Sons of God is the titled of a posting on a site that notes of Pastor Drew Worthen that, “The Lord later called Drew to a twelve and a half year pastorate centered on Biblical exegesis with practical applications” of which that posting is one example.
He begins by noting that, “If you’ve done any reading on the subject of who the ‘sons of God’ are in Genesis 6 and the book of Job” a view of them is that it refers to, “fallen angels who had sexual relations with the daughters of men in a marriage relationship with the express purpose of ruining the seed of humanity so as to ruin the possibility of the promised seed of the Messiah” with the latter part being fair enough, perhaps, but is an assumption.
Yet, he notes that, “to arrive at this conclusion, one must assume that Moses understood, along with his first audience, that the phrase in question defines angels. But again, if we exegete the passage in question there is no direct evidence that Moses understood this to mean angels.”
He states that, “We would have to read this back into the passage which is not exegesis but eisegesis…the immediate passage as it stands, does not define whether they are angels or someone else. The larger context must be brought to bear to arrive at what the Holy Spirit was conveying through this phrase.”
Indeed, and there is no rule of hermeneutics that demands that only the immediate passage be considered and, in fact, quite the opposite is the case: context expands from what we would call sentences/verse, to chapters, to books, to the whole Bible.
Another aspect of this is to consider how certain texts have been traditionally understood since, for example, the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view, as I proved in my book, On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.
Pastor Worthen notes that he will review, “the view that it refers to angels. Another view contends that the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6 are equated with powerful human rulers who dominated the known world and through their influence corrupted the morals of the seed of Seth, possibly through polygamy, which led to the downfall of humanity.”
Interestingly, he notes:
While it is true that the word of God is not devoid of allusions to the culture of the day in which the Spirit of God moved men to write the very words of God for the edification of His people, we must be careful not to let the lens of the culture be the primary focus through which God is communicating His word to His people.
Good point and yet, we must we must be careful not to neglect that it could very well be that such cultures du jour were borrowing, and corrupting, the word of God: examples are that Moses, Daniel, et al., were powerful and influential men living in Pagan cultures and could have influenced them, such as Daniel having been, “the king gave Daniel high honors and many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon” (Dan 2). Pastor Worthen notes the likes of this point, “I certainly acknowledge that there are many places in the word of God where the pagan culture of that day is brought to bear on those who penned the very word of God. Paul at Athens comes to mind or Daniel in exile while in Babylon” although he thinks, “that influence didn’t trump their theology and the language used to communicate that theology in a way that depended upon any one particular culture to advance their ideas.”
He notes that he will review views of the Gen 6 affair (as I term it), “position that the sons of God are a privileged or powerful group “ and, “the ‘sons of God = angels’ position” and, “that the ‘sons of God’ were the ‘godly’ descendants of Seth who eventually intermarried with the ungodly seed of Cain” and a, “view that I will argue is closer to the view of the sons of God being the descendants of Seth, but with a distinction that is not emphasized enough, which I believe differentiates between a ‘godly’ seed and a ‘covenant’ seed, both of which are not always equal.”
Now, his write up is 151 pages (how he has it formatted) so I will be focusing on those points at which he tackles these views directly.
He begins with the latter by noting that God’s, “unilateral covenant with Adam…was the basis upon which God would identify His people…he was given the responsibility to carry the name of God in faithfulness. After Adam’s rebellion God…enacted a new covenant with the promise of being reconciled back to God and the hope of the curse being lifted through the seed of the woman, the promised Messiah. This new covenant with Adam and Eve is identified with a seed, the seed of the woman, the son of Adam, the son of God” as per, “Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.”
Pastor Drew Worthen notes, “This is the covenant war of two seeds” about which I will note that those seeds are they who commit Godly action vs. those who do not (and with the, singular, seed of the woman ultimately being Jesus) which is great news since it means that those who do not can repent.
As for, “first mention of the phrase, ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6:2,” he reiterates, “we must place it in some sort of context as Moses would have understood it” and adds, “Interestingly enough there is a plethora of biblical information that Moses, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has given us leading up to the context of our passage in question that paves the way for a proper Theological interpretation.”
Very well yet, that does not mean that we know what Moses knew, especially in the light of that he too was provided data, “through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit”—after all, Moses was the first person in history to download data from a cloud to a tablet.
Pastor Worthen again complains, “For those who hold to the view that the sons of God in this passage are angels, one is forced to move forward from the point of Genesis 6 and reflect backward from other biblical revelation to arrive at that conclusion” but such is how literally every single doctrine is complied.
He comes to the point of noting, “an image bearer carries with it a covenantal responsibility to the one whose image you represent. The seed of Adam necessarily represents that covenant that God had with Adam. Cain and his seed broke with that covenant and therefore bore the image of the father of lies.”
While we can go as far as saying that, “Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod” which may very well be spiritually but contextually is physically since he moved away from Eden—and that was after God protected him, “‘If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.’ And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him.”
Yet, there is literally zero indication that, that one action by Cain resulted in that not only Cain but, “his seed” in toto not only, “broke with that covenant” but, “bore the image of the father of lies”—one thing we can say of Cain’s descendants is that they were disabled (get it, disAbled).
That non sequitur of an argument from silence is a typical part of the Sethite view which is a late comer of a view that is based on myth and prejudice—such as the mere assertion we just reviewed.
The other side of the equation is that, “Seth, is distinguished as having both the image and likeness of Adam” which seems to mean that he looked more like Adam than Abel or Cain did while Pastor Drew Worthen thinks, “The language ‘image and likeness of Adam’ is the same covenantal language God used regarding Adam on the sixth day of creation as the Lord laid out for Adam the terms of his existence within the framework of the covenant that God made with him” since Adam, and Eve, were, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God”—not likeness (Gen 1).
I he has a subsection titled, “Seed of the Serpent” he notes, “Cain’s seed…is the image of his father, the devil.” Now, we have one on the record sin for Cain: murder. Pastor Worthen then quotes, “Cain kills his brother Abel, and a few generations later,” mind you, “comes Lamech. Genesis 4:23-24 Lamech said to his wives, ‘Adah and Zillah, Listen to my voice, You wives of Lamech, Give heed to my speech, For I have killed a man for wounding me; And a boy for striking me; If Cain is avenged sevenfold, Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.’”
Thus, we have one on the record sin for Lamech (assuming that polygamy was a sin back then) or maybe two is, that is, “killed a man for wounding me” was not justified self-defense.
Thus, overall, we have 2 or maybe as many as 3 on the record sin for Cain’s entire lineage.
Now, what of Sethies? Well, he notes, “In contrast, at the end of chapter 4, we see the introduction of the seed of the woman. Genesis 4:26 To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD.”
His take on the generic reference to that, “men” (his or the version he is quoting’s italics) seemingly in general, “began to call upon the name of the LORD” actually very specifically refers to that while, “This translation almost makes it sound as if men did not call upon the name of the Lord until sometime after Enosh was born…the phrase is really identifying men from the time of Seth through Enosh, and beyond, as continuing to call upon the name of the Lord, as we know that Abel and Adam had already been doing.”
But then again, how do we know that? One issue is just what does, “call upon the name of the Lord” mean? We have two on the record conversations between Adam and God, with the latter being at the Lord’s impetus and we do not have a record of Able having any discussion with God but we know that, “Abel…brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering,” (Gen 4).
Pastor Worthen actually thinks that, “A better translation is found in the ESV. Genesis 4:26 To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.” Yet, he takes an equally vague, “people” to very, very specifically mean that only, “the group identified with the covenant promises passed on to Seth and Enosh, called upon the name of the Lord…those identified with a particular family line, those born to Seth and Enosh, who are distinguished from the family of Cain.”
After quoting that the singular individual, “Cain went out from the presence of the LORD” Pastor Worthen generalizes that stamen, into, “Cain’s line is one that is identified with moving away from God, not calling upon the name of the Lord” (emphasis added for emphasis).
Let us now get to how this relates to the Gen 6 affair (as I term it), “Chapter 5 identifies this people of God, the sons of God, in a covenant son-ship relationship to the Creator, and then chapter 6 shows the covenant people marrying into both seeds as they come into the daughters of men” thus, this view has it that, after all, people of God, the sons of God, in a covenant son-ship relationship to the Creator were not really people of God, the sons of God, in a covenant son-ship relationship to the Creator since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood. He puts it as, “the seed of Seth, real people, who betray the covenantal community by taking women from the seed of Cain.”
He then quotes Gen 6 (he quotes a version he cites as, “NAU”), “Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.”
He asks and answers, “who are the men who began to multiply on the face of the land? Well, chapters 4 and 5 identifies these people. They were the seed of Cain and the seed of Seth as daughters were being born to the two seeds.” Yet, chapter 5 identifies these people the seed of Cain and the seed of Seth and also the seed of, “other sons and daughters” (Gen 5) whom Adam and Eve had.
Yet, directly after telling us, “men who began to multiply…were the seed of Cain and the seed of Seth” he tells us, “this phrase in Gen.6:1, ‘men began to multiply on the face of the land’ identifies all peoples of the earth.”
When he gets to Gen 6:3, “Then the LORD said, ‘My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years’” he notes, “an activity on the part of God that is directed toward man who is also identified as flesh, not flesh/angel.” Yet, at least in English: humans, Angels, Nephilim, and God are all referred to as man/men. And yet, it is a styled non-issue since of course the Bible’s main focus is always humanity: our creation, fall, redemption and how anything else, including actions by Satan, Angels, God, etc., affect us.
He asks, “did the angels/demons/sons of God, who supposedly married the daughters of men, die in the flood as well, or were they simply inhabiting the bodies of real people, in which case the sons of God were not really angels but demon possessed people?” Well, that is a false trichotomy: they did not die in the flood, nor do Angels ever possess anyone, nor did demons even exist yet.
Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated (in Tartarus as Peter puts it), and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible. So, if the Gen 6 affair was not that sin then, pray tell, what and when was it? We would have no data about that and no one could know to what Jude and Peter were referring.
As for my claim that, “demons even exist yet,” please see my article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
Pastor Drew Worthen further argumentatively asks, “But if these sons of God/angels were real angels and they too died in the flood, along with all flesh, can we assume that they took on flesh, became incarnate, and presumably relinquished their former status as angels, albeit fallen angels, who are spirits according the writer of Hebrews?”
There is no indication that any Angel takes on flesh and, in fact, they could not since Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such is not their ontology—see my book, What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
Thus, they do not and cannot take on that which they already possess. But then, “if these sons of God/angels were real angels and they too died in the flood, along with all flesh” no, because there are two (or three) exceptions to what is being referred to as, “all flesh”: 1. Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their wives, 2. Angels, and the possible 3. (depending on how one understands flesh) are the animals on the ark and some sea-dwellers.
As for, “angels, who are spirits according the writer of Hebrews” that is based on how the modern English version he is reading wrongly mistranslated one word in one sentence.
Heb 1 quotes and plays off of Psalm 104:4 and there is a reason why there are English versions that have, “winds” rather than, “spirits” in the Psalm (with which translations of Heb 1 should be consistent) and that is that the whole context of the Psalm consists of constant references to and correlations to natural phenomena so, therein, what surely Pastor Worthen’s version has as, “maketh his angels spirits” (as the KJV has it) some 44 English versions have as that He makes them winds.
Ergo, it should be, “angels, who are winds according the writer of Hebrews.”
Pastor Worthen then asks, “Can an angel die a physical death and for that matter can an angel pass on ‘angel DNA’ to ‘human DNA’ to the daughters of men so as to create a hybrid being made up of angel and human?”
It seems that Angel, “die a physical death” in that they are removed from the physical 3D existence that is commonly experienced by humans, lose their bodies, etc. and yet, they too will experience a styled form or resurrection—again, see my article about demons for details.
Yes, they can, “pass on ‘angel DNA’ to ‘human DNA’” or rather, combined with human DNA since, again, Angels are described as looking just like human males and performing physical actions and without any indication that such is not their ontology so, why would they only be missing key features of the human make up, what makes up our anatomy.
He also asks, “And what about all creatures producing after their ‘kind’” well, again (and again) Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such is not their ontology and we were created, “a little lower” (Psa 8:5) than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we are of the same basic kind.
He asks, “what about…Christ’s statement that angels in heaven do not marry, and thus do not have sexual relations with women?” this is the only one thus far that he attempts to deal with, with anything more than an assertion in the form of styled gotcha questions. He notes, “some proponents of ‘sons of God = angels’ state that Jesus was only identifying angels ‘in heaven’ not fallen angels who evidently were capable of having sexual relations with women in marriage relationships” indeed, and note that he did not quote Jesus’ words.
Jesus’ statement was very detailed, very nuanced, He employed qualifying terms, “the angels of God in heaven.” So, not all Angels at all times in all places but the loyal ones, “of God” and, “in heaven” which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.
Yet, Pastor Worthen claims that actually reading what Jesus said and applying it, “begs the question, where in Genesis 6 does it explicitly or even implicitly state that these sons of God are identified as fallen angels, especially in light of the fact that these are supposedly the same sons of God identified in Job who are apparently good angels, as they are distinguished from Satan and were apparently present at the creation of the universe as” the sons of God shouted for joy”?”
There are a few ways to answer, “where in Genesis 6 does it explicitly or even implicitly state that these sons of God are identified as fallen angels”:
1. a hidden assumption is some sort of implied universal imperative that Gen 6 must, “explicitly or even implicitly state that these sons of God are identified as fallen angels” but there is no linguistic requirement that it do any such thing.
There is no universal imperative that what he wrote in English as, “angels” can only ever be referred to as, “angels”: such as when he just referred to Malakim as angels—who are also referred to as אִישׁ/’îš/ish/men (Gen 18) and /אֱלֹהִים/’ĕlōhîm (Psalm 82 wherein the lower elohim are told by the Elohim who rules over them, “like men you shall die” and men do not need to be told that they will die like men), etc.
Every language allows for any one thing to be referred to in more than one way and for any one word or term or phrase to be used in more than one way.
Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that sons of God can refer to non-human beings (which the Septuagint/LXX has as Angeloi, plural of Angelos) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth.
2. a distinction is drawn between sons who are of God and daughters who are of men and his preferred view has it that only exclusively male (supposed) people of God, the sons of God, in a covenant son-ship relationship to the Creator married only exclusively femalenon-people of God, the non-daughters of God, not in a covenant son/daughter-ship relationship to the Creator. Why were there not any attractive (alleged) female people of God, the sons of God, in a covenant son-ship relationship to the Creator nor attractive male non-s?
Well, the Angel view explains why there was such a clear distinction: Angels are male, they copulated with human females.
3. again, the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view.
4. again, there is the Jude and 2 Peter 2 combo issue and that one-time fall/sin of Angels.
On point 3., Pastor Drew Worthen notes, “these are supposedly the same sons of God identified in Job who are apparently good angels, as they are distinguished from Satan and were apparently present at the creation of the universe as ‘the sons of God shouted for joy”?
It would seem that indeed, in Job chaps 1, 2, and 38 sons of God are good Angels and that term is used in Gen 6 to identify that reference is being made to Angels but they are never referred to as sons of God after they sinned.
As for, “distinguished from Satan” well, that is because he is not an Angel, he is a Cherub (Ezek 18) and also because by the Job chaps 1-2 timeline, he was already fallen.
He then focuses on Nephilim, “Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.”
He notes, “The name Nephilim is sometimes translated giants, but the passage actually identifies who these people were. These were mighty men or men of renown with emphasis on the designation ‘men.’”
On a technical linguistics level, it is a case of that Nephilim is sometimes rendered giants which only begs these questions: what is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles? What is any given user’s usage (such as Pastor Worthen, those who render Nephilim as such, etc.)? Do those two usages agree?
As for, “people…men” well, this is another case of linguistics, terminology, and they were half-(hu)man.”
Pastor Drew Worthen opines, “Nephilim are introduced as almost a sub-group of the seed of the serpent” which, again, is mythical prejudice as is that Cainite women, “influenced in an ungodly way.”
He notes, “In the midst of this crossing over of seeds, the Nephilim, or men of renown, were also on the earth in those days at the same time many of the sons of God married into the seed of the serpent.”
He implies that Nephilim have no relation to those marriages. The Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, and their offspring. Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.
He adds, “it is apparent that the Nephilim, (men of renown), continued to have a powerful presence right up to the judgment of water by God as the text makes clear. ‘The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward…’ It has been argued from this last statement that the Nephilim were on the earth both before and after the flood. And of course, we know that a reference is made after the flood identifying the Nephilim.”
So, it is a case of, “right up to the judgment of water” or, “after the flood” as some have argued.
Now, that there is, “reference…after the flood identifying the Nephilim” is an interesting manner in which to put it—stand by.
He quotes, Numbers 13:32-33 So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, ‘The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.’”
This causes him to ask and argue, “If the Nephilim were the product of angels having sexual relations with the daughters of men before the flood, resulting in a direct correlation to God’s judgment, it does raise the issue of how this same phenomenon can take place at the end of the age through a fiery global judgment, (with no mention of angels contributing to the destruction of the world in the second judgment from God), as Jesus Christ makes reference to only men as being guilty of sin, in Matthew 24, resulting in this fiery judgment.”
Granting, “Nephilim were the product of angels having sexual relations with the daughters of men” there is still no indication, “this same phenomenon can take place at the end of the age” in any way—and note that he merely asserted that.
Note that he quoted, “they gave” without telling us who they were. But, at least he did quote the part about how they presented, “a bad report.”
Well, the they were 10 unreliable guys whom presented an unreliable report and were rebuked by God. That report contained five mere assertions that are unbacked by even one single other sentence in the whole Bible and they contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the entire Bible—see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
The reason why, “reference…after the flood…” was interesting manner in which to put it is that a reference does not necessarily mean anything more that just that. I can reference the first POTUS George Washington right now but that does not mean he is alive. Likewise, the 10 guys merely asserted having seen them but that is a literal logical, bio-logical, and theo-logical impossibility since God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Pastor Drew Worthen notes, “man along with animals, creeping things, and birds of the sky are all part of this global judgment that we see in Gen.6:7. Conspicuously missing are angels disguised as ‘sons of God’, aka – demons. The reason? Demons have their own final judgment called the Lake of Fire whom they will share with fallen resurrected humans, called the second death.”
This is a more complex statement than it may appear:
1. he presupposes that the sons of God are not Angels and so concludes they are, “Conspicuously missing” so the presupposed deck is stacked.
2. the term “angels disguised as ‘sons of God’, aka – demons” is rather odd: they were sons of God and later became demons.
3. technically, demons will re-become Angels and eventually (after the whole ruckus that begins at Rev 9) off into, “eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Mat 25).
Pastor Drew Worthen claims, “our Lord Jesus in Mat.24:38 gives no indication other than that human beings, (not even limited to a special class of humans, i.e., men of renown), were marrying and giving in marriage up until the flood, which was the normal practice among human beings including those identified with the seed of the covenant, (sons of God).” Yet, he can only say that after rejecting the Angel view since Jesus spoke generally about, “marrying and giving in marriage” and even if we grant that His reference was specifically to human marriages, that does not mean that Angel/human marriages did not take place but only that Jesus was referring to human ones due to His context regarding, “that day and hour…the coming of the Son of Man…two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. Therefore, stay awake…you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”
Thus, we cannot take a text focused on humanity and about the effects that the second coming will have on humanity and point out that it does not refer to non-humanity.
Consider a more detailed record of what Jesus said and note that Jesus’ words, His emphasis, His points, His context, were:
Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
But He kept speaking directly with:
Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed (Luke 17).
Thus, this was about examples of being unaware/unconcerned about coming judgment.
And so, what Pastor Worthen did was to take a text, the emphasis of which is the second coming and attempted to turn it into one about the pre-flood judgment. He argued, “Jesus could have cleared up this mystery of angels/demons cohabitating with daughters of men…resulting in a global flood. But there is no hint from Jesus that anyone other than human beings are responsible for such a judgment” but this is to ignore Jude and 2 Peter 2, at the very least—on top of that Jesus was not exegeting Gen 6 but was appealing to it for one application to His teaching about the second coming.
Now, we have already see that he tends towards writing in terms of the categorically inaccurate term, “angels/demons” and he next wrote that, “The argument that the phrase ‘sons of God’ must mean demons having sexual relations, through the covenant of marriage with women, makes no sense in light of what Christ clearly says.”
Quite right, it makes no sense and virtually no one historically has held to that aberrant version of the Angel view.
But note the odd qualifier, “demons having sexual relations, through the covenant of marriage” well, Angels at least did get married but it was still elicit since they are not, “given in marriage” and so took it upon themselves. Thus, there was no such thing as demons having sexual relations, through the covenant of marriage nor even Angels having sexual relations, through the covenant of marriage since marriage was not for them.
As Pastor Worthen puts it, “And this also raises questions regarding the covenant of marriage which was instituted by God on day six, and was reserved for who? Not demons and women” or Angels and women—indeed.
Likewise when he notes, “Angels having sexual relations with women do not equal one flesh that could be identified as marriage, as is clearly seen in Genesis 6.” Indeed, that was part of the whole problem, part of why they are considered sinners.
He makes good points but misapplies them.
Next, he notes of the term sons of God, “let me show how this phrase and other similar phrases are used” and focuses on how, “for clarity it is important to understand that the N.T. is the fulfillment of the Old and what is intimated in the Old is revealed more fully in the New” and so he jumps millennia of time and into another langue to quote usages of that term in the New Testament. Yet, all that gets him is that he asks, “if the sons of God are always associated with the covenant people of God, the seed of the woman, how is it that an unholy angel could possibly be associated with the name that is only designated with those who belong to God?”
But we can just as easily as: if the sons of God are always associated with the covenant people of God, the seed of the woman, how is it that unholy people could possibly be associated with the name that is only designated with those who belong to God?
As for how it can apply to Angels, I already noted that it does so to identify then but never again, post-sin/fall.
He then admits, “The actual phrase, ‘sons of God,’ as some theologians identify it with angels” which he lists as Gen 6:2, 4, Job chaps 1, 2 and 38(to which we could add Ps 82, etc.)
He also notes, “There are a couple of N.T. passages in the letters from Jude and Peter that some use in connection with Genesis 6 to make their argument for angels cohabitating with women” referring to Jude and 2 Peter 2 but he complains, “in these NT passages, they are identified as angels, not sons of God,” which is linguistically irrelevant, “But because they are identified as angels many reason backward to Genesis and Job and place the two together to explain the same thing.”
And yet, he reasoned backward to apply the New Testament Greek usage of sons of God into the millennias previous Hebrew bene he Elohim/sons of God. Recall that he has noted, “The larger context must be brought to bear to arrive at what the Holy Spirit was conveying…”
Pastor Drew Worthen wrote, “Therefore, according to this reasoning, if angels left their first domain and sinned by having sexual intercourse with women and also marrying them, (which is not stated in either Jude or 2Peter), this can only be adduced by forcing Genesis back into these two NT passages.”
Yet, according to this reasoning, since Angels left their first domain and sinned by having sexual intercourse with women and also marrying them, (which is the logical and chrono-logical conclusion of Jude or 2Peter), this can only be adduced by having, “The larger context must be brought to bear” since Jude and Peter were referring us back to Genesis.
For support, Pastor Drew Worthen turns to an article by Thomas A. Howe, “in the Practical Hermeneutics column of the Christian Research Journal, volume 27, number 3 (2004)” who is quoted thusly:
Other commentators appeal to Jude 6–7 to support their contention that the “sons of God” were unfallen or heavenly angels who then fell because they had sexual relations with female humans. They argue that Jude compared the prideful fallen angels to the sexually immoral people of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The problem with this assertion is that it assumes what it must prove. Proponents of this argument use their interpretation of Genesis 6 to understand Jude, and then use their understanding of Jude to support their interpretation of Genesis 6. This is circular reasoning.
For an examination of Howe’s view, see my double whammy of a review: On Thomas Howe on Chuck Missler on the Nephilim: the Ancient Angel View.
So, since Worthen and Howe reject the Angel view can we say that to support their contention that the “sons of God” were not unfallen or heavenly angels who then fell because they had sexual relations with female humans. They argue that Jude did not compare the prideful fallen angels to the sexually immoral people of Sodom and Gomorrah. The problem with this assertion is that it assumes what it must prove. Proponents of this argument use their interpretation of Genesis 6 to understand Jude, and then use their understanding of Jude to support their interpretation of Genesis 6. This is circular reasoning.
In any case, the reason to take Jude as doing just that, correlating the two, is that he did just that, “the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire.”
Yet, Pastor Worthen reiterates his view and thus, deepens its problem which, again, is that besides the admitted, “places…where the phrase ‘sons of God’ is used” of Angels, in the Greek of millennia later, it is in reference to, “one group called human beings who are in covenant with God by faith or in covenant by association with that group of faith” who were not in covenant with God by faith or in covenant by association with that group of faith.
He then circles back to critiquing the Angel view by focusing on, “Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (also a contributor to Creation Ministries International), in his book entitled, ‘The Genesis Account’” wherein he supposedly, “unfortunately draws this…conclusion” since, “He says this regarding Job 38:4-7: ‘The Hebrew phrase for sons of God is bnei elohim. This means ‘angels’ in the Old Testament—indeed, the NIV renders this phrase ‘angels’, and the LXX has angeloi.”(pg.77).”
complains that, “Dr. Sarfati’s premise is that every time the exact phrase, ‘sons of God’ is used in the Old Testament it necessarily means angels. At this point in the book no exegesis or hermeneutical evidence is given to arrive at that conclusion…Later in his book (chapter 16; again with the absence of any exegesis of Genesis 6 or Job), he will use what he believes are other corroborating verses to support his position.”
And then he concludes, “the Hebrew word for angel in every other portion of the O.T uses the word malak” but they are also generally and generically referred to as man/men/אִישׁ/’îš.
Interestingly, he also notes, “when the NIV and the LXX uses the word angel in those portions, (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), it becomes an interpretation, or commentary, not a literal translation” but then again, those versions reply on the Masoretic which is more recent than the LXX.
He makes the point upon which I touched earlier which is that, “one would be hard pressed to conclude that anyone identified as a son or child of God, be they angel or man, necessarily means an enemy of God” so he is at least conscious, at some level, that it is a non-issue, not a point against the Angel view.
He admits, “what is apparent is that the sons of God, identified with Seth, would not be demonstrating godly lives at the time they went into those daughters of men, identified with Cain” (recall that they are both identified as such only as per his assertions) so that, again, the sons of God, identified with Angels, would not be demonstrating godly lives at the time they went into those daughters of men, identified as fully human women in general.
He then goes back to the merely asserted, “the line of unbeliever’s whose seed is identified with Cain…a generally ungodly people…follow after other gods…that ungodly seed.”
He comes to the point of asserting, “when we are told in Gen.6:4 that the sons of God came into the daughters of men, whatever else one might believe about angels, and if in fact these are angels, then angels in that verse would be declared by God to be in a favorable, or a My Angels covenant relationship with Him at that point.”
I am quite unsure how, “that verse would be declared by God to be in a favorable, or a My Angels covenant relationship with Him at that point” since it is part of the premise for the flood—plus, Jude’s and Peter’s statements.
Pastor Worthen argues that is sons of God, “are necessarily saying that God’s chosen angels in Gen.6:2, (not demons)…This means that after this act, My Angels, (sons of God), became Not My Angels, (demons). Now, if this is the case, then Satan continues to bring God’s chosen angels into his kingdom, (which undermines the biblical truth of God choosing unto life), so logically, God’s chosen angels, (‘sons of God’), still have the opportunity to turn against God until the final day,” which is wholly a non-sequitur of an assertion.
He then focuses on the Job chapters and notes, “the Hebrew phrase, bnei Elohim. It is not a phrase specifically denoting angels. It is the phrase, as we have been arguing, that is associated or identified with God’s covenant people and community” but that is just arguing to argue since God’s covenant people and community do not predate the Earth—as my previous point about Job 38:7.
He had asked us to, “apply a proper exegesis to those passages” but, at this point, he narrows his focus on, “The Hebrew word for angel is malak and therefore it must be implied that it defines a son of God as an angel in the context of Job.”
This is a case of a word-concept fallacy: he is bypassing the clearly obvious context and is moving the goalpost to a single word. Let us grant that Malakim are not mentioned in Job: what of it? The bene ha Elohim can still refer to Malakim, by any other name.
Call that my comment was not specifically that they are Malakim but was more nuanced in that they can be, “can refer to non-human beings.”
I certainly take them to be Angels but am careful enough to take it as far as the context will allow and no further, I only take it farther when I go into the application of it all—the greater context level of application.
But demanding that, “Job were making the case that these who are designated sons of God are in fact angels, then malak would certainly be an appropriate word to use” is to impose upon Job’s author a pseudo-rule not applicable to any language in history since, again, “Every language allows for any one thing to be referred to in more than one way and for any one word or term or phrase to be used in more than one way.”
He notes, “I believe the NIV and the LXX versions of the bible insert the word angels into these 3 passages in Job” which is true but the issue is whether it was viably done or not.
At this point, he is clearly in arguing to argue mode which will not allow him to just accept what texts state outright nor imply. He also creates problems that he then seeks to solve and so seems to himself to have a better grasp of the issue.
Yet, quite the opposite is the case since, for example, he argues, “It is assumed that” the Job chaps 1-2 texts are about, “angels coming before God and Satan joining them in the process, in heaven…it is true that angels surround the throne of God and worship the Lord and are sent…But this is assuming that only angels can present themselves before the Lord and that this can only happen in heaven.”
But how could that possibly be since, again, Satan is not an Angel thus, this was a non-issue/non-argument.
Yet, Pastor Worthen continues by offering, “two other options both of which can utilize the phrase ‘sons of God’ as being human beings in both a heavenly setting and an earthly setting” which are:
1. “the less plausible of the two options that Job is addressing…human beings who have died and whose spirits are issued into the presence of God.” He thinks that, “one particular human being who was shown to be fully alive after death and who was in the presence of the Lord” is to be derived from God telling Cain, “The voice of your
brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10).
Somehow, that, “Abel’s spirit was with the Lord and that he was presenting himself before the Lord expressing himself in a way where the Lord could hear his cries?
Yet, Able did not observe the creation of the Earth.
2. “human beings, designated sons of God, who are on the earth as they present themselves before the Lord.”
Yet, human beings such as Able did not observe the creation of the Earth.
He writes, “If these are righteous angels and we are using this portion of Scripture to support the idea that Genesis 6 is also describing the sons of God as angels, then we are back again to the problem of righteous angels acting wickedly toward the daughters of men by cohabitating with them, where some also use Jude as a proof text for this act, which forces these righteous angels to leave their proper abode as God judges them.”
These are already dealt with non-issues: it is about when righteous angels acted wickedly so were no longer thereafter righteous just like his view has it that, “If these are righteous humans and we are using this portion of Scripture to support the idea that Genesis 6 is also describing the sons of God as humans, then we are back again to the problem of righteous humans acting wickedly toward the daughters of men by cohabitating with them…”
He also argues, “So, once again, we are back to righteous angels being able to lose their righteous standing long after the initial angelic rebellion of those who followed Satan, prior to him tempting Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.”
Note the artificial insertion of the qualifier, “long after.” For one, long is a subjective term and for two, there is only a one-time sin/fall/rebellion of Angels so there is no such thing as, “lose their righteous standing” long or one day, “after the initial angelic rebellion of those who followed Satan” since there is no indication of a, “prior to him tempting Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden” sin/fall/rebellion for either of them.
Again, Satan’s sin/fall/rebellion timeline is within the Gen 3 range and the sin/fall/rebellion of Angels is within the Gen 6 range.
That there was some primordial, pre-Adam and Eve or even pre-universe or even pre-Earth, sin/fall/rebellion of Satan is un-biblical man-made tradition.
For some odd reason, he cycles and circles: he has already addressed this more then once but ends up getting to the point of writing, “I would now like to address the notion of angels being designated sons of God who present themselves before the Lord in the book of Job” and goes at it once again.
Eventually, he comes to that, “to exegete verse 7 [of Job 38] it must be done within the context of the entire passage which has the creation of the universe as its foundational premise” and is, “inextricably linked to chapters 38-41 where the Lord admonishes Job with the reality that God is bigger than anything that Job may be experiencing in the earth” such that he did not witness its creation but bene ha Elohim did.
Pastor Worthen notes, “God is using language that explains His creation using architectural characteristics that humans would utilize in construction, along with other anthropomorphisms” of which Job was unaware since, again, he did not witness it.
Oddly, he quotes and comments, “Job 38:8 8 Or who enclosed the sea with doors When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb; The sea obviously is not enclosed with doors any more than the waters burst forth from the womb of a woman.”
Yet, the sea is enclosed with the doors of the shores around the world which is why the planet is not covered in water and water most certainly does proceed forth from the womb—ever hear a pregnant woman saying, “My water just broke”?
And yet, of course Job contains metaphor and symbolism but that still leaves us with the issue of the witnessing of the creation of the Earth since of course Job contains mundanely literal statements as well.
So, perhaps we can say that when God claims to have created everything, that is a metaphorical symbol and did not really happen. Well, of course Pastor Worthen would not come to that conclusion and yet, he does come to the conclusion that Job 38:7 does not say what it means nor means what it says even though the creation of the Earth is the premise upon which all of the other references to the Earth’s contents are based.
Yet, since Pastor Worthen’s goal is to do away with the Job 38:7 bene ha Elohim being Angels, he only notices one side of the metaphor and symbolism versus mundanely literal statements since it is not as much a dichotomy but that both are being played upon.
He notes, “The sea does not have a bolt and doors to keep it in its place…Snow and hail is not deposited in storehouses….Ice and frost are not delivered as in childbirth,” etc. yet, the verse on which he bases those statement state, for example, “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, Or have you seen the storehouses of the hail…”
Snow is mundanely literal and storehouses is not so it is a combo statement.
Yet, he argues, “these are not angels witnessing God’s handiwork prior to man being created on day 6.”
He does note, “I like the idea of angels being special witnesses to the handiwork of God, despite the fact that the word angels is not used in that passage.”
He then opines, “The Scriptures don’t tell us anywhere as to when the angels were created, though it is certainly inferred that it must have been somewhere within that six day period as on the seventh day the Lord ceased His special creative work, of which angels were necessarily a part.” Thus, he has managed to remove them from the first verses of Gen 1 via a subjective, “must have been” and so he removes from possibility that they witnessed the creation of the Earth—based on a mere assertion of a qualifying term.
He opts for watering down the reference to the Earth so universe, “it is certainly possible that angels were created before man and before the end of the creative process as they rejoiced over the universe being spoken into existence by God.”
The end result conclusion of his desperate attempt to not allow Angels to be referenced in Job 38:7, by any other name, is, “The jury may still be out on Job 38:7, but if we are coming to the table to use the phrase, ‘sons of God’ as a pretext for defining this phrase in all of the OT as being equated with angels, then it is going after a bridge too far in my estimation.” But the bridge too far is of his own making since the Angel view claim is not necessarily that, “this phrase in all of the OT as being equated with angels” even if some individuals make that claim.
So, it seems that the jury he has consulted, even of his own peers, are still out.
His overall, “Conclusion” section notes, “To move from human beings being condemned by God because of Adam’s rebellion, (albeit through the temptation of a rebellious angel), and following the history of the promised seed of hope given to Eve, and then to drop into that context a completely novel idea not previously, or afterward, identified anywhere in the word of God, (namely, angels having sexual and marital relations with women), is simply inconsistent with any meaningful exegesis.”
Yet, we could just as easily argue that he is moving from human beings being condemned by God because of Adam’s rebellion to a completely novel idea not previously identified which would be the insertion of the temptation of a rebellious Cherub, any mention of the Cherub, is simply inconsistent with any meaningful exegesis. The appearance of the serpent in Gen 3 is just as un-contextual as the appearance of the sons of God in Gen 6. And such is just common to any and all story telling: there are just those ex machina moments at which a new character is introduced ex nihilo for the very first time and without precedence.
He notes, “the phrase, ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6 and the book of Job. The actual words used cannot give you a clear definition that ‘sons of God’ in those passages are angels” and yet, the immediate plus greater plus cultural and historical contexts combined paint that picture for us and doing so creates no problems with any actual text.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply