THE "SONS OF GOD" WERE NEVER ANGELIC BEINGS

[Eddie Ramos]

It is commonly taught and believed that when the Bible makes reference to the sons of God in the Old Testament, that angels must be in view. The reason for this way of thinking is because of the belief that Christ made payment for sins at the cross rather than at the point of the world's foundation (which is a separate topic). The common thought is that there could have been no "sons of God" before the cross because no one was born again until that time. Or that no one could enter heaven until after the cross. But that is shown to be a great misconception when weighed against the whole of the scriptures.

I will defend the side that teaches that the term, "sons of God" was never a reference to angelic beings, but always and only to those who became truly born again. I will start with my supporting verse for anyone to offer rebuttal.

Hebrews 1:4–5 (KJV 1900)
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?

The answer is, to none of the angels was this said except to Christ. And through Christ, this term was also bestowed upon the elect of God who had become saved.

1 John 3:1 (KJV 1900)
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

Galatians 4:4–6 (KJV 1900)
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Furthermore, it should be noted that in order to be a son, one must be begotten of the Father. Angelic beings were never said to be begotten, but rather created.

Colossians 1:15–16 (KJV 1900)
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Understanding this truth will help us understand the term "sons of God" as used in the following verses which also have been poorly interpreted due to a faulty initial understanding of the term "sons of God".

Genesis 6:2 (KJV 1900)
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.

Genesis 6:4 (KJV 1900)
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.

Job 2:1 (KJV 1900)
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.

Job 38:7 (KJV 1900)
7  When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

The question for discussion is, do you believe that the term "sons of God" applies to angelic beings and why?

Thank you.

[otseng]

Exactly.

9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates.

Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the Thank button. For anything else use PM.

[MissKate13]

[Replying to Eddie Ramos in post #1]

I agree with you that “Sons of God” were not angels. They were righteous people who intermarried with the wicked ("Daughters of Men"). The result was a decay in the overall spiritualness of the people.

[Conversator]

B'nei elohim is better rendered divine beings, then sons of God. Every race of people in the Bible are typically called b'nei something ( Israel, Anak, Moab, etc). As far as b'nei elohim meaning anything other than divine beings, consider using a Hebrew concordance. English translations take great liberties with this phrase, translating it as angels, gods, the mighty, the majestic, etc. A casual perusal through English translations will not convey this. Hope this helps.

[Conversator]

As a Jew fluent in Hebrew, I'd be remiss if I didn't clarify a little further. Genesis 6:2 reads thus in the Hebrew: the "sons of elohim saw the daughters of the human"( Adam means human, ish means man. Adam is used here) The contrast is plain. When I said to use a Hebrew concordance, I failed to clarify. English translations translate b'nei elohim as sons of God in Genesis and job, however, in every other instance ( and they're numerous) they translate it as gods, the mighty, angels, the majestic, idols, etc. English translations don't convey how many times this phrase is actually used in the Hebrew Masoretic text. Hope this helps you in your studies.

[Conversator]

One further point. Rabbinic interpretation in the Talmud ( which predates Christian interpretation by a few centuries) considered the b'nei elohim in Genesis 6, to be angels who hooked up with the ladies. 15 centuries later, the great Jewish sage Rashi ( 12th century CE), reinterpreted Genesis 6 to mean "sons of the pious". Modern Judaism and Christianity have followed Rashi's interpretation ever since.

[historia]

[T]he great Jewish sage Rashi ( 12th century CE), reinterpreted Genesis 6 to mean "sons of the pious". Modern Judaism and Christianity have followed Rashi's interpretation ever since.

I wouldn't say that Christians follow Rashi's interpretation here, since (a) there are multiple different views on this issue within Christianity, and (b) the Christian view that most closely resembles that of Rashi was articulated by the Early Church Fathers as early as the 3rd Century.

[Conversator]

[T]he great Jewish sage Rashi ( 12th century CE), reinterpreted Genesis 6 to mean "sons of the pious". Modern Judaism and Christianity have followed Rashi's interpretation ever since.

I wouldn't say that Christians follow Rashi's interpretation here, since (a) there are multiple different views on this issue within Christianity, and (b) the Christian view that most closely resembles that of Rashi was articulated by the Early Church Fathers as early as the 3rd Century.

Interesting, I was aware of early Christian musings about the sons of God being kings and judges. I'm unfamiliar with anything resembling Rashi's view. If so, my dear ole Rashi was influenced by Christian thought.

[historia]

Interesting, I was aware of early Christian musings about the sons of God being kings and judges. I'm unfamiliar with anything resembling Rashi's view.

In Christianity this is sometimes called the "Sethite" view, since the idea here is that the "sons of God" are righteous men descended from Seth, while the unrighteous are descended from Cain.

Julius Africanus (3rd Century) appears to be the first to mention this:

When men multiplied on the earth, the angels of heaven came together with the daughters of men. In some copies I found "the sons of God."

What is meant by the Spirit, in my opinion, is that the descendants of Seth are called the sons of God on account of the righteous men and patriarchs who have sprung from him, even down to the Saviour Himself; but that the descendants of Cain are named the seed of men, as having nothing divine in them, on account of the wickedness of their race and the inequality of their nature, being a mixed people, and having stirred the indignation of God.

This same idea gets picked up by Augustine (5th Century) in the City of God XV ch. 23, which then really makes it popular:

But some are moved by the fact that we have read that the fruit of the connection between those who are called angels of God and the women they loved were not men like our own breed, but giants

. . .

Giants therefore might well be born, even before the sons of God, who are also called angels of God, formed a connection with the daughters of men, or of those living according to men, that is to say, before the sons of Seth formed a connection with the daughters of Cain.

. . .

But that those angels were not angels in the sense of not being men, as some suppose, Scripture itself decides, which unambiguously declares that they were men.

. . .

There is therefore no doubt that, according to the Hebrew and Christian canonical Scriptures, there were many giants before the deluge, and that these were citizens of the earthly society of men, and that the sons of God, who were according to the flesh the sons of Seth, sunk into this community when they forsook righteousness.

[Eddie Ramos]

B'nei elohim is better rendered divine beings, then sons of God. Every race of people in the Bible are typically called b'nei something ( Israel, Anak, Moab, etc). As far as b'nei elohim meaning anything other than divine beings, consider using a Hebrew concordance. English translations take great liberties with this phrase, translating it as angels, gods, the mighty, the majestic, etc. A casual perusal through English translations will not convey this. Hope this helps.

Thanks for your reply. The only problem with rendering the phrase, "B'nei elohim" as "divine beings" is that this generalization would apply to every single human being because we were al created in the image of God. But when we consider the context of the Bible, we know that the translators did indeed do a good job here (Gen 6:2-4, Job 1:6 & Job 38:7) by understanding that specific beings were in view, namely sons.

The word we find in Genesis 6:2 translated as "men (in "daughter's of men") is best understood as human beings because the word "men" is the word God uses in the Old Testament for "mankind". So, In Gene 6:2-4, for example, God is distinguishing between two types of people (as he often does throughout the Bible). Those who are his chosen people and have been saved from their sins whom he calls "sons of God". And those who are not his chosen people and have to pay for their own sins. These people he's referring to as "the daughter's of men (mankind)". And mankind, we know was cursed because of Adam's sin. Therefore, mankind (or "man") takes on the meaning (in the Bible) of being cursed.

1 Corinthians 15:21 (KJV 1900)
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

And the phrase "sons of God" has always taken on the meaning of those who have been begotten of the Father. Angels, were created beings, never begotten. Albeit, mankind was also a created being, but they didn't become "sons" until they were born again (begotten) by the Word of God. Therefore, Genesis 6:2-4 is focusing on the sin of being unequally yoked, a most grievous sin in the Bible. This passage, nor any passage, that uses the phrase "sons of God" has in view angelic spirit beings, like so many believe it does.

Again, this is based on taking all of the Bible into consideration and making sure it all harmonizes. So, when we get to the book of Hebrews and God tells us (by implication) that at no time has any angel ever been called a son of God.

Hebrews 1:4–5 (KJV 1900)
(Christ) 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?

These statements about being a son of the Father was only ever said about Christ, but through Christ, it can also be said about his chosen people.

1 John 3:1 (KJV 1900)
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

Here we can also see the distinction between the sons of God and the rest of the world.