Thomas A. Howe, Ph.D. is a Professor of Bible and Biblical Languages at Southern Evangelical Seminary. He wrote A Response To Chuck Missler: Who Are the Sons of God in Genesis 6? In general, Chuck Missler holds to the Angelic interpretation on the Genesis 6 affair, as I term it, and Thomas Howe holds the Sethite interpretation. I find that even though I agree with Missler on the Angelic interpretation I do not necessarily agree with his supporting argumentation. Thus, I also find that even though I disagree with Howe on the Sethite interpretation I did agree with some of his criticisms of Missler even whilst disagreeing with much that Howe has to say contra Missler and in favor of his own view.
Thus, hereinafter is my view on Thomas Howe on Chuck Missler on the Nephilim. Altogether, Howe’s paper is a four part 47 page document which is an addendum to yet another article so I will tease out the most relevant portions.
Howe admits that, as per his quotation of Umberto Cassuto, “The interpretation in the sense of angels is the oldest in the history of exegesis . . .”1 Howe notes, “As early as 400 A.D. ‘The Book of the Watchers,’ which forms the first 36 chapters of 1 Enoch, propagated what has become arguably the most popular understanding of this passage…The fact that the angelic-cohabitation view probably finds its beginnings in the mid-second century B.C. in the apocryphal book of 1 Enoch” see my section on the Book of Enoch.
Thus, he recognizes that he is arguing against the historical understanding of Genesis 6.
ANCIENT ANGEL VIEW
Thomas Howe writes:
The parallelism in [Job] 38:7 calls into question the idea that the expression “sons of God” is a reference to angelic beings. The first part of the poetic line refers to “morning stars,” and the expression “sons of God” functions in poetic parallelism to this. This is most probably a more poetic or figurative reference to the heavenly bodies. At least it is not unambiguously a reference to angels. Since the expression here is itself controversial, it cannot be called upon to support any particular view. It seems clear, however, that the remaining passages of Job, 1:6 and 2:1, are indeed references to angelic beings.
Are there instances of parallelism as well as poetic and figurative language in the Bible? Of course, it is just that we must be careful to not employ these genre in order to abscond from the known historical, hermeneutically cogent, interpretation of any given text. In this case, it almost seems like Dr. Howe seems to be formulating a way to get away from the supports for understanding “sons of God” in Genesis 6 as Angels based on the Job usages. He seems to think that the text is telling us that celestial objects that we call stars, like our Sun, sang and thus since this is poetic so must be the reference to “sons of God.”
Yet, this is merely another layer of symbolic terminology for well, look at it this way: the Bible employs the term “morning star” or “star of the morning” as indicative of authority (see Isaiah 14:12, Revelation 2:26-28, 22:5, 12-16, etc.). Thus, morning stars are actual beings who actually sang as they rejoice over God’s creative act.
It seems that we are beginning to get a glimpse into a manner of thought that those of us who do not spend much time in academia do not necessarily share. For example, “Since the expression here is itself controversial, it cannot be called upon to support any particular view” which is a form of intellectual subjectivism. He might as well say that since most of the Bible is controversial, it cannot be called upon to support any particular theology or view of any sort on anything. He also wrote, “The text is ambiguous enough in this expression to go either way” except, apparently, go the way Missler has taken it (Missler, Jude, Peter and most ancient Jewish and Christian commentators).
Yet, in any case, Howe recognizes that there is at least some support for understanding “sons of God” to be Angels as “It seems clear, however, that the remaining passages of Job, 1:6 and 2:1, are indeed references to angelic beings.”
Thomas Howe notes that “Rather than demonstrate his point before asserting his conclusion, Missler states up front that he believes that the term ‘sons of God’ exclusively refers to angels” to which I will add the details that this is Missler’s claim about the usage within the Old Testament only. Howe notes, “According to Waltke, ‘Human beings are called ‘sons of God’ in Hos. 1:10 . . . and divine kings in 2 Sam. 7:14 . . .’”2.
The contention is that Genesis 6 refers to Angels as ben ha ‘elohim, “sons of the living God” is applied to humans in Hosea 1:10 as ben chai ‘el and 2 Samuel 7:14 actually states, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men.”
I would contend that considering both the Old and New Testament usages, the term son of God is a reference to a direct creation by God and is thus applied to Adam (from mud/dust), Angels (from scratch), Jesus (as per the virgin birth) and Christians (as per the new birth).
Thus, Howe’s point stands, “even though the passages in Job refer to angels, it is not true that this expression is used exclusively of angels.” I will add that even though this expression is not used exclusively of Angels, this does not mean that it does not refer to such in Genesis 6.
Thomas Howe has a subsection titled, “Sons of God as Fallen Angels” in which things get particularly messy—and he plays off of this mess towards his discrediting of the Angel view. For example, he writes:
A closer examination of the Job passages reveals that there is nothing in these verses that would lead one to conclude that “sons of God” refers to fallen angels. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. Both passages describe the scene in which the “sons of God” present themselves before the Lord. But, there is someone who comes in among them. The expression, “and the Satan came in the midst of them”…is exactly the same in 1:6 and 2:1. The statement implies that the Satan was not one of the sons of God, but came in among them when they came to present themselves before the Lord. This would seem to indicate that the sons of God in Job are not fallen angels, but heavenly angels. It becomes very problematic, then, to assume that the references in Job support the view that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are “fallen angels.” In fact, it would seem to be contrary to the sense of the expression “sons of God” to think that it would be used of fallen angels. It is not at all clear that the use of the expression “sons of God” in Job offers any support for understanding Gen. 6:2 to refer to fallen angels. If Job offers any support for understanding Genesis, it would seem to indicate that the expression “sons of God” should be taken to refer to angels of heaven rather than fallen angels.
Thus, by dealing specifically with “Sons of God as Fallen Angels” it becomes easier for Howe to discredit the Angel view. For example, I would agree that there is nothing in the Job passages that would lead one to conclude that “sons of God” refers to fallen angels. However, he could not make the same assured statement about them being Angels in general or rather, loyal Angels. Indeed, as he notes, “This would seem to indicate that the sons of God in Job are not fallen angels, but heavenly angels.” But then he doubles back to again note that one cannot appeal to Job for supporting the view that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are “fallen angels” but only that they are Angels in general or loyal, heavenly, Angels specifically.
If you are noting a certain tendency of Thomas Howe towards being repetitive indeed, he is rather given to repetition particularly as you read all 4 parts.
Howe rightly notes:
…one cannot simply assume that because a word or phrase is used to mean a certain thing in other passages that it must be understood this way in every passage. Even though ‘sons of God’ is never used of fallen angels does not mean it could not possibly mean this in Gen. 6:2. It is possible that a word or phrase can mean one thing in a single passage even though all other passages use it differently.
Howe further notes, “the interpreter cannot rest his interpretation on unproven assumptions. If an interpreter wants to argue that ‘sons of God’ in Gen. 6:2 means ‘fallen angels,’ he must demonstrate this by convincing arguments from the context of Genesis.” This is only partially accurate as there is such a thing as immediate context (in this case, “from the context of Genesis”) and greater context such as in the case of demonstrating that Genesis’ serpent in the Garden of Eden is Satan which one cannot do without appealing to Revelation chapters 2 and 20 and perhaps Ezekiel 28.
So going back to the easy way out approach Howe writes, “Proponents of the Angels View particularly fall victim to this criticism because they often assume that since it means ‘angels’ in Job, it must mean ‘fallen angels’ in Genesis” which is too fine an assertion. I, for example, would not conclude that since it means “angels” in Job, it must mean “fallen angels” in Genesis but only that it means Angels in both (with fallen being an inference based on an implication). Even after all of this and more, Howe notes that “Although this” fallen Angel view “is conceivable, given the evidence it is highly improbable.”
However, he continues that thought by noting that “And, after looking at the evidence, it seems to be the case that taking ‘sons of God’ to mean ‘fallen angels’ has no support from Job or anywhere else” which is reaching far enough to lose his grip on the issue as we shall see.
You see, Thomas Howe refers to Jude 6-7 which states:
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
He comments thusly:
From this passage interpreters conclude [quoting Missler], “Jude made an allusion to these events in Genesis 6 and clearly he was writing about angels who, for whatever reason, went after ‘strange flesh.’”3
The problem with such a conclusion is that it assumes what it must prove. One can see Jude’s statement as an “allusion” to Genesis 6 only if he already accepts the Angels View of Genesis 6. If Genesis 6 is interpreted differently, say to refer to the line of Seth, then Jude can no longer be seen as an allusion to it. So, in order to interpret Jude as providing support for the Angels View, one must assume that his interpretation of Genesis 6 is correct. But this is circular. This is a case of using the interpretation of Genesis 6 to understand Jude, and then using Jude as support for his interpretation of Genesis 6.
I will momentarily remove the word “only” in the following so as to note that perhaps one can see Jude’s statement as an “allusion” to Genesis 6 if he already accepts the Angels View of Genesis 6 but not if they do not. The point is that he states that one can see Jude’s statement as an “allusion” to Genesis 6 only if he already accepts the Angels View of Genesis 6 as in that they presuppose it. However, this is not necessarily the case since perhaps one would not know what to make of Genesis 6 but then read Jude and realize that he was interpreting the Genesis text for us. In this way, they would not be presupposing but rather concluding.
But what if one presupposes or concludes that Genesis 6 refers to the line of Seth? Can they then not conclude that Jude is alluding to Genesis 6? Perhaps not but then they would have to tell us to what it does refer as Genesis 6 seems to be the only place where Jude’s statements fit. Thus, it is faulty to assert that “in order to interpret Jude as providing support for the Angels View, one must assume that his interpretation of Genesis 6 is correct.” This is a somewhat messy sentence: he does not seem to be questioning Jude’s interpretation but is referring to the person holing the Angel view by the term “his.” Moreover, rounding off the repetitious mannerisms of Howe, it is not circular to understand one text via another one especially when the latter seems to so clearly interpret the former. One can rightly correlate Genesis 1 and John 1 without fallacious circularity.
In fact, Howe will conclude that the “sons of God” are Sethites and we can simply make the same claims about his view since he is circularly understanding certain texts as allusions to Sethites in order to interpret Genesis 6 as referring to Sethites.
In the next segment, I will consider strange flesh and tartarus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.