Truth
On
Tough
Texts
ISSUE 6–
January/2006
Who In the
World Were Those “Sons of God”?
(2)
Gen. 6:4; 1 Pet. 3:18-20;
2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6
In our last
issue, we looked at the Biblical evidence that
demonstrates that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 and 4
cannot possibly refer to “fallen angels,” as is commonly
taught by some interpreters. With that in mind, we turn
to two other points.
II. The
Identity of the “Sons of God”
Before dealing with the
identity of these “sons of God,” a brief word is in
order concerning one other alternate view of their
identity, a view that is gaining popularity. Recent
archeological discovery supposedly suggests that the
“sons of God” were sometimes used to describe kings. But
the main problem with that view is that the Scripture
nowhere else describes human rulers using this term, so
why would it be so here?
Who then were the
“sons of God” and “Daughters of Men” in Genesis 6? The
simple, natural, and Scriptural answer is: “the sons of
God” represent the godly line of Seth, and “the
Daughters of Men” represent the ungodly line of Cain.
The strongest proof of this is the
context, that is, chapters 2-7.
More problems of Biblical interpretation arise from
taking Scripture out of context than from any other
reason. All one has to do is look at the surrounding
context in Genesis and the meaning becomes
obvious:
q
Chapter 2 details the creation of
man;
q
Chapter 3 records the fall of
man;
q
Chapter 4 presents the line of
Cain (a man);
q
Chapter 5 presents the line of
Abel (a man);
q
Chapter 6 records the time when
the two lines crossed, represented by the terms “sons of
God” and “daughters of
men.”
q
Chapter 7 shows the judgment of
man through the flood showing that the whole world was
corrupted by the mixture of the godly with the
ungodly.
The most amazing
thing about the “Fallen Angel Theory” is that it seems
to cast aside the context as though it were irrelevant.
But without exception, the surrounding context speaks
of MAN. Then, all of a sudden, according to the
angel theory, like magic, angels appear to corrupt man.
But man did not need fallen angels to corrupt
him. He was already corrupt to
the core, with “every imagination of the thoughts of his
heart [being] only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). This
view is held by that great British scholar and
commentator, W. H. Griffith
Thomas:
It is . . . in every way
better and truer to the context to explain the
passage of the two lines of Seth and Cain, and as giving
the explanation of the judgment and the flood.[i]
Neither was there a
question in the mind and heart of Puritan Matthew
Henry:
The posterity of Seth did
not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done, both
for the preservation of their own purity, and in
detestation of the apostasy; they intermingled
themselves with the . . . race of Cain.
Warren Wiersbe also
writes:
When the Sethites
compromised by mingling with the Cainites, they fell
from God’s blessing. God was grieved that they married
godless Cainites, choosing wives as they pleased without
considering God’s will (Gen. 6:2). In doing this, they
endangered the fulfillment of the 3:15 promise; for how
could God bring a Redeemer into the world through an
unholy people? The people of that day “married and were
given in marriage” (Matt. 24:37-39) and thought nothing
of the warning that Enoch and Noah gave about the coming
judgment. Human history was now at the place where only
Noah and his family—eight people—believed God and obeyed
His Word. God’s spirit was striving with lost people,
but they resisted the call of God; and God was grieved
at what man was doing.[ii]
This is likewise the view
of theologians Augustus Strong,[iii] Millard
Erickson,[iv] and the great Seventieth
Century Francis Turretin, who first writes that the
angel theory is “false and immodest,” which underscores
this theory’s objectionable character, which we
emphasized in Part 1. Turretin goes on to
write:
the “sons of God” referred
to are no other than the posterity of Seth, who on
account of still retaining the purer worship of God, are
distinguished from the profane posterity of Cain or “the
sons of men.”[v]
Finally, contemporary
theologian Wayne Grudem makes this comment on the
context:
In fact, there is an
emphasis on sonship as including likeness to one’s
father in Genesis 5:4. Moreover, the text traces the
descendents from God through Adam and Seth to many
“sons” in all of chapter 5. The larger purpose of the
narrative seems to be to trace the parallel development
of the godly (ultimately messianic) line of Seth and the
ungodly descendants of the rest of mankind. Therefore,
the “sons of God” in Gen. 6:2 are men who are righteous
in their imitation of the character of their heavenly
father, and the “daughters” of men are the ungodly wives
whom they knew.[vi]
May we ask, then,
could the context be clearer?
One objection to this view
is why is the term “sons of God” not used with this
meaning in any other place? J. Sidlow Baxter brilliantly
answers:
But we may even turn this
objection back upon the objectors, for in the New
Testament the title “sons of God” (in the exact Greek
equivalent of the Hebrew) is used again and again of
men, that is, of the regenerate in Christ. [Angel
theorists] “explain” this as being because all who are
the direct creation of God are called His “sons,” and
the new nature which is in us as regenerate believers is
a direct creation of God. So the regenerate are “sons of
God.” Look back, then, over the Seth line. Were not the
worshipping Seth and Enos and the sanctified Enoch and
the “just” and “perfect” (upright) Noah who “walked with
God”—were not these men regenerate? Who will dare
say “No?” And were they not, then, truly “sons of
God?”[vii]
Another objection is
how can these men be considered holy when the Bible says
that only Noah was holy (Gen. 6:8, 9)? But as mentioned
earlier, the Sethites were clearly the
godly line but “intermingled
themselves with the . . . race of Cain” (Matthew
Henry).
Others ask why is it that
only “sons” and not “daughters” are associated with the
line of Seth? This demonstrates an ignorance of the
patriarchal system in Scripture, which views the male as
the family representative. Just as Paul included women
when he wrote, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of
God, they are the sons of God” (Rom. 8:14; cf. Phil.
2:15; I Jn. 3:1-2), the “sons of God” in Genesis would
also include women.
III. The
Identity of the Angels in Jude 6
In the final analysis, it
is actually Jude 6 that forms the foundation of the
entire “Fallen Angel Theory.” As one authority puts it,
“This ancient viewpoint hinges in part on the assumption
that Jude 6 and 7 refer to these angels.”[viii]
The extremely
important point here is, as stated in Part 1 of this
study, the “Fallen Angel Theory” is based on the
mythology of the Pseudepigrapha. The Pseudepigraphal
books were those books rejected by virtually everyone as
being part of the canon of Scripture. These books claim
Biblical authors, but are full of religious fancy and
magic from 200 B.C. to A.D. 100. Now, it is an
incontrovertible fact that this theory first
appeared in the Pseudepigraphal book, The Book
of Enoch, a spurious book that is full of
far-fetched stories. The author without doubt got
his ideas from pagan myths, which are full of stories
about “the gods” cohabiting with human women. In fact,
the story in The Book of Enoch goes so far to say that the number of
angels in Genesis 6 was 200. Why don’t the proponents of
the “Fallen Angel Theory” believe and teach this? One
writer recounts the story thusly:
Two hundred angels in
heaven, under the leadership of Semayaz, noticed that
the humans had unusually beautiful daughters. These they
desired for themselves, so they took a mutual oath to go
down to earth together, and each took a wife. They
taught these wives magical medicine, incantations, the
cutting of roots and the care of plants. When the women
became pregnant, they gave birth to giants that reached
three hundred cubits. The giants in turn consumed all
the food, thereby arousing the deep hatred of the
earthlings. The giants turned to devouring the people
along with the birds, wild beasts, reptiles and fish.
Then it was that the earth, having had enough of these
huge bullies, brought an accusation against
them.[ix]
Now may we ask, are
we to believe that Jude is following such pagan myth?
Are we to believe that a man writing under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit would be so tainted by
such superstition? Why would anyone want to hold to
something so ridiculous? Why not just believe the plain
language and context of Scripture and hold only to
that? It is because of these very questions that our
next issue of Truth on Tough Texts will answer
the question: “Does Jude Quote from Pseudepigraphal
Literature in Jude 6, 9, and 14?”
Finally, to what
then does Jude 6 refer? The answer is simple: The angels
in Jude 6 can refer only to the angels who followed
Lucifer at his fall. Satan’s
fall is described in Isaiah 14:12 and Ezekiel 28:12-19.
His sin was, of course, pride and arrogance. He was
going to exalt his throne above God’s Throne. We then
read in Revelation 12:4 that one-third of the angels
followed Lucifer and were cast out of heaven.
Jude 6 bears this
out. Note the words “kept not their first estate.”
“Estate” is the Greek, arche,
which carries the basic meaning “beginning.” But it
also refers to “the beginning or first place of
power.” Hence, it gives the ideas of sovereignty,
dominion, and elevated position. Jude is saying,
then, that these angels had an elevated position, a
place of dominion, and a certain degree of
sovereign power. This same word is translated
“principalities” in Ephesians 6:12.
The word
“habitation” is oiketerion,
which means “dwelling place,” that is, heaven.
These angels left heaven behind and left the position
and dominion they once had.
We should make note of the
judgment of these fallen angels. Some of these angels
are right now confined in “darkness,” which is the Greek
zophos, “Used of the darkness of the nether
world.”[x] Peter calls this place
“Tartarus” (2 Pet. 2:4). These angels are awaiting “the
judgment of the great day,” that is, the final judgment
at the Great White Throne (Rev. 20:11-15.).
The question now
arises, why are these angels reserved in judgment? As
we’ve seen, some speculate and then insist that it is
because these angels cohabited with human women. But, of
course, the main problem with this is the Word of God
doesn't say that. So, what is the reason? We
are not told the reason! God, for some reason unknown to
us, has not chosen to tell us the specifics. Consider 2
Peter 2:4 once again: “God spared not the angels that
sinned.” These angels did something, we know not what, for which God severely
punished them. Warren Wiersbe wisely comments on this
verse:
It is not necessary to
debate the hidden mysteries of this verse in order to
get the main message: God judges rebellion and will not
spare those who reject His will.[xi]
Let us not concoct a
story based on pagan mythology just so we can explain a
verse of Scripture. Rather, let us look to the main
message of the verse. One thing is clear: the doom of
all the fallen angels is sealed. That is really all
we need to know. Whether some of
them are chained in darkness now awaiting judgment, or
whether some are loose and doing Satan’s bidding while
they, too, await judgment, their doom is clear. Let us
not violate God’s Word by adding something that isn’t
there.
In the same vein,
however, we also see that the doom of all men who
reject God is already sealed. Note very carefully
John 3:18: “He that believeth on Him is not condemned,
but he that believeth not is condemned ALREADY, because
he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten
Son of God” (emphasis added). Those who reject Christ
don’t have to wait for judgment—it is already marked
out. What still awaits is the actual punishment,
but the judgment is already
sealed.
Note also John 16:8-11:
And when he is come, he
will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and
of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of
righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me
no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world
is [HAS BEEN] JUDGED (literal translation and emphasis
added).
Verses 11 does not
read, “The ruler of this world is going to be
judged.” No, he has already been judged. He is
guilty and now only awaits sentencing. What then of
apostasy? At first glance we might think, “Well, God is
going to condemn them for their perversion of His
truth.” On the contrary, God has
already condemned the
apostate. We can stand before an apostate today and
say, “You may blaspheme God, but you are already
condemned because Jude 6 says that you are just like the
fallen angels, already condemned.”
So, with this
historic incident, Jude warns us about apostasy. To
reject the Word of God results in condemnation both now
and forever. Let us, therefore, truly hate paganism
and traditionalism! We find that Christianity today, in
many ways, is bathed in and sometimes even
based on both of those. May
we not be guilty of thus tainting the Word of
God.
Dr. J.
D. Watson
Pastor-Teacher
Grace
Bible Church
*
* *
The Kind of
Preaching We Need
Vance Havner (1901-1986)
In these wild and weird and wicked
times, the work of the preacher is being rethought and
revamped and reexamined. Some think the preacher is just
to be an equipper of the laymen for their ministry. He’s
been pushed from the center of the platform to the wings
in favor of celebrated experts and entertainers. But the
Book still says, “How shall they hear without a
preacher?” (Rom. 10:14).
What kind of preaching do
we need today? We need the same kind we’ve always
needed. Nothing important has changed. Just because
we’ve split the atom and sent a man to the moon doesn’t
mean we need a new kind of Christianity. We have a new
kind of preacher in some quarters, but we don’t need
him.
1. The preaching
that we do need is apostolic.
Of course, there are
no apostles today in the original sense, but an apostle
is one sent, and a preacher is also a man sent from God.
The apostles studied at the feet of Jesus Christ. Our
Lord said, “Learn of me,” and that means studying
in the school of Christ Himself. It’s possible to have a
magna cum laude from a college and be a
first-grader in the school of Jesus Christ. The
apostolic preacher was anointed
by the Holy
Spirit.
2. The preaching
that we need today must be authoritative.
My Lord taught us having
authority and not as the scribes. Too much today sounds
like the scribes. There’s no king in Israel; every man
does what is right in his own eyes. Authority goes
out, and anarchy comes in. Jesus met the devil not in
His own name, not in His own power, but with the
Scriptures: “It is written.... It is written.... It is
written.” If He could defeat the devil with three verses
out of Deuteronomy, we ought to be able to do it
with the whole Bible.
3. Then it must be
absolute.
This is a day of
relativism. Right used to be right, and wrong used to be
wrong. Now black and white have been smudged into
indefinite gray. We’ve had two wars that we’ve neither
won nor lost. We’re afraid to win them and ashamed to
lose them. But General Douglas MacArthur summed it up
when he said, “There’s no substitute for
victory.”
Joseph Parker said of
Spurgeon, “The only colors Mr. Spurgeon knew were black
and white. In all things he was definite. You were
either in or out, up or down, alive or dead.”
4. It ought to be affectionate.
“Speaking the truth in
love” (Eph. 4:15). Some preach the truth and don’t have
love. Some preach love and don’t have the truth. Get the
mixture right. You have to mix it. A man puts one foot
in hot water and the other foot in ice water and feels
very uncomfortable. But when he mixes the waters, he’s
quite all right.
The truth will keep you
from dissolving into sentimentality; love will keep
you from hardening into severity.
5. Finally, it ought
to be apocalyptic
preaching.
Beloved, we’re living in a
terrible time, in a day of beasts and seals and trumpets
and four horsemen and the harlot on the beast and
scorpions and dragons and a sea of glass mingled with
fire and earthquakes and falling stars and Babylon and
the bottomless pit and the lake of fire and Gog and
Magog and six-six-six and the downfall of the devil and
the great white city coming down.
It’s no time to tiptoe
through the tulips in the administrative end. In such an
hour, good news is bad news and bad news is good news.
“When they shall say peace and safety” sounds like good
news, but no: “Destruction cometh.”
Good news is bad news.
“But when you see all these things come to pass,
famines, wars and rumors of wars, men’s hearts failing
them for fear,” that is bad news. But “lift up your
heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”
It’s a great day for
preaching—apostolic, authoritative, absolute,
affectionate, and apocalyptic.
“Even so, come, Lord
Jesus.”
NOTES
[i]
W. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional
Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1971), p.
66.
[ii] Warren Wiersbe,
Be Basic (Wheaton: Victor
Books), 1998, p. 89-90.
[iii] Augustus Strong, Systematic
Theology (Valley Forge: Judson
Press, 1907), p. 445.
[iv] Millard J.
Erickson, Christian Theology
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998), p.
467.
[v] Francis Turretin,
Institutes of Elenctic Theology, three Volumes, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing, 1997), Vol 1, p.
548.
[vi] Wayne Grudem, Systematic
Theology (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1994), p. 414.
[vii] J. Sidlow Baxter,
Studies in Problem Texts
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974), p. 177
(emphasis in the original).
[viii] Spiros Zodhiates and
Warren Baker (General Editors), The Complete Word Study
Old Testament (Iowa Falls, IA: World Publishing, 1994),
p. 17 (footnote).
[ix] Walter C. Kaiser,
et. al., Hard Sayings of the Bible, (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press) 1997.
[x] Joseph Thayer,
Thayer’s Greek–English Lexicon of the New
Testament, (Grand Rapids:
Associated Publishers and Authors,
Inc.).
[xi] Warren Wiersbe,
Be Alert (Wheaton: Victor
Books), 1984, p.
42.
