Genesis 6

[Simon_Templar]

Genesis chapter 6 records an event before the flood (and also afterwards) in which the "sons of God" co-habit with the "daughters of men" and produce giant offspring who were men of great renown etc.

Its very clear that at the time of Jesus and the Apostles the predominant view was that the "sons of God" were literally angels. This is established clearly by the linguistics of the text in Genesis as well as extra-biblical Jewish literature such as the book of Enoch.

Later on that interpetation, for whatever reason, fell out of favor and Church Fathers starting with Augustine took up a view that the "sons of God" were the descendants of Seth and the "daughters of men" were the descendants of Cain.

It is my understanding that this later view is the predominant Catholic view.

My question is, is this view regarded as authoritative? Some of the things I've seen suggest that its not something that has officially been spoken on and its up for debate etc. Is that the case?

My own view is the former, just so you know where I'm coming from.

 

[AMDG]

My Douay-Rheims Old Testament with commentary by Fr. Haydock indicates that the Sons of God are the descendants of Seth and Enos, known for their religion and piety while the Daughters of Men are the ungodly race of Cain who are known by their carnal affections. It says that the unhappy consequence of the two marrying show that Christians need to be very circumspect in their marriages--they need to put religion and virtue and not be ruled by carnal passion.

It does mention that some ancients thought that Sons of God referred to angels (spiritual beings) but that is a mistake that came from the pagans and how they derived their heros. It says that this notion is derived from the book of Henoch and is quite exploded.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

The Institutional Church sometimes has a habit of assigning meaning and definition to ideas that should remain mystery, i.e. Limbo

They seem to now have backed off that. So I guess that is my personal answer to your question. I don't think the Church is quite sure.

 

[ebia]

I don't think the church has an official answer to that level of question, does it?

 

[D'Ann]

AMDG answered it correctly.

 

[Rhamiel]

i always thought that the Bible was fairly clear that it ment fallen angels

 

[JohntheTheologian]

I think it's a fascinating piece of ancient Near Eastern mythological storytelling which has crept into the Biblical account, and has been used by the Holy Spirit to convey moral sentiment as part of the wider Genesis narrative.

That's not to say it's not true or didn't happen, but it does bear the hallmarks of pre-Biblical thought and culture.

 

[Colin]

The footnote in the Jerusalem Bible says :-

An obscure passage from the Yahwistic tradition . The author uses a popular story of a race of giants , in Hebrew "Nephilim" , the Titans of eastern legend , born of the union between gods and mortals . The author does not present this episode as a myth nor , on the other hand , does he deliver judgement on its actual occurrence . He records the anecdote of a race of supermen simply to serve as an example of the increasing human malice that is to provoke the Deluge . Later Judaism and almost all the ecclesiastical writers identify the "sons of God" with fallen angels ; but from the 4th century onwards , as the idea of angelic natures becomes less material , the Fathers commonly take the "sons of God" to be Seth's descendants and the "daughters of men" those of Cain .

 

[Rhamiel]

why are non catholics teaching on this thread?

 

[isshinwhat]

How can a creature that is pure spirit take a human being as his wife and lay with her? I don't think it can happen, especially given Christ's words in Matthew 22:30, "For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven."

 

[Simon_Templar]

How can a creature that is pure spirit take a human being as his wife and lay with her? I don't think it can happen, especially given Christ's words in Matthew 22:30, "For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven."

This is one of the common objections raised. In fact it is pretty much the only real objection that any of the non-angelic arguments have to stand on.

I don't mean to debate the point, but in my opinion I find that argument to be very bad, meaning I don't think it is well thought out and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, again my opinion.

Regarding what Jesus said about marriage among angels, it is clear that angels were not created to procreate. No one disputes this. In fact, this point is central to the whole story of why the angels fell in this instance, and why what they did was such a terrible sin.
The book of Enoch which recounts the story in greater details makes the point clearly that the angels involved lusted after human women specifically because humans could produce offspring and angels could not. The entire point of their rebellion was to find a way to produce offspring of their own, which is impossible for angels in and of themselves.

Now, there is nothing at all in scripture which says that angels can not take on human form. In fact there are several scriptures which make it clear that they can. Further, even humans with our natural scientific ability can work through genetic manipulation and things such as cloning etc. How much more could an angel do something like this with their vast knowledge of creation and their vast supernatural power etc.

In short, yes its true that angels by nature can not reproduce. But that is precisely the point of the story, in doing this act they went outside of their created nature, as Jude says the "left their first estate".

Also, regarding the idea that this story and the angelic interpetation was borrowed from the pagans, I think that quite the opposite is true. I think the pagans borrowered/created much of their mythology based on this event.

I don't want to get dragged into argument about this because I'm not supposed to debate etc... my point with the thread was merely to find out if there is an 'official' or 'authoritative' position or if its open for debate/conversation etc.

I know that the majority Catholic view is the Sethite view and I know all of the arguments various scholars have made for that view (which really is just one argument that been repeated over and over).

I also wanted to add this post script...

The book of enoch is obviously related to this discussion and it is not held to be canon by the Catholic Church (if memory serves it is held as canon in the Ethiopian orthodox Church). However, having read the book of Enoch it is undeniable that the book has a heavy influence on new testament messianic theology.
What I mean by this is that, just looking at the title "Son of Man" and how Jesus uses it, in my opinion, its undeniable that not only he, but also his listeners were familiar with and were referring to ideas about the Son of Man from the book of Enoch. That term Son of Man is used only once in messianic context in the canon Old Testament, but it is used repeatedly in Messianic context in the book of Enoch.

That, coupled with direct quotes from the book included in scripture (Jude) leads me to the conclusion that even if the book is not scripture, it is mostly true and reliable.

 

[JohntheTheologian]

why are non catholics teaching on this thread?

Accept my apologies, I intended to express a friendly opinion rather than teach.

 

[isshinwhat]

No worries, we're all just speculating anyway.

 

[Colin]

Accept my apologies, I intended to express a friendly opinion rather than teach.

Carry on , my brother in Christ .

 

[rosemary]

During this days Noah found a favor in the eyes of God because of his righteousness and he had the opportunity to walk with God. Since the earth became corrupt, he was saved with his family.