There are many "untouchable" verses in the Bible - verses that seem to be ignored or difficult to explain or the source of controversy for many years. This blog isn't about to shy away from these types of verses, in fact, they sound like our kind of verses. Probably one of the most famous of these verses occurs in Genesis 6. Just who are the sons of God mentioned here? Now, once again, we will be looking at the view through the eyes of Dr. C. I. Scofield and making our own observations.
Genesis 6:1-4 reads thusly, "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
Now, it the question comes down to who are the sons of God? and who are the daughters of men? Now, I'll be quoting from Scofield's Study Bible (1917 ed.).
Some hold that these "sons of God" were the "angels which kept not their first estate" (Jude 6). It is asserted that the title is in the O. T. exclusively used of angels. But this is an error (Isa. 43:6). Angels are spoken of in a sexless way. No female angels are mentioned in Scripture, and we are expressly told that marriage is unknown among angels (Matthew 22:30). The uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that verse 2 marks the breaking down of the separation between the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain, and so the failure of the testimony to Jehovah committed to the line of Seth (Genesis 4:26). For apostasy there is no remedy but judgment (Isa. 1:2-7, 25-25; Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26-31). and so on.
The first "error" that Scofield wishes to point out is that the title "sons of God" is exclusively used of angels in the Old Testament. His justification for this is Isaiah 43:6 which says, "I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth". Ok - where's the title "sons of God"? I guess he is referring to "my sons" here, but a generic mention of sons and daughters as they relate to God is not the same as defining a specific title such as "sons of God." So, I'm failing to see the justification to disprove this "error." Secondly, the term "sons of God" is a special term even in the New Testament. It refers to those who are saved. Those who are saved are a special creation of God. Angels likewise are a special creation of God because they are the first and only of their kind (meaning they didn't "evolve" into something other than angels, in their natural state), specially created by God, and potentially perfect. You say, that doesn't mean they're "sons of God." What about Adam?--he was the first and only of their kind (again, in that there isn't multiple human kinds) and was potentially perfect. Well, read in Luke and it says so-and-so was the son of so-and-so was the son of so-and-so was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38)
The second justification is that angles are spoken of in a sexless way. Now, the angel that rolled away the stone of Jesus' tomb is described as masculine (Matthew 28:2-4). The two angels that came to Sodom in Genesis 19 were "man enough" that the people of the city wanted to commit sin with them. The 3 angels that appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18 desired to rest and be fed. Judges 13:21 - Manoah describes the angel as a "he." The fact of the matter is, every time an angel shows up and it is necessary to speak of it with a gender, it is ALWAYS male. What makes something male or female? Is it facial features? Is it length of hair? No, it is what their role in reproduction is. It is illogical to have a "sexless" angel that is a male.
The third argument is that angels don't marry. Now, to be fair, the verse says that in the resurrection (a time yet future) they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of God in heaven. This verse makes no mention of what angels of the devil would do or have done in the past. So, to solely use this verse as justification for a position in Genesis 6 is problematic. Also, we all know you don't need the bond of marriage to procreate. "But, it says that they took wives of all that they chose." Do you honestly read these verses and come away with the idea that these were God-ordained marriages? Can a tyrant take unto himself whom he chooses and declare their status, regardless of the law? Yes!
The fourth argument is that this is the breakdown of the "godly line of Seth" and the "ungodly line of Cain." When has there ever been a godly line of anyone in the Bible? Even Jesus' line has an adulterer and murderer in it! Secondly, if the union of godly and ungodly lines produced giants then, why do not the same unions produce giants today? Furthermore, it says that giants were in the land and also after that (the flood). If Cain's daughters were killed in the flood, then what "ungodly" line existed after the flood to produce giants?
Scofield's arguments are not very well thought out. I believe the Bible is presenting these sons of God as angels. Let's note a few things. Allow me to post the verses again:
"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
Every time the term "sons of God" is used in the O. T. it is in reference to angels (Job 1, Job 2, Job 38). For God to mean something different than angels, He would have to change the meaning without telling us He changed the meaning. Note verse 3 says that His spirit will not always strive with man, "for that he also is flesh." Wait, man isn't the only flesh? Remember, every time an angel shows up, it's a man. Therefore, yes, man also is flesh. Now, we know that demons roam free on the earth. These demons are nothing more than fallen angels. When Satan was removed from his position in heaven, he took a portion of the angels with him. Where did these angels go? We know that not all came with him to earth. Jude 6 says that some angels are reserved in "everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." So, what these angels did was so bad that God locked them up immediately. They do not have free roam on the earth. And, note Jude 7 (also after that) speaks of Sodom and Gomorrha. So, they kept not their first estate and left their own habitation. Ephesians 2:22 says that we are built together for a habitation of God through the spirit. Our bodies are the abode or the habitation of God. (Note I Corinthians 6:19-20). Our first estate is earth. The angels first estate was heaven. So, the angels didn't leave their first estate, rather they didn't keep it. There's a big difference. If they leave, it is voluntary. By not keeping it, they forfeited it. So, does Jude just double up here and use estate and habitation to mean the same thing? No. Remember the reference to us - our physical bodies are the habitation of God. The angels kept not their first estate and left their own physical bodies, inhabited human males, and comingled with the daughters of men. Also note I Peter 3:18-20. "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prisons; Which sometime were disobedient when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,..."
What spirits? The body is for the grave. Hebrews 1:4 says that angels are spirits. Men are souls. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." (Ezekiel 18:4 - the context of this passage is physical life/death. Don't use this passage to say that O. T. believers could lose their salvation. Physical life is the context!). These spirits can't be the lost. They are spiritually dead, but their souls would populate this prison (hell). But, Peter says "spirits." Doesn't this dove-tail nicely with Jude 6?! The same angels "reserved in chains" are the "spirits in prisons." Also note Peter's reference to the days of Noah. Common theme? Yes, because "sons of God" in Genesis 6 (the days of Noah) are angels!!
I'll end with this idea. Remember the giants in the Bible are associated with iron? Deut. 3:11 - Og had a bedstead of iron. I Samuel 17:7 says that Goliath's spear was the weight of 600 shekels of iron. These giants were the product of humans (clay) intermixing with demonic flesh (iron, the "dominant gene"). It is interesting that the feet of Daniel's image (Daniel 2:33) is a mixture of iron and clay. Am I suggesting that we may see giants again? Well, Jesus said as it was in the days of Noah and as it was in the days of Lot ("...also after that...") so shall it be with the coming of the Son of Man.
No comments:
Post a Comment