PhD Dissertation Overview

Canon-wide biblical theologies are relatively new within the field of biblical theological scholarship, with each contending for a certain center or major theme of the Christian Bible. This work reassesses the gospel of Jesus, the Son of God, in view of the sons of God motif across the Christian canon. This reexamination contends that the sons of God motif, particularly within the narratival arc of Genesis 1-11, has been neglected among biblical theologians and homeliticians in their respective pursuits. Thus, this analysis enhances canon-wide biblical theological studies and fills a post-Reformational knowledge gap in the field of homiletics.

The driving query for the dissertation considers whether the sons of God motif is a significant biblical theological framework that explains the gospel of Jesus, the Son of God; and, if so, what does this say about canon-wide biblical theologies and Christian proclamation?

The sons of God make up a stock, theological concept within ancient Israel. In the Hebrew Bible, the phrase בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙, or “sons of God,” refers to a group of divine beings other than YHWH who are members of his סוֹד, or “council.” 

Drawing from Daniel 7-12 and the Apocalypse, the following are features of an apocalyptic worldview of the Christian canonical writers. 

1. Spiritual powers in conflict. Dan 10; Rev 12

2. Revelation of the future. Dan 10; Rev 21

3. Emphasis on judgment. Dan 7; Rev 4-5ff

4. Spiritual powers guide the seer and interpret visions. Dan 10; Rev 

5. The salvation of God’s people. Dan 12; Rev 21

6. The supreme sovereignty of God’s reign. Dan 10; Rev 20

Reasons for the Inquiry: Why Is a Reassessment of the Gospel Needed?

• D.A. Carson's warning is pertinent. Given the historical systematic theological traditions, he states, "It is very hard work to be informed by them without being controlled by them" (D. A. Carson, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, electronic ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 101.)
• Modern Dissonance with Divine Plurality
• Neglect of the Old Testament in Preaching and Biblical Ministry
• Neglect of Germane Second Temple Literature
• Canon-wide biblical theological works have largely disregarded Gen 6:1-4 and Gen 11// Deut 32:8-9, and thereby missed both the narratival arc of Gen 1-11, and its impact on the rest of the OT and the NT.

This chapter reviews research that had not been conducted to date concerning canon-wide biblical theologies and recent advances on related biblical passages pertaining to the sons of God motif. Accordingly, I offered the different conclusions concerning each scholar’s canon-wide thesis. This review shows the academic advances within biblical theology while also highlighting limitations in relation to canon-wide biblical theologies.

This chapter contains three major sections. The first major section reviews scholars who argue for a comprehensive biblical theological motif of the entire Bible. The second major section appraises work concerning specific passages related to the sons of God motif. The third major section reviews advances concerning the worldview of the canonical writers.

The Vos Thesis: God’s Special Revelation in History

The Alexander-Gathercole Thesis: The Temple

The Kaiser Thesis: The Promise-Plan of God

The Hamilton Thesis: God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment

The Beale Thesis: Eschatological New-Creational Kingdom

The Gentry-Wellum Thesis: Kingdom through Covenant

The Schreiner Thesis: The Kingdom of God

Developments Regarding Passages Associated with the Sons of God Motif

Richard J. Bauckham

Bo Reicke

Edward Selwyn

Wayne Grudem

Peter H. Davids

Amar Annus

Developments Regarding the Worldview of Canonical Writers

John Collins

Michael S. Heiser

Amy Elizabeth Richter

Archie T. Wright

Conclusion

The seven canon-wide biblical theological studies do not consider or engage with the Mesopotamian religio-historical background to Genesis 6:1-4 and the Great Flood. The work of Annus and Heiser highlight this omission, which evinces this contextual backdrop. 

Accordingly, if the interpreter pursues the religio-historical approach to understanding Scripture, then the religio-historical background to Genesis 6:1-4 must be considered and analyzed. 

Furthermore, the seven canon-wide biblical theological theses also fail to consider or address the Tower of Babel event in light of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and other supporting passages. In view of these knowledge gaps, both the historical and literary arc of Genesis 1-11 is obfuscated. 

This chapter considers the literary, historical, and canonical data relevant to the following passages: Genesis 1:26; 6:1-4; Deuteronomy 32:8-9; 1 Kings 22:19-22; Jeremiah 23:18; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:4-7; and Psalms 22:12; 82; 89.

The Sons of God in the Law

Present at Creation: Genesis 1:26

Rebellious Sons Descend and Corrupt the Earth: Genesis 6:1-4

Humanity Divided by Their Number: Deuteronomy 32:8-9

The Sons of God in the Prophets

Deliberation within a Divine Council Meeting: 1 Kings 22:19-22

Commissioning of Prophets within the Divine Council: Jeremiah 23:18

The Sons of God in the Writings

The Adversary among the Sons of God: Job 1:6; 2:1

The Sons of God Sing and Shout: Job 38:8

Bulls of Bashan Surround the Pierced Messiah: Psalm 22:12

The Sons of God Judged within a Divine Council Meeting: Psalm 82

The Incomparable God among the Sons: Psalm 89

This chapter examines, synthesizes, and evaluates primary Jewish sources relevant to the sons of God event of Genesis 6:1-4 in 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, Book of Jubilees, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Apocalypse of Abraham, 2 Baruch, and 3 Baruch. 

How did these Jewish sources comment on the Genesis 6:1-4 event? Who were the sons of God and the Nephilim in their view? In addition, a brief overview and date of each book is set forth.

In the quest to accurately identify the ontology of the sons of God, these

Second Temple texts provide a significant amount of evidence. They indicate the Jewish understanding of these beings to be originally spiritual or angelic in nature during this transitional period to the New Testament. 

According to these primary texts, supernatural beings, otherwise known as Watchers, left their proper heavenly domain, cohabited with women, and produced giant offspring. The sin of the Watchers also included teaching humanity illicit knowledge in the arts of weaponry, immorality,

pharmacology, and occultism. The result of the illicit pedagogy of the Watchers was the proliferation of depravity on the earth. 

Chaos, violence, and injustice multiplied, triggering the divine judgment of the Great Flood. Thus, these ancient Jewish sources support the supernatural view of the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4, which has been denied by most theologians since Augustine, and has been neglected in canon wide biblical theologies and gospel proclamation.

Therefore, in reassessing the person and work of Jesus, the Son of God, what if one did so against the backdrop of these Second Temple texts and the Hebrew Bible’s sons of God motif? What if the descent and birth of the Son of God is reconsidered in light of the descent of the rebellious sons of God? Could the pedagogy of Christ be reevaluated against the background of the Watchers’ illicit teaching? Chapter 5 pursues evidence in the NT that supports the notion that the sons of God motif serves as a significant interpretive framework for canon-wide biblical theology and

proclaiming the gospel of Jesus, the Son of God.

Recall the narratival arc that forms the backdrop to God’s promise to Abram, which Paul calls “the gospel” (Gal 3:8). The NT writers are mindful of the greater narratival arc of Genesis 1-11, as well as 1 Enoch and other Second Temple sources, both of which bleed into the NT.  

Although the degree of influence is not beyond challenge, the NT writers share associations and ideas rooted in the Genesis 1-11 backdrop and the apocalyptic worldview of their own contemporary Jewish writings.

This chapter considers the literary, historical, and canonical data relevant to key passages germane to the sons of God motif, and seeks to understand and share the biblical author’s intent for the original audience.

Jesus and the Sons of God in the Gospels/Acts

The Pedagogy of Jesus Versus the Fallen Sons of God: Matthew 4:23

The Building of Christ’s Church and the Gates of Hell: Matthew 16:18

Jesus Reveals the Final State of the Corrupt Sons of God: Matthew 25:41

Jesus Exorcizes the Offspring of the Rebellious Sons of God: Mark 1:23-27

The Birth of Jesus as Divine Parody to the Sons of God Incursion: Luke 1:26-38

Pentecost as Inversion of the Tower of Babel Judgment: Acts 2

Jesus and the Sons of God in the Letters

The Sons and Daughters of God as Holy Ones (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:2)

The Sons and Daughters of God as Judges of the Sons of God: 1 Corinthians 6:3

Present Status: The Children of God among the Sons of God in Christ: Ephesians 1:3

Imprisoned Sons of God and Jesus’s Proclamation to Them: 1 Peter 3:18-20

The Sons of God Motif as Catechism for New Converts: Jude 5-7

Jesus and the Sons of God in the Apocalypse

The Sons and Daughters of God Who Will Reign upon the Earth: Revelation 2:26-27

Final Repair to the Sons of God Rebellion: Revelation 4-5

Modern dissonance with divine plurality exists, impacting biblical theology and interpretation.

The increasing neglect of the OT in preaching and biblical ministry is apparent. 

While evangelical scholarship has begun to examine Second Temple literature in the last few decades, the corpus remains largely disregarded among evangelical scholarship. However, considering relevant Second Temple literature led to a more mutual sharing of the polemic nature of the OT metanarrative against the gods of Israel’s surrounding neighbors and of the apocalyptic worldview of the NT writers.

For instance, R.H. Charles notes that the influence of 1 Enoch upon the NT has been greater than all the other apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books taken together. 

His evidence includes one-hundred NT phrases and ideas either directly dependent or illustrative of passages in 1 Enoch. See R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text, and Edited with the Introduction, Notes and Indexes of the First Edition with a Reprint from the Editor’s Text of the Greek Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), xcv-ciii. In addition, he also discusses theology in 1 Enoch that corresponds with NT doctrines.

Thus, within this examination, a methodical demonstration emerged from the evidence that indicated that the sons of God motif fills a void

apparent in canon-wide biblical theological theses. The evidence also demonstrated that the sons of God motif is its own major biblical theological framework for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Chapter 2 reviewed research that had not been conducted to date concerning canon-wide biblical theologies and recent advances on related biblical passages pertaining to the sons of God motif. Accordingly this writer offered the different conclusions concerning each scholar’s canon-wide thesis. This review shows the academic advances within biblical theology while also highlighting limitations in relation to canon-wide biblical theologies.

Chapter 3 presented a thorough examination of foundational passages related to the sons of God motif in the OT. For the sake of clarity and structure, this writer used Hamilton’s arrangement in his canon-wide biblical theology for dividing the OT with the Law (Gen 1:26; 6:1-4, and Deut 32:8-9), the Prophets (1 Kgs 22:19-22; Jer 23:18), and the Writings (Job 1:6; 2:1; Job 38:7; Pss 22:12; 82; 89). Each passage was analyzed in their respective literary, historical, and canonical settings. 

The evidence was apparent that the seven canon-wide biblical theologies did not consider nor engage with the Mesopotamian religio-historical background to Genesis 6:1-4.

The work of Amar Annus and others highlight this omission, which demonstrates this contextual backdrop. Accordingly, if the interpreter pursues the religio-historical approach to understanding Scripture, Annus’s work must be considered and analyzed.

Furthermore, the seven comprehensive biblical theological theses also fail to include or address the Tower of Babel event in light of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (DSS; ESV) and other supporting passages (cf. Deut 4:19; 29:26). 

In view of these knowledge gaps, both the historical and literary arc of Genesis 1-11 is obfuscated, as is the context for God's promise to Abram.

Chapter 4 comprised a review of Second Temple literature germane to the sons of God motif. Specifically, sources were considered in relation to Genesis 6:1-4 and its link to the Flood. The sources analyzed were 2 Enoch 7:1-5; 2 Enoch 18:1-9; Jubilees 4-5; Jubilees 7:20-25; Jubilees 10:1-14; Testament of Reuben 5:3-6; Testament of Naphtali 3:1-5; Apocalypse of Abraham 13-14; 2 Baruch 56; and 3 Baruch 4.

Consequently, these Jewish literary works affirm that the sons of God were supernatural beings that descended in the form of men, took women as wives, and giants or Nephilim were born to them.

The corruption of humanity was not only biological in nature, but also via pedagogy. The Watchers’ illicit instruction caused the proliferation of depravity through the arts of weaponry, immorality, pharmacology, and occultism, to such a degree that God washed the whole world through the Great Flood.

These Jewish sources support the angelic view of Genesis 6:1-4, which is the most ancient view. The following early church fathers also held to the angelic view and seem to constitute a majority: Justin Martyr (c. AD 110–AD 165); Athenagoras (c. AD 133–c. 190); Irenaeus (c. AD 130–c. 202); Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 150–c. 215); Bardaisan of Edessa (c. AD 154–c. 222); The Pseudo-Clementine Literature, The Homilies (c. AD 200–c. 400, attributed to Clement I, bishop of Rome); Tertullian (c. AD 145–c. 220); Origen (c. AD 185–c. 254); Cyprian (c. AD 200–c. 258); Commodian (c. AD 240, probably bishop of North Africa); Methodius (c. AD 260–c. 312); Lactantius (c. AD 260–c.312); Eusebius (c. AD 260–c. 340); Ambrosius (c. AD 340–c. 397); Sulpicius Severus (c. AD 363–c. 420); Didymus the Blind (c. AD 310–c. 398). See Jacob J. T. Doedens, “The Sons of God in Genesis6:1-4,” (PhD diss., Theological University Kampen, Netherlands, 2013), 124-63. 

Doedens’ research also indicates that the Sethites-interpretation is found exclusively in the writings of the Fathers of the church from the fifth until the twelfth century, following Augustine.

Accordingly, Gen 6:1-4 has also been neglected by most canon-wide biblical theologies.

Chapter 5 examined the person and work of Jesus, the Son of God, in light of the sons of God motif of the OT. 

The birth, pedagogy, and exorcisms/healings of Jesus were viewed against the backdrop of the narratival arc of Genesis 1-11 and the apocalyptic worldview of the Gospel writers. 

His birth was considered as an ironic divine parody of the sons of God incursion prior to the Flood. When the rebellious sons of God

descend, they enter into human women and corrupt humanity (Gen 6:1-5). When Jesus, the Son of God, descends, He does so from a betrothed virgin and brings wholeness to humanity.

The pedagogy of Christ was viewed in light of the corrupt Watchers’ teaching. Whereas the latter brought the proliferation of corruption, disorder, and death among humanity, the former brought righteousness, peace, and human flourishing. 

While none of the canon-wide biblical theological theses considered the ontology of demons, the exorcisms and healings of Christ were plausibly linked to the Nephilim, or the giants.

The chapter also reconsidered the term ἁγίοις, or “holy ones,” as a designation of believers in Jesus Christ in light of the sons of God motif. The descriptive term often emerges in the salutations of Pauline epistles (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:2). This writer contends that the word be viewed in light of its primary usage in the OT. Thus, this designation for believers points to their identity, which includes not only forgiveness of sin, but they will judge the world and angels, supplanting the gods of the nations as they reign with Christ Jesus in the eschaton (1

Cor 6:3; Dan 7). 

The sons of God motif brings coherence to Jude’s warning concerning the false teachers that crept into the church. Jude reminds them they were

previously taught about the presence of the giants in the land of promise, the angelic incursion, and the homosexuals’ desire for the anthropomorphic angels as archetypes of rebellion and disorder (Jude 5-7). 

The status of believers was also confirmed by the chiastic structure of the seven letters in the Apocalypse (emphasizing Rev 2:18-29), the chiastic structure of the Apocalypse as a whole, and how the judgments and final repair to the sons of God rebellion are issued from the throne-room of God (Rev 4-5).

Thus, the sons of God motif serves as a significant biblical theological framework bringing coherence across the entire Christian canon.

The sons of God motif fills a knowledge gap in the field of homiletics.

For instance, in a search of every journal published by the Evangelical Homiletics Society since its inception in 2001, Genesis 6:1-4 is never cited. The meaning of the text is not broached, nor its importance for the storyline of Scripture. The stark omission serves as evidence that the sons of God motif is not on the radar of professional Christian heralds, at least among those published in the journal. Public proclamation of the metanarrative of the gospel should conform to the biblical storyline and not upon a philosophical system or organization of the biblical data.

The sons of God storyline shows how the OT and NT fit together in this era of biblical crisis. 

Prosperity-gospel aberrations abound in local churches, on television, and online. With the good motive of reaching unbelievers, the lead teaching pastor of one of America’s largest churches suggests the problem with the modern church is our “incessant habit of reaching back into the old covenant concepts, teachings, sayings, and narratives.” [(See Andy Stanley, Irresistible: Reclaiming the New that Jesus Unleashed for the World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018), 91.] 

Therefore, he urges fellow church leaders to consider unhitching

their teaching of following Jesus from the old covenant because “when it comes to stumbling blocks to faith, the Old Testament is right up there at the top of the list.” (Ibid., 315, 280)

Accordingly, the sons of God motif holds more explanatory power to events and passages that may seem fringe or odd involving supernatural beings. The theological concept of a divine council made up of the sons of God is common knowledge among OT scholars but lacking amid modern Christian homeliticians. The unfortunate lack impacts public proclamation of the gospel among those desiring a thoroughly robust, full-orbed proclamation of the biblical narrative. The shortage also impacts interpreting key passages related to the sons of God motif throughout the

Scriptures. 

Thus, perhaps the sons of God thesis could help homeliticians show their churches how the Bible fits together in their respective ministries for the purposes of evangelism and discipleship. 

The ultimate end of these contributions is the building up of the Church to the glory of God.

The sons of God motif could inform systematic theological approaches

to Scripture. A biblical theological approach follows the storyline of Scripture in its historical context. A systematic approach finds its impetus for doing theology in a rational, logical arrangement. 

Accordingly, significant works of systematic theology do not reference Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (DSS, ESV) nor incorporate the passage’s meaning into their studies. 

The following systematic theologies do not reference Deut 32:8-9: John Gill, John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible (December 26, 2018), Kindle loc. 50162; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997); John Miley, Systematic Theology,

vol. 1 (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1892), John Miley, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1893); L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1938); James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith: A Comprehensive and Readable Theology (Downers Grove:

InterVarsity, 1986); Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999); R. T. Kendall, Understanding Theology, vols. 1-3 (Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 1996, 2000, 2001); Norman L. Geisler, Systematic

Theology, Volume One: Introduction, Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2002), Volume Two: God, Creation (2003), Volume Three: Sin, Salvation (2004), Volume Four: Church, Last Things (2005); Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004).

Many of the above theologians are indebted to the work of Carl F. H. Henry, whose six-volume magnum opus essentially invented modern evangelical theology. However, he too does not cite Deut 32:8, nor address this crucial event concerning the sons of God in the metanarrative of the gospel. See Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999).