Genesis 6:1-4

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by menageriekeeper, Apr 12, 2010.

  1. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
    Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
    Gen 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.
    Gen 6:4 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.

    My second son came home from his bio-dad's this weekend telling us that this passage really meant that angels were sleeping with humans and that is why there were giants. I know there has been some discussion about this topic here, but the search engine is NOT my friend.

    So, lets have some discussion on whether or not this theory holds water.
     
  2. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,569
    Likes Received:
    276
    Again, I like Pink on this. Please, take time to note the reasons and cause for this and the connection to Gen 3:15 & Rev 12.

    [emphasis mine]
    "We turn now to consider the occasion of the Flood. "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" (Gen. 6:1, 2). There has been considerable difference of opinion among commentators and expositors in respect to the identity of these "sons of God." The view which has been most widely promulgated and accepted is, that these marriages between the sons of God and the daughters of men refer to unions between believers and unbelievers. It is supposed that the "sons of God" were the descendants of Seth, while the "daughters of men" are regarded as the offspring of Cain, and that these two lines gradually amalgamated, until the line of distinction between God’s people and the world was obliterated. It is further supposed that the Deluge was a visitation of God’s judgment, resulting from His peoples’ failure to maintain their place of separation. But, it seems to us, there are a number of insuperable objections to this interpretation.

    If the above theory were true, then, it would follow that at the time this 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." Again; if the popular theory were true, if these "sons of God" were believers, then they perished at the Flood, but 2 Peter 2:5 states otherwise—"Bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly." Once more; there is no hint in the Divine record (so far as we can discover) that God had yet given any specific command forbidding His people to marry unbelievers. In view of this silence it seems exceedingly strange that this sin should have been visited with such a fearful judgment. In all ages there have been many of God’s people who have united with worldlings, who have been "unequally yoked together," yet no calamity in anywise comparable with the Deluge has followed. Finally; one wonders why the union of believers with unbelievers should result in "giants"—"there were giants in the earth in those days" (Gen. 6:4).

    If, then, the words "sons of God" do not signify the saints of that age, to whom do they refer? In Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7, the same expression is found, and in these passages the reference is clearly to angels. It is a significant fact that some versions of the Septuagint contain the word "angels" in Genesis 6:2, 4. That the "sons of God," who are here represented as cohabiting with the daughters of men were angels—fallen angels—seems to be taught in Jude 6: "And the angels which kept not their principality but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day."

    These "sons of God," then, appear to be angels who left their own habitation, came down to earth, and cohabited with the daughters of men. Before we consider the outcome of this illicit intercourse, let us first enquire into the cause of it. Why did these angels thus "sin" (2 Pet. 2:4)? The answer to this question leads us into a mysterious subject which we cannot now treat at length: the "why" finds its answer in Satan.

    Immediately after that old serpent, the Devil, had brought about the downfall of our first parents, God passed sentence on the "serpent" and declared that the woman’s "Seed" should "bruise his head" (Gen. 3:15). Hence, in due course, Satan sought to frustrate this purpose of God. His first effort was an endeavor to prevent his Bruiser entering this world. This effort is plainly to be seen in his attempts to destroy the channel through which the Lord Jesus was to come.

    First, God revealed the fact that the Coming One was to be of human kind, the woman’s Seed, hence, as we shall seek to show, Satan attempted to destroy the human race. Next, God made known to Abraham that the Coming One was to be a descendant of his (Gen. 12:3; Galatians 3:18; Matthew 1:1); hence, four hundred years later, when the descendants of Abraham became numerous in Egypt Satan sought to destroy the Abrahamic stock, by moving Pharaoh to seek the destruction of all the male children (Ex. 1:15, 16). Later, God made known the fact that the Coming One was to be of the offspring of David (2 Samuel 7:12, 13); hence, the subsequent attack made upon David through Absalom (2 Samuel 15). As, then, the Coming One was to be of the seed of David, He must spring from the tribe of Judah, and hence the significance of the divided Kingdom, and the attacks of the Ten Tribes upon the Tribe of Judah!

    The reference in Jude 6 to the angels leaving their own habitation, appears to point to and correspond with these "sons of God" (angels) coming in unto the daughters of men. Apparently, by this means, Satan hoped to destroy the human race (the channel through which the woman’s Seed was to come) by producing a race of monstrosities. How nearly he succeeded is evident from the fact, that with the exception of one family, "all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth" (Gen. 6:12). That monstrosities were produced as the result of this unnatural union between the "sons of God" (angels) and the daughters of men, is evident from the words of Genesis 6:4: "There were giants in the earth in those days." The Hebrew word for "giants" here is nephilim, which means fallen ones, from "naphal" to fall. The term "men of renoun" in Genesis 6:4 probably finds its historical equivalent in the "heroes" of Grecian mythology. Satan’s special object in seeking to prevent the advent of the woman’s "Seed" by destroying the human race was evidently an attempt to avert his threatened doom!

    Against the view that "the sons of God" refer to fallen angels Matthew 22:30 is often cited. But when the contents of this verse are closely studied it will be found there is, really, nothing in it which conflicts with what we have said above. Had our Lord said, "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God" and stopped there, the objection would have real force. But the Lord did not stop there. He added a qualifying clause about the angels: He said "as the angels of God in heaven." The last two words make all the difference. The angels in heaven neither marry nor are they given in marriage. But the angels referred to in Genesis 6 as the "sons of God" were no longer in heaven: as Jude 6 expressly informs us "they left their own principality." They fell from their celestial position and came down to earth, entering into unlawful alliance with the daughters of men. This, we are assured, is the reason why Christ modified and qualified His assertion in Matthew 22:30. The angels of God in heaven do not marry, but those who left their own principality did.

    Ere we close, there is one other passage of Scripture which ought to be considered in this connection, namely, Matthew 24:37 —"But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be." History is to repeat itself. Ere the Lord returns to this earth, the condition which prevailed in the world before the Flood are to be reproduced. The characteristic of the days of Noah may be summarized in the following ten items: 1. Multiplication of mankind (Gen. 6:1)—note the great increase of earth’s population during the past century. 2. God dealing in long-suffering with a wicked world. 3. God sending His messengers to warn sinners of coming judgment. 4. God’s Spirit striving with men, and the threat that He would not always do so—(cf. 2 Thess. 2), which tells of His Spirit being taken away once more. 5. God’s overtures toward men despised and rejected—such is the condition of the world today. 6. A small remnant who find grace in the sight of the Lord and walk with Him. 7. Enoch miraculously translated—typifying the removal of the saints from the earth caught up to meet the Lord in the air. 8. Descent to the earth of the fallen angels and their union with the daughters of men: how near we have already approached to a repetition of this may be discovered in the demoniacal activities among Spiritists, Theosophists and Christian Scientists. 9. God’s judgments poured forth on the ungodly—of Revelation 6 to 19. 10. Noah and his family miraculously preserved—type of the Jewish remnant preserved through the Tribulation, see Revelation 12."
    http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Gleanings_Genesis/genesis_11.htm
     
  3. exscentric

    exscentric
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,253
    Likes Received:
    16
    Some suggest it was aliens from outer space and women. Personally if read in the context as just normal understanding there is nothing there but some comments about spiritual giants in the realm. No aliens, no sethites, no angels no nothing out of the ordinary.
     
  4. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    So Pink believes that the term "sons of God" is equivalent to the word angel? But then goes on to imply that these could only be fallen angels (which we term demons?) I wonder if I should have posted in the translation forum.

    If these were fallen angels why are they called Sons of God? Was/is there no better term?

    Interesting theory though, if the language works as Pink believes it does. And its probably the source of second son's information.

    Any opposing views?
     
  5. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,569
    Likes Received:
    276

    6 Now it came to pass on the day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah, that Satan also came among them. Job 1

    1 Again it came to pass on the day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah, that Satan came also among them to present himself before Jehovah. Job 2
     
  6. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gonna have to agree with kyredneck on this one. :eek:


    :laugh:
     
  7. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, I'm aware of those passages, but Satan seems to be set apart from "the Sons". Surely it can't be that it was fallen angels came to present themselves to God in these instances. What reason would they have to do so? Satan is there to cause trouble, but the others? I don't know.

    And if these are not fallen angels then it almost implies that the Sons that were intermarrying with humans might also not be fallen. As in God permitted it for a while. But if that were so (that God allowed it for a while) did more fall because they were drawn to the sin of man? Perhaps this is why God was mad enough to destoy 99.99% of mankind?
     
  8. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apparently the reason is because God required them to do so. Beyond that we don't know and aren't supposed to, it would seem.


    Actually, God was the one to bring it all about. God asked Satan.. God recommended to Satan a name of which to consider.. God authorized Satan's request..

    What some people forget is that men are also called the son's of God and since there were two distinct people groups due to Cane's rebellion, we have one group who were people/son's of God and another were son's/people of men (not of God).

    Another important point that isn't remembered is that angels can not procreated according to Jesus.
    Another is that angels don't marry.

    Thus theologically it would be impossible for these 'sons of God' to be angels, fallen or otherwise. And therefore with the one group disqualified, it lands squarely upon the people who did not fear God.
     
  9. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well in truth, Pink has quite a few theological problems and this in only one of them.
    Other views are found easily.. like Barnes:
    or CLarke..
    Or John Gill:
    Keil & Delitzsch - Hebrew scholars..:
    Gen 6:1-8

    And I can go on and on with others like Matthew Henry, MacArthur, John Wesley, Vines, Wiersby, etc, etc...
     
  10. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    Remember that Genesis was written by Moses in the wilderness, prior to the Hebrews going into the promised land. God specifically warned them not to intermarry with the Caananites.

    I believe Moses was demonstrating the problems that arise when God's people marry the ungodly.

    So, the Sons of God are the godly line of Seth. The daughters of men are the ungodly line of Cain.

    The "giants" refer to the kings of the cities that were being built.

    That is my take on it.

    peace to you:praying:
     
  11. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,569
    Likes Received:
    276
    There you go MK! Pick the one that suits your fancy! As I said, I like Pink. :)
     
  12. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,569
    Likes Received:
    276
    Is it as much that Pink has theological problems, or is it more that Allan has problems with Pink's Sovereign Grace views?

    Is this to imply that Barnes, CLarke, John Gill, Keil & Delitzsch, Matthew Henry, MacArthur, John Wesley, Vines, Wiersby, etc, etc... have no 'theological problems', or just fewer than Pink?
     
    #12 kyredneck, Apr 13, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 13, 2010
  13. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not at all, though in that view there are a few problems, yes.
    Besides all non-cals and Arminians alike believe in soveriegn grace, just not the way Cals/Reformed groups choose to define it.

    Did I state they had none?
    Didn't think so.

    I was using these to show that both Cals and non-cals alike agree on the meaning of the text here.. and that Pink wondered off on this point in relation to biblical truth.
     
  14. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,569
    Likes Received:
    276
    Actually, I believe Pink is spot on with his take on it, and I intend (Lord willing) to expound on this more when I get back to my 'Seven Heads' thread. It all ties in wonderfully with that 'germ of prophecy' verse, Gen 3:15 and the 'picture story' of Rev 12.
     
  15. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    It doesn't really make sense that the flood was the result of angelic immorality with human women who then bred these magnificent giants. For one, why did God wipe out all of mankind for the angels' sin? Actually the narrator mentions repeatedly that it was for man's sin, not angels' sin. For another, why were the descendants of the giants still around after the flood, unless either the genetic history of Noah himself was questionable or angels once again accomplished their diabolic and Borg-like sexual plan against mankind? And another, it appears there were already giants around before these sons of God took up those beautiful women (Gen 6:4), and thus they could not have been the result of these relationships. And another, these giants were men of good reputation, not exactly the term used to describe the children of Satan but rather the children of God. Besides, structural analysis, such as that of Sailhamer in the Expositor's Bible Commentary, shows that 6:1-4 is not the prelude to the flood but rather the epilogue to "generations" of Adam who was himself the son of God, a person of the NAME. Genesis 6:5 begins an entire new section in Genesis. On this passage Gill, a good old Baptist, makes some good observations.

    Jonathan C. Borland
     
  16. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,569
    Likes Received:
    276
  17. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you to everyone. I knew there were different views on this passage, but could only remember what I had been taught as a child and had no frame of reference as to where that interpretation came from. Good discussion.
     
  18. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,184
    Likes Received:
    326
    Did I miss it going through this thread: The NT Scripture which is usually linked with the "nephilim" of Genesis 6:

    Jude 1
    5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
    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.
    7 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.​

    "strange flesh" : sarkos heteras - Flesh of another kind.

    NIV Jude 1:7 In a similar way (as the angels which left their first estate), Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.​

    RSV Jude 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.​

    Is it a justified link?​

    HankD​
     
  19. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would state.. no.
    First, Jesus stated angels do not marry, nor can they procreate.
    These two precepts alone knock the theory these were angelic beings into a tail spin.

    Second, there is no valid evidence to state the two passages relate to the same thing. Actually the view of this being about what happened in Gen 6 is based on assumption or postulation. For one, the Jude passage does not state or allude to any correlation to the OT passage in question. IOW - it doesn't reference it via any quote from Gen 6 nor does it give any allusions toward said reference nor an illistrative connection between them.

    The verse from which you are presuming similarity regarding Sodom and Gamorrah and those angels, is not grammatically speaking (Greek grammer) about a comparison between angels and the cities. The grammer of the Greek is speaking specifically to Sodom and Gamorrah and the surrounding cities not the angels, were acting in 'like manner'. What manner? Homs*xually (verse 8 ellaborates more on their various other rebelliousness). Thus we understand that the 'strange flesh' referenced here (which is specifically to men of all these cities) and the same used in other passages of scripture such as 2Pet. 2:10; and Rom 1:27; Lev 18:22, Lev 18:23.

    Thus the sin which is being referenced with respect to the angels which was 'similar' though not the same as was with the men of those cities is rebelliousness because they left that which was given them by God..for something they desired over what was given), and it not only addresses the sin but more specifically it addresses the manner in which that sin was sought after. Both men and angels left what was natural for that which was not or unnatural and they left it all for they their lustings. The phrases 'going after" (ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω) and "but left" (αλλα απολιποντας) both refer to the same connotation ..to leave something completely or absolutely.
     
    #19 Allan, Apr 13, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 13, 2010
  20. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,569
    Likes Received:
    276
    Pink says yes:

    “If, then, the words "sons of God" do not signify the saints of that age, to whom do they refer? In Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7, the same expression is found, and in these passages the reference is clearly to angels. It is a significant fact that some versions of the Septuagint contain the word "angels" in Genesis 6:2, 4. That the "sons of God," who are here represented as cohabiting with the daughters of men were angels—fallen angels—seems to be taught in Jude 6: "And the angels which kept not their principality but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day........The reference in Jude 6 to the angels leaving their own habitation, appears to point to and correspond with these "sons of God" (angels) coming in unto the daughters of men.”
     

Share This Page

Loading...