Verse 4 says:
Genesis 6:4 KJV There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
This might be the most overlooked verse in this entire debate, in this writer's opinion; look very carefully at what this verse says, it says:
1. There were giants in the earth in those days
“those” is a pronoun, and requires an antecedent, what is the antecedent within the context? Clearly it refers back to verse 1 where we read about mankind multiplying upon the earth, and then verse 4 goes on to say:
2. and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them...
Notice, the text says "also AFTER that, WHEN the sons of God came in...", which is described in verse 2; so the text actually tells us that there were "giants" on the earth BEFORE the sons of God married the daughters of men. This poses a very obvious problem for the "fallen angel" interpretation, for under this viewpoint, the "giants" are supposed to have been a hybrid breed of angels and humans, yet Moses clearly intimates for us that this "giants" were on earth prior to such an event taking place!
Having provided these three basic points of argumentation, I would like to expound upon some other parts of the passage which are worthy of comment. Regarding the word "giants", this term has been variously understood by commentators. The word "Nephilim" comes from the word "NaPhaL" meaning literally "to fall", and has been understood by some as having reference to these men being "fallen" in the sense of Apostasizing (similar to how the "fallen angel" proponents understand the word); others have interpreted it as referring to men who would "fall upon" others, in the sense of attacking and oppressing them. From this interpretation we derive the definition of "bully" or "tyrant". The translation of "giants" seems to come from the Greek translation of Genesis 6:4, which actually uses the word γιγαντες, literally meaning "earth-born". The only other time the Hebrew word occurs is in Numbers 13:33, and based upon it's usage there, it could denote men of large stature, or fierce/mighty men. The English translation "giant" can encompass both or either/or. In any case, though, neither of these interpretations of the word require any sense of these "giants" having been the product of angels and human beings.
Another thing to address is the term "sons of God" itself. Many people opposed to the Sethite view will often make the claim that if the "Sons of God" here are regenerate believers, then it seems improper for the author to refer to them as "sons of God" if they were apostasizing from the faith by marrying unbelievers. While it is true that the term "sons of God" and "children of God" are often used in scripture, particularly in the Apostolic writings (NT), to refer to saved and regenerate persons, the term also seems to be applied in a more general sense to God's covenant people as a whole, which can consist of saved and unsaved persons. For instance, in Exodus chapter 4, the nation of Israel is collectively referred to as God's "son":
Exodus 4:22-23 KJV And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: (23) And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.
Clearly this has reference to Israel's covenant obligation to worship YHVH due to the covenant which he had made with their fathers. We find something similar in the book of Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 14:1 KJV Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.
This scripture refers to the covenant community as a whole as the "children of the LORD", I'm not aware of anyone who would claim that every single Israelite amongst them was a regenerate individual.
Likewise in Psalm 82, when God is condemning the corrupt judges of Israel, he calls them "sons of God", but in the context they are clearly not regenerate nor saved individuals. Thus, we can see, that the term "sons of God" can be used simply to refer to members within the covenant community, without reference to individual regeneration.
The other thing that I want to show (as stated at the beginning) is that Genesis 6 is simply the first in a number of instances in scripture where God's covenant children apostasize due to intermarriage with unbelievers. We find this happening again in the book of Numbers:
Numbers 25:1-3 KJV And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. (2) And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. (3) And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.
We see in this passage the exact same thing happening as in Genesis chapter 6, God's covenant people are joining themselves to those outside of the covenant community and are apostasizing as a result. God also forbade Israel from marrying specific Canaanite nations for this very reason:
Deuteronomy 7:1-4 KJV When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; (2) And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: (3) Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. (4) For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
This is the exact thing that happened to Solomon, who is another example of what we're talking about:
1 Kings 11:1-4 KJV But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; (2) Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. (3) And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. (4) For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
The same thing happened again when Israel returned from exile:
Ezra 9:1-2 KJV Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. (2) For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.
Thus we see this pattern throughout the scriptures, God's people always being tempted to be led astray by unbelievers, mixing truth with a lie, belief with unbelief, etc. etc. This understanding of Genesis chapter 6 perfectly accords with this common theme.
In summary, what we see in Genesis chapter 6 is God's covenant people intermarrying with unbelievers; there was violence and tyranny in the earth during this time; God is grieved and angry with mankind as a result of their sin and apostasy, and decides to punish them for it; one man, however, amongst mankind, is found faithful to God, namely Noah.
There is simply nothing within the text of Genesis 6 which even hints at Angels reproducing with human women. Such an idea is contextually and exegetically indefensible. The only other hint that the Book of Genesis gives us is the fact that there were men from Seth's line who were "calling upon the name of YHVH" in Genesis 4:26. It's really not that difficult, based upon this, and the other evidence already provided, to suppose that these are humans being spoken of in Genesis 6.
The sons of God in the book of Job
The next set of verses to address are those found within the book of Job. We will begin by looking at the verses in chapters 1 & 2 which mention the sons of God:
Job 1:6 KJV Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
We are again told in chapter 2:
Job 2:1 KJV Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
The contention is that Job 1 & 2 are presenting a scene in heaven amongst God's heavenly counsel, called the "sons of God". The reasons for this supposition will be addressed below:
1. The sons of God are said to present themselves before YHVH
This argument is a rather simple one. The sons of God are said to be before the LORD, therefore they are in heaven, and therefore they are angels. In response to this argument, I offer two points:
1. The term 'sons of God' is uniformly applied to human beings in scripture. This was already touched upon in our previous study on Genesis 6, however there are several other passages which could be given, in both the Old and New Testaments, to prove this. Even those who promote the 'fallen angel' doctrine will agree with this point
2. Not only are human beings referred to as sons of God, but human beings are frequently said to appear before, stand before, and be in the presence of YHVH. Here are some examples, accompanied with explanations as to what it means to be before the LORD:
Exodus 23:16-17 KJV And the feast of harvest, the firstfruits of thy labours, which thou hast sown in the field: and the feast of ingathering, which is in the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field. (17) Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD.
And again:
Exodus 34:24 KJV For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.
Deuteronomy 31:10-11 KJV And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, (11) When all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.
Psalms 84:4-7 KJV Blessed are they that dwell in thy house: they will be still praising thee. Selah. (5) Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; in whose heart are the ways of them. (6) Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools. (7) They go from strength to strength, every one of them in Zion appeareth before God.
What do all of these passages have in common? They all show that "appearing before the LORD" signifies a time when the people of God are to gather together in worship and religious service. The word used in all of these passages is ra'ah, and in it's Niphal form properly means "to appear" or "to present oneself". The word used in the verses in Job is yatsab and means the same thing; we also have verses in scripture which use this same word in reference to human beings:
Joshua 24:1 KJV And Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and called for the elders of Israel, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers; and they presented themselves before God.
1 Samuel 10:19 KJV And ye have this day rejected your God, who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations; and ye have said unto him, Nay, but set a king over us. Now therefore present yourselves before the LORD by your tribes, and by your thousands.
In Joshua 24, the purpose of the Israelites gathering together was to make a covenant agreement that they would exclusively worship YHVH; the purpose of them gathering before YHVH in 1 Samuel 10 was to determine who should be their king. Thus we can see that to "stand before" or "present oneself" before YHVH in scripture means to gather together for worship, to serve, to make a covenant, or to discuss, perform, or determine any other divine matters relating to the true God and his service.
With all of these examples from scripture, then, we can clearly see that there is nothing at all strange about understanding the sons of God presenting themselves before YHVH as human beings gathered together in his service. There is, however, some more interesting detail on this point which is worth noting. This will be talked about more in the next point.
2. The text says that Satan was amongst the sons of God
We further read in the text that "Satan" (the adversary) also came to present himself before the LORD:
Job 2:1 KJV Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Now, this next point has some overlap with the response which is to be given to the next argument, namely, that because "Satan" is said to have been there amongst the sons of God, that surely this must necessitate that they were not human beings, on the supposition that "Satan" in this text is a supernatural entity. To this I offer the following considerations:
Firstly, as pointed out previously, notice that the text says "Satan" ALSO came to present himself before YHVH. What this clearly suggests, given the clear usage of the language elsewhere in scripture, as demonstrated above, is that this "Satan" was also assembled for public service. Even if we were to grant that this was describing an assembly of angels, this would still clearly be the case. And while I grant that it is certainly possible for an angel to be present amongst an assembly of believers, the fact is that the word "satan" simply means "adversary", and the text of Job in point of fact does NOT actually identify who "Satan" is in this text. Thus, it could be understood of an Angel amongst the sons of God, or of a fellow human being. Given the fact that this "adversary" is also amongst the sons of God to present himself before the LORD, I would submit that this was probably the latter.
Secondly, consider what the text says of "Satan":
Job 1:12 KJV And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
Genesis 4:16 KJV And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Even the language of "going out from the presence of the LORD" is used of human beings in scripture. The same words are used in each case in the Hebrew text as well.
So then, as we can see, there is nothing within the language used which inherently requires us to take the position that the "sons of God" or "Satan" are angelic beings, in fact given the clear scriptural information presented, we have plenty of reason for thinking that these are NOT angelic or supernatural beings at all, but rather humans. Once again, however, even if Satan is a supernatural being in this text, it still doesn't follow from this that the 'sons of God' are not human beings, since an Angel can still be amongst an assembly of humans.
3. The sons of God are said to have been present at creation
The next verse for us to consider is Job 38:7:
Job 38:7 KJV When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
It is rather obvious what the contention is, namely, that God here says that the 'sons of God' were present during the time of creation, the Angels were present at creation, therefore the Angels are sons of God. However, to begin with, let us point out that the one speaking here is God, not the author of the book of Job. The reasoning for pointing this out is that just because the same phrase is used by the author at the beginning of the book, does not mean that the creator himself, when speaking to Job, can't be using it differently. The next observation to point out, is that the context shows God questioning Job about the creation:
Job 38:4-6 KJV Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. (5) Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? (6) Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Next, notice also that it is specifically the stars which are referred to as the sons of God in this text, and we are told that the stars shouted together and sang for joy. Someone may object at this point, that the fact that the creator says the stars 'shouted' and 'sang' surely indicates that persons are intended; to which I respond, that this does not follow at all, for one would first have to presuppose that "morning stars" refer to "angels", and then read that supposition back into the verse, in which case said person would be engaging in circular reasoning. Secondly, that when dealing with wisdom literature, it is not at all uncommon to come across poetic or figurative language, and in fact to any unbiased reader, if they see "morning stars" called God's "sons", and read that they "shouted" and "sang", the natural impression would surely be that the speaker is using poetic language. On top of that, however, we can offer other examples from scripture, where the authors say nearly the exact same thing, as the verse in question does, for instance:
Psalms 19:1-5 KJV To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. (2) Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. (3) There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. (4) Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, (5) Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
David here speaks of Day and Night speaking and uttering their voice, he also compares the sun to a bridegroom rejoicing
Psalms 148:1-4 KJV Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights. (2) Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts. (3) Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. (4) Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.
This text is especially significant because it explicitly distinguishes between the angels of God and the stars of light, David commands the sun and moon to praise God, and the stars to do likewise
So then, it is not unusual at all, for a writer to speak figuratively of the heavenly bodies shouting or singing, let alone God himself, who created them to begin with! As to the stars being called God's "sons", this is easily accounted for via the following scripture:
James 1:17 KJV Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
God is called the Father of lights, I wonder where James got the idea for this phrase? Perhaps Job 38:7!
The Bible explicitly says that Angels are not sons of God
Now that we have dealt with the verses in Genesis 6 and Job 1, 2, and 38, I want to make one last argument showing definitively that Angels cannot be the sons of God in these passages. My argument is based upon the following scripture:
Hebrews 1:4-6 KJV Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. (5) For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? (6) And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
The author of Hebrews expressly says that God never called any Angel his son. The primary response that I've heard given to this verse (and the one which I used to give when I believed in the 'fallen angel' doctrine) is that this is only referring to the specific prophecies that are being quoted from. However, this misses the entire point that the author is making. The author is establishing Christ's superiority over all of God's creation, including the Angels, on the basis that he is God's unique Son who had inherited his Father's works. This is what chapters 1-2 explicitly deal with. The whole point of him quoting those verses is to show that it is Christ, NOT the angels, who is a "son" in relation to God. We are also counted as "sons" which is why Jesus is called the "firstborn" (Hebrews 1:6) and why we are called his "brethren" (Hebrews 2:11-12; 17).
So, along with all of the points made earlier, this passage of scripture should seal the deal. The Bible plainly states that no Angelic being was ever called God's son, and never had that relationship to God, and I have demonstrated that the two places in the Bible which are used to prove that they are sons of God do not require us to come to that conclusion at all. I hope that this has helped someone better understand the issue, as well as the reason why I can no longer accept this doctrine on the basis of Scripture.
