Dear Friends,

This is my fifth post of direct commentary on How Jesus Became God, by Bart Ehrman. Check here for my introductory comments.

Last time, we considered the opening assault in Ehrman’s campaign to obfuscate Old Testament theology. Today, we continue in that vein by asking the question…did angels REALLY marry human women?

.

Hercules à la Pentateuch?

Ehrman…along with many conservative Christians (1)…understands Genesis 6 to mean that angels left their exalted, heavenly positions and decided to marry and have children with human women. Unlike conservative Christians, of course, Ehrman thinks the writer of Genesis was just borrowing a pagan myth.

This is what the passage in question says:

[Gen 6:1-4 KJV] 1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 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. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 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.

So, the idea is that the sons of God in this passage are actually naughty angels. I’ll elaborate later, but In my opinion, the sons of God in this passage are humans, not angels.

Angels, demons, humans, who cares?

This is important to Ehrman because it shows that Judaism included the concept of divine-ish humans. It’s all part of his cumulative argument that when early Christians said Jesus was divine, they didn’t mean that Jesus was God Himself, descended to earth in human form. Rather, they meant that Jesus was strictly a human until God resurrected Him and conferred divine status on Him, making Him the Son of God (he calls this exaltation Christology, in opposition to incarnation Christology).

See what’s at stake here?

Keeping up with the Joneses 

Here’s what I think happened.

The “sons of God” is a reference to a community of people worshipping the one true God. They are spoken of (in different terminology) in Genesis 4:

[Gen 4:26 KJV] 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.

In the translators’ notes for the KJV, an alternate rendering for “call upon the name of the LORD” is “to call themselves by the Name of the LORD”. So they were identifying themselves as part of God’s family. As in, sons of God. See what they did there?

By contrast, the “daughters of men” were women from a separate, ungodly community which was genetically superior to the godly community. Simply put, the men were larger (this explains the “giants” reference”) and the women were more beautiful.

Some of the men from the godly community were drawn away from God and their community by the exceedingly beautiful women. The women were not just objects of lust for the heretofore godly men; they were also a pathway to genetically stronger offspring, as compared to offspring produced within the godly community.

Sure enough, the male progeny of the unholy unions were very well endowed, which helped them become celebrities in their own right.

So the unholy unions were just a way of keeping up with the Joneses.

Anybody up for some Q&A?

Q:

Why was one group genetically superior?

A:

Random genetic variation.

Q:

OK, but giants??

A:

Yes, giants. We already have many verses in previous chapters talking about people living for centuries. So, one way or another, this antediluvian world was clearly far more conducive to human flourishing than the one we inhabit today.

Q:

But why was the genetically superior group ungodly?

A:

Because they let said superiority go to their heads. This is a phenomenon found all throughout the Bible.

[2Ch 12:1 KJV] 1 And it came to pass, when Rehoboam had established the kingdom, AND HAD STRENGTHENED HIMSELF, HE FORSOOK THE LAW OF THE LORD, and all Israel with him.

[2Ch 26:16 KJV] 16 BUT WHEN HE WAS STRONG, HIS HEART WAS LIFTED UP to [his] destruction: for he transgressed against the LORD his God, and went into the temple of the LORD to burn incense upon the altar of incense.

[Isa 3:16 KJV] 16 Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are HAUGHTY, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing [as] they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

[Pro 30:8-9 KJV] 8 Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: 9 LEST I BE FULL, AND DENY [THEE], AND SAY, WHO [IS] THE LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God [in vain].

[Luk 18:24 KJV] 24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, HOW HARDLY SHALL THEY THAT HAVE RICHES ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD!

And finally…

[1Co 1:26 KJV] 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:

in conjunction with:

[Mar 2:17 KJV] 17 When Jesus heard [it], he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I CAME NOT TO CALL THE RIGHTEOUS, but sinners to repentance.

Q:

Why is this the only place in the Old Testament where believers are called the sons of God?

A:

I’m not sure if that premise is true, but let’s assume it is for the sake of discussion. My answer, then, is that I don’t know why. However, I don’t think it’s really important if that exact phrase is not used elsewhere in the OT in that way, because…

• This OT verse DOES talk about sons and daughters (i.e., “children”) of God: [Deu 14:1 KJV] 1 Ye [are] the CHILDREN OF THE LORD your GOD: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.
• Multiple NT verses talk about believers/servants of God being “sons of God”:
  • [Jhn 1:12 KJV] 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become THE SONS OF GOD, [even] to them that believe on his name:
  • [Phl 2:15 KJV] 15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, THE SONS OF GOD, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
  • [Rom 8:14 KJV] 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are THE SONS OF GOD.
  • And 9 other NT hits discussing “children of God” in an obviously human context

In addition, since we’re discussing precedent or lack thereof….it seems that my explanation (godly men led astray by women from an ungodly community) has far stronger precedent than the fallen-angel theory. Just do a word search on Cozbi. Or read Ezra chapter 9. I could list many examples. But angels aroused by human women? I’ve never even seen a suggestion of that happening outside of Genesis 6.

And now I have some questions of my own

How would an angel experience lust towards human women in the first place?

Chatgpt informs me that (shocker!) sexual attraction towards women involves things like a hypothalamus, a pituitary gland, testosterone, etc. Angels possessed NONE of these things, and yet the text says that “the sons of God” noticed that some women were beautiful and basically got hot and bothered enough to (assuming these were angels) permanently forfeit their former estate and resign themselves to eventual confinement “in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day” (Jude 1:6). Really?

AWOL again

Just as discussed in my last post, Ehrman gives his interpretation of the text without even mentioning other interpretations.

In any case, I’m rejecting his fallen-angel interpretation and the semi-divine humans that follow from it, for the reasons mentioned above.

Genesis 6 is not about the Jewish version of Perseus, and therefore provides no support to the idea that the earliest Christian disciples were exaltation Christologists. Genesis 6 is about something more ho-hum…something that still, in a way, is happening today. Which leads me into my last question…