The
Sons of God in Genesis 6 By
Milburn Cockrell “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. And 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. There 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” (Genesis
6:1-4). These
verses have been debated for centuries by good and
great theologians. What I am about to say on these verses will not end
the
debate, but it will probably add to it. Our paper has in times past set
forth
the traditional view in the Forum and in other articles. The Editor has
remained silent to date. It is only proper and fair that I should make
known my
views on this subject. Some, of course, have their minds made up and do
not
want to give a fair hearing to the other side. Such individuals should
stop
here and read no farther.
THE TWO
VIEWS
Two
general views have been held as to the identity of the
sons of God and the daughters of men in Genesis 6. One school of
interpretation
holds that the sons of God is the godly line of Seth and the daughters
of men
is the ungodly line of Cain. This is and has been the view of some able
scholars.
This no intelligent and informed person would deny.
The second school of interpretation holds that the sons of God were fallen angels who cohabited with the daughters of Adam. This resulted in a race of giants and brought the flood. Some good men have held this view such as A. W. Pink, Robert Govett, Clarence Larkin, G. H. Pember, Henry Morris, and others. The first view is generally held today, but the second view is the oldest and is more in line with other Scriptures as I see it. PROBLEMS
WITH THE TRADITIONAL VIEW It
seems to me that those who make the sons of God to be the
godly line of Seth and the daughters of men to be the ungodly line of
Cain have
a number of problems in their view. First, if they are correct “it
would appear
that at the time the amalgamation took place God’s people were limited
to the
male sex, for ‘the sons of God’ were the ones who ‘married’ ‘the
daughters of
men’” (Gleanings in Genesis by A. W. Pink, pp. 92-93). Why did not some
of the
daughters of God marry some of the sons of men? The traditional view
cannot
answer this question. The use of the word “men”
in “daughters of men” (vv. 2, 4)
signifies the whole human race. The word “man”
in the Hebrew is the word “Adam,” meaning the race that came from Adam (Genesis 5:2). This same Hebrew word is
rendered in the early parts of Genesis “Adam”
in the following places (2:19, 20, 21, 23;
3:8, 9, 17, 20, 21; 4:1, 25; 5:1-5, etc.). It is bnoth-ha-Adam and could
read “daughters of Adam.” There is no
suggestion of contrast if the sons of God were also men.
Second, there is no proof the race of Seth were all godly and the race of Cain were apostates. This is a pure assumption and contrary to all human history and experience. Did not the Sethites partake of the same fallen nature as the Cainites? The traditional assumption is a hypothesis to get rid of difficulty. Children of godly parents are not always godly. Consider the sons of Eli (I Samuel 2:12-25). Did not David have his Absalom and Solomon his Rehoboam? Nor is it always true that all children born to ungodly parents are ungodly. Third,
there is no evidence in the Divine Record that God
had at this time forbidden the godly and ungodly to marry. In the early
days of
the race brothers and sisters had to marry each other and later near of
kin.
There can be no doubt that the descendants of Seth and Cain had been
intermarrying for some time. In all ages of man there has been some
intermarriage of the righteous and the wicked, but there has only been
one
world-wide flood that destroyed the race save eight souls.
Fourth, the union of believers and unbelievers does not produce giants. Nevertheless, when the sons of God married the daughters of Adam, giants were born (Genesis 6:4). Fifth,
where were these sons of God when the flood came? Why
were they not in the ark with Noah? Had they apostatized? If so, down
the drain
goes our teaching of the security of the saints and the fifth point of
sovereign grace (perseverance of the saints). Genesis 6:11-12 gives no
hint of the godly line of Seth in great numbers. Peter tells us the
flood came
“upon the world of the ungodly” (II Peter
2:5). When the flood came
there were only eight righteous souls on earth (I Peter 3:20).
Hence there were no sons of God outside the ark. Let
those who hold to the traditional view tell us what happened to them. Sixth,
Noah was the only one “perfect” in his generation (Genesis
6:9; 7:1). This not only suggests the moral purity
of Noah, but it
reveals that none of his parents or present family had cohabited with
the
fallen angels and had children by them. There were no demigods in
Noah’s family
tree. Why was no one else perfect in his generation?
Let those of the traditional
view give the answer.
Seventh, the Hebrew text could read in Genesis 6:4: “… when the sons of Elohim came in unto the daughters of Adam, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men …” The daughters of Adam can hardly be limited to the so-called ungodly line of Cain. The text in Genesis 6 does not say nor imply that the daughters of men were all ungodly. This must be read into the text, for it simply is not there. THE
SONS OF GOD WERE ANGELS The
true identity
of the “sons of Elohim” is crucial
to the correct interpretation of Genesis
6. This expression occurs but six times in the Old Testament. In
all cases
the meaning seems to be angels. Consider Job
1:6-7: “Now there was a day when the
sons of God came to present themselves
before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD, said
unto Satan,
Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going
to and
fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.” Satan,
a fallen
angel (Isaiah 14; II Corinthians 11:14),
had been on
earth. Hence the scene in Job 1 is in Heaven. That angels are meant by “sons of God” or “sons of Elohim” is in
the highest degree probable. The scene is
quite parallel that of I Kings 22:19:
“And he said, Hear thou therefore the
word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the
host of
heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.” Most
scholars
are agreed that the sons of God in Job
1:6-7 and Job 2:1-2 are the
angels of
God in Heaven. An
almost
indisputable verse is Job 38:7. The
context is about the creation of the earth (verses 4-6).
Then we read in
verse 7:
“When the morning stars sang together,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
No men were present when the earth was created. Both the morning stars
and the
sons of God are angels, for they only were present when the foundations
of the
earth were laid. Nearly all scholars agree these sons of God were
angels. It is
strange they give “sons of Elohim” a
new meaning in Genesis 6:1-4. The
term “sons of Elohim” seems confined to those
who were directly created by God, and not born of other beings of their
own
order. Hence, in Luke’s genealogy of Christ, Adam is called a son of
God (Luke 3:38). In John 1:12 Christ
is said to give to some the power to become sons
of God. These are born of the Spirit of God in their inner man in the
present
life on earth. At the resurrection they will be clothed with a
spiritual body,
a building of God (II Corinthians 5:1),
and then they will be in every respect equal to the angels, being
altogether a
new creation (Luke 20:36). The
sons of Elohim
are seen again in Psalm 29:1: “Give unto
the LORD, O ye mighty, give unto
the LORD glory and strength.” The Septuagint reads: “Bring
to the Lord, ye sons of God …” In the Emphasized Bible Joseph
B. Rotherham renders it: “Give to
Yahweh, ye sons of the mighty.” Again most scholars concede these
are probably
angels also. The
sons of Elohim
are seen again in Psalm 82:6: “I have
said, Ye are gods; and all of you are
children of the most High.” Rotherham has it: “Yea sons
of the Highest are all …” In verse 1
of this Psalm God is
said to judge in the congregation of the gods (Elohim). In verse 7
these angels
are threatened that, if they go on in evil of which God complains in
verse 2,
they will die like men (Adam). Now if the sons of God are children of
Adam, it
was superfluous so to warn them, for death would be a fact of depraved
human
nature. The
Alexandrian
manuscript of the Septuagint reads in Genesis
6:2 and 4 “the angels of God.” The
Book of Enoch,
written about 200 years before
the birth of Christ, gives this information about Genesis 6:
“And it came to pass when the children of men had
multiplied in those days that beautiful and comely daughters were born
unto
them. And the angels, the sons of the heavens, saw and lusted after
them, and
spake to one another, ‘Come now let us choose us wives from among the
children
of men and beget children’” (Sec. I, VI:1-2). It continues: “And they
took unto
themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go
in unto
them and they mixed with them, and taught them charms and enchantments,
and
made them acquainted with the cutting of roots and of woods. And they
became
pregnant, and they bear great giants, whose height was three thousand
ells”
(Sec. I, VII:1-2). Flavius
Josephus
(A.D. 37-100), the Jewish historian, writing upon Genesis 6,
says: “For many angels of God accompanied with women,
and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good,
on
account of the confidence they had in their own strength;
for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of
those whom
the Grecians call giants” (Antiquities of
the Jews, Book I, Chap. III, Sec. 1). William
Whiston, who translated the writings of Josephus,
has a footnote at the bottom of this page (36) which reads: “The
notion, that
the fallen angels were, in some sense, the fathers of the old giants,
was the
constant opinion of antiquity.” W. F.
Albright has written: “Yahweh was believed to have
created astral as well as terrestrial beings and the former were
popularly
called, ‘the host of heaven’ or ‘the sons of God.’ In Genesis
6:1ff1, for example, … the (astral) gods had intercourse
with mortal women who gave birth to heroes (literally, meteors,
nephilim), an
idea that may often be illustrated from Babylonian and Greek mythology.
But the
Israelites who had this section recited, unquestionably thought of
intercourse
between angels and women (like later Jews and Christians)” (From
the Stone Age to Christianity, p.
226). The
oldest of the church fathers contended that the sons of
God in Genesis 6 were angels who
married the daughters of Adam. Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) wrote in
his Second
Apology: “But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were
captivated by
love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons;
and
besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly
by
magical writings, and partly fears and the punishments they occasioned,
and
partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and
libations, of
which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful
passions;
and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds,
and all
wickedness. Whence also the poets and mythologists, not knowing that it
was the
angel and those demons who had been begotten by them that did these
things to
men, and women, and cities, and nations, which they related, ascribed
them to
God himself, and to those who were accounted to be his very offspring,
and to the
offspring of those who were called his brothers, Neptune and Pluto, and
to the
children of these offspring. For whatever name each of the angels had
given to
himself and his children, by that name they called them” (The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 190). In the Testament of
the Twelve Patriarchs we find this information: “For moreover the angel
of God
told me concerning them, and taught me that women are overcome by the
spirit of
fornication more than men, and they devise their hearts against men;
and by
means of their adornment they deceive first their minds, and instill
the poison
by the glance of their eye, and then they take them captive by their
doings,
for a woman cannot overcome a man by force … For thus they allured the
Watchers
before the flood; and as these continually beheld them, they fell into
desire
each of the other, and they conceived the act in mind, and changed
themselves
into the shape of men, and appeared to them in their congress with
their
husbands; and the women, having their mind’s desire toward their
apparitions,
gave birth to giants, for the Watchers appeared to them as reaching
even unto
heaven” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers,
Vol. VIII, p. 10). The translator has a note at the bottom defining the
“Watchers.” It reads: “This name, occurring once again in the
Testaments (Naph.
3), is one frequently applied to the angels as the custodians of the
world and
of men.” Robert
Govett comments: “That the ‘sons of God’ were angels,
was a belief held by Justin Martyr and Tertullian, who both allude to
it in
their respective Apologies; by Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Tertullian,
Clemems
Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Methodius, Lactanius, Eusebius, Ambrose, and
Sulpitius
Severus, as the author of ‘Evuvin’ affirm” (The
Sons of God and Giants of Rephaim, the book has no page numbers). It is
freely granted that these quotes are not inspired as
is the Bible, but they do most certainly prove what the ancient Jews
and early
Christians believed about Genesis 6:1-4. THE
SINNING ANGELS There
are two passages in the New Testament that speak of
sinning angels. The first is II Peter
2:4-5: “For if God spared not the
angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and
delivered them into chains of darkness, to be
reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah
the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness,
bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.” We are
not, in this passage, told what their sin was,
although the passage immediately speaks of the days of Noah and the
flood as if
to give a close connection between the two events. We are merely told
that they
did sin and that they are now imprisoned in Tartarus (our version has “hell”). Generally “Hell” is a translation
of the Greek word Hades, but here only in the New
Testament the Greek has Tartarus. This word is right
out of
Greek mythology. In Homer it is tartaros,
and it is found in Job 40:15; 41:23
of the Septuagint. It is also
found in the Book of Enoch 20:2 where it is the place of punishment of
fallen
angels, while Gehenna is for apostate
Jews (See Word Pictures in the New
Testament by A. T. Robertson, Vol. VI, p. 162). The judgment Peter
makes
mention of is most likely the great White Throne Judgment in Revelation 20:11-15. These angels are in
prison while Satan angels are still loose
on earth. The sons of Elohim in Genesis
6 may have rebelled in the days of Noah, and their rebellion may
have had
no connection with the rebellion of Satan and his angels (Revelation
12:7-10) who
are yet to be imprisoned (Matthew 25:41; Isaiah
24:21-22). The
second passage is Jude
6-7: “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
passage in Jude discloses the sin of the angels. They “Kept
not their first estate,” or “their
own principality,” or “first place of power” (I Corinthians
15:24a; Romans
8:38). The reference is to the lordship held by angels in creation
in the
kingdom of the air. They “left their own
habitation,” or “their own proper habitation” (oiketerion).
They left the kingdom of the air and descended to
earth. The Greek word for “habitation”
is the word for “dwelling place” (from oiketer,
dweller at home, from oikos). It is
found only here and in II Corinthians
5:1 where it refers to the body as the abode of the spirit of man
(See A.
T. Robertson on this). The meaning in Jude is that the angels left
their normal
spiritual bodies to assume an abnormal physical form to cohabit with
human
women. The
words “even so”
and “in like manner” in verse 7
about the Sodomites are very significant. It can mean no less than like
the
fallen angels in verse 6. The Sodomites went after the unnatural use of
the men
(Genesis 19:1-17; Romans
1:27), even
as the sinning angels went after the daughters of Adam. Both the angels
and
Sodomites were guilty of the indulgence of passion contrary to nature.
Both the
Sodomites and the fallen angels are set forth as an example of eternal
fire,
suffering punishment for their sins. ANGELS
CAN ASSUME HUMAN BODIES Those
who have studied the doctrines of angels in the
Scriptures know that they have the power to assume a human body, or to
dismiss
it, as they please. It is also well known that when they assume human
bodies
they appeared as men. In the Bible angels are always spoken of in the
masculine
gender. Abraham welcomed three “men”
in the plains of Mamre (Genesis 18:1-8).
They walked, talked, and ate with
him as “men,” but they were in truth
angels (Genesis 18:22; 19:1). The
angels at the empty tomb of
Christ is by Mark described as “a young
man” (Mark 16:5) and by Luke as
“two men … in shining garments” (Luke
24:4). The “two men … in white apparel”
in Acts 1:10 were probably angels.
Belshazzar, the king of Babylon, during his feast saw only a “hand” of an angel which wrote on the
wall of his palace (Daniel 5:5),
showing an angel can assume only a part of a human body. The
physical realism of angels in human bodies is seen in
the visit of two angels to Lot in Sodom. The Sodomites sought to misuse
them
sexually: “And they called unto Lot, and
said unto him, Where are the men
which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may
know them”
(Genesis 19:5; cf. Judges 19:22; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:27).
In the Old Testament a lawful copulation with a man’s wife is expressed
by
knowing her (Genesis 4:1, 17, 25), and the unlawful and shocking copulation of man with
man is
expressed by the same phrase. To properly convey the meaning of Genesis 19:5 to the modern mind it
might read: “Bring them out to us, that we may sodomize them.” The two
angels
smote the Sodomites with blindness so they were unable to perform this
evil act
(Genesis 19:6-11). Why was this miracle
performed if angels in human bodies could
not be sodomized? And if this was possible why would it not be possible
for
them in human bodies to have sex with the daughters of Adam? The
sinning angels are now in prison in Tartarus and
cannot get out until the judgment of the great day (II
Peter 2:4). Satan and his angels are loose on earth. In Greek
mythology
Tartarus was a dark abode of woe, as far beneath Hades as Earth is
below Heaven
(Homer II, Vol. VIII, 16). This idea
corresponds to Peter’s pit of darkness. In Greek mythology Zeus put the
rebelling
Titan in Tartarus. In Christian
theology Tartarus is the prison house
of the fallen angels who copulated with the daughters of Adam in Genesis 6:1-4. We know
from Genesis
6:4 that “children” were born as a
result of the unlawful union of angels
and the daughters of Adam. These were giants, and I doubt not that some
were
men as well as women. There are legends of Hercules and of Amazonians
(strong
women). The bodies of these offspring of fallen angels and the
daughters of
Adam were destroyed in the flood. Since the flood came “upon
the world of the ungodly” (II Peter 2:5) we can
safely assume these giants, men and women, had
their bodies destroyed in the flood. What about their spirits which
could not
be destroyed? I believe they are still loose on the earth and are the
demons we
read about in the Bible. Justin Martyr held this view. This would
account for
why the demons seek to take over the bodies of men and women. It would
also
allow for male and female demons, a belief held by the ancient nations
of the
earth, including the Hebrews. I shall say more on this later. OBJECTIONS
CONSIDERED First,
those who
oppose this view I am advocating say that angels cannot marry. It is
true that
angels are immortal beings who do not need to maintain their number by
procreation as do men. It is not the ordinary nature of angels to seek
the
marriage relationship. Jesus said in Matthew
22:30: “For in the resurrection they
neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God
in
heaven” (cf. Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35-36). Those who remain unfallen “in heaven” do not marry.
This is
the general rule, but it does not follow that angels are sexless, for
they are
always spoken of in the masculine gender. Could it be there are no
female
angels for them to marry? Matthew 22:30
could hardly be the rule for fallen angels. Genesis 6:1-4 plainly
teaches that angels can assume human bodies and cohabit with women and
have
children who are giants. Second,
some will
say this is a new light teaching which they have never heard of before
except
for this article. They may not have heard of it before, but it is
certainly not
a new teaching. It is as old as Genesis
6:1-4. It was the view of the
ancient Jews and the church fathers. In fact this view was not ever
questioned
until about the Fourth Century of the Christian Era. Clarence
Larkin
writes: “That the ‘Sons of God’ of Genesis
6:1-4 were ANGELS was maintained
by the ancient Jewish Synagogue, by Hellenistic Jews at, and before the
time of
Christ, and by the Christian Church up until the Fourth Century, when
the
interpretation was changed to ‘sons of Seth’ for two reasons. First,
because of
the worship of angels had been set up, and if the ‘Sons of God’ of Genesis 6:1-4 were angels and fell, then
angels might fall again, and that
possibility would affect the worship of angels. The second reason was,
that
Celibacy had become an institution of the Church, and if it was taught
that the
angels in heaven did not marry, and yet that some of them seduced by
the beauty
of womanhood came down from heaven to gratify their amorous
propensities, a
weakness of a similar kind in one of the ‘earthly angels’ (Celegates)
might be
the more readily excused. In the Eighteenth Century the ‘Angelic
Interpretation’ was revived, and is now largely held by Biblical
scholars” (The Spirit World, pp. 26-27). So in
truth the
angelic interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4
is not new light; it is old light.
The Seth and Cain idea is a carryover among our Baptist churches from
the
heresies of Roman Catholicism. The angelic interpretation is an old
landmark
which has fallen and needs to be reset. Hence this article. Third,
some say
that Israel is called “sons of God.”
But according to the Old Testament it would be better to say that
Israel is
called “my son” (Exodus 4:22) and “my
sons” (Isaiah
43:6; 45:11). Hosea 1:10 says: “Ye
are the sons of the living God.” But in none of these verses is
Israel
called “the sons of Elohim” as the
expression is in Genesis 6:1-4. Most
of the verses about Israel
concern her future conversion when she is brought into the blessings of
the New
Covenant. In the Old Testament the “sons
of Elohim” is restricted to angels, but in the New Testament it is
applied
to sons of God by regeneration (John
1:12; Romans 8:14-16; Galatians
4:6; I John 3:1-2). In this age
the inner man is born
anew by the Spirit of God. At the resurrection we will be clothed with
a
spiritual body, a building of God (II Corinthians
5:1). Then we will be “equal unto
the angels” (Luke 20:36), being
altogether a new creation! THE
GIANTS The
Seth and Cain
interpretation does little to explain the “giants”
in Genesis 6:1-4. These are played
down or explained away. Look again at Genesis 6:4: “There were giants in the earth in those days (the days
before the
flood); and also after that (after
the flood, Numbers 13:33), 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.” Like
our KJV, the
Septuagint has “giants” (from gigantes).
In the Hebrew it is nephilim which Robert Young in his
Analytical Concordance to the Bible says means “fallen ones, fellers.”
The
“fallen ones” (nephilim) points to
the offspring of the fallen angels and the daughters of Adam. These are
also
called “mighty men” in Genesis 6:4, a
word commonly used for
military men of great strength. The giants were the results of the
union of
heavenly natures with earthly natures. Angels, a higher order of being
than
man, have great knowledge of genetic manipulation. If man can now make
a clone
just think what a fallen angel might be capable of with his great
wisdom. The
word nephilim occurs again in Numbers
13:33: “And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants (nephilim): and we were in our own sight as
grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” Here are some of the
mighty
men like those in Genesis 6:1-4. These
were also doubtless some more
demigods or half man and half angel. This sin did happen after the
flood, but
it would seem never to the point of corrupting all flesh as in the days
of
Noah. It
appears from
the Old Testament that the Land of Canaan was a land of giants. There
were Rephaims
who inhabited Canaan, Edom, Moab, and Ammon. At the conquest of Canaan,
Og,
king of Basham, was of the race of giants (Deuteronomy
3:11; Joshua 12:4; 13:12). In Deuteronomy 3:11 it is written: “For only Og
king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold,
his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is
it not in Rabbath of the children of
Ammon? nine cubits was the length
thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man”
(cf. Deuteronomy 3:13). Scholars differ as
to the length of a cubit. But taking the shortest length his bedstead
was 10
feet and 6 inches, or, taking the longest, it was 11 feet and 9 inches. There
was the
Emins who were giants in the land of Moab: “The Emims dwelt
therein in times past, a people great, and many, and
tall, as the Anakims; Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims;
but the
Moabites call them Emims” (Deuteronomy
2:10-11). There was also the
Zamzumins of Ammon: “That also was
accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the
Ammonites
called them Zamzummims; A people great, and many, and tall, as the
Anakims; but
the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt
in
their stead” (Deuteronomy 2:20-21).
From a remnant of the Anakims in
Philistine Gath came the famous Goliath (I
Samuel 17:4; cf. II Samuel 21:16-22).
He was 6 cubits and a span. Either
9 feet and 9 inches, taking the shortest length, or 10 feet and an
inch, taking
the longest. The
existence of
giants in Canaan is very significant. It would seem that these
offspring of
angels and the daughters of Adam were there to keep Israel out of her
promised
land. This is doubtless one of the reasons the Israelites were to
exterminate
the Cainites (Deuteronomy 20:12-13). The
Hebrew “Rephaim” is found eight times in the
Old Testament, although it is somewhat obscured by our English
translation. The
Septuagint of Job 26:5 reads: “Shall giants
(Rephaim) be born from under the water and the
inhabitants thereof,” an allusion to the drowning of the offspring
of
angels and the daughters of Adam by the flood. It is seen again in Proverbs 2:18: “For her house inclineth unto
death, and her paths unto the dead
(Rephaim or giants).” Here Solomon dissuades from sexual impurity
because it
brings the transgressor to the assembly of the giants. Proverbs
9:18 is similar to this verse: “But he knoweth not that
the dead (Rephaim or giants) are
there; and that her guests are in the depths of Hell (Sheol in
Hebrew or
Hades in the Greek).” Wicked women caused the sons of Elohim to sin and
suffer
punishment. If angels could not resist an adulterous woman, how much
less a
depraved man? Proverbs
21:16
says: “The man that wandereth out of the
way of understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead
(Rephaim
or giants).” While the word “giants” is not mentioned in Proverbs
7:26 it is surely implied: “For she hath cast down many
wounded: yea, many strong men (note “men” is in
italic,
showing there is no word in the Hebrew for “men”
which is supplied by the Translators) have
been slain by her.” Rephaim
is also in Isaiah 14:9 and Isaiah 26:19
where it is rendered “the dead.” In Isaiah
26:14
Rephaim is rendered “deceased.” The
New Berkely Version makes it easier to see: “The dead do
not live; the ghosts (Raphaim or giants) do not stand
up. Accordingly, Thou hast
visited and destroyed them and caused all memory of them to perish.” OTHER
THINGS WHICH
SEEM TO CONFIRM THIS Where
did the
heroes of heathen mythology come from? Persius, Esculapius, Hercules,
and
others came from the tradition of the giants, offspring born to the
sons of
Elohim and the daughters of Adam. The heathen confused the sons of
Elohim with
the gods and made these giants the sons of earthly women and the gods. During
the Middle
Ages it was a common belief that a demon could put on a male body
(incubus) and
impregnate a woman, or put on a woman’s body (succubus) and tempt a
man. Long
before this many ancient civilizations had their incubus and succubus.
The early
Assyrian Lili was a sexually insatiable female demon who roamed the
night
looking for a mortal man to lie with. A Hebrew tradition about Lilith
existed
in very ancient time. In Isaiah 34:14
the words “the screech owl” in
Hebrew is Lilith, which occurs no
other place in the Hebrew Old Testament. Lilith
was the name of a female demon, or some say the mother of succubi.
Satyrs (Isaiah 13:21; 34:14) are
believed to be male demons behind idol gods. GENESIS
6:3 Notice
again
Genesis 6:3: “And 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.”
What is meant by the words “he ALSO is
flesh”? It would seem some other
nature beside man had become flesh. The giants had been born of
marriage of
fallen angels with the daughters of Adam. The Seth and Cain theory
cannot make
any sense out of the word “also”
here. The meaning of Genesis 6:3 is
that as the Spirit had ceased to strive with these rebellious angels,
so it
would be also with man, for he too had become corrupt (Genesis
6:5, 11-13). WHY
BOTHER WITH
ALL OF THIS? I can
hear some
pious souls ask, “Why go to such length to deal with this? of what
profit is it
to God’s people? Does it edify?” I would answer that “all
scripture … is profitable
for doctrine” (II Timothy 3:16).
This includes Genesis 6:1-4. Please do
not call something
“unprofitable” that God has called “profitable.”
To do such would be to attack both God and His Word. A number of
important
truths are seen in Genesis 6:1-4. First, the account in Genesis 6:1-4 shows an
early plan of Satan to corrupt the human race by angels marrying the
daughters
of Adam. There is no salvation for fallen angels and no Messiah could
be born
of a race of demigods or demons. The Messiah must be the Seed of the
woman, not
the woman and an angel. This is just the sort of work we might expect
from
Satan, a fallen angel. Second,
when Israel
was ready to enter the promised land the giants (the offspring of
fallen angels
and the daughters of men) were there to resist them. Israel faced some
of the
greatest military men who ever lived on earth (Numbers 13:33).
These Hercules scared them to death. Satan had his
best fighters there to make Israel fearful and afraid in hopes of
keeping them
out of Immanuel’s land (Isaiah 8:8).
Who do you think is making all the trouble in the Middle East today? It
is
Satan, a fallen angel! Third,
there is to
be a revival of the days of Noah before Christ comes back and sets up
the
kingdom on earth: “And as it was in the
days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They
did eat,
they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the
day that
Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all”(Luke 17:26-27). Note the stress upon “they
married wives, they were given in marriage” by Christ here. As we
near the
end of this age, I believe fallen angels may again marry the daughters
of men
and produce giants. The modern-day sexual revolution is being carried
on by men
possessed by male demons and women possessed by female demons. Young
girl,
beware of this sleeping around with just any person. Young men take
warning!
Don’t go to bed with a girl possessed by a female demon! Worse still
young girl
take warning. You could entertain a fallen angel unaware and give birth
to a
demigod! Genesis
3:15
declares: “And I will put enmity between
thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise
thy
head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” All will concede that the
Seed of
the woman was Christ, and I believe the Seed of the Serpent is
Antichrist.
Satan, a fallen angel, will impregnate a woman who will give birth to a
superman, Antichrist. Has this already happened? Or, is it soon to
happen? God
only knows. Satan leads men to perdition, and Antichrist is “the
son of perdition” (II Thessalonians 2:3) and will
do the
same work as his father. To
those who want
to argue that a spirit cannot impregnate a woman, I ask them to
consider that
the Holy Spirit impregnated the womb of the virgin Mary (Luke
1:35). Don’t forget the Devil will heal the deadly wound of
Antichrist (Revelation 13:3, 12) and
give life to the image of
Antichrist (Revelation 13:15). Do
not be so foolish as to make too little of his power. If ordinary
angels could
produce children of the daughters of Adam, doubt not the greatest of
the fallen
angels can do as much. Satan by doing this will attempt to imitate the
virgin
birth of Christ. Satan is not an originator; he is an imitator. The
days of this
present dispensation are near an end. If there ever existed a
generation which
ought to repent and believe the gospel it is the generation now living.
How is
it with your soul? Do you know Christ as your Savior? Are you ready to
go out
into eternity? Repent and believe the good news about Christ. I conclude this article with a poem given to me by Elder Ernest Parks, Winston-Salem, NC:
SONS OF GOD
The
sons of God
must have been Angelic
beings and
not men. Does
not one teach
an awful mess, In
proving they
were sons of Seth? And
could men so
heep-um tall Become
such giants
without the fall? Some
say my poem
makes not good sense To you,
my friend,
it was not meant! Berea
Baptist Banner February
05, 2012
|