Finestwheat
01-23-2010, 12:40 AM
“The sons of God” in Genesis 6 bears a significant relationship to the second coming of the Lord Jesus. For “as it came to pass in the days of Noah,” said the Lord Jesus, “even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man” (Luke 17.26). How were the days of Noah? The sons of God came in to the daughters of men. Many commentators interpret this affair as indicating that the sons of Seth married the daughters of Cain. But such an interpretation is forced. When “the sons of God” married the daughters of men, they bore the Nephilim (i.e., the giants; the original meaning of Nephilim is “the fallen”). How could the sons of Seth (by this interpretation being “the sons of God”), in marrying the daughters of Cain, father giants?
Seth was a human being, and so was Cain. How could the same kind of human beings beget a different type of men? Such an interpretation is bound to convey an unnatural cast to the affair. Who, then, are “the sons of God”? Naturally the answer must especially be sought in the Old Testament. By searching, the evidence appears. We can safely conclude that “the sons of God” here point to the angels. We find some strong evidence in the book of Job. Job was written before the book of Genesis, for the latter was compiled during the time of Moses whereas the former was composed at the time of Abraham. Such a dating of these two books has been commonly accepted. The words employed in later Biblical writings usually follow those of the earlier writings. In Job 1, 2 and 38, the phrase “the sons of God” refers in all cases to the angels; so that quite naturally “the sons of God” in Genesis 6 must likewise have reference to the angels.
The Lord Jesus noted that “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven” (Matt. 22.30). Yet this statement does not suggest that angels are not able to marry or to be given in marriage; the statement merely says that angels do not marry nor are given in marriage. God forbids the angels to marry for they are spirits. Nonetheless an unexpected thing happened; the most confusing of all things occurred in the time of Genesis 3, and that was that the Satanic spirit entered into a lower creature—the serpent. So that in Genesis we observe a union of the evil spirit with the lower creature. And in the time of Genesis 6 the evil spirit entered into a union with men. Angels ought not marry, nevertheless they married the daughters of men and begat the Nephilim. And when the Nephilim appeared on the earth, God decided to destroy them. God wants angels, He wants men, but He does not want the Nephilim; for He has not created such a species. All that He has made must be each after its kind. But out of the union of the devils and men came forth the Nephilim. God therefore severely judged them. Why, as a further example, did God decide to destroy the Anakim who appeared later on? Because they too were Nephilim.
Originally the Nephilim were destroyed in the flood, but later in the land of Canaan the Nephilim appeared again in the form of the Anakim. They too must be destroyed. For God will not allow such kind of creature to exist on the earth.
The passage in Jude 6—“And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation”—like-wise refers to the marriage of the angels. Also, “angels when they sinned” (2 Peter 2.4) points to the same affair.
The passage in Genesis 6.3 is clear: “for that he [man] also is flesh.” What is meant here by the word “also”? It means the second time. For instance, You have eaten, but I also have eaten. This “also” means the second time. God says that man also is flesh, indicating that before man somebody else has first become flesh. Who, aside from man, can be spoken in such parallel fashion to man? None but the angel. Hence in saying that man also is flesh, it implies that the angels had already become flesh. With such evidence as this, we can assuredly conclude that “the sons of God” points to the angels.
Man indeed had sinned in Genesis 3, but the sinning in Genesis 3 and the becoming flesh in Genesis 6 are not the same. To sin is a matter of conduct, not a matter of nature; but to become flesh signifies that the whole being is now controlled by the flesh; so that it has become a matter of nature. We must pay attention to the subsequent development of man’s sin besides the original fall of man recorded in Genesis 3. For Adam it is a sinful act, for Cain it has become a lust, and by the time of the flood, sin has developed so quickly that man has become flesh; that is, sinning has now become a habit. Ever since man had first sinned, the Spirit of God had always striven with him until he became flesh. The words, “My Spirit shall not strive with man for ever”, show that from the Garden of Eden until the flood the Spirit of God had been striving with man. Yet when man became so licentious as to become flesh, God’s Spirit ceased to strive any longer.
Why should we notice this matter? Because the Bible has declared: “And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man” (Matt. 24.37). This problem must therefore be solved. It is possible that before the coming of the Son of man the evil spirit of Satan will come to the earth, and sinful angels will at that time clothe themselves with flesh. These “sons of God” are always a problem; consequently God must judge them severely. The judgment of the flood is without precedent; the judgment of the land of Canaan is also exceedingly stern; and at the coming of the Son of man there will come a great judgment. The Lord will judge the angels who fail to keep their original state.
Are those angels who have left their original state included in the third part (see Rev. 12.4) or not? Probably they are outside the third part of the angelic hosts who rebelled. “And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation” (Jude 6). The word “principality” is translated by Darby as “original state”. It means more than a position, it also signifies an original condition. The original condition of angels is neither marrying nor giving in marriage. To say “kept not their original state” means to say that they lost it through marriage. “Original state” refers to their condition, while “habitation” points to their dwelling. What has happened to these angels? Jude 6 continues with: “He [the Lord] hath kept [them] in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” Now the first word—“even”—in verse 7 is not to be found in the original Greek text, for verse 7 and verse 6 do not refer to two different matters; rather, verse 7 explains verse 6. Both J. N. Darby’s translation and Stephen’s text of 1550 omit the word “even”. For these angels, just “as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, having in like manner with these giving themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire” (v.7). This refers not to the fornication of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, but to the angels, who—like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah—committed fornication and went after strange flesh. In other words, these angels did nothing but fornication. They forgot everything, and only indulged in fornication. They went after strange flesh, and so they were “set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.” We may therefore say that Jude 6-7 explains Genesis 6.
Seth was a human being, and so was Cain. How could the same kind of human beings beget a different type of men? Such an interpretation is bound to convey an unnatural cast to the affair. Who, then, are “the sons of God”? Naturally the answer must especially be sought in the Old Testament. By searching, the evidence appears. We can safely conclude that “the sons of God” here point to the angels. We find some strong evidence in the book of Job. Job was written before the book of Genesis, for the latter was compiled during the time of Moses whereas the former was composed at the time of Abraham. Such a dating of these two books has been commonly accepted. The words employed in later Biblical writings usually follow those of the earlier writings. In Job 1, 2 and 38, the phrase “the sons of God” refers in all cases to the angels; so that quite naturally “the sons of God” in Genesis 6 must likewise have reference to the angels.
The Lord Jesus noted that “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven” (Matt. 22.30). Yet this statement does not suggest that angels are not able to marry or to be given in marriage; the statement merely says that angels do not marry nor are given in marriage. God forbids the angels to marry for they are spirits. Nonetheless an unexpected thing happened; the most confusing of all things occurred in the time of Genesis 3, and that was that the Satanic spirit entered into a lower creature—the serpent. So that in Genesis we observe a union of the evil spirit with the lower creature. And in the time of Genesis 6 the evil spirit entered into a union with men. Angels ought not marry, nevertheless they married the daughters of men and begat the Nephilim. And when the Nephilim appeared on the earth, God decided to destroy them. God wants angels, He wants men, but He does not want the Nephilim; for He has not created such a species. All that He has made must be each after its kind. But out of the union of the devils and men came forth the Nephilim. God therefore severely judged them. Why, as a further example, did God decide to destroy the Anakim who appeared later on? Because they too were Nephilim.
Originally the Nephilim were destroyed in the flood, but later in the land of Canaan the Nephilim appeared again in the form of the Anakim. They too must be destroyed. For God will not allow such kind of creature to exist on the earth.
The passage in Jude 6—“And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation”—like-wise refers to the marriage of the angels. Also, “angels when they sinned” (2 Peter 2.4) points to the same affair.
The passage in Genesis 6.3 is clear: “for that he [man] also is flesh.” What is meant here by the word “also”? It means the second time. For instance, You have eaten, but I also have eaten. This “also” means the second time. God says that man also is flesh, indicating that before man somebody else has first become flesh. Who, aside from man, can be spoken in such parallel fashion to man? None but the angel. Hence in saying that man also is flesh, it implies that the angels had already become flesh. With such evidence as this, we can assuredly conclude that “the sons of God” points to the angels.
Man indeed had sinned in Genesis 3, but the sinning in Genesis 3 and the becoming flesh in Genesis 6 are not the same. To sin is a matter of conduct, not a matter of nature; but to become flesh signifies that the whole being is now controlled by the flesh; so that it has become a matter of nature. We must pay attention to the subsequent development of man’s sin besides the original fall of man recorded in Genesis 3. For Adam it is a sinful act, for Cain it has become a lust, and by the time of the flood, sin has developed so quickly that man has become flesh; that is, sinning has now become a habit. Ever since man had first sinned, the Spirit of God had always striven with him until he became flesh. The words, “My Spirit shall not strive with man for ever”, show that from the Garden of Eden until the flood the Spirit of God had been striving with man. Yet when man became so licentious as to become flesh, God’s Spirit ceased to strive any longer.
Why should we notice this matter? Because the Bible has declared: “And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man” (Matt. 24.37). This problem must therefore be solved. It is possible that before the coming of the Son of man the evil spirit of Satan will come to the earth, and sinful angels will at that time clothe themselves with flesh. These “sons of God” are always a problem; consequently God must judge them severely. The judgment of the flood is without precedent; the judgment of the land of Canaan is also exceedingly stern; and at the coming of the Son of man there will come a great judgment. The Lord will judge the angels who fail to keep their original state.
Are those angels who have left their original state included in the third part (see Rev. 12.4) or not? Probably they are outside the third part of the angelic hosts who rebelled. “And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation” (Jude 6). The word “principality” is translated by Darby as “original state”. It means more than a position, it also signifies an original condition. The original condition of angels is neither marrying nor giving in marriage. To say “kept not their original state” means to say that they lost it through marriage. “Original state” refers to their condition, while “habitation” points to their dwelling. What has happened to these angels? Jude 6 continues with: “He [the Lord] hath kept [them] in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” Now the first word—“even”—in verse 7 is not to be found in the original Greek text, for verse 7 and verse 6 do not refer to two different matters; rather, verse 7 explains verse 6. Both J. N. Darby’s translation and Stephen’s text of 1550 omit the word “even”. For these angels, just “as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, having in like manner with these giving themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire” (v.7). This refers not to the fornication of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, but to the angels, who—like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah—committed fornication and went after strange flesh. In other words, these angels did nothing but fornication. They forgot everything, and only indulged in fornication. They went after strange flesh, and so they were “set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.” We may therefore say that Jude 6-7 explains Genesis 6.