My comment on Jim Eisele's note is below.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Eisele" <jeisele@starpower.net>
To: "Peter Ruest" <pruest@dplanet.ch>
Cc: "Dick Fischer" <dickfischer@earthlink.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: Brachiators On Our Family Tree?
> Peter writes
>
> >Those outside of Israel were accountable according to the measure of
> >their knowledge of God, as many historical biblical notes show.
>
> Then why worry about them?
>
> Dick writes about whether it is Biblical to believe humans existed before
> Adam. Was Adam the first human? Or was he the first in Christ's line,
> and Israel's line? I'd like to add Gen 6:2 to the evidence table
>
> "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they
took
> wives
> for themselves, whomever they chose."
>
> We already know that Adam was considered "the son of God" from Luke 3:38.
> And
> somewhere in the NT it talks about Christians becoming sons and daugters
of
> God.
> So, being a son/daughter of God is a special position not granted to
> everyone.
>
> So, in Gen 6:2 the sons of God would be Adam and his descendants - the
> "special
> ones." The daughters of men would be "ordinary" humans who didn't descend
> from
> Adam. Unless you want to get really creepy and say that "the sons of God"
> are
> angels.
>
> Jim
>
I do not think it is good exegesis to use NT expressions/phrases like sons
and daughters of God, or the reference in Luke to Adam as "the son of God"
as a way of interpreting the expression "sons of God" in Genesis. Actually,
this approach is more eisegesis than exegesis, and it is putting the cart
before the horse.
Commentators like A. E. Speiser and Robert Alter, both excellent
Hebraicists, note the patently mythological character of the strange
fragment in Gen. 6:1-4. Alter suggests a relationship between the *elohim*
("sons of God/gods") in 6:2 and the use of the plural in Gen. 3:22, where
God speaks of "us". It has been commonly interpreted that this is a
reference to a heavenly court (and not necessarily to "angels," the common
interpretation, since "God stands in the assembly of the gods"; see also Ps.
84, 86, 95, 96, 97. Hey, let's be literal.). It makes more sense to see
these *elohim* as divine beings who mate with mortal women, the ordinary
interpretation. A clue to its mythological character is in the fact that
the offspring of these matings were the "Nephilim, the heroes of yore." The
parallel with numerous such instances in Greek, Roman, and other mythologies
would be evident to anyone familiar with these stories: gods mate with
mortals and heroes are born (e.g., Herakles, Aeneas, Perseus).
So, we have a mythological fragment that is used to introduce the story
of the flood and have a connection with it. Whoever edited this portion of
the text of Genesis has made that connection. I am puzzlied by this strange
text, but see no need to resolve the matter. But I don't think it makes
sense to interpret the "sons of God/gods" in 6:2 as "sons of Adam" and
thereby specially privileged.
Bob Schneider
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 17 2002 - 14:12:34 EDT