Why this subject now? I have taken the same position on these two passages since I came to my position on these two passages. Other men I respect a lot have taken drastically different positions. You can’t confuse the difference between them, they’re so, so different. If you have some general knowledge of this, you know what I mean. I have to admit, the ones I don’t take are in my opinion very weird. They are some of the strangest things you will hear in biblical interpretation. But again, why now?
A youtube feed on my phone read this video: R. C. Sproul VS John MacArthur on 1 Peter 3:18 – Biblical Clarity. It’s kind of a fabricated debate, because they’re not really debating. It just shows that the two men take two totally different positions on both Genesis 6:1-7 and 1 Peter 3:18-21 on the related passages. I knew I differed than John MacArthur on both of them. I didn’t know that R. C. Sproul did too. Then I went looking to see if I’ve written a post on either of these in all my years of blogging. Answer: no. In one post, I’m not going to end this debate. The positions are so different that they can’t be confused. They are not the same. There is no way they could both be right.
Do the two differing positions make any difference? They will definitely change your angelology. I believe that there is very rich doctrine in the correct position that is lost. I’m saying, since they are true, they would be missed. Scripture, all of it, is sufficient. If all scripture is sufficient, and we take some it away, it isn’t sufficient then. We need all of it. We need this teaching. Our church decided long ago that a difference of interpretation on these two passages would not be a separating issue. That doesn’t mean they aren’t important. Everything is important in the Bible. For some readers, not separating over something is the biggest news of this piece.
I want to admit that I didn’t listen to every single bit of the youtube video, but I listened to enough of it to know that R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur take a different position on both Genesis 6:1-7 and 1 Peter 3:18-21. I also listened to enough to know that I take the same one as Sproul on Genesis 6:1-7. Sproul seems to like two positions on 1 Peter 3:18-21 as if both of them are good, not the MacArthur one in this instance. He gave three positions on 1 Peter 3:18-21 on the video and sounded like he liked both of the two, preferring one slightly above the other though, that were different than the one MacArthur took. Both were very different than MacArthur’s.
None of the positions are a new position. All of them have been around for a long time. I’m not going to get into the history, even though that is important to the ones taking the varied positions. In the midst of arguments, someone will say that he read support in the church fathers.
MacArthur says that angels intermarried with men producing a race of giants in Genesis 6. He says that Jesus went to Hell to preach to demons in 1 Peter 3. Sproul says that the godly line of Seth intermarried with ungodly line of Cain in Genesis 6. He says that Jesus preached to people held captive by sin, these are the spirits in prison, through millennia since the days of Noah in 1 Peter 3.
In a casual moment, I heard someone I know, who takes both MacArthur positions, that these positions are very important to an overall understanding of the Bible and history. It was a casual moment years ago after playing basketball. I didn’t follow up because I knew there wasn’t time for that discussion. It still intrigues me though what he might have said. I can’t wrap my brain around a position grammatically or contextually that says angels procreated with human beings to produce giants, and then Jesus later went to preach to these fallen angels while they were chained in demon prison.
I believe Genesis 6 explains how things went south before the flood. It is a consistent theme that runs through the Bible, which is why it is so important that believers are not unequally yoked together with unbelievers. Intermarriage between believers and unbelievers produces an ungodly line. There isn’t a great threat for intermarriage between angels and humans to destroy mankind. However, read through Genesis alone and see what interhuman relations does to cause great sin and difficulty.
I Peter is about suffering. Noah suffered in the days he prepared the ark, but God saved him and his family from the world by water. Noah suffered when the preincarnate Spirit of Christ preached through Noah to that generation of men before they were killed by the flood waters and ended in Hell. The spirits in prison weren’t in prison when Noah and Jesus preached to them, but Noah and Jesus did preach to the spirits in prison before they were in prison. Who was suffering worse in the end? Noah or those who rejected His preaching?
During a debate with a major Campbellite debater years ago now in Oakland, the crowd was silent when I brought an argument from 1 Peter 3 against baptismal regeneration from its context. It is a powerful passage on an important purpose of baptism. Baptism saves men from the world, so that they will have a good conscience toward God.
I think you are right in linking this part of Genesis 6 with what Peter says here. I am not really sure where this specifically comes from, that the sons of God are malevolent entities as opposed to a straightforward meaning, but… they seem to be taken from a combination of 1) a translation of words for heaven and hell that are questionable, to say the least, in combination with 2) yet another set of passages decontextualized in both 2 Peter ii.4 and Jude v. 6. This ties into numerous other passages as well.
The result is that you have people believing in multiple 'levels of hell' existing, one of which is (rather oddly given the context it is being put in) called "paradise", (as well as "prison") which apparently is empty now, but without any specific way of addressing doctrines in 2 Corinthians xii. 4 and the book of Revelation ii. 7.
And if someone brings up Luke xxiii. 43 in support of this, they should consider carefully first John iii. 13 before coming to any conclusions. Likewise we should consider John viii. 56 and similar mentions carefully in context with Psalm 6.5, etc. At least I think so, Pastor Brandenburg.
Thanks for the post on those passages. I recently went through Genesis 4 and found the margin note interesting. Verse 26 can be translated “then began men to call themselves by the name of the LORD.” Choosing to call oneself after the name of the Lord and make one’s association and identify with God’s family would follow the term “sons of God” in the association. What are your thoughts on this verse giving context and being in connection with Genesis 6?
Also, another question that I have not found an answer to (except that the Gen 6 were angels and they are the ones who became unclean spirits and demons)… if the fallen angels from heaven are chained and reserved for the day of judgment, where did the unclean spirits/demons originate? Why are some roaming around working for Satan and others chained up? Thanks for your thoughts on this.
David
Any response, Bro. Brandenburg?
Thanks for the post on those passages. I recently went through Genesis 4 and found the margin note interesting. Verse 26 can be translated “then began men to call themselves by the name of the LORD.” Choosing to call oneself after the name of the Lord and make one’s association and identify with God’s family would follow the term “sons of God” in the association. What are your thoughts on this verse giving context and being in connection with Genesis 6?
Also, another question that I have not found an answer to (except that the Gen 6 were angels and they are the ones who became unclean spirits and demons)… if the fallen angels from heaven are chained and reserved for the day of judgment, where did the unclean spirits/demons originate? Why are some roaming around working for Satan and others chained up? Thanks for your thoughts on this.
David
As for Genesis 6:1-4, the book of Jude talks about angels committing aberrant sexual acts, which only fits with Genesis 6:14, and no-where else.
Also, the technical term B'nei Elohim (or B'nei HaElohim) is exclusively used for angels in the OT.
If the sin mentioned in Genesis is the intermarrying of believers with non-believers, then so many things do not make sense:
1. Why was the sin only of male believers marrying female non-believers? What about female believers marrying male non-believers? One would think, in the olden days of patriarchy, the latter would be more dangerous for the faith, because a wife would have to follow the husband. A believing husband has more chance (superficially speaking) of swaying the unbelieving wife than vice-versa. Of course it's wrong to marry unbelievers anyway, it's just that I don't believe that's the sin here.
2. The terms specifically are: the sons of God (B'nei Elohim) took the daughters of man (B'enot HaAdam). It does not say : Sons of Seth took Daughters of Cain. The daughters here is universally said to be "of man" or better "mankind." (HaAdam). The contrast is between HaAdam and Elohim, strongly suggesting that the sons of Elohim are not humans.
3. It fails to account for the emergence of the giants.
4. The sin of marrying unbelievers is still rampant today, but does not encounter the proportion of judgment that Genesis 6 implies, i.e., the Flood, etc.
5. It fails to account for the sexual sin of angels as revealed by Jude.
Hi Tenrin,
Is there some particular reason we should consider Genesis 6 be referring to angels? I understand that Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 mention angels that sinned. But that's talking about angels. What would be the connection between those and something that the sons of God did, in the timeframe after Genesis 4 but before Noah's flood? Were angels ever mentioned in there?
These passages in the New Testament also mention the Sodom and Gomorrha, and the ungodly which suffered the flood. It is important to realize these were three different events, not occurring all at once. What they share in common is that they are each examples of suffering judgment for their respective sins.
Adam is called the son of God in Luke 3. So, after considering these points, do you still think there is a contradiction with any of this?
Andrew
Hello,
What I wrote wasn't an argument, unless "it's weird and strange" is an argument. I'm not saying it is, even though I don't believe the right positions will be weird or strange. One could call it an outlier, it doesn't fit with the rest of scripture, an oddity. It's hearing hoofbeats and thinking zebras instead of horses.
The very technical "sons of God" terminology argument, saying that it means angels because of Job, is a very small sample size. It's possible, yes, but the concept of being a child of God or a son of God through scripture is a believer. Consider Deuteronomy 14:1, Jeremiah 3:19, and Hosea 10:1. In the NT, being a son of God, child of God, is being a believer. That should help in interpretation.
Jude 6 is not plainly a sexual act by angels. Matthew Henry writes:
There were a great number of the angels who left their own habitation; that is, who were not pleased with the posts and stations the supreme Monarch of the universe had assigned and allotted to them, but thought (like discontented ministers in our age, I might say in every age) they deserved better; they would, with the title of ministers, be sovereigns, and in effect their Sovereign should be their minister–do all, and only, what they would have him; thus was pride the main and immediate cause or occasion of their fall. Thus they quitted their post, and rebelled against God, their Creator and sovereign Lord. But God did not spare them (high and great as they were); he would not truckle to them; he threw them off, as a wise and good prince will a selfish and deceitful minister; and the great, the all-wise God, could not be ignorant, as the wisest and best of earthly princes often are, what designs they were hatching. After all, what became of them? They thought to have dared and outfaced Omnipotence itself; but God was too hard for them, he cast them down to hell. Those who would not be servants to their Maker and his will in their first state were made captives to his justice, and are reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness. Here see what the condition of fallen angels is: they are in chains, bound under the divine power and justice, bound over to the judgment of the great day; they are under darkness, though once angels of light; so horribly in the dark are they that they continue to fight against God, as if there were yet some small hope at least left them of prevailing and overcoming in the conflict. Dire infatuation! Light and liberty concur, chains and darkness how well do they agree and suit each other! The devils, once angels in the best sense, are reserved, &c. Observe, There is, undoubtedly there is, a judgment to come; the fallen angels are reserved to the judgment of the great day; and shall fallen men escape it? Surely not.
Furthermore,
Matthew 22:30, Jesus gives something that could serve as a clue: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
We don't have an example of angels procreating. That is certainly not clear in Genesis 6, but then Jesus uses angels as an example of not like that. God's explanation of why He destroyed wasn't, well, angels did bad things. No, it was all on men, their imaginations evil.
Some of the argumentation comes by tying the two passages together, but that would really introduce something strange into a passage in 1 Peter 3 that reads like Noah and his family were suffering while standing up for God, God strengthened Noah through the indwelling Christ, and then delivered the family by destroying the world.
When Jesus says that the last days will be like the days of Noah, He wouldn't be saying that those days would be like angels marrying people and producing a kind of mutated human being.
No verse says, angel and human intercourse produces giants. There were also other giants before the flood, I believe we see dinosaurs in Job.
Hi Andrew,
The reason is as follow:
1. The technical term "B'nei Elohim," only refers to angels in the OT. Yes, believers are also children of God, as is Adam. That is not disputed. But the terminologies used are different. "B'nei Elohim" only refers to angels. The passage about Adam is in Luke, New Testament, therefore using Greek.
2. The passage in Jude 6 teaches that certain angels committed sexual aberrations in like manner to Sodom and Gomorrah. This must refer to Genesis 6, because no other incident fits.
3. This make sense because relation to the "seed of the woman" promise in Genesis 3:15. Satan, knowing well this prophecy, tries to ruin it by defiling as many women as he can.
Hi Kent:
Jude 1:6
"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
The Greek is even clearer:
"ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα, καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις, τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις τρόπον ἐκπορνεύσασαι, καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας,"
As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, committing fornication in like manner to these (referring to the angels in verse 6) and going after strange flesh…"
The connection between Sodom and the angels is made explicit: "in like manner to THESE (angels)", and the connecting activity is fornication (EKPORNEUSASAI), specifically an unnatural porneia, under which homosexuality (Sodom) and the sexual act between angels and humans would fall.
Matthew 22:30 talks about angels of God in heaven. This verse does not preclude that fallen angels cannot have sexual acts in contradiction to their nature. In the same way we can make the true statement: righteous men do not marry men. This is of course true. But it does not follow that sinful men cannot commit sodomy with other men. What we have is an aberration of nature. Which is exactly what Jude 6-7 is talking about (strange flesh).
Deu. 14:1, Jer. 3:19, and Hos. 10:1, although referring to believers as children of God (which is not diputed at all), do not use the technical form: B'nei Elohim or B'nei HaElohim.
Tenrin,
Thanks. I did already understand your technical argument. However, it is a very small sample size, one in which you find really just the one example in Job to back it up (1:6, 2:1). And it must assume that the terminology is technical reading back from Job to Genesis 6. If it was so clear in the Hebrew, then why does a huge majority of rabbinic teaching say that these are the line of Seth? The Septuagint, Greek translation of Hebrew text, translates the Job text as angels and the Genesis text as sons, if this was technical language?
Regarding Jude, when I examine the Greek of it (and really the English), it doesn't seem to help your position. The verb in verse 6 is "he hath reserved" and the verb in verse 7, "are set." In a simple sentence, it would read, "God has reserved the angels unto judgment even as Sodom and Gomorrha are set for an example, suffering vengeance of eternal fire." The "even as" is not saying that the angels left their own habitation even as Sodom and Gomorrha gave themselves over to fornication. "Left" is a participle that modifies "has reserved" and "giving themselves" is also a participle that modifies "set forth an example."
The emphasis is in the verbs. The pre-context shows this. God destroyed (the verb) that believed not (v. 5), no mention of sexual sin, He judged the angels, and He judged Sodom and Gomorrha, the emphasis on judgment of those who deny the Lord God.
What I'm saying Tenrin is that the Greek syntax doesn't make a connection between angels having sex and Sodom and Gomorrha having sex. The "even as" connects to the verbs with God as the actual subject, not to participles referring to the sins that God is judging.
Hi Tenrin,
Interesting points. I would however report the following:
"1. The technical term "B'nei Elohim," only refers to angels in the OT."
I do not see the term "B'nei Elohim" anywhere. I see בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים , and I see sons of God. Each of them means the same as the other. Furthermore, the Greek term for "son" and "God" also translates to son of God. Just because two things are in different languages does not automatically mean they must mean different things. The Greek and the Hebrew can both refer to the same things as in this case.
For this reason, suggesting that the original Hebrew tells us, "the sons of Elohim are not humans" (as you wrote earlier) just simply cannot be drawn as a conclusion without eisegesis. This conclusion also disagrees with the actual translation and plain meaning of the words "son" and "God" being distict from "angel" or "cherubim," which are not the words which are contained, but only the words for "son" and "God," etc.
Your whole argument is supposed to show us why the sons of God only refers to angels. You cannot assert the thing you are trying to prove as part of the proof.
""B'nei Elohim" only refers to angels."
Again, you have yet to prove this. Can you do it? So far it does not seem like you have proven this point yet. If you were to prove this, it would prove your entire argument immediately. So, where is the actual proof for this statement? The actual proof for this does not seem to be anywhere in reason #1. So let us move on to the next point.
"The passage about Adam is in Luke, New Testament, therefore using Greek."
Where have you proven that they do not refer to the same thing. I would like to see where you positively proved that these are two different, independent things, just because one is in Greek. So far, I haven't seen the proof. Let's keep going.
"The passage in Jude 6 teaches that certain angels committed sexual aberrations"
As Pastor Brandenburg noted, the similarity between the angels and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha is that they both rebelled and sinned. Angels sinned, so did Sodom and Gomorrha. I even pointed this out above also when I wrote, "It is important to realize these were three different events, not occurring all at once. What they share in common is that they are each examples of suffering judgment for their respective sins." There is no requirement or even suggestion that the angels (or the people who were saved out of Egypt) committed the exact same things as mentioned of Sodom, but the common theme is simply that they rebelled and sinned.
Since angels are mentioned here, but there is actually no mention of them in Genesis 6, there is actually no specific reason presented to link these two passages at all. The Old Testament account (Genesis 6) is about the men who sinned in Noah's day, the New Testament account (Jude 5-7) is about the rebels in Egypt, the rebels from among angels, and lastly the rebels of Sodom and Gomorrha – none of which are linked to Noah's flood.
"This must refer to Genesis 6, because no other incident fits."
Uhh, the incident in Sodom and Gomorrha fits perfectly with the description. Jude mentions Sodom and Gomorrha by name.
"This make sense because relation to the "seed of the woman" promise in Genesis 3:15."
So do other explanations.
This seems to exhaust your arguments.
Hi David,
Sorry, missed that comment. There's probably a connection between those who call on the name of the Lord, the godly line, and the line of Seth, but nothing really grammatical, more contextual. I think that Genesis wants us to see that line, and distinguishes it the whole OT.
I don't know what "chains of darkness" are, but they could easily be the chains, not physical ones, that keep angels out of heaven. They cast out and kept out and are now creatures of the darkness and not the light. I'm talking about all angels.
There are some angels in the bottomless pit, but they don't seem to be the same ones in Revelation that are loosed. They are designed for this purpose of judgment, it has seemed to me.
Bro. Kent and Bro. Andrew,
Apologies for the late reply.
Let me just reply to both of you in one place here.
First to Bro. Andrew.
1. I specifically mentioned both B'nei Elohim, and B'nei HaElohim, as synonymous, seeing as the difference is the definite article "Ha" in front of Elohim.
They occur 5 times in the Bible:
Genesis 6:2 and Genesis 6:4 (the passage under consideration)
Job 1:6 and Job 2:1, where B'nei HaElohim unquestionably refers to angels.
Job 38:7, where B'nei Elohim unquestionably refers to angels.
I hope this is clear for Bro. Andrew, who seems to think that the terms "son" and "God" equal humans, whereas that is not so in the Bible.
So, you see, in every other places where the term B'nei HaElohim or B'nei Elohim is used, they always refer to angels. Therefore, the default understanding for Genesis is the same. Bro. Kent argues that the sample size is small, which to an extent is true. However, that does not negate the argument at all. In fact, one can argue that the sample size is small because the term is not open to be used on human believers.
Secondly, about Jude 6-7. I don't see how grammatically it is possible that "left their own habitation" is a participle that modifies "hath reserved." "Left" (apolipontas) modifies and describes the "angels".
The structure of the sentence in Greek is as follow:
He (God) – Subject
hath reserved – Predicate
angels – Object
who kept not their first estate (adjectival clause)
but
left their own habitation (adjectival clause)
in everlasting chain (advervial phrase)
unto the judgment of the great day (adverbial phrase)
even as (coordinative conjuction, tying verse 6 and 7)
Sodom and Gomorrah and cities about them – Subject
are set forth – Predicate
for an example
suffering the vengeance of eternal fire
[because they were] giving themselves over to fornication (adverbial clause)
and
going after strange flesh (adverbial clause)
in the same manner as THESE (adverbial phrase)
Several points:
1. Bro. Kent, what in your mind is the sin of the angels mentioned in verse 6? Is it just the general rebellion of fallen angels against God? But that would not make sense, because these specific angels are chained in darkness, whereas fallen angels are still generally free today. It makes more biblical sense to see these specific angels as having committed the specific sin of sexual deviation, as connected to verse 7.
2. I agree that the "even as" in verse 7, does not have to refer to the fornication part, and can refer to the the fact that God judges both angels and Sodom-Gomorrah, but my argument does not depend on the "even as." My argument is on the Greek phrase "ton homoion TOUTOIS tropon ekponeusasai", which is: "fornicating in the same manner as THESE. Contextually, THESE refers back to the angels in verse 6. Therefore verse 7 explicitly says that Sodom and Gomorrah, fornicated in the same manner (that is in a deviant way) as the angels in verse 6. Bro Kent, if you disagree, you have to come up with a better explanation that fits contextually, as to what TOUTOIS/THESE refers to in this passage.
3. We have not even started on the contextual difficulty of interpreting the "sons of God" as the line of Seth and "daughters of men" as the line of Cain.
a. Why did God not say: sons of Seth and daughters of Cain outright, if that is what He means.
b. How can we assume that all the sons of Seth are believers, while all descendants of Cain are unbelievers? Surely most descendants of Seth would also be unbelievers, or else more that 8 people would be saved in the flood.
c. The text specifically says: daughters of HaAdam. HaAdam refers to all mankind, not limited to any subset. No hint of Cain.
d. Again, why is it that only male believers are committing this sin with female unbelievers. Why not the other way around??
e. Are unbelieving females more "fair" / attractive than believing females?
f. How this whole thing ties in with the appearance of giants is unexplained.
Let's again look at verse 1 and 2:
"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."
See how in verse 2, "sons of God" is contrasted to "men" in verse 1.
Men began to multiply and had daughters. And then "sons of God" saw these "daugthers of men" that they were fair and took them wives.
The passage speaks of a new development. If this were human males marrying human females, it would not be new at all. That started way back with the first son, Cain, who married his sister. And considering that the sin of murder and polygamy had started much earlier, I doubt that intermarriage between believers and unbelievers would only start 120 years before the Flood.
Anyway, in all this debate, I just want to let you know that I love your preaching through the blog, and this slight difference in how we look at this passage of Scripture, in no way diminish my respect for you and your teaching.
Hi Bro. Tenrin,
"who seems to think that the terms "son" and "God" equal humans,"
The problem is, so far the New Testament mentions of sons of God are omitted. Have you positively proven that "son of God" is not really supposed to mean just that, but that it must mean angel, in light of the fact that it meant Adam in Luke 3?
What is really happening here is an attempt at redefinition of the words that we know means "son" and the word that we know means "God." What you suggest, would mean we should retranslate our Bibles because they are wrong, so that the word actually says "angel," as you said it "unquestionably" does. But considering the word used for "angels" which we find elsewhere is different than the 5 occurrences you are looking at in the Old Testament. Why is it different in those places, if it always simply means angels? The question remains to be answered. Meanwhile, what about the equivalent also (which has not yet positively proven cannot be equivalent) in the New Testament in Greek, such as where Adam is called the son of God.
We cannot just redefine words at will, when we already know the definition of the words "son" and "God" it is best to stay with the most accurate translation and leave it as that, rather than retranslating the word into "angel," which if your argument is correct we absolutely must do because we have apparently been misunderstanding what בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים means this whole time. It was supposed to mean "sons of God." The same thing as what is also translated from the Greek. But now you have come along saying the Hebrew term does not mean that, but it really means angels and we have just been mistranslating it from the beginning. Oh?
Well, this is similar to a lot of arguments of the "Hebrew roots" movement (and others) as well. Taking words, and trying to tell us what they really mean, and teaching us that the translation has been wrong until now, and we are absolutely required to go back to the Hebrew to figure this out. It means we have to start teaching children how to read Hebrew and learn all these quasi-Hebrew terms that have been thrown around just simply to even begin to understand Genesis.
I am saying I see this same style of argument with a lot of other words in both Hebrew and Greek in other cases as well. People saying Logos doesn't really mean "word" but means a Greek philosophical concept and should not be translated like that, etc, etc, on and on. The rest of us are treated as uneducated for not creating out own definitions of the words given in Greek and Hebrew, but for accepting the conventional ones. I'm not saying you do this, but I see it done by this type of argument. It always teaches, we must go back to speaking a quasi-form of Hebrew and/or Greek just to be able to "truly" understand the Bible. I do not follow with this style of argument. This style of argument does not really accept the accurate translation, but says we need to redefine all these things in a "new" context. It spends a lot of time talking in quasi-Greek/Hebrew. Ironically enough, this quasi-Hebrew and quasi-Greek is written in neither the original received text such as בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים nor is it in the accurate translation of the received text, such as "sons of God." It tries to be something in between. If someone really wants to study and talk about Hebrew they should learn the aleph-beth, vowel points, and so on and use that, to study the language if they are truly wanting to be truly accurate – and not just quickly get people on a new, more "convenient" definition of a word (because they can't/won't use the normal translation of the word/words).
"seems to think that the terms "son" and "God" equal humans, whereas that is not so in the Bible."
Well, in 1 John 3:1 it sure does mean that. (cont'd)
-Andrew
1 John 3:1 is in the Bible. And it says: "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God:"
So has anyone positively proven that τέκνα θεοῦ is not the same as בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים when they are equivalent in that they both mean sons of God? We would have to positively prove they must not be equivalent, before we could safely ignore this data point and others, and only look at the Old Testament.
"So, you see, in every other places where the term B'nei HaElohim or B'nei Elohim is used, they always refer to angels."
We are not on the same page here, as I am still waiting to see the definitive proof of this. Have we eliminated all other possibilities? It is absolutely required that we do. Else the argument for redefining this word falls through.
"Bro. Kent argues that the sample size is small, which to an extent is true. However, that does not negate the argument at all."
You argue that it must mean "angels," but have not explained why τέκνα θεοῦ is necessarily not the same as בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים when all appearances indicate that it is. This is the main thing on your argument here about this term. If "sons of God" in the Bible can mean man, and by all logic so far it does, then Genesis 6 conventionally means what has already been detailed above.
"in the same manner as THESE (adverbial phrase)"
For your second point now on the epistle of Jude: "In the same manner" signifies the fact that the cities about them did the same things as Sodom and Gomorrha. So "the cities about them" committed the same things as THESE (referring Sodom and Gomorrha itself).
What Bro. Kent said before was, I believe, that "in like manner" simply refers to the fact that both rebelled. This is another possibility, which is that this second adverbial phrase is simply meant to further stress the ὡς connecting the subjects of v. 7 with v. 6, in that they both rebelled. This would make sense considering that the rebels in Egypt, the angels that rebelled, and the Sodomites and cities about them committed rebellion, and this is the fact that ties these three examples together. And none of the three examples is actually related to Genesis 6, which is a separate incident to all three (no mention here of the sons of God from Genesis 6, which would be τέκνα θεός in Greek) and cannot be connected to Jude vv. 5-7 (which has one mention of angels, which rebelled, similarly to the rebels in Egypt and the rebels in Sodom, and no mention of sons of God anywhere).
"It makes more biblical sense to see these specific angels as having committed the specific sin of sexual deviation, as connected to verse 7."
Bro. Brandenburg mentioned Matthew 22:30, which suggests otherwise. Like he said, "We don't have an example of angels procreating." and that the Lord uses angels as an example of not like that. In Matthew 22:30. Also it does not explain why the reason why God decided to destroy the old world because of the acts of men, rather than angels as he also said. So it does not make biblical sense really, this being the only singular exception to angels that do not marry, (it is just not something that they do) according to Matthew 22:30.
"Contextually, THESE refers back to the angels in verse 6."
It could refer to Sodom and Gomorrha and modify the cities around about them to clarify that even the smaller cities did what Sodom and Gomorrha did. Sodom and Gomorrha is a nearer antecedent than verse 6.
"We have not even started on the contextual difficulty of interpreting the "sons of God" as the line of Seth and "daughters of men" as the line of Cain."
OK, on to point 3 then.
"How can we assume that all the sons of Seth are believers, while all descendants of Cain are unbelievers?"
I do not think it is required to assume the former, but the latter contextually makes sense. In fact, if only some of Seth's descendants were saved, that would explain why the text specifically says "sons of God" instead of "sons of Seth" or אִ֑ישׁ/'iysh, or something like that. It is focusing on the fact these are saved people.
"The text specifically says: daughters of HaAdam. HaAdam refers to all mankind, not limited to any subset. No hint of Cain."
The most important distinction is that these are not the sons of God. This may refer to the fact they are born of rebellion/fornication/unnatural processes that God did not ordain, due to the fact that Cain was in rebellion to God. So the reason for their existence would be because of man's rebellion. It may even signify that something was physically abnormal about them, due to the unknown nature of Cain's wife. They would basically be some kind of bastard line, the result of the rebellion of man, in complete opposition to the godly line, and therefore being the "daughters of man." In other words, being the offspring of man's rebellion. It could even be, that they are not human themselves, but merely have partial human ancestry by way of Cain. I can see that being possible.
"Again, why is it that only male believers are committing this sin with female unbelievers. Why not the other way around??"
I think as I have explained above the stress is on the fact that one line is godly and the other is the result of man's sin. As man is the creation of God, then perhaps Cain's line was by contrast the warped creation of man's rebellion. Hence, only being the "daughters of men," signifying the fact they at least have "human ancestry", being descended from Cain, but perhaps they were not fully men or the intended creation of God themselves. This would be an explanation of flesh having corrupted His way as, Genesis 6.12 says. Whereas, the "sons of God" were those of Noah's line, as Genesis 6 says he was perfect in his generations.
"Are unbelieving females more "fair" / attractive than believing females?"
Maybe, if you are inclined to sin and that whole way of thinking, but my explanation does not require to have an answer for this question.
"How this whole thing ties in with the appearance of giants is unexplained."
The above explanation would have the potential to account for giants appearing, but it is not required to be the explanation.
Hi Tenrin,
Thanks for coming back. Your approach to argumentation is respectful, like someone who wants the truth. I give you the adverbial usage of the second participle in v. 6. In a hurry to answer your comment, I saw the article with the first participle, not the second article, the strong adversative, "but" (alla), between them, and a comma also in Scrivener's. The article goes with both participles, the "but" just contrasting kept and left. That doesn't buttress the argument. Don't let that error on my part distract. I should have checked more thoroughly. What sticks out are the verbs.
The angels doing sexual sin with people, introducing something novel in all of scripture, with grammar, syntax, and context should fit completely. It doesn't. The people who left Egypt weren't involved in sexual sin. They were rebellious against the grace of God. God delivered them and they still sinned. The angels were in a position of grace and they left their habitation when they sinned in heaven and fell into darkness instead of light. The point is not sexual relations. That's not in the Israel example, not in the angel example, but it is in the Sodom and Gomorrha section. The verbs are all judgment. The Lord destroyed (v. 5), the Lord reserved in everlasting chains (v. 6), and the Lord set forth as an example of vengeance of eternal fire (v. 7). Men who turn from grace and deny the Lord will be judged — that's the message.
Toutois, the cities round about Sodom and Gomorrha did the same stuff as "these," that is, Sodom and Gomorrha. The neuter and plural toutois agree with the neuter and plural Sodom and Gomorrha. There isn't total agreement on this from commentators, but some take the same as I'm saying, and the KJV translators translated like I'm describing. I'm going to write a second comment about everything else.
In Genesis, the contextual aspect of sons of God equals sons of Seth is the godly line. All of the Bible keeps reading this way.
In the context of Genesis 6, it reads like "the man" (haAdam) represents the ungodly. God repented that He made "the man" (haAdam). That isn't all men either, because God obviously wasn't repentant that He made Noah and his family.
Why does God use men for those of the godly line and women for the ungodly line? I think there is a good explanation. Men leave father and mother to cleave to wife. If not godly man cleaves to an ungodly wife, it stops right there. The male is responsible just like the male was responsible in the garden. This can be argued all over scripture.
There are questions to ask your side too. Why doesn't the passage say God was angry at angels? Why is there no plain explanation anywhere in scripture about this? It isn't plain in Jude, and someone had to wait all the way until Jude, if that is an explanation, that doesn't explain anything. Someone would have to make a connection with Job, as if that really is a technical explanation (really one example, Job, to buttress Genesis, without the sexual relations part included). If angels are responsible according to Jude, then why is God repentant of making men, when He should have just been repentant of making angels? Where is a procreation with angels passage? We have an angels not marrying passage, which we should assume means procreation, since consummation is such an important part of marriage in scripture?
I'm not bringing in the giants, because the connection isn't made. It's speculation. I have explanations for giants that doesn't require angels. Why are giants a problem? What's the problem with having giant men on the earth? Do giant men have a proclivity to sin? I think there is a tendency to exalt big men, judging the outward appearance. Part of the angels argument is that they produce some kind of man with magical powers, super humans, that also maybe explains Greek mythology.
Thanks Tenrin! That's it for now.
Hi Pastor Brandenburg,
Having read your comment after already writing mine, I think I like it more. Also ties in well with I Cor. vii. Good job and thank you for handling this.
Bro. Tenrin, I would go with what Pastor Brandenburg has suggested for the answer to this one.
-Andrew
I don’t have time to get into the discussion, but the Pentateuch has neon flashing signs telling Israel not to marry heathen women, and when they fail to do this, Judges is all about the failure. Genesis 6 as the mixing of the godly line and the ungodly as a compromise of the seed fits in context totally. Angels marrying people and having kids that are big (and why would it be that angels would have big kids anyway?) does not fit the broader context. How does that help Israel know what they need to do as they are on the brink of entering Canaan, when Moses gave them Genesis?
Thank you everyone for engaging in discussion. At the moment, I cannot spare the time to answer each and everyone, or cover all the issues raised here. I will selectively reply to questions raised by Bro. Kent, and then just focus on the toutois issue.
Why doesn't that passage say God was angry at angels? Jude 6 does. The passage in Genesis focuses on the human side.
Why is there no plain explanation anywhere in scripture about this? I would think Jude 6 is plain enough. Besides, this is not a strong argument. There are many things we would rather have more information on, that God just sees fit not to give. How about the resurrection of saints in Matthew 27:52-53? Who were they? Were they resurrected to a glorious body, or only "resuscitated"? Lots of unknown there. Many other examples can be given.
About the connection to Job, I think that's clear and strong. Job is one of the oldest book also in the Bible. Job and Genesis shares other terms, such as El-Shaddai (very few outside of Job and Genesis). When we find that the term B'nei HaElohim/Elohim exclusively refers to angels elsewhere, that's significant. We do word studies like this all the time.
If angels are responsible according to Jude, why is God repentant of making men? Because the men (and women) were also responsible. The picture is not one of rape, but of complicity by the unbelieving women.
About the angels not marrying passage, I have explained before that the Lord was referring to angels in heaven. Fallen angels do lots of things that good angels do not.
Also, it is still not clear to me, what in your view is the sin of the angels in Jude 6. It cannot be just general rebellion, because these specific angels are now reserved in chains, whereas fallen angels in general are still roaming free today.
Now to the crux of the issue: you take the toutois (these) in Jude 7, to refer to Sodom and Gomorrah. But I believe many things militate against such a reading.
1. Sodom, Gomorrah, and the cities about them, make a compound subject that the verse presents as one package, acting in concert.
2. The phrase "in like manner to these" modifies the verbs "fornicate" and "going after strange flesh." So if we say that "these" refer to Sodom and Gomorrah, then the verb "fornicate" and "going after strange flesh" would not apply to Sodom and Gomorrah. Grammatically, the verse would be saying: The cities round about fornicating and going after strange flesh in like manner to [Sodom and Gomorrah]. Therefore Sodom and Gomorrah themselves would become verb-less, because it does not make sense to include Sodom and Gomorrah in the fornicating in like manner to [Sodom and Gomorrah].
3. Cities are thought of as feminine in Greek. Therefore, if THESE were to refer to Sodom and Gomorrah, the feminine form would have been used.
Blessings to you
Hi Tenrin,
Thanks for following up with your thoughts.
If you study Genesis 4, it's pretty plain what is then going on in chapter 6. In Genesis 4:7 there is a clear parallel to Genesis 3:16, except for Cain it is with sin. I won't go down that whole sidetrack again because it is enough to show that this is the real explanation for Gen. vi. 9, 12.
This is a plain explanation in comparison to using excerpts out of Job and Jude to paint a picture that would seem to imply things that are not really materially there, neither have any substantial precedent (relying on extending a description of one rebellion to another one, and then identifying that rebellion as identical to yet a third one – namely Genesis 6 – that has no significant common terms employed with it) and neither fit in thematically. Whereas the usual explanation does all of these things.
"Besides, this is not a strong argument."
You are right that if there is no plain explanation is not a very strong argument. However it is also true, that this is a good argument, when we do have here a plain explanation (the one given above) in comparison with an unplain one. So there already is a plain explanation – the one that we have given.
"Job and Genesis shares other terms, such as El-Shaddai"
I could take any two books and probably find a term that they share.
"It cannot be just general rebellion, because these specific angels are now reserved in chains, whereas fallen angels in general are still roaming free today."
I think this crosses over into Colossians 2:18 territory so I would not say I can know for certain on this.
"Sodom, Gomorrah, and the cities about them, make a compound subject that the verse presents as one package, acting in concert."
It makes sense that the writer would choose to stress that all of the cities were responsible as a way of emphasizing that the scope of responsibility met the scope of punishment. Otherwise you might be given to think the cities surrounding just happened to be in the crossfire as collateral damage maybe, for something the main cities did. It is the extra three words we have been discussing, that even makes them compound to begin with, so that the verb does apply to all. At least, that is how it appears to me. (cont'd)
-Andrew
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for replying. I understand everyone is busy.
I do agree that Genesis 3:16 clearly parallels 4:7, and that is because of the use of the term t'shuqah (desire), which only occurs 3 times in the Bible (Gen 3:16; 4:7, and Songs 7:11). The use of the same term shows the parallel.
However I don't see how that connects in anyway to Genesis 6. In fact, doing the same kind of word study for the term B'nei HeElohim/Elohim will greatly shed light on the matter.
I thank everyone for the discussion. From this discussion I have looked at the passages in question once again and from new angles. Iron sharpeneth iron. May the Lord give us more and more understanding of His Word.
Hi Tenrin,
Anytime my friend. I am glad to learn more about your explanations. I am sure you can come back anytime, if have any further thoughts. It has been informative, which is what I think we like to see. And like you said, iron sharpens iron. So thanks for posting in here.
-Andrew
Hi Tenrin,
You weren't required to answer the questions. You did. Thanks. I was thinking they were unanswerable, that there isn't a satisfactory answer to them. I'm still not satisfied. You're saying we have to wait until we get to Jude 1:6 to get clarity on Genesis 6. I think the NT is helpful to an interpretation of the Old, but I believe in an OT priority. Genesis wasn't written to NT saints. Then Jude 1:6 does not read so easily as an answer as if it is providing an answer to the question we're addressing. Much must be done that contradicts the context to get to that position.
I don't have them at my finger tips numerous examples, but a good argument against your Job argument is looking to usages of the same sample size and understanding that they don't always have the same meaning. I've got some examples of this in scripture. For instance, the terminology "in one spirit." Is that human spirit or the Holy Spirit? It's not technical language, because of the three usages, at least one of them is obviously the Holy Spirit. One of them is obviously human spirit. That's the problem of a small sample size. Then, as I think I wrote earlier, you don't have this technical language in the Septuagint translation. It wasn't obviously to those translators if this is clear technical language. I'm saying they translate the Job passage the Greek word angelos and they translate the Genesis passage huios. Why if that's so clear?
You say that Sodom and Gomorrha have no verb if toutois refers to Sodom and Gomorrha. I don't understand that if that's what you are saying. There are other things I don't get either.
Sodom and Gomorrha are a compound subject so they would be referred to by a plural. The gender agreement being neuter corresponds to Sodom at least and Gomorrha in a lexicon is either feminine or neuter. The gender works. Toutois is either masculine or neuter.
The verb is "are set forth." Sodom and Gommorrha and the cities about them are set forth. The cities about them the same manner to these (these referring to Sodom and Gomorrha). You are going to have to help me more to show me how this doesn't work. I'm not saying that "these" refers to cities but to Sodom and Gomorrha.
Giving themselves and going after are participles. The verb is "set forth." I'm not following what you are saying.
The angels were reserved in everlasting chains like Sodom and Gomorrha and cities like Sodom and Gomorrha are set forth for an example suffering vengeance of eternal fire.
My biggest argument was that fornication isn't the theme. It's judgment, because the three examples are not consistent on the fornication front. I don't think you've dealt with that. You are assuming that the connection between Sodom and Gomorrha and angels is fornication, because you read that into Genesis 6. These sons of God must be angels because of Job, having sex with humans, because of Jude 1:6. It becomes circular reasoning. This has to be true because this is true and this is true because this is true.
I already explained the everlasting chains. They can't come back into the presence of God. They are expelled from heaven. They are no longer in heavenly light but in the darkness of Satan's new domain, one of sin, not of holiness. The chains are not physical, but spiritual.
I'm still not there with you Tenrin. I don't know what else this angelology and Satanology does for you, but it doesn't seem practical at all. It is a complete outlier.
Hi Kent,
Consider the following sentence: "Even as Susan, Bob does the same things she does: buying coffee every morning."
Essentially, what I think was said earlier is, that, since "buying coffee every morning" applies to Bob and the verb is modified by "the same things she does" (meaning, it specifies the way he buys coffee) that this means the sentence is only telling us about what Bob does.
In reality, this sentence applies the same thing to Bob as Susan. What I mean is it is not limited to mean that only Bob does that thing, but the verb includes and is applied to Susan, as "she", even while modifying the verb to clarify that Susan's actions determine more precisely the exact sense of the verb.
The subtext then would be: that it was already known that Susan does the activity, but the sentence does not fail to include her. (Via the pronoun). Bob does the same things she does. – "She" points back to Susan in the first part of the sentence. The subtext is that we were already aware that Susan does this. We now learn that Bob buys coffee the same way that Susan does.
In effect though, the sentence tells us that Susan as well as Bob do the same things, and it does not apply only to Bob, as was possibly suggested above.
Now to finish you can replace Bob with the cities round about them, and Susan with the two main cities (as a compound subject). The sentence in Jude is telling us that the two cities, and the cities round about them in like manner to those two cities, did this thing. It is not leaving out the original two cities, but their actions do modify the verb that then applies to both. And, this is normal because we already know what the two cities did, from our knowledge of Genesis 19.
Thematically, this helps emphasize that the scope of the punishment was related to the scope of the rebellion, and the cities round about them were not caught in the crossfire, but were equally at fault, as they did the same things.
-Andrew
Andrew,
Yes.