Teaching Genesis 6:1-3 this morning in OT Survey reminded me of a question I have had for a few years now. Why are some evangelical interpreters so afraid of the angelic interpretation of the phrase “sons of god”? The context near (“sons of god” took wives from the human race) and far (“sons of god” is a technical expression for angels outside of Gen 6) and the NT allusion (Jude 1:6, 7 clearly refers to this incident and compares it to the sexual sin of Sodom) all point to the fallen-angels-inhabiting-bodies interpretation. Furthermore, the most ancient Jewish interpreters (1Enoch and Josephus) as well as the earliest Christian patristic interpreters all viewed these “sons” as angels.
It is only a small group of modern evangelical interpreters who reject this view and opt for the “godly line of Seth” view. Some adopt the “mighty men” view but it is not a significant number and, in my opinion, they do so without sufficient evidence.
The objection based on Matthew 22:30 is really not applicable since Jesus was talking about angels in heaven, not those who may have come to earth in ancient times, inhabiting human beings.
In studying Jude for a seminary course and a forthcoming commentary, I was struck by the fact that even the liberal commentators on the book never even question that Jude is referring to the “watcher” angels in Gen 6. Even those liberals who don’t believe the truth of the text all acknowledge that Jude and Gen 6 are describing the sinful activity of fallen angels - because that is what the texts plainly say!!
Can anyone tell me why some current evangelicals question this view? Years ago I read an article by Vern Poythress in which he argued that an anti-supernatural bias prevents some evangelicals from recognizing the plain meaning of the Genesis and Jude texts. Anti-supernaturalism among evangelicals? I know that sounds strange and even a contradiction in terms, but I think that Poythress may be “spot on” as the Brits say. Enlightenment rationalism may rear its ugly head in some surprising places! Perhaps the “pre-modern” interpreters who uniformly held to the angelic view weren’t afraid to espouse a world view in which supernatural events like an angelic invasion of earth could take place.
My point about a latent anti-supernaturalism among evangelicals doesn’t “prove” my interpretation but it should be considered when we attempt to understand this text that may seem foreign to our so-called enlightened “world view.”
nota bene !