I believe that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 are fallen angels, as in the context of Job 1:6 ; 38:7, and not "Sethites". Why do some teach the sons of God in Gen.6 are Sethites, and the "daughters of men" are Cainites - thanks

One of the themes in the Bible is the problems with intermarriage or yoking up of believers with unbelievers. I believe this is the first example of it. The NT also teaches that angels do not intermarry - yet Genesis 6 specifies that the sons of God intermarried with the daughters of men. Chapter 4 clearly showed that Cain's line was overall ungodly and the godly remnant was found in Seth's line.

The Bible uses the term "son of God" in four senses:

1) Jesus, the only begotten Son of God.
2) Adam, the son of God (Luke 3) - created directly by God.
3) Angels, sons of God - created directly by God.
4) Believers - recreated or renewed spiritually by God.

I think that the overall context shows that sons of God can very much be referring to saved people in the line of Seth:

Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Chapter five goes on to describe his godly lineage - then six shows what happens when they compromise and intermarry.

[geologist]

Originally Posted by jerry

One of the themes in the Bible is the problems with intermarriage or yoking up of believers with unbelievers. I believe this is the first example of it.

And you would be dead wrong to believe that. Look at this verse:

Genesis 6:4 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.

A good a godly line of Sethites, breeding with human women (regardless of their tribe), do NOT produce "giants" no more than evil Canites, breeding with human women. There was something of great note different here!

The resulting spawn, these "men of renown" as the Scriptures calls them, were something not of human with human DNA mixing, even though they are called "men" in that passage. When angels appeared in the Bible they appeared as men:

Judges 13:6 Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible: but I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name:

The phrase "...sons of God came in unto the daughters of men..." clearly sets the description daughters of men against something that was not a human man. Good people don't father physical giants just because they are more moral or godly.

Read the passage a little more clearly - the giants were there BEFORE the event in chapter six happened. The giants were not a result of the sons of God intermarrying with the daughters of men. If you base your understanding of that passage on something you overlooked, your conclusion is no doubt going to be off.

Genesis 6:4 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.

The first part of verse four says these giants were already in the earth - the second part describes who the children of the sons of God and daughters of men were.

[pbiwolski]

Originally Posted by jerry

Read the passage a little more clearly

The first part of verse four says these giants were already in the earth - the second part describes who the children of the sons of God and daughters of men were.

Wrong again. Perhaps take a bit of your own advice here.

Genesis 6:4 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.

Don't let the phrase "and also after that" throw you off. This refers to the seed that continued past the flood of which I'm sure you are familiar. The text allows in those days to cover from the conception through the delivery as well as the maturity of these "mighty men."


Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

There's no mention of sons of God in any "overall context." But there sure is a mention of "Seth's godly line" being called men.

[Luke]

sons of God in the Old Testament ALWAYS refers to Angels (or the Angel of the Lord).

sons of God in the New Testament ALWAYS refers to born again believers.

Besides, even if Genesis 6 were the exception, and it referred to sethites, why would this produce giants as offspring, if they were just men. Seems like someone doesn't want to believe the Bible as it stands.

Good Point!

But in the Old Testament, sons of God refer to angels in every instance, and they are not the "sons" of any man. Every reference to angels in the Bible in both testaments, are male, to say that they are "sexless", would mean that they would be neither male nor female. Matt. 22:30 isn't saying that they're not capable of sexual relations at all, it says, "but are as the angels of God IN HEAVEN". Only New Testament believers after Calvary are born again by the Spirit of God as a result of receiving Jesus Christ as their Saviour ( John 1:12) and becomes a new creature ( 2 Cor 5:17). Everyone born after Adam was made in image, and in his likeness, not God's because of the fall. When Adam is called a son of God in Luke 3, that was before he fell.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by browilder61

But in the Old Testament, sons of God refer to angels in every instance, and they are not the "sons" of any man. Every reference to angels in the Bible in both testaments, are male, to say that they are "sexless", would mean that they would be neither male nor female. Matt. 22:30 isn't saying that they're not capable of sexual relations at all, it says, "but are as the angels of God IN HEAVEN". Only New Testament believers after Calvary are born again by the Spirit of God as a result of receiving Jesus Christ as their Saviour ( John 1:12) and becomes a new creature ( 2 Cor 5:17). Everyone born after Adam was made in image, and in his likeness, not God's because of the fall. When Adam is called a son of God in Luke 3, that was before he fell.

Brother, the reference that he is called a "son of God" being "before he fell" is one I don't understand. He did not reproduce sons and daughters till after he fell, and as you say is made in God's image and therefore get's that name, but without human fathers the mighty men of old, the giants, would therefore have to be born with no sin nature since the sin nature of all humanity is passed from Adam to all his descendants. These giants also could not die were they not Adam's descendants:

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Grace and peace

Tony

[Brother Tim]

bumped to top - topic resurfaces