Things New and Old: Whatever happened to the "sons of God" in Gen 6?

"Now, lawyers learn very early in practice

a cardinal rule of cross-examination:

do not ask the question

the answer to which you do not already know.

layman’s terms: DO NOT TEMBAK BUTA-BUTA

[i.e. don't ever shoot blindly].

The reason: because the unexpected answer

may end up as mud on your face."

-- Haris Ibrahim.

Whatever happened to the "sons of God" - understood by very many as GODLY MEN - in Noah's time?

Gen 6:1-2
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 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.

What happened to ALL those "sons of God" in Noah's day?

Some say Noah preached for 120 years before the flood came. That's a long period; let's halve it - 60 years is not short. We know with certainty that NONE of those "sons of God" believed despite Noah's years of preaching.

So are you saying that despite all those long years of preaching by a preacher of righteousness, yet none of those sons of God - whom you claim is godly men - believed nor repented! All those "sons of God" - whom you claim were godly men - did they perish in the flood?

What kind of godly men have you imagined - men who bore such a grand sounding title "the sons of God" but who lusted after ungodly women because of their beauty; and that none repented nor were converted during those long years under the ministry of a faithful preacher of righteousness?

Do these questions alert you to something very unusual and sinister in Gen 6?

Do these questions cause you to wonder whether "sons of God" were indeed godly men?

There were GODLY MEN, as many imagined, yet long years of preaching by a preacher of righteousness DID NOT convert even one of them to righteousness. Instead, that whole generation of your GODLY MEN - not even one believed in those long years of preaching but perished in the flood! Is that what you believe?

Do you still believe that the "sons of God" are godly men and not something else?

And here is one more matter to consider.
2Pet 2:9 declares "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished."

Surely you would agree that these precious words apply to the godly men you find in Gen 6:2. So, if the "sons of God" were godly men indeed - as you imagined - my conclusion is: either God FAILED catastrophically in knowing how to deliver your "godly men" Gen 6, or this Scripture is entirely untrue - because all the "godly men" you imagined perished in the flood!!!

So, which is which - God didn't know those godly men or God could not deliver them; or is apostle Peter making a completely untrue statement?

Whatever, live with the implications of your view.

Go here to this FB page to read some interesting exchanges, if you are interested in the subject: https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/10205679279196739?pnref=story

========
Comments

sing
"... he begat sons and daughters." That's the constant repetition. Sons of men and daughters of men are male and female offspring of men - these terms refer to men and women in the context of procreation and genealogy.

Sons of God are distinct from the sons of men and daughters of men. The only common thing among them is that they speak of the source the offspring comes from.

Adam was described as "the son of God" - he was not a son of man. He is derived directly from God, and the angels too in the same sense.

Luke 3:37-38
Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

All those named are sons of men.
Adam came directly from God, thus the son of God.
Angels came directly from God, thus sons of God.

Read Job 1:6, 2:1.

Godliness and ungodliness of men and women are not under consideration in Gen 6:1-2. It is about men (the human race) procreating - yes MEN whether godly/ungodly men/women - and the sons of God INTRUDED into this HUMAN process of procreation, with sinister and satanic intent.
That's my understanding.

Jim Cutler
Jn 1:12 — Jn 1:13 (KJV)
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Angels?

sing
No. Those who heard the gospel and RECEIVED Christ.
See this: https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2012/07/to-them-gave-he-power-to-become-sons-of.html

Jim Cutler
So you believe elect are only "sons of God" *if* they are believing? Otherwise they are unconverted elect, not yet sons? See also Romans 8, Philippians 2, 1 John 3.

sing
Jim, I wonder what makes you ask a question like that? Is it because of what I have written? Since you asked, here is my answer:
Vital sonship by God's free grace enables believing.
Believing is a condition for practical sonship if a son of God is to experience that power - right and authority to call God as Father.

To be born of God, and to be given the power to become God's son are two distinct concepts in John 1:12-13.

Jim Cutler
Sing, it is related to the straw man argument of godly vs. ungodly. They are, by your admission, sons, by God's will alone, not their behavior.
In what way is there such a distinction in John's gospel?

Jim Cutler
Was Noah the only elect on the planet before the flood? Or, if you wish, were the eight on the ark the only elect? Or did elect die in the flood?

sing
No, Noah was not the only elect on the planet earth before the flood.
No, the eight on the ark were not the only elect, and I wonder if all the eight on the ark were all of them elect.
I believe MANY elect perished in the flood. They had become UNGODLY - having been influenced and morally corrupted by the sons of God and their offspring - those mighty men and men of renown.

If God had not shown grace to Noah, he would have perished too.
Thanks for asking simple direct questions.

Jim Cutler
Do we see a similar description of Christians who do not repent at hearing God's word preached faithfully?
2Ti 4:3 — 2Ti 4:4 (KJV)
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Are these elect, or reprobate, who turn to fables against preaching?
Has God failed? Or is this all part of His plan before Jesus returns?

sing
Hardly similar, Brother Jim, unless you wish to exaggerate 2Ti 4:3-4 and diminish Gen 6:4.

I would never equate "Christians who do not repent at hearing God's word preached faithfully" with the universal declaration of "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

VASTLY different, I would think.

Read again what is stated plainly in Gen 6, God's very own assessment of the situation, without man's tampering of the hard facts stated.

Gen 6:4 "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

And to your questions:
- I believe the 2Tim passage quoted above speaks of God's children, who turn to fables against preaching.

- Has God failed? 2Pet 2:9 reads:
The Lord knoweth how to deliver the GODLY out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

I can answer your good question if you can PROVE first that the people in your text, 2Ti 4:3 — 2Ti 4:4, are GODLY people.
Good night... zzzzzzzzzzz.

Jim Cutler
Do you agree that the "they" in 4:3 are described as, "...lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof...For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." in chapter 3, linked with the "therefore" in 4:1?

And you say that they are VASTLY different from GREAT WICKEDNESS and EVIL THOUGHTS? I trow not.

sing
Jim, VASTLY different. In Gen 6, the moral corruption is not only UNIVERSAL, but it is also TOTAL. That's God's own diagnosis - I didn't exaggerate it.

Gen 6:5 "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

It is the wickedness of MAN - man as a whole human race... was GREAT... EVERY imagination... HIS HEART... ONLY EVIL... CONTINUALLY. (Only something SATANIC is adequate to explain this. But so many think mixed marriage is enough!)

In 2Tim 4:3-4, there are still godly people around who turn not away from sound doctrine, but hold fast to the truth.
VASTLY different, sir.

Bryant Cutler
2Ti 4:3 — 2Ti 4:4 (KJV)
3 For the time will come when THEY will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And THEY shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Who is the "they"?
This passage is written in an Epistle, written to Timothy, a minister/preacher. The "they" are those who he is being instant in preaching to.

Those who will eventually not "endure sound doctrine" are the people of the congregation who will eventually abandon the doctrine and the truth, having "itching ears".

2 Timothy 2:19 (KJV)
19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

The Lord does know them that are his as stated before, but you know as we know, considering our doctrine of salvation, that practicality speaking, it is our duties as Christians/believers to conform to the image of His Son, and live holy lives. Just because this does not happen does not mean that these people are not "godly" or "righteous" or "saved" depending on their description, but are practically damned because of their actions.

A great example is Lot.
There is not a lick of righteousness behavior that we observe in the Genesis account of his life. BUT! He was called JUST and RIGHTEOUS.

2Pe 2:7 — 2Pe 2:8 (KJV)
7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

The Lord delivered him (the godly, as the next verse states) out of "temptation" in the city of Sodom... but we still see no righteousness, and he gets drunk and commits incest with his daughters.

God DOES NOT NEED HELP saving the righteous, but he expects us to live righteously, nonetheless we will be saved and judged for our actions in that judgement day.

sing
Bryant, I assume your LONG comment expresses your disagreement with my statement "Hardly similar, Brother Jim, unless you wish to exaggerate 2Ti 4:3 — 2Ti 4:4 and diminish Gen 6:4" in respond to Jim's attempt to bridge the two, i.e. to exaggerate to the former to the latter, and to minimize the latter to the former.

I will give you a SHORT answer, by way of illustration.

In Gen 6, there was NO POSSIBILITY of even the Greenville Church, no god-fearing Cutlers, or Crosbys, or Eastlands, or Pipkins, etc. - to exist!. In 2Tim 4, such continue in sound doctrines and remain in the truth as rampant ungodliness ravages around them. See the VAST DIFFERENCE now?

In Tim 4:3-4, there is the DISTINCTION between "they" and the necessary implication of the "us." It is "all and none" in Gen 6 (if God had not shown grace to Noah, he would have been undone too). It is "they", and the opposite "us" in 2Tim 4.

No such distinction in Gen 6:5.

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

So hardly similar.

Jim Cutler
Sing, you are imposing the us vs. they, for it is also a choice in rightly dividing that the sense is thee vs. they. In fact, the letter is to Timothy alone, as a pastor. It was not the world around his hearers raging on in this deception, but they, themselves, heaping teachers. So Paul exhorted him to preach even out of season (when his hearers did not want to hear), just like Noah.

The bible is not addressed to godless heathen. Preaching is for the elect, regenerate saints. Timothy and Noah were to call God's people to repentance, regardless of results. Noah only saved 7. Timothy is dead. We preach and pray for converts.

6:5 is a general statement, just as 2 Tim 4:3-4. "Men" and "they" are equivalent. Generalities always have exceptions.

Jim Cutler
Brother Sing, I'm starting a new comment line for each point, rather than mixing topics. Not trying to be confusing, but rather, manage the multiple lines of questions.

sing
This way it is easier to follow.

Jim Cutler
In the post above, you use "Ungodly" and "Godly" to describe the position you are arguing against. I reject that description. Maybe some have used those terms, and I may have done so incorrectly in the past. I understand why you would disagree with the terms.

My position is the sons of God, descendents of Seth, whom God identifies in the previous chapter through genealogy, leading up to Noah, forsook their covenant with God to marry only His adopted daughters (who would logically be called daughters of God), and instead married worldly women (called daughters of men) due to their beauty (6:2).

The question is not whether they are living godly (righteous) lives, but rather that God had chosen them, through Seth (which is the same way he elected Israel in that dispensation), and given them a covenant, which included marrying only in that line. Where is that covenant recorded, you might ask? When they called upon the name of the LORD (4:25-26)! This line of men includes the prophet Enoch (Gen 5:21-24; Jude 1:14-15), the prophet Lamech (Gen 5:28-31), and the preacher of righteousness Noah (Gen 6:8-10; 2Pet 2:5). God clearly delineated between Seth's and Cain's descendants. No descendants of Cain are mentioned as calling upon God.

So, why focus on "ungodly"? That's not the point. The point is "sons of God", which is a term of adoption, not righteousness. They are sons because God adopted them, not because they behaved righteously.

And this is consistent with the rest of the bible (except Job - the only place angels are called sons), indicating the "sons of God" are his adopted children. (John & Paul)

sing
Jim, I was not the one focussing on "godly" and "ungodly." The simple FACT is that I have repeated several times that the issue of "godliness" and ungodliness" DOES NOT come into the picture in Gen 6.

It is the mixed-marriage view that assumes that NECESSARY position and I was only trying to show them the necessary ludicrous implications of that view.

For such a view to make sense, it assumed that there was such a divine command forbidding the "sons of God" to marry "daughters of men", and thus requiring them to marry "daughters of God." (no such term in KJB).

Then it is ALSO assumed there was a covenant which included marrying only in that line. And you prove the existence of such a covenant by quoting Gen 4:25-26.

What line? Did any in those days know they were in the line or outside the line? I have an article on that on the blog. You and I know there was such a line BECAUSE of the Holy Scriptures.

All these assumptions are needed to maintain the credibility of the mixed-marriage view.

I would think a sin (IF there was EVEN a sin of mixed-marriage then) with such devastating and catastrophic consequences, and incurring such wrath of God would be preceded with a clear and specific command to the contrary. I believe in such a God. He is not arbitrary, but He warns plainly, and AMPLY.

Why would even good folks attribute the cause in Gen 6 to mixed marriage, when God HAS NOT even given the SLIGHTEST hint against it is staggering! I read of ONLY ONE command thus far, i.e up to Gen 6, with regard to procreation, which presupposed marriage, is this, "Be fruitful, and multiply." This command applied to ALL mankind, without distinction.

And Gen 6:1 is a description of that command being fulfilled by man that God has created - after Gen 4 and 5. "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them."

You insisted that the "daughters of men" in 6:2 refer to ungodly women. That's fine. Let's follow this through then. The daughters of men were daughters of the men mentioned in Gen 6:1. So are you equating "men" 6:1 as the "sons of men" (the non-elect, the ungodly, whatever)?

sing
Jim said, "So, why focus on "ungodly"? That's not the point. The point is "sons of God", which is a term of adoption, not righteousness. They are sons because God adopted them, not because they behaved righteously."
==========

Your shifting the focus from "godliness" to "adoption" DOES NOT help the situation one bit. Here are some reasons...

1. How did the sons of God know that they were sons of God?
Did any of them know that they belonged to the so-called godly line? How were sons of God distinguished from the sons of men then?
(Or is the idea IMPOSED by you into the Genesis passage because you had the hindsight of Divine revelation of Holy Scriptures?)

2. How did the sons of God know who they were to marry?
- Did they know which women were adopted by God, and who was not? Was there a way to differentiate who were daughters of God, and who was not?

3. How did the so-called "daughters of God" - were there any such or not? - did they end up marrying sons of men or sons of God? How did they know which is which?

Jim Cutler
1. They called on his name (4:25-26), God revealed himself to them, they told their descendants. Seth had hundreds of years to tell his great, great, great...grandson Noah about Adam, the fall, Cain's treachery, God's mercy, etc. If God destroyed the earth for wickedness, he surely made them know they were wicked, through 120 years of preaching and a large boat. Only Noah obeyed. Why did he obey? The same reason you or I do.

Philippians 2:13 (KJV)
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Jim Cutler
2. God told them, either directly, or through their patriarchs. They knew their family lines. Their fathers lived for many generations. Noah likely met Seth by their genealogies.

Jim Cutler
3. Ibid.

sing
Jim, my understanding of the so-called "godly line" is that NARROW line of the link by link of individuals that led us to Jesus Christ.
Apart from that genealogical line leading from Adam to Christ, there was NO godly line. There wasn't much godliness even in that so-called godly line either. In Enos' days "MEN" began to call upon the name of the Lord." Then after a very long time we read, Enoch walked with God.

No, not much godliness at all, since it is owned that the "sons of God" lusted after the ungodly women [I speak as a fool] - WHOLESALE! All this despite the fact of 120 years of preaching by a preacher of righteousness!

And all the "sons of God" became like this tooooooooo, "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." - according to the mixed-marriage view.

God has His elect people among the descendants from the line of Cain

[I believe both Cain and Abel represent God's people - the disobedient and the obedient, not the non-elect and the elect. This is for another time!].

Gen 6:1 speaks of the men as men, without regard to whether they were elect or not, of this line or that line.

(Mixed-marriage view MUST by necessity restrict this to the men of the non-elect line, procreating daughters of men.
Thanks for the exchanges.

Jim Cutler
Sing, so you admit my answers to your three points are compelling and you have no rebuttal?

Mike Coad
"They are sons because God adopted them, not because they behaved righteously."
Amen...

sing
What about this then, Mike Coad?
Luke 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."

sing
Let me say this, and I will leave this thread for now.
If I owe you some answers to the questions you have asked, remind me and I will answer them.

Gen 6:1-2 deals with PROCREATION, that is the CONTEXT.
All Bible students know the importance of the rule of context.
Bearing context in mind saves many from sound bytes!

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,
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.

In the context of procreation, these terms have a plain simple meaning.

Men began multiplying on the face of the earth - MEN without distinction whatsoever. BOTH sons and daughters are ALWAYS born to such procreating activities.

Daughters of men are plainly and simply THE OFFSPRING of men.

(Mixed-marriage view MUST necessarily pervert and twist that simple term to mean ungodly women. Otherwise, that view self-destructs.)

Gen 6, the attention is turned to daughters. The FOCUS is upon the FEMALE offspring of that procreation activity.

The term "daughters of men" speaks of the female offspring of men,
The term "sons of men" means the male offspring of men.
Similarly, the term "sons of God" is a term to indicate beings that are DISTINCT from the offspring of men.

"Of men" and "of God" indicate a clear DISTINCTION of origin, and not the idea of ungodliness or godliness, or non-adoption or adoption.

The latter is forced into the text because of the presupposed mixed-marriage view.

Adam was said to be the son of God in the same sense. He derived his being directly from God. So were angels. Context requires it.

That is all I wish to say.
Thanks for your interest in this subject.

sing
Jim inquired, "Sing, so you admit my answers to your three points are compelling and you have no rebuttal?
=========

Brother Jim, I'm sorry to disappoint you.
I see your answers as so ludicrous that I couldn't be bothered to rebut. And here is the reason for saying so.

First, you tried SO HARD to drain any godliness in the term "sons of God" you intended it. You did so because to admit any godliness in the term will self-destruct the mixed-marriage view.

Next, you did the exact reverse: you tried so hard to imagine out of thin air the idea that those sons of God had living consciousness of the covenant concerning marriage, and explicit knowledge of the divine command concerning mixed-marriage. These would have made them consciously godly, the very thing you strenuously deny in the first place.

EVEN IF what you claim out of thin air were true, it made the sons of God's marrying the ungodly women ALL THE MORE LESS LIKELY,

Sorry, to me they were too ludicrous, and self-contradictory to need rebuttal.

Jim Cutler
It's entertaining that you think my position is ludicrous, when you believe angels bred women to create a super-race of hybrids who ran amok, bringing about a worldwide flood that destroyed all men, not just the hybrids.

But that's the nature of deception. You hold it in your right hand, and don't know you are believing a lie.

Brother and pastor, my heart's desire is only to help you see the error of this position you hold. It is far more appropriately described as ludicrous, for its fantastic and unbiblical claims, standing in contrast to all the rest of the sound doctrine you teach.

Debate is a fruitless sin, and I have wasted many hours with fools and scorners. That is not my intention with you, for I know and am persuaded that you are neither of those.

You know that I am not uncomfortable with going against the crowd when it comes to doctrine. If there is a mountain of bible evidence to stand on, I will not be moved.

I will concede that there is no such mountain for affinity, but neither is there for sexual angels. And maybe less, since affinity is hated by God throughout the rest of the bible, and angel-sex is never mentioned.

Others like to make fantastical claims of mid-flight rapture, glowing '666's on foreheads, resurrected world leaders, one-world governments, 144,000 virgin Jews, and on, and on. They love the thrill of these Science Fiction stories! Angel hybrids fit right in.

I once bought the Left Behind, LaHaye and Jenkins, Lindsay, Scofield lies, and was found ashamed when I learned the truth and admitted my error. But I'd rather be ashamed and believing the truth, than continuing in a lie. And I believe that's true of you, too.

I hope you will continue to pursue this topic with or without me. Perhaps an abler Priscilla or Aquila will come along to bless the church by helping a great Apollos.

Titus Chan
I'll try to summarize and clarify:
sons of God in Genesis 6 = elect, period.
They don't need to know whether they are elect or not, rather they should have proved it by godly lives, which Seth, Enos and co. obviously knew and did without any Bible way before Noah started preaching.

Why daughters of men versus sons of God? Because the man has the authority in marriage. A godly household is primarily the husband's responsibility, proved in other sections of scripture. An elect, converted woman has to submit to her husband, believing or unbelieving, therefore God doesn't hold her responsible.

The fact that they rejected a preacher of righteousness for 120 years proves that they were ungodly in a temporal sense, hence 2 Peter 2:9 does not apply. All of them deserved the drowning. Nonetheless, the elect who drowned are still eternally justified.

Who cares whether the commandment against mixed marriage was instituted before or after the act? Sin is still sin. Cain was not excused of Abel's murder (1 John 3:10-12) and this was before "thou shalt not kill". The law came later on to make sure the sin was imputed (accounted for). If timing is such an issue, then shouldn't one argue also that salvation through Jesus' death was only effectual for those who lived after AD 30?

What's the alternative?

Sons of God = angels becoming "hybrids", with Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 as "proof texts", part of a Satanic conspiracy.

Problem (1): 2 Peter 2:4 doesn't specify the sin the angels committed. Jude 6 specifies the sin of 2 Peter 2:4, linked through the angels and the punishments faced, but Jude 6 doesn't specify what "leaving their estate ....habitation" is. One might want to use Gen 6 at this point .. but that is circular reasoning because Gen 6 was the text one wanted to prove with Jude 6 in the first place. One could also easily say that "leaving their habitation" was the angels sinning by going to Hawaii for a vacation. Both theories cannot be proved. Therefore the reasonable conclusion should be that Genesis 6 has nothing to do with Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 ... and leave Jude 6 for some other interpretation instead of forcing Genesis 6 on it.

Problem (2): For argument's sake, let's say Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 are valid proof texts, then the sin was in angels becoming hybrids and marrying the daughters of men. If the flood came as a result of the angels' transformation/marriage rather than the wickedness that resulted (which could have many other causes) then this means that there was no point in having any preacher of righteousness in the first place. God would have still flooded the earth even if the "hybrid" families had tons of godly children because the sin was being "hybrid". The "but" in 6:8 then becomes totally meaningless. So, what were the real circumstances surrounding and true cause of the flood?

Problem (3): Any "conspiracy", Satanic or otherwise, has to factor in one huge thing ... the LORD's sovereign will and plan. Satan is just another puppet in the LORD's hands, forced to do whatever the LORD wants him to do, and restrained from his desires and ability to the extent the LORD chooses. Recall Job, Micaiah's vision, Psalm 76:10, Proverbs 16:4 etc. Was the LORD's word and plan in Eden to bruise the serpent's head ever in jeopardy? Even a tiny bit? God forbid!

What do we have after this review?
1. Two proof texts that don't prove the "hybrid" interpretation.
2. A "hybrid" interpretation that offers no practical value whatsoever (2 Tim 3:16) when one with the mixed marriage interpretation not only has immense scriptural proofs but also a godly application in one of the most basic and important human institutions.
3. "Sons of God" can still be reconciled satisfactorily with the mixed marriage interpretation.
4. God's will and plan is still glorified in every event of Genesis 6, rather than undermined by "conspiracies". Satan could not and will not do anything to prevent his head being bruised by Jesus Christ.

I rest my case.

sing
Titus, thanks for your interest in the subject.
I will leave some comments marked ## within your post. Reply to them if you like.

Titus said:
sons of God in Genesis 6 = elect, period.
## Nice to read a magisterial statement like this once in a while.

Titus said:
They don't need to know whether they are elect or not, rather they should have proved it by godly lives, which Seth, Enos and co. obviously knew and did without any Bible way before Noah started preaching.
## If they don't know that they are sons of God, how were they supposed to know that they as sons of God ought to marry only the godly women whom they also didn't know. And if the same be true of the "daughters of God" HOW ON EARTH would any one know who, and who not, to marry?

- What a MESS is created when bible students have to separate "practical godliness" from the lofty term "sons of God"!
- My simple advice: when you need such a ludicrous idea to maintain the mixed-marriage view, it is time to REEXAMINE the tradition.
- To the men of the earth, getting married and procreating is a godly thing to do because they are obeying a specific command of God to be fruitful and multiply! It was out of all those marriages and procreating activities that the elect of God conceived and born into the world.
- Brother Jim has emptied practical godliness from the term "sons of God" and diverted the significance of that term to mean their vital adoption only. How does that help in defending the mixed-marriage view? If there were no visible sign of godliness, how were they even to distinguish marry the "DAUGHTERS OF GOD" (Jim invented that term - as a reference to women of the so-called godly line!) to marry them. Just how did those that belong to the so-called "GODLY LINE" identify each other?
- Let me suggest to you that before the divine law against marrying OUT ISRAEL, there was no sin for any man to marry ANY woman.
- Further on, it is marrying in the Lord.

Titus said:
Why daughters of men versus sons of God? Because the man has the authority in marriage. A godly household is primarily the husband's responsibility, as proved in other sections of scripture. An elect, converted woman has to submit to her husband, believing or unbelieving, therefore God doesn't hold her responsible.
## When men procreate, they beget sons of men and daughters of men. These terms denote their origin, of the generation of man. The term "daughters of men" in Gen 6:2 is just that, plain and simple - female offspring of men's activities of procreating. If you want to read anything more into it, there is a term for it, i.e., eisegesis. When a parallel term, like the "sons of God" is used in the immediate context, it must be understood in the same sense. It is quite arbitrary to assign to "daughters of men" as women of the ungodly line; or worst still to invest the term "daughters of God " to denote women of the so-called godly line.

- Adam was the son of God in that he originated directly from God, not another man. Angels are the sons of God in the same way, they came directly from God's creation.
- Where were all the elect women? Did they all end up marrying non-elect men? Did they recognize any of the so called "sons of God" - since they have been DENIED any visible godliness (new idea from Jim!)
- I have suggested that the issue of godliness and ungodliness is remotely related in Gen 6.
- It is the "sons of God" INTRUDING INTO the human process of procreation with the specific intent of corrupting the human race to such an extent that it necessarily called forth the righteous wrath of God to destroy it. If God had not shown grace to ONE MAN, Satan would have succeeded. Only this is adequate to account for the plain facts presented - both the effects, and the necessary divine judgment to wipe out man.

Titus said:
"The fact that they rejected a preacher of righteousness for 120 years proves that they were ungodly in a temporal sense, hence 2 Peter 2:9 does not apply. All of them deserved the drowning. Nonetheless, the elect who drowned are still eternally justified."
## I raised 2Pet 2:9 only to show the fallacious argument that the "sons of God" were godly men of the godly line. Jim understood the necessary implication, and responded with the new idea of emptying any godliness from the term "sons of God" and shifted the focus onto their vital adoption! Goal posts have been moved.
- Ungodliness can only be in the temporal sense. Only God's children WHO KNOW the law of godliness AND disobey it can be JUSTLY charged as ungodly.

Titus wrote:
"Who cares whether the commandment against mixed marriage was instituted before or after the act? Sin is still sin. Cain was not excused of Abel's murder (1 John 3:10-12) and this was before "thou shalt not kill". The law came later on to make sure the sin was imputed (accounted for). If timing is such an issue, then shouldn't one argue also that salvation through Jesus' death was only effectual for those who lived after AD 30?"
## You, and all Bible students should care. Not caring is FAILING to rightly divide the word of truth. The difference is between life and death for Cain; between righteous justice, and lawless tyranny.
- You are right, Cain was not excused for Abel's muder; BUT he did not suffer its just penalty, DEATH. Do you know why? A FUNDAMENTAL divine principle is involved. That's why you ought to care!
- I suggest you learn the meaning of this statement " (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law" Romans 5:13.
- When the law came later, it is death for murder. Period. Cain did not incur that penalty. Instead, he was accorded divine protection from human wrath, read Gen 4:15.
- Why was eating the fruit of a certain tree in the garden so serious - a far less serious in comparison to murder? Because there was a PLAIN DIVINE command and it was transgressed.
- ANACHRONISM, The action of attributing something to a period to which it does not belong is a common error in interpretation. Reading mixed marriage into the earlier chapters of Genesis is one classic example. A mixed marriage was NOT an issue until much later. Who did Joseph marry? Who was Moses' wife?
- There WAS NO distinction among mankind until much later when ISRAEL was constituted as a theocracy, given the moral laws, civil laws and ceremonial laws to DISTINGUISH them as a separated people. Before that, we read only distinction is that of the NARROW line that traced the genealogy from Adam to Abraham to the rise of the nation of Israel.
- They were elect outside of that NARROW line!

Time IS such an important issue: here is another Scripture for your study: "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent..." Acts 17:30.

If you don't see the obvious relevance, let me know, and I will explain.

Divine revelation was given PROGRESSIVELY. Bear that in mind.
I will deal with the rest later.

Titus Chan
Dear sir, I was once told that "Biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology". This by a person who sacrificed much to separate vital and temporal sonship, and flee from Calvinism who condemned less than perfect Christians to hell-fire.

Why does that person now want to merge those two things back again in Genesis 6, just to ridicule the argument by another who believes in that distinction and is applying it in that case? Just to prove a useless theory about "hybrids" that profits no one at all? None of the scriptures brought forth require such a contradiction.

With regard to mixed marriage, in light of the lack of written commandments prior, shouldn't one also ask the following questions:

1. Why did Abraham marry his half sister, with so many women around him in Ur?
2. Why did Abraham send his servant to a distant land to find relatives for Isaac to marry? Surely there were many eligible girls in the areas nearby.
3. Why did Isaac and Rebekah grieve when Esau married some "good", "local" girls? Why did they send Jacob far away to marry his nieces?

God's communication is not limited to what is written in the Bible. There are tons of ways he could have taught his commandments to the antediluvans, mixed marriage included, and we only catch a glimpse of that in scripture.

Please remember that 2 Peter also talks about another flood that is coming, one of fire instead of water, far worse than what Noah witnessed. Should one also postulate that hybrids are around us somewhere? Get real.

It is true that Cain was not executed immediately for murder. There are worse punishments than physical death. Imagine living hundreds of years as a fugitive, with all your brothers and sisters hating you and waiting to kill you. Hundreds of years of fear, guilt and stress? Physical death is a vacation in comparison.

What was the punishment for eating the fruit, part of the divine commandment, in Eden? Death as well. Why doesn't one require physical as well as spiritual death as Adam's immediate punishment? Please be fair to the scriptures.

Adam was spared physical death for a capital crime after the commandment was placed, Cain was spared physical death for a capital crime before the commandment was placed. The timing of a commandment does not matter when sin is concerned. Hopefully a re-examination of views concerning the whole issue would be prompted. One should instead glory in God's mercy for not dealing with us according to our sins and transgressions and giving us space to repent.

Don't waste your time replying me. I guarantee that you have a million more better things to do. The pointlessness of this topic is sickening. Feel free to believe whatever you like.

sing
Titus, let me continue with the three "problems" you raised.
Problem (1):
2 Peter 2:4 doesn't specify the sin the angels committed. Jude 6 specifies the sin of 2 Peter 2:4, linked through the angels and the punishments faced, but Jude 6 doesn't specify what "leaving their estate ....habitation" is. One might want to use Gen 6 at this point .. but that is circular reasoning because Gen 6 was the text one wanted to prove with Jude 6 in the first place. One could also easily say that "leaving their habitation" was the angels sinning by going to Hawaii for a vacation. Both theories cannot be proved. Therefore the reasonable conclusion should be that Genesis 6 has nothing to do with Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 ... and leave Jude 6 for some other interpretation instead of forcing Genesis 6 on it.
======
## Here are the relevant passages:
2Pet 2:4 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; 5 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;

Jude 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.

You are right in that 2Pet 2:4 does not specify the sin the angels committed. However, it does specify the exact divine punishment meted out to them, the angels that SINNED.

Note also in the very next breath, Peter mentioned Noah's world. The proximity of the two is probably much more than acknowledged. Why did Peter speak of the angels that sinned and the judgment of Noah's world in one breath?

I take it for granted that Peter knew what that sin was, and he took it for granted that the recipients of his letter were also familiar with the same. That being the case, it can't be something obscure but major and understood by the recipients who were chiefly Jewish believers.

I have one simple question: where is that known sin recorded in their OT Scriptures?

Jude 6 not only specifies the sin (for want of a better term) of those angels that kept not their first estate, but it also specifies the divine judgment upon those angels.

I also take it for granted that Jude knew what that sin was, and he took it for granted that the recipients of his letter also knew the same.

I ask the same question: where is that well-known sin recorded in the Scriptures?

Is there a relationship between 2Pet 2:4 and Jude 6? Are they speaking of the one same event, involving the same angels, with the same divine judgment upon those angels that were involved? What do you think? What does comparing Scriptures with Scriptures yield?

Please note that both 2Pet 2:6 and Jude 7, in the immediate context of the two passages under consideration speak of the same thing - judgment of Sodom and Gomorrha. Coincidence again?

What you call circular reasoning is simply using NT Scriptures to shed light upon a passage of OT Scriptures.

It is astounding that bible students can read Gen 6 - the act of "godly" men ("sons of God") marrying ungodly daughters of men, and the resultant effect of universal and total moral corruption [read Gen 6:4 in case you think I exaggerate the situation!], and the consequent divine judgment - and glibly attribute it to mixed-marriage! That was my understanding too for many years - I was taught so - and I defended it too. <LOL>

If you can show that for an angel to have a vacation in Hawaii or anywhere else constitute a sin, and is leaving his own habitation, and will get him the divine judgment stated, then yes, your interesting theory deserves consideration.

You have dismissed my explanation for Jude 6.

Please exegete Jude 6 for us. I will give you a good hearing.

sing
Here is your problem 2
Problem (2): For argument's sake, let's say Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 are valid proof texts, then the sin was in angels becoming hybrids and marrying the daughters of men. If the flood came as a result of the angels' transformation/marriage rather than the wickedness that resulted (which could have many other causes) then this means that there was no point in having any preacher of righteousness in the first place. God would have still flooded the earth even if the "hybrid" families had tons of godly children because the sin was being "hybrid". The "but" in 6:8 then becomes totally meaningless. So, what were the real circumstances surrounding and true cause of the flood?
===========

I'm glad you ended this section with a question.
Rightly dividing the truth is necessary.
What you have imagined for argument's sake is not quite right.

The flood DID NOT come as a result of the angels' transformation/marriage." The flood came because " the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." How did this come about? You attribute it to mixed marriage.

The angels' trespassing into the human realm and their union with the female offspring of men produced offspring - mighty men, men of renown - that corrupted the world of Noah's time.
- Scriptures state it PLAINLY the effect of such union, offsprings who were mighty men, men of renown! In what sense were they mighty men, and men of renown? What effect did they have on that generation? Read God's own commentary in Gen 6:4. The plain connection between Gen 6:4 and 6:5 may be dismissed.
- Perhaps you may like to show that godly men (ok, but without godliness as some want to make it) marrying ungodly women have the effect of producing "mighty men, men of renown," and then tell us in what sense they were mighty and renown. Whatever view you adopt, be ready to answer some real questions.
- We can't separate the unlawful union, and their unique offspring, and the stated universal impact upon that generation.

We need to distinguish the sin of the angels, and the sins of men in that generation. The sin of the angels was intruding into the human realm. They received their just judgment. The sin of men in that generation is stated plainly in Gen 6:4. Here it is, "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." We need to note the universal and total nature of universal moral corruption to help us to appreciate the issue. They received their judgment too.

You mentioned "... could have many other causes" - tell us a few that could explain the resultant universal moral corruption. Thanks.

Why no point in having the preacher of righteousness? There were God's children who were influenced and corrupted by those mighty men and men of renown. Also men of that generation needed to be delivered from the judgment to come... you rightly stated, from the temporal judgment of the flood.

Just what make you think the "hybrid" families have tons of godly children? They were godly children, but mighty men and men of renown that brought universal moral corruption. And you don't need tons of them.

Gen 6:8 is fully appreciated when it is seen that divine grace alone made the difference between Noah and that statement in Gen 6:4, "

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Divine grace saved the day.

sing
And here is your problem 3, and conclusion:

## I fear your view of the LORD's sovereignty expressed here is quite unfounded, i.e "Satan... is forced to do whatever the LORD wants him to do..." Really? Do you actually believe that?
- Did the LORD force Satan the puppet to rebel against Him, and then cast him and his lackeys out of heaven?
- Did the LORD force Satan the puppet to tempt Adam, and then judged both of them?- Did the LORD force those angels to leave their own habitation, and then cast them into hell...?

I affirm the LORD's sovereignty too.
Were the LORD's word and purpose in Eden to bruise the serpent's head ever in jeopardy? Even a tiny bit? God forbid!

You are right. That's probably the only sensible statement.

But you are completely misguided if you think that obvious truth prevented or deterred Satan from trying his luck to undo the LORD's sovereign purpose! He lost the war in heaven and got cast out of heaven to the earth. He waged war against God on the earth... brought the downfall of man... GRACE TRIUMPHED. Did he stop the war against the LORD Most High? No, he didn't. He nearly brought the destruction of the human race in Gen 6, BUT again GRACE TRIUMPHED. Those of the Satan's lackeys who sinned were cast into hell, Jude 6. Was that Satan's last attempt? You bet. The LORD's purpose was never in jeopardy but that did not stop Satan from his ways.

Titus: What do we have after this review?

sing: my comments marked ## in the following.

Titus: 1. Two proof texts that don't prove the "hybrid" interpretation.
## Give us an interpretation of Jude 6. Thanks

Titus: 2. A "hybrid" interpretation that offers no practical value whatsoever (2 Tim 3:16) when one with the mixed marriage interpretation not only has immense scriptural proofs but also a godly application in one of the most basic and important human institutions.
## I consider the grace of God the fountain and foundation of ANYTHING ELSE that has any practical value. The pure and glorious golden thread that runs through the whole of Scriptures. You may consider that of no practical value.

There is more than enough proof in the rest of the Scriptures to instruct you about the practical values of marrying in the Lord. There is no need to force another passage for that purpose!

Titus: 3. "Sons of God" can still be reconciled satisfactorily with the mixed marriage interpretation.
## Show us that mixed marriage ever produced anything of the same effect in Gen 6. It is that simple.
- You probably have overlooked some hard questions I have asked. Try answering them.

Titus: 4. God's will and plan are still glorified in every event of Genesis 6, rather than undermined by "conspiracies". Satan could not and will not do anything to prevent his head from being bruised by Jesus Christ.
## You are quite right, EXCEPT God's grace TRIUMPHED every time Satan warred against God. He is not stupid, and not that he doesn't learn but...

Titus: I rest my case.
## Your case rested!.

Thanks for the exchanges. I'm learning, and have learned a few things from the exchanges.

sing
Dear Titus, I will just respond to the first two paragraphs of your last post.
Titus: I was once told that "Biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology". This by a person who sacrificed much to separate vital and temporal sonship, and flee from Calvinism who condemned less than perfect Christians to hell-fire.

## I have sacrificed nothing, but instead was blessed lots by the Lord. The Lord is teaching me all the time.

Titus: Why does that person now want to merge those two things back again in Genesis 6, just to ridicule the argument by another who believes in that distinction and is applying it in that case? Just to prove a useless theory about "hybrids" that profits no one at all? None of the scriptures brought forth require such a contradiction.

Perhaps, you should state what those two things are, and how are they merged?

I fear you have missed the whole point! Gen 6 is about free divine grace. You attribute my motive to a trivial matter - to ridicule the argument by another? How do you come to that?

Pointing out the divine grace in a completely unprecedented hopeless situation is a useless theory? Profits no one at all?

I thank the Lord that he has taught me to appreciate His free grace a bit more.
Saying further will not be profitable for now.

Titus Chan
Dear sir, I'll keep it short.|
I'm not ignorant of the trials SDC faced after the truth on salvation was discovered and believed not so many years ago. And one of the points of truth that was causing the trials was the distinction between vital and temporal son-ship.

"sons of God" in Gen 6 = elect

saying that "sons of God" for the mixed marriage view must mean "godly elect" when they were obviously sinning and causing much wickedness is misrepresenting the view. Their wickedness was the reason why the distinction between vital and temporal son-ship was applied ... which makes the merging of the phases of salvation just to discredit the mixed marriage view by one who fought so hard to distinguish those phases in the first place rather sad.

Rest assured, the divine grace shown to Noah during a wicked time is not diminished at all with the mixed marriage view. The difference is just that it was a not a totally hopeless situation. God's dominion at that time was not affected, instead his will and plan for the world at that time and for Noah's family was accomplished fully and gloriously. There was no conspiracy.

sing
Titus, truth be told, the "trial" that SDC went through was a pleasant and blessed one. It delivered us from errors and arrogant folks who hold them. The issue with the RBs was the immediate or mediated regeneration. In the midst of the controversy, the LORD God, through an unknown source sent me Brother Jonathan's "When was Paul saved?" - then all the pieces fell into place. Through that, the LORD brought us the great blessing of fellowship with the Greenville Church.

If you think that vital/practical distinction can explain all the hard facts in Gen 6:4, then remain where you are.

I must give you credit for such an ingenious idea to attempt to save the mixed-marriage view. But beautiful truth misapplied is an unsightly thing.

One final question - but you hardly answer a question - you are saying that all the vital sons of God of those LONG years before the flood were GODLESS SONS... and actually FAR WORSE than that, please read Gen 6:4 again. And you would trace Gen 6:4 back to UNGODLY children of God marrying women of the ungodly line.

What is your explanation for such an unprecedented phenomenon - that WHOLE and LONG GENERATION of the children of God become so universally and totally corrupted? Tell us, Titus.

Every view has its necessary implications and related questions. Take care of them.

If you have anything new, I will endeavour to respond to them.

sing
"There was no conspiracy."
=========
You are right, there was no conspiracy.
It was OPEN warfare, the Scriptures reveal that plainly.
Too many are oblivious to the reality in Gen 6.
Peter and Jude and their readers knew it well.