Ángel
Manuel Rodríguez
I've
been reading some commentaries on Genesis 6:1-4, and almost all of them
interpret the expression "son of God" as a reference to divine beings
or angels. What is a proper understanding of this biblical text?
Until
recently the prevailing opinion among commentators was that the phrase
"sons of God" referred to angels. Canaanite literature used this same
phrase to designate divine beings, members of the divine pantheon. This
use of the phrase has been read into the passage by a number of modern
scholars. They use ancient mythology to interpret the text because, supposedly,
this passage contains ancient myths.
Extrabiblical materials can be helpful
in understanding difficult passages. However, those backgrounds should
not determine the interpretation of a passage if in the process
we sacrifice the principle that the Bible is its own interpreter. We should
begin with the biblical text itself. From it we can observe the following
points:
1. Use of "sons of God" in the
Old Testament. A study of the phrase reveals that it is used to designate
the Israelite king (Ps. 2:7; 2 Sam. 7:14); angels (Job 38:7); and heavenly
beings, members of the divine council (Job 1:6; 2:1). In a very special
way the Israelites are called sons/children of God. Israel is the firstborn
son of God (Ex. 4:22, 23).
2. Immediate context. In Genesis
4 and 5 the human race is divided into two main groups: the descendants
of Cain (Gen. 4: 17-24) and those of Seth ( verses 25, 26).
In Genesis 6:1,2 this division is
clearly recognized by referring to those who followed the Lord as "sons
of God" and to the rest of humanity as "men." There is nothing in the
immediate context to suggest that the "sons of God" are kings, angels,
or heavenly beings.
3. Significance of the expression
"to take a wife." Verse 2 describes a legal and permanent union between
the sons of God and the daughters of men. "They took to wife such of them
as they chose" (RSV) includes a verb that is a technical expression to
designate marriage, the act of entering into a legal and binding relationship
between a man and a woman (Gen. 4:19; 11:29; 12:19; 20:2, 3).
Had the reference been to angels,
one would have to conclude that they married the daughters of men and
became their legal husbands. This is rejected by all serious interpreters.
4. Concept of judgment. The
sin of the "sons of God" brought judgment on the human race. Had they
been angels or heavenly beings, they, and possibly the daughters of men,
should have been punished for their sins, but not the human race as a
whole.
5. Descendants were human beings.
Children born as a result of these intermarriages are not described
as semidivine or semiangelic beings. There is a reference to the nephilim
who were on the earth in those days, but the Hebrew text does not say
that they were the descendants of the intermarriages (although some translations
make that suggestion).
The sentence "The Nephilim were on
the earth in those days. . ." seems to be a parenthetical statement. Nephilim
is a Hebrew word whose meaning is not clear, and translators do not provide
any English equivalent. In Numbers 13:33 this term designates giants.
The antediluvian Nephilim were destroyed by the Flood, but later the term
was used to refer to people of unusual height and violence who inhabited
the land of Canaan.
"Men of renown" means "men of reputation"
and describes a person with a good character (1 Chron. 12:30), and also
individuals who use their influence for evil purposes (Num. 16:2, 3;1
Chron. 5:24, 25). Here the contexts seems to require a negative interpretation
of that terminology.
Thus contextual and linguistic analysis
indicates that the best interpretation of the phrase "sons of God" is
the one that finds in it a designation of the descendants of Seth. This
appears to be the one suggested by Scripture itself.
4/11/96
Copyright © Biblical Research Institute General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists®