Saturday, May 4, 2013

The Unholy Alliance of Genesis 6:1-2



Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. Genesis 6:1-2 New King James Version
 In the Genesis class I am currently taking at Liberty University we were assigned three interpretive question.  The interpretive question I selected on the first of the three was on the identity of the “sons of God”.  This is a topic of discussion between different theologians and scholars, and one that generates some sound differences in how one views the Scripture both in part and in whole.
Calvin, in his commentary on Genesis, argues that the world was divided into two parts; the family of Seth and the family of Cain.[1]  As such, Calvin then points out that he believes the “sons of God” in this passage must be the descendants of Seth.  In his perspective, the taking of wives by the descendants of Seth from among the descendants of Cain was a mix of the righteous of God with the unholy or unrighteous.[2]  Calvin further goes on to state that this was a serious offense in the breaking of God’s commands.[3]  For his final point, Calvin argues: “When Scripture speaks about the sons of God, it sometimes refers to eternal election”.[4]
The second source referenced was Barnes Notes on the Old Testament by Albert Barnes, a respected theologian and scholar from the 1800’s.  Although similar in some ways to Calvin’s view of the “sons of God”, Barnes offers some different explanations regarding the severity of these unholy marriages.  Barnes agrees with Calvin that the “sons of God” must refer to the children of Seth.[5]  He supports his viewpoint by offering an understanding first of how Seth served as a replacement of Abel to Eve, and as such was considered the vessel chosen by which the “seed of the woman” would crush the “seed of the serpent".[6]  Barnes argues that the descendants of Seth are called the sons of God because “they have his spirit or disposition";[7] furthermore, he argues that they were “being born of the Spirit, and walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” [8]
In his Paradise to Prison Dr. John Davis takes a look at the three primary explanations of the “sons of God”.  First, he brings up the argument that the “sons of God” referred to angelic beings who took for themselves, wives from men.[9] Davis provides two challenges to this interpretation, but never dismisses the possibility of this interpretation.[10]  The second theory is the one demonstrated by John Calvin and Albert Barnes that the “sons of God” could refer to the descendants of Seth.[11]  He presents some arguments for this point of view, but then also addresses a few challenges to this theory, as well.[12]  Finally, Davis brings up the concept that the “sons of God” were “dynastic rulers in the Cainite line.”[13]  Although Dr. Davis brings up this idea, he dismisses it quickly by providing several significant challenges to this theory.[14] Davis thinks that the most likely identification of the “sons of God” could be either the first or second theories.[15]  Davis acknowledges, “the fact is, the interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 has not been settled.” [16]
The author of this paper falls in the category of students of Scripture who support that the “sons of God” were angels that left heaven, and settled among men.  It seems the arguments for the Hebrew phrase referring to the bene elim (sons of God) is only used a few times in the entire Old Testament, and almost all of these terms relate to angels, as seen in Job 1:6 and Psalms 29:1.  It is imperative, when looking at Scripture to understand the perspicuity of Scripture, that is the truth that Scripture is self-attesting.  As such, one should not overlook and dismiss passages such as 2 Peter 2:4-5 and Jude 6-7.  The passages just mentioned can be easily defended to show that some angels, which had fallen, were not sent upon the earth, but are locked up for grievous offenses to the laws of God.  The argument presented “angels are neither given or taken in marriage”[17] is related to angels who currently reside in heaven with God which can be supported when looking at the context of the challenge being presented by the Sadducees in Matthew 22.  This is not a hill worthy of dying on in theological discussion, but one in which there can be engagement and well-supported from a biblical basis.




Works Cited
Barnes, Albert. "Genesis 6:1-2." In Barnes' Notes On the Old Testament, page nr. Austin, TX: WORDserach Corp., 2010. WORDserach 10.


Calvin, John. Genesis. 1st. British ed. Edited by Alister McGrath and J.I Packer. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2001.


Davis, John J. Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis. Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K.: Sheffield Pub Co, 1998.


[1] John Calvin, Genesis, 1st. British ed., ed. Alister McGrath and J.I Packer (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2001), 67.
[2] Ibid, 67.
[3] John Calvin, Genesis, 1st. British ed., ed. Alister McGrath and J.I Packer (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2001), 67.
[4] Ibid, 67.
[5] Albert Barnes, “Genesis 6:1-2,” in Barnes' Notes On the Old Testament (Austin, TX: WORDserach Corp., 2010), WORDserach 10.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] John J. Davis, Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis (Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K.: Sheffield Pub Co, 1998), 110.
[10] Ibid, 111
[11] Ibid, 112.
[12] John J. Davis, Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis (Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K.: Sheffield Pub Co, 1998), 113.
[13] Ibid, 113.
[14] Ibid, 113.
[15] Ibid, 114.
[16] Ibid, 114.
[17] Albert Barnes, “Genesis 6:1-2,” in Barnes' Notes On the Old Testament (Austin, TX: WORDserach Corp., 2010), WORDserach 10