Hermeneutics & Dispensations

[Arielluria]

In discussing Genesis 6:2 with a Bible Study group last night, as always my research led me to learn and read the Scriptures even more! In so doing I found out that the Benaiah Elohim (translated Sons of God) in 6:2 and in all other OT passages as far as I can find, in the OT that term ALWAYS refers to angels.

In the NT it does not, others are also called Son of God (Jesus, Adam, etc.)

So........how or SHOULD hermeneutics change between dispensations or covenants?

 

[granpa]

heres a list of places where the term occurs. I cant tell if its complete or not.

NETBible: Sons Of God

SONS OF GOD - (Old Testament) (bene ha-'elohim, "sons of God" (Gen 6:2,4; Job 1:6; 2:1); bene 'elohim, "sons of God" (Job 38:7); bene 'elim, "ye mighty," the King James Version; "ye sons of the mighty," King James Version margin, the Revised Version (British and American); "sons of God" or "sons of the gods," the Revised Version margin (Ps 29:1); "sons of the mighty," the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American); "sons of God" or "sons of the gods," the Revised Version margin (Ps 89:6 (Hebrew 7)); Septuagint huioi tou theou, hoi aggeloi tou theou (Gen 6:2); huioi tou theou (Gen 6:4); hoi aggeloi tou theou (Job 1:6; 2:1); aggeloi mou (Job 38:7); huioi theou (Ps 29:1; 89:6; compare Dan 3:25)):

 

[ittarter]

So........how or SHOULD hermeneutics change between dispensations or covenants?

Great question.

Hermeneutics is primarily an issue of literary genre, and only indirectly an issue of theology. Literary genre relates to the occasion for the text -- its rhetorical purpose, its historical and social context -- but the main issue of concern is, How are words and phrases used by that text? Once we have defined our text, we use the different places the phrase is used within it to understand what that phrase means. This process is typically automatic, except in the academic world when it forcibly becomes methodical and the reader reflects more on how and why he or she is reading in a certain manner.

Of course, before any of this happens, the limits of the text must be defined. This relates directly to your question.

Now, "text" can be taken as narrowly or as broadly as the reader wants. Your "text" could be the Christian worldview, the Christian canon, the Bible, the Old Testament, the book of Genesis, or the myth of the Nephilim. Depending on what you see as your text, the con-text is going to affect your interpretation differently.

The concept of a "dispensation" is not one that I find particularly useful, but with the concept of a "covenant" we see two "texts," one before the resurrection and one after it -- loosely speaking, the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Now, how does this relate to the idea of the "son of God"? I would suggest that before the incarnation the term is meant in terms of resemblance,and that's all it could mean. However, the first advent of Christ brings forward a number of new, more concrete meanings -- not resemblance so much as nature. Clearly our understanding of the phrase "son of God" must change from Old to New Testament.

This reading is bound up in a covenantal hermeneutic and if we choose to define our text differently we will end up with different results.

 

[heritage36]

I think what you are referring to I have heard called the "divine interchange" principle, being things that you can interchange between the old and new testaments. If I am reading what you are saying right. It would be like "qahal" in the OT to "ekklesia" in the NT, basically both mean congregation, but for some reason going to english they are translated into a numerous different words. But there are a lot of things that do change between the OT and NT, obviously, because Greek and Hebrew are very different languages and often don't translate well to each other, just like they often don't translate to english well. It's worth noting that those "Sons of God" in the OT weren't always angels, but often half breeds which were half human too.

 

[ittarter]

It's worth noting that those "Sons of God" in the OT weren't always angels, but often half breeds which were half human too.

Often? Name one.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

In Canaanite mythology, which the early chapters of Genesis indeed borrows heavily from, there was the chief god El and a heavenly council, the bn 'il (the Ugaritic cognate of the Hebrew b'nei elohim/b'nei ha-elohim; the "Sons of El".

So it's possible that, in fact, in Genesis 6 the Enochian tradition is, perhaps, being implied. That these were heavenly visitors--"angels" if one prefers--intermarrying with human women.

Of course, we also have Jesus stating that in the resurrection we shall "be like the angels" "neither marrying nor being given into marriage"; so that may affect how we read Genesis 6 in that regard; and thus Jesus is more in agreement with certain rabbinical schools which understood the b'nei elohim to be righteous men, rather than heavenly or angelic beings.

That said, the New Testament use of "Son of God" in reference to Jesus is demonstrate-ably different; e.g. John uses the word "monogenes" to describe Jesus unique Son-ship. Namely, Jesus is the sole-born or only-born (only-begotten) of God; Jesus is therefore unique in that He alone is begotten/generated from God. Of course the Nicene Creed later makes sure to define "begotten"/"generated" to ensure we understand "begotten, not made", but that's somewhat of a tangent. Though it is important to understand the different ways Christians argued and struggled with how to define Jesus as "only-begotten Son of God". For the Ebionites, for example, Jesus was regarded as the "son of God" in the sense that He was a holy and righteous prophet and follower of God's Torah. Though, arguably, the more mainstream position that arises is out of the Logos-theology; Jesus is the Logos of God, arising out from God and in some sense Himself God. And thus "Son of God" becomes indicative Christ's unique Divinity received from the Father. Though, still, for others such as both kinds of Monarchians (Dynamic and Modalist) it meant something else further.

Dynamic Monarchians, such as Paul of Samosata were Adoptionist in their views, Jesus was adopted as the Son of God either at His baptism by John or His resurrection; whereas Modalistic Monarchians such as Sabellius and Praxis maintained that Jesus/the Son were modes of activity of the Father, and therefore "the Son" merely denotes God manifesting or expressing Himself through the activity of Jesus (i.e. Jesus is actually the Father).

The New Testament speaks of us as "children of God" such as in Romans 8:16 (tekna theou) also calling us "adopted sons" (huiothesia).

So, whatever the case, the New Testament seems to make a very clear distinction between Jesus as the "monogenes", the only-begotten, of God with those of us who are children/adopted sons/daughters of God.

-CryptoLutheran