The Doctrine of Imputation

The doctrine of imputation is at the heart of the gospel; no imputation, no salvation.

 A few brief notes on the subject:
- The word “impute” is a legal and accounting term; it means “to credit to one’s account.”
- Imputation is a legal act of God the Judge alone.

1. There was a single imputation in the Garden of Ede
- Adam’s sin was imputed to every single human of the whole human race represented by him; he was appointed as the representative head by the LORD God the Creator.
- The imputation of Adam’s sin brought condemnation and death and alienation upon the whole human race, EVEN THOUGH none represented by Adam has personal existence yet, except the woman of whom Adam said, “bones of my bones and flesh of my flesh.”

Rom 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”
- how did the sin of one man (Adam) relate to “all have sinned”? He was appointed the representative head.
- how did the sin of one man (Adam) relate to “so death passed upon all men”? His sin was IMPUTED to all represented by him.

1Co 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”
- How in Adam all represented by him die? His sin was imputed to all represented by him, i.e. the whole human race.

2. There was a double imputation on the Cross of Calvary
- Please note well, the double imputation took place at the cross; the misguided reformed people believe it takes place when a sinner believes in Jesus Christ.
- “There WAS” – a simple past complete legal action executed by the LORD God alone; you did nothing; you did not have personal existence yet even though your name has been in the Lamb’s Book of Life before the foundation of the world.
- Christ’s righteousness was imputed by the LORD God the Judge to all represented by Christ, and all the sins of all those represented by Him were imputed to Him. Christ’s life of perfect obedience to all the laws of God secured the righteousness needed for the justification of His people, to reverse the condemnation brought about by the imputation of Adam’s sin (this is called “original sin”) and their own actual sins.
- Christ bore the curse of and suffered fully all the sins of all His people that were perfectly and completely imputed to Him by the LORD God. No, no, no, it was not you who give your sins to Christ; you did nothing, absolutely nothing in this GREAT EXCHANGE; you were not even around yet! It was all the free and sovereign act of the LORD God for all those whom He had given to His Son to redeem.
- This Great Exchange has secured and accomplished the LEGAL justification of God’s elect; the legal justification of all God’s elect took place at the cross by the one legal act of God in imputing the righteousness of Christ to them, and imputing all their sins to Christ.
- This is the LEGAL justification.

2Cor 5:21
"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."
- The LORD God has made Christ Jesus to be sin for us: "has made" - present perfect, a past action with the effect of that action remaining true to the present moment.

3. An elect that is LEGALLY justified is not yet PERSONALLY justified; they are NOT, NOT, NOT the same.
- The legal imputation of righteousness to you does not need your personal existence; the application of righteousness to you personally requires your personal existence; without it, the righteousness of Christ cannot be applied to you personally. What was legally imputed has to be applied to an elect personally.
- The righteousness that was LEGALLY IMPUTED to all the elect (a class action) at the cross event is PERSONALLY APPLIED to each elect at his effectual calling out of his native state of sin, death, and alienation to that state of righteousness (justification), eternal life (regeneration), and sonship (adoption).  This is the VITAL justification.
- The effectual call is the free and sovereign act of God alone in bestowing the eternal salvation Jesus Christ the Redeemer has secured and accomplished for His people.
- The effectually called elect is bestowed with the Spirit of adoption; this Spirit of adoption works in him all the saving graces, including faith; this saving grace of faith enables a child of God to believe the gospel of his salvation. Believing in the gospel of his salvation by the righteousness and blood of Jesus Christ, his faith justifies/demonstrates/vindicates that he has been freely justified by God. This is PRACTICAL justification.

B. The above truths have been beautifully summarized by the Old School Baptists in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

1689.11.4 "God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification; nevertheless, they are not justified PERSONALLY, until the Holy Spirit in time does actually apply Christ to them."

i. God decreed the justification of all the elect before the foundation of the world. This is the ETERNAL justification - a term often misunderstood as though it says that the elect was already justified personally in eternity. So, to avoid that, I use Decretal justification, i.e. justification decreed in eternity.

ii. Christ Jesus secured the legal justification of all the elect at his death and resurrection. They are LEGALLY justified; this is the LEGAL justification.

iii. Though LEGALLY justified, they are not justified PERSONALLY until the Holy Spirit in time does actually apply Christ to each of them personally; this happens at the effectual calling. This is the VITAL justification.

iv. Effectual calling makes believing in Jesus Christ possible, leading to PRACTICAL salvation.

It's the genius of the Baptist Framers to add that most significant word "personally" in the 1689 COF; it's not in the WCF.

I hope this helps.

I pray that you want to learn and know these things and cherish them.

Ignorance of these vital gospel truths is bad, but representing them wrongly is even worse.

May the LORD save us from this evil. Amen.

Job 42
7 ¶ And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.
8 Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job. 

Do you believe in order to be justified? Can the unjustified believe?

Those whom God effectually calls,
he also freely justifies,
not by infusing righteousness into them,
but by pardoning their sins,
and by accounting and accepting
their persons as righteous... (1689.11.1a)

January 18, 2010  ·

Do you agree with this statement, 
"The reason why any are justified IS NOT because they have faith;  but the reason why they have faith  IS because they are justified"  ---
from a Circular Letter issued by the Ministers and messengers of the several Baptist churches, convened in Association, at Philadelphia, October 4, 1785.

sing
How does the statement above compare with the popular idea "justified by faith alone"?

Erick Chanax
Justified by faith alone...we do not mean that faith itself justifies us, for it is only an instrument with which we embrace Christ our righteousness...what is meant is faith apart from works article 22 Belgic Confession of Faith...for your info,i didn't write the whole article down

Jason Sides

I would agree with it we are justified by faith alone however it is the kind of faith only Christ can give and never is alone but always works.

sing
I pasted here what I wrote under the previous update... a bit long, but read it slowly, and may our Lord bless you with understanding to know the truth!
====
The same Confession (1689 BCoF) declares that faith is a grace, among many other graces, found in a justified person, i.e. faith is a PRODUCT of our free grace justification.

Faith is a PRODUCT of our free grace justification. It debunks the whole idea of 'justification by faith alone' as a complete LIE and HERESY!

The product of justification CANNOT be the instrument of that justification in the same sense - it is as simple as that.

The same Confession declares these aspects of justification that the Reformed people have become completely ignorant of: 1689.11.4

"God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, (11) and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification;(12) nevertheless, they are not justified PERSONALLY, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them.(13)"

Decretal justification of all elect in the decree of God.

Legal justification of all the elect by the blood of Christ at the cross.

Vital/Personal justification of an individual elect at God's effectual call out of the state of sin and death to that of grace and eternal salvation.

Legal justification is actually applied to an individual elect PERSONALLY. What was legal becomes personal. This makes the grace of faith (and all other graces) possible. This is spoken of in 1689.11.2

Experiential justification by FAITH ALONE: "Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification;(6) yet it is not alone in the person justified, but ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.(7)"

But all the reformed people make this aspect of justification the SUM-TOTAL teaching of the Bible on justification. I wrote an article: "One Fingered Hand is a Monstrous Deformity." Read it here http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/.../one-fingered...

Note carefully please concerning 11.2 above:

First: faith is the alone INSTRUMENT of justification. We all know that the FUNCTION of an instrument is to manifest/evidence the presence of something. The function of an instrument is not to secure or produce something. An instrument MANIFESTS something that is there. And God in His infinite wisdom has appointed faith in Jesus Christ as the sole instrument to manifest the justified state by the free grace of God.

Why? I wrote this in my book "An instrument is a device to make manifest or to demonstrate or to evidence the presence of something for which the instrument was designed. It has pleased God in His own infinite wisdom to appoint ‘faith in Christ’ as the sole instrument to bring to light His gracious work of justification at effectual calling, since justification is grounded solely upon Christ and His finished work. The just shall live by faith."

Second: saving grace is a grace found in the person justified, along with many other graces. Justification is the CAUSE, saving graces, including faith, are FRUIT/EFFECTS.

THEREFORE the statement "the just shall live by faith" debunks and discredit the MOST popular lie of your 'justification (before God) by faith alone'.

Therefore this statement,
"The reason why any are justified
IS NOT because they have faith;
but the reason why they have faith
IS because they are justified" by the PBA is perfectly correct, and debunks the popular idea that "justification is by faith alone" is a very popular LIE and FALSEHOOD.

The truth should be, "Justification is experienced by faith alone." But this simple biblical truth is rejected by ALL the reformed people, and condemned as heresy!

Thank you, if you have read down to this point. May our Lord grant you understanding.

Erick Chanax
Sing, the thing about your posts is that it makes me study the scriptures, keep posting brother, for I will keep on studying. Though I must admit I am not as educated in theology as you, but nevertheless I keep on studying, thanks my brother.

sing
Jason & Erick... read through what I have written above, and you will understand more completely what justification by faith is all about.

Justification is by God's free grace... and this justification by God's free grace is EXPERIENCED by faith alone, and EVIDENCED by faith as well as works.

Jason Sides
Sing I still contend we are justified by grace through faith; justification by faith alone is not a lie but maybe needs clarification. He is the one who gives the faith to believe not by our trying to conjure up the faith to believe but rather him giving it to us not of any merit on our own.

Erick Chanax
it makes sense,but as a berean,i must study this matter,to fully grasp it.I have to search the scriptures and some commentaries

sing
Goading friends to study Scriptures for themselves is all I desire. But many don't study the Scriptures anymore. They quote this man and that man, and they repeat this and that, without really understanding what they regurgitate.

sing
jason@ "I still contend we are justified by grace through faith justification by faith alone is not a lie but maybe needs clarification he is the one who gives the faith..."

Justification unto life is the opposite of condemnation unto death. Justification unto life MUST be PRIOR to the ability to believe. Believing is AN EFFECT of justification; being an effect of justification, the only role it plays is acting as an instrument to manifest that justification that has taken place!

Justification by faith alone is a big lie and error!

Justification by free grace EXPERIENCED by faith alone is a biblical truth. This is the uniform declared of the many old school 'reformed' Confession of faith... e.g. 1689 CoF.

Erick Chanax
hmm, justified by faith, it basically is being justified without works of righteousness, maybe the wording is what throws some off, but like I said I will search the scriptures

Jason Sides
Sing hopefully we both agree on eph 2:8-9

Erick Chanax
I will also look at the 1689 CoF

Jason Sides
I am justified by the work of Christ and his grace in causing me to believe in him for salvation.

sing
Jason, please read this, and see whether we agree. Thanks.
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2008/01/saved-by-grace-through-faith-whose.html

May our Lord grant you understanding beyond mere words repeated endlessly. Time to move beyond that.

sing
Erick, our justification before God is NEITHER by faith nor by works... but by the righteousness of Jesus Christ alone.

Experiential justification is by faith ALONE, without works. No amount of work will enable us to experience the blessedness of our justified state. Faith in Christ is the ALONE instrument appointed for that.

Evidential justification is by BOTH faith and works.

Jason Sides
Sing the problem is justification is by a work just not our work but as you stated righteousness of Jesus Christ. I do for the most part agree with your link. Repent and believe the Gospel was penned by Christ and it is he who causes the person to do both. We have no capacity to do either.

Jason Sides
I do agree with John Gill's exposition of Eph 2:8-9

sing
Jason @ "I am justified by the work of Christ and his grace in causing me to believe on him for salvation."

That's more like the truth. So where does your faith comes in in your justification by God now? Does it still figure in your justification by God's grace alone - since it is INSISTED that it is SOLELY and WHOLLY based on the finished work of Christ - before God?

What kind of salvation did (simple past tense) the justification by free grace bring to you?

What kind of salvation does (simple present tense) your believing in Christ bring to you?

Are they the same?

sing
Jason@ "I do agree with John Gill's exposition of Eph 2:8-9"
What is the gist of what Gill says?

Those who willingly offered themselves

Thanks to the people who willingly offered themselves

Thanks to the people who willingly offered themselves
No thanks to those invented excuses
Cursed be those who came not to the help of the LORD
                                                    ---- Judges 5.

Judges 5 records Deborah's song of praise and thanksgiving unto the LORD for the great deliverance of Israel through her, and her right-hand man Barak. Among many other things, she gave proper acknowledgement to the people who gave themselves willingly to that great cause. She also noted the others who neglected their reasonable responsibility in the cause of the LORD their God.

Is there a message to each one of us?

Of the Zelubun and Napthali:
"Zebulun and Naphtali were a people that jeoparded their lives unto the death in the high places of the field." 5:18

Of Ephraim, and Benjamin
"Out of Ephraim was there a root of them against Amalek;  after thee, Benjamin, among thy people." 5:14

Of  Issachar:
"And the princes of Issachar were with Deborah; even Issachar, and also Barak." 5:15

Of Reuben:
"For the divisions of Reuben, there were great thoughts of heart.  Why abodest thou among the sheepfolds, to hear the bleatings of the flocks? For the divisions of Reuben there were great searchings of heart." 5:15b-16

Of Gilead, Dan, and Asher:
"Gilead abode beyond Jordan: and why did Dan remain in ships? Asher continued on the seashore, and abode in his breaches." 5:17

Of those from Meroz:
"Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the LORD, curse ye bitterly the  inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the LORD, to  the help of the LORD against the mighty." 5:23. [Please note, "said the angel of the LORD."] 5:23

Which group do you belong to among the people of God when it comes to the defence and advancement of the cause of Christ Jesus?

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord

 

Rom 10:13 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
The salvation that comes from calling upon the Lord, what is it?
How does calling upon the name of the Lord save a man?

Context:
In Romans 9-11 the Apostle Paul is dealing with the mystery of why God's children among the Jews are unbelieving.

One basic on salvation:
Only those whom the Lord has saved - i.e. justified, regenerated, and adopted and given the Spirit of adoption to dwell in them - are enabled to call upon, and believe the Lord.

"Except a man be born again, he CANNOT..." Period. So, before a natural man is capable of performing any spiritual activity, like calling upon the name of the Lord, he must first be saved by God, freely and sovereignly, effectually called out of his native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation in Jesus Christ. Then and only then he is capable of calling upon the name of the Lord.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1Cor 2:14.

Believing the truth that Jesus Christ is Lord, the promised Messiah from God, will save them from lies, falsehood, superstitions, fables, unrighteousness, old covenant laws, etc, and the horrid destruction in AD 70 when the unbelieving ones were either slaughtered and roasted, or captured and sold as slaves by the Romans.

The salvation which the Lord wrought for us is the eternal salvation from the lake of fire. It is distinct from the temporal salvation which God's children have to work out for themselves with fear and trembling through their obedience to their Father's will for them.

God's children among the Jews in the apostolic times were in a unique situation, they were caught within the transition period between the passing of the old covenant and the establishment of the new covenant, between AD 30 and AD 70, the 40 years of reformation of the old covenant. "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." Heb 9:10

Many of them found it hard to move out of the old dilapidated crumbling house built through Moses (old covenant, to which there had been so accustomed) into the brand-new mansion built by the Lord Jesus Christ (new covenant which has been established by Him). Those unbelieving ones who persisted to dwell in the old house were burned and roasted when the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in AD70, just as the Lord Himself had prophesied, and His Apostles taught and warned. Many scoffed and mocked at the prophesied coming judgment in AD 70. See 2Pet 3:1-4.

The book of Hebrews deals with that subject in detail in great length; the Apostle Paul demonstrating the superiority of the new covenant over the geriatric old covenant. The Hebrew believers were tempted to revert back to the old covenant. Paul warned, "You turn back, you will perish!"

The believing ones who had taken heed of the warning saved themselves (see Mt 24:15f) from that horrendous destruction in AD 70, see Mt 24:21.

Calling upon the name of the Lord will save God's children from temporal destruction, and secure temporal salvation, i.e. their spiritual well-being in this present life.

He that hath an ear, let him hear...

"He that hath an ear,
let him hear what the Spirit
saith unto the churches."

The sevenfold exhortation:
"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches" from Revelation 2 and 3.

There must be good reasons for such solemn repetition.

"Dull of hearing" is a dreadful disease that should be feared more than COVID-19.

Matthew 13:15 KJV — For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

1.  Hearing and understanding are prerequisites for conversion to the truth and healing of spiritual diseases!

Acts 28:27 KJV — For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

2. Hearing and understanding are necessary for fruitfulness

Matthew 13:23 KJV - "But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty."

3. Hearing and understanding are essential to spiritual progress...

Hebrews 5:11b-12 KJV
¶... seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

4. It is the Holy Spirit speaking to each one of us in the churches. Failing to hear and understand is grieving, and quenching Him.

Ephesians 4:30 KJV — And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

1 Thessalonians 5:19 KJV — Quench not the Spirit.

Inquiries on the "sons of God" in Gen 6

Dear Brother Chan, 
Below are two emails, one from Sister J, and another from Brother W on the same topic when the passage was first studied early this year [Jan 2009].
Following their respective enquiries, are my replies. Take time to read and understand. Whether you agree or not is not important, that you understand what is said is. If you have more questions that they have not asked, I welcome them. So, please feel free to ask, and we will search the Scriptures together.

One day, I will gather all my thoughts on this passage and write up a proper article. 

May our Lord bless our study together.
sing
=====

(This mail from Sister J)

Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 7:47 PM
Dear Pastor,

Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness ~Psalm29:2~

Praise him for the mercy in giving us such privilege to study his words week by week, every Wednesday night.  May our hearts be always prepared to receive such a privilege. 

I have some questions & comments regarding Genesis 6.  Hope that you can guide me through and correct me where I am wrong.  I don't necessarily agree with any view for the time being until I get my questions answered from the bible stand point.  I think you will agree with me on that. 

1. Comment: I don't think that in verse 2, where "sons of God" is mentioned, it is necessary to mean "all godly men".  Because if you say "all godly men" will make the other "traditional" view very inconsistent, then it will also make the view you explained inconsistent (I don’t mean it disrespectfully).  Since if "sons of God" equals "all godly men", it must also equal "all angels".  But we know not all the angels had fallen, therefore, the argument that it means "all" is not possible, thus using it to nullify the point that "all godly men" may not be very strong either. 

(I am not sure this is a logical argument, but I think picking on this "all" here is not a very strong point.  Since "all' is not possible, it may mean certain "sons of God".      

2. Comment: Furthermore, if we argue that it means "all", then Noah is also be one of those men (who is ungodly also) who had married ungodly daughters as well (since all here also means all women are ungodly).  But Noah is perfect, and there is no indication of his wife being ungodly also (from the way the whole family follow him into the ark, it shows that they are not that ungodly either, at least they have faith).  Therefore, if I were to hold on to the "traditional" view, I will explain that the "sons of God" here means some of God's elect.  Since Noah is the only exemption (it may well means most of the elects).  Even the some believers can be a carnal Christian (but they may be still a Christian - though a very bad one).   

3. Question: by the way, in New Testament, is "sons of God" equal to godly men?  Or God's elect? 

4. Comment: If angel is the one who caused all the trouble, why “it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth”?  It does not seem to be very consistent.  If when the men are the one had sinned, then this sentence is more making sense.  

5. Question: If angel is the one causing the wickedness, how many generations must it takes to make all man wicked?  How can Noah family be exempted?  How about his daughter in law? 

6. Comment: I think that if angels mean “sons of God”, they actually have physical union with the daughter of men (and not just overpower them through the spirit).  My argument points are 2: (i) in verse 2: “…and they took them as wives…” I think the angel marry them, as you don’t call them wife unless you enter into a marriage with them.  (ii) verse 4: “…the sons of God came in unto the daughters…” This should mean physical union, right?  

7. Comment: I think for the angel to marry the daughter of men is possible as angels can appear physically (in various encounters by men in old & new Testament)

In Christ,
J
=============

Dear Sister J

I will leave some thoughts, marked ##, within your post.

Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness ~Psalm29:2~

Praise him for the mercy in giving us such privilege to study his words week by week, every Wednesday night.  May our hearts be always prepared to receive such a privilege. 
## I am thankful that the Lord enables us to search the Scriptures together week by week. And it would be even better if the Lord stirs up the minds of the members to inquire and give their thoughts. These will only promote more in-depth study of the Scriptures. 

I have some questions & comments regarding Genesis 6.  Hope that you can guide me through and correct me where I am wrong.  I don't necessarily agree with any view for time being, until I got my questions answered from the bible stand point.  I think you will agree with me on that.
## It is best to work out what the Scriptures teach first, and slowly ascertain which view best fit what we understand the Scriptures to teach. And as the Lord gives us more light, we would have to reassess our understanding. We need grace and courage to unlearn some old things and learn the Scriptures anew. 

1. Comment: I don't think that in verse 2, where "sons of God" is mentioned, it is necessary mean as "all godly men".  Because if you say "all godly men" will make the other "traditional" view very inconsistent, then it will also make the view you explained inconsistent (I don’t mean it in a disrespective way).  Since if "sons of God" equals "all godly men", it must also equal "all angels".  But we know not all the angels had fallen, therefore, the argument that it means "all" is not possible, thus using it to nullify the point that "all godly men" may not be very strong either. 

(I am not sure this is a logical argument, but I think picking on this "all" here is not a very strong point.  Since "all' is not possible, so it may means certain "sons of God".      

## I am not sure what exactly was said, and how it was understood. 
"The text reads thus: "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." The pronouns 'they' and 'them' are co-extensive with the noun 'sons of God.'  

Therefore, the 'sons of God' mentioned here are each and every one of them 'godly men' if they are indeed men. If they are angels, then each and every one of the 'sons of God' must be angels.  ALL the 'sons of God' under consideration here did take to themselves wives of ALL they chose of the 'daughters of men.'

Of course, this would be quite different from saying that all the 'godly men' on earth or all the fallen angels were involved in the union with the daughters of men. You conclude rightly, that if ALL the fallen angels were involved, then ALL fallen angels would have been "cast down to hell, and delivered into chains of darkness, and reserved unto judgment" (2Pet 2:4, Jude 6). And that is contrary to fact, since there are still evil spirits (fallen angels) around.

Please note 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."

The mixed marriage view would limit verse 1 to the activity of ungodly men producing daughters, but verse 2 to godly men inter-marrying women of the ungodly line. I think a lot of preconceived ideas are read into the text. 

Why were only men of the ungodly line producing? And why were only daughters born to them? Why were no sons born to them? Who would the ungodly men marry then? Do they marry the so-called 'daughters of God' (daughters of the godly line)? And why were only the daughters of the ungodly line 'fair' - as though only the daughters of the ungodly are lovely and attractive (that’s the way many think the word 'fair' means!) And that the sons of God (godly men) were attracted to them. 

It seems to me that the verses are saying these: WHILE the human race were happily multiplying themselves through marriage and given in marriage (as described in verse 1) in compliance with God's command to be fruitful and multiply, the 'sons of God' (OBVIOUSLY a different and distinct group from the 'men' already mentioned in verse 1. I believe there is a SHARP distinction between the men in verse 1, and the 'sons of God' in verse 2) INTRUDED into and EXPLOITED this reproduction process with a VERY SINISTER purpose to undermine the redemptive purpose of God. 'Sons of God' are ALIENS that invaded the divinely ordained reproductive process of men. Jude 6 describes them perfectly, so also 2Pet 2:4. 

The Hebrew word translated fair in Gen 6:2 is bwj towb." It is not hpy yapheh (as in Gen 12:11 and many other places describing women's physical beauty). The latter describes the physical beauty of women. The former describes what is good, useful, and fitting for a purpose. 

But the daughters of men were fair - them being female was "good, useful and fitting" to the 'sons of God' to achieve their purpose. So, all the daughters of men were fair. Just read again, "when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them... they were fair." And they were fair to the 'sons of God.' This is descriptive of ALL the daughters that were born to men! It is the femaleness of the daughters of men that constitute what is 'fair' ('good, useful, and fitting to achieve an end') to the 'sons of God.' 

Verse 1 is obviously a general statement that the human race, embracing BOTH the Cainite and Sethite lines, sons and daughters were born to both lines. They were doing the right thing - marrying and INTER-marrying, and being fruitful and multiplying as God has commanded them. Intermarriage WAS NEVER an issue at this point in human history - there isn't the slightest evidence. It is a much later issue read into the text! 

The expulsion from the Garden of Eden was preceded by a thunderous command forbidding to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of God and evil. Yet, so many can believe that the mixed marriage, without the slightest divine command to forbid it, brought about universal destruction. Isn't it most logical and reasonable to expect at least a divine command forbidding mixed marriage if mixed marriage was indeed SUCH AN EVIL that had such devastating and destructive consequences, and called forth the judgment recorded? Is God so unjust and arbitrary? But He judges righteously! 

I have gone off the point! 

2. Comment: Furthermore, if we argue that it means "all", then Noah is also be one of those men (who is ungodly also) who had married ungodly daughter as well (since all here also means all woman are ungodly).  But Noah is perfect, there is no indication of his wife being ungodly also (from the way the whole family follow him into the ark, it shows that they are not that ungodly either, at least they have faith).  Therefore, if I were to hold on to the "traditional" view, I will explain that the "sons of God" here means some of the God's elect.  Since Noah is the only exemption (it may well means most of the elects).  Even the some believers can be a carnal Christian (but they may be still a Christian - though a very bad one).   

## In the so-called 'godly' line of Seth, there is very little godliness mentioned. Something is said of Enoch, a little said of Lamech. We read that Noah found grace with God. Without God's grace, Noah was no different from the degenerated and evil generation. 

Supposing the 'sons of God' refers to just some of God's elect children (regenerated men) living at the time, then there would be many other elect children of God who did not marry ungodly women, but who married godly. The only problem with this view is:  then what happened to all of them? Where were they, except Noah? None of them responded to Noah's long years of preaching if they were around and heard Noah's preaching. 

3. Question: by the way, in New Testament, is "sons of God" equal to godly men?  Or God's elect? 
## The term 'sons of God' is used 5 times in the OT, in Gen 6:2 and 4, and in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7. In the singular 'son of God' it is used in Dan 3. Does the term refer to regenerated men or spiritual beings? Both Genesis and Job passages where the same term is used deal with the ancient world when angelic beings were described as 'sons of God.' Dan 3 specifically referred to an angelic being as 'son of God.' Why? They came directly from the hand of God the Creator; in the same sense, Adam was called the son of God in the genealogical account, Luke 3:38. Adam came directly from God; even so the angels.

The term is used 6 times in the NT, Joh 1:12, Ro 8:14, 19, Php 2:15, 1Jo 3:1,2. In their context, it is quite obvious that the term refers to regenerated men. The term 'sons of God' in the NT refers to children of God, i.e. regenerated elect of God, without reference to their godliness, even though that is not excluded. 

Unfortunately, most Bible students would just import the same meaning into those ancient times, even though the sense does not fit the context at all.  It is like reading about the subject of mixed marriage into the pre-flood world. Was that even an issue then? Similarly, the issue of marriage between next of kin, was never an issue until much later. So also mixed marriage. There was not a slightest hint that God was against mixed marriage until much later after the flood – when Israel was established as a nation.

4. Comment: If angel is the one who caused all the trouble, why “it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth”?  It does not seem to be very consistent.  If when the men are the one had sinned, then this sentence is more making sense.  

## This is a good question. When an interpretation is consistent, it is able to supply good answers to the objection raised against it. Even though the angels who were the transgressors and trespassers (cross the angelic world into the human world) and were punished justly (Jude 6, and 2 Pet 2:4) the effect on man (the singular 'man' indicating the human race as a whole) was devastating.

"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." This is a description of the WHOLE human race, not just the ungodly line of Cain! This was true of the line of Seth too!  

I believe that man, being deceived and deluded, willingly and knowingly took part in the whole process... with the resultant universal wickedness. Mt 24:38 "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark."

- "They were marrying and giving in marriage" speaks of their ACTIVE participation in the whole affair. 

5. Question: If angel is the one causing the wickedness, how many generations must it takes to make all man wicked?  How can Noah family be exempted?  How about his daughter in law? 
## It takes less than one generation to pervert and pollute fallen man into great wickedness and evil. This is especially true when the Spirit of God ceased to strive with man to restrain him. "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." When the Spirit of the LORD stop His activity of restraining the fallen human race, he can become monsters of wickedness and evil very quickly! 

The offspring of that union is described as “the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” (Gen 6:4) Mighty men and men of renown in WHAT? Read the answer in the next verse… the effect of these mighty men and men of renown upon that whole generation.

Noah was delivered from the devastating effect ONLY because he found grace in the eyes of the LORD, Gen 6:8. If not for the grace of the LORD, Noah would be gone too. 

Consider the words, "for that he also [STILL] is flesh". I think these words of the LORD are very significant. These words imply that DESPITE what man tried to accomplish with the 'sons of God' he is flesh STILL. He did not become what he had hoped to accomplish. These words remind me of the declaration of Jesus Christ in John 3:6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Despite man's effort of messing around with the 'sons of God' [ i.e. spirit beings], man is flesh still. 

6. Comment: I think that if angels mean for “sons of God”, they actually have physical union with the daughter of men (and not just overpower them through the spirit).  My argument points are 2: (i) in verse 2: “…and they took them as wives…” I think the angel marry them, as you don’t call a them wife unless you enter into a marriage with them.  (ii) verse 4: “…the sons of God came in unto the daughters…” this should means physical union, right?  
## You are right. The 'sons of God' are angelic beings that took on real human form. I read in connection with Lot that real angels took on the form of real men, and were seen and treated as real men, and were lusted after by real sodomites. They did eat and fellowship as real men with real men. I won't be the least surprised that the daughters of men (just 'men' not ungodly men) would fall in love them at first night!  Abraham did entertain real angels in the form of real men.

These 'sons of God' took on humanity... thus they did not keep their spirit estate but left their habitation. They departed from their angelic realm, and transgressed the human realm by involving in the reproduction process. For this trespassing, those 'sons of God' that were involved were "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." (Jude 6, 2Pet 2:4.) 

I believe the 'sons of God' HIJACKED and IMITATED the redemptive purpose of God in that the Eternal Word (spirit Being) would take upon Himself humanity. The effect of their attempt was destruction, but that of the Eternal Word is redemption. 

7. Comment: I think for the angel to marry the daughter of men is possible as angels can appear physically (in various encounter by men in old & new Testament)

## You observe correctly!
I hope I am not confusing you further. 

Feel free to ask any further questions. Feel free to give your thoughts too. I am learning too. 

sing

=============

(This mail from Brother W)

Dear Pastor,

I do actually would like to give say some of my thoughts on the passage you've given this evening.

Meanwhile this is a brief of what I thought. You've probably thought through this passage from many angles. I think your earlier exposition on this passage is more sound and consistent, although I said that you've come to this understanding way back in 1989.

Well, the night is late and I'll need to retire shortly.

Good night and may the Lord bless you.

Yours in Christ.

W

=========

Dear Brother Woon,

Please go ahead. We will keep it exactly the way you requested.
We will be like the Berean spirit to search the Scriptures.

your servant in Christ,
sing

=============
Dear Pastor,

Previous chapters in Gen prior to this mentions the line of Cain and Adam. a brief account of their offspring were mentioned and their deeds.

The effect of the corruption in manners and life of that generation in Noah's days are brought by intermarriage. Not all males of the godly line married the ungodly line but this intermarriage happens over the years. As you have always stated, man are prone to backsliding, so it is quite obvious the effect of an union between the members of Seth's family line with Cain's family line will have an net corrupting effect in deterioration of godly values. To press that all males will marry the females of the other lineage is effect of such interpretation is unfair, for the word every wasn't used in v1-4 as it is used in v5.

This interpretation of angels coming into marriage union with female man has been held by certain quarters of believers. I think some brethren from Gospel Hall holds to this view. well, in Gen, this is the only occurrence of 'sons of God'. Genesis used the word angels to describe angelic beings so if angels are meant here, why the usual usage of angels not applied here?

Angelic beings are much stronger than human beings. It would be much easier and effective to destroy mankind than to pollute mankind. Secondly, the application of the analogy of incarnation of Christ to the procreation of angelic-humans are inadequate. Christ is God taking the form of man. The interpretation you proposed is procreation of a type of human from this union between angels and humans. At best such humans are like the ass that has no further offspring. We were told in the Bible that cross fertilisation of species will not produce offspring.

As for the reading in 2 Peter 2:4-5, what about the following verses, 6 & 7. Surely you just can't make a connection in verses 4 & 5 and not apply the similar rules of interpretation for v 6 & 7. A better explanation is these 4 verses refer to 4 different events, quite seperated from each other in time, but connected in its evil deeds. The devil and the fallen angels kept not their first habitation when they raise in rebellion against God.

Lastly, the reason God destroy the old world is because mankind is very corrupted. Why is it so? You said that the devil and his hordes of fallen angels had done it. I believe the interpretation of intermarriage and compromise of values brought the corruption of mankind.

This much are my thoughts at the present.

Yours in Christ,  W

 ============

 

Brother W,

Thanks for expressing your thoughts. It gives us both the sacred opportunity of searching the Scriptures afresh together. I will leave some comments marked ## within your post

<<Previous chapters in Gen prior to this mentions the line of Cain and Adam. a brief account of their offsprings were mentioned and their deeds.>>

## You observe correctly - 4:16-25 describes the so-called ungodly line of Cain (and nothing further is said of that line) and 4:25-5:32 traces the so-called godly line of Seth right up to Noah.  

A noteworthy thing said of the so-called 'godly line' of Seth is that 'Enoch walked with God... and God took him.'

What about the others in this 'godly line'? Lamech named his son Noah gave an indication of godliness. I think Seth's line is called the 'godly line' NOT because the people of that line are particularly godly in any way, BUT because it is that line from which Jesus came to us. There is very little indication of the 'godliness' of the line, even though the godliness of one or two was noted. Similarly, Cain's line is designated 'ungodly line' not because the descendants of that line are particularly ungodly and wicked. 

Then we come to 6:1 "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them," 

I understand this as a general statement summarizing the activities of the whole human race was multiplying itself - that is, embracing BOTH the Cainite and the Sethite lines already described in the earlier chapters. Don’t forget that Adam has MANY other sons!!! This was in fulfilment of the divine blessing: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it...."

The mixed-marriage view would arbitrarily, and necessarily, limit Gen 6:1 to the multiplying activity to the ungodly Cainite line. The idea is, that the ungodly parents in the ungodly Cainite line produced the ungodly daughters. And the 'sons of God', the male offspring of the godly line took the daughters of the ungodly line as their wives. 

<<The effect of the corruption in manners and life of that generation in Noah's days are brought by intermarriage. Not all males of the godly line married the ungodly line but this intermarriage happens over the years. As you have always stated, man are prone to backsliding, so it is quite obvious the effect of an union between the members of Seth's family line with Cain's family line will have an net corrupting effect in deterioration of godly values. To press that all males will marry the females of the other lineage is effect of such interpretation is unfair, for the word every wasn't used in v1-4 as it is used in v5.>>

Q. Was there mixed marriage between the Cainite and the Sethite line before Gen 6:1? 

It seems the mixed-marriage view presupposed that prior to this, there was none, or at most, very minimal mixed marriage between Cainite and the Sethite lines, i.e. two lines were essentially kept separated and distinct. 

- This begs a question: who would the sons of the ungodly line end up marrying, and who did the 'sons of God' of the godly line marry? The implications seem obvious: the sons of the ungodly line would marry the 'daughters of' ungodly line, and the 'sons of God' with the 'daughters of God.' 

If the ungodly sons of men were marrying the ungodly daughters of men, wouldn't the corrupting effects in manners and life of the union of these sons and daughters of the ungodly line be FAR worse than those of the union between 'the sons of God' and the 'daughters of men'? Why did it need to take the union of the godly 'sons of God' and the ungodly 'daughters of men' to produce such evil and horrendous consequences?

In addition, wouldn't the union of the 'sons of God' - if they were INDEED of the godly line, and WERE godly themselves - with the ungodly daughters of men have the sanctifying influence upon the moral character of the ungodly daughters of men, and their offspring? See 1Cor 7:14, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." Or is this principle true only after flood?

The mixed marriage view begs another question: what was it that caused the separated godly 'sons of God' to begin to compromise, after keeping themselves separated for so long? What broke down the wall of separation, if there was any, in the generation of Noah that has been keeping for so many generations?

Another issue is how those 'sons of God' who were supposedly to be godly men of the godly line freely chose to marry ungodly women of the ungodly line is a separate question that must be dealt with. Here is a classic example of the contradiction in terms, if there is one: godly sons of God who freely chose to marry ungodly daughters of men. One thing is sure, when godly men began marrying ungodly women, the godly women would be doing the same. 

Your comment on the word 'every' is interesting. The subject matter of Gen 6:1-7 is the 'sons of God' marrying the 'daughters of men.' Other kinds of marriages - e.g. sons of men marrying daughters of men,  or the daughters of the godly line (we won't call them daughters of God!) marrying the sons of men - are not under consideration. So, in context, every 'son of God' under consideration did take the daughters of men as their wives. 

The text read thus: "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." The pronouns 'they' and 'them' are co-extensive with the noun 'sons of God.' All the sons of God under consideration did take to themselves wives of ALL they chose of the 'daughters of men.'

This is confirmed by what is said of the offspring of this union between the sons of God and the daughters of men - "and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." 

<<This interpretation of angels coming into marriage union with female man has been held by certain quarters of believers. I think some brethren from Gospel Hall holds to this view. well, in Gen, this is the only occurence of 'sons of God'. Genesis used the word angels to describe angelic beings so if angels are meant here, why the usual usage of angels not applied here? >>

## There are basically only two views - the mixed marriage view, and that of the angelic beings 'who kept not their first estate, but left their habitation.'

Why is the usual usage of angels not applied here? I don't know? The same question can be asked of the passages in Job. In the whole of the OT, the term is used 5 times. The 3 times they were used in Job, it is quite conclusive that it is not used to describe men, but spiritual (i.e. non-physical) beings. Incidentally, the pre-flood world of Noah and the content of the book of Job has one thing in common - they both speak of the ancient world. Perhaps, in the ancient world, that was the way angels are referred to. 

I think people often fail to note the distinction between sons of GOD and daughters of MEN - the distinction is NOT so much between godly men and ungodly women; the distinction is between the angelic beings that originated from God (of God's creation) and human beings (of men procreation activities)

<< Angelic beings are much stronger than human beings. It would be much easier and effective to destroy mankind than to pollute mankind. Secondly, the application of the analogy of incarnation of Christ to the procreation of angelic-humans are inadequate. Christ is God taking the form of man. The interpretation you proposed is procreation of a type of human from this union between angels and humans. At best such humans are like the ass that has no further offspring. We were told in the Bible that cross fertilisation of species will not produce offspring.>>  

## It is true that angelic being are much stronger and powerful than human beings - "thou madest him a little lower that the angels." What appears to be much easier and effective may not be possible because it is not permitted by God. Remember the case with Job? "And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life." Satan was given a free hand, with a specified limit. There are lots of things those angelic beings could do without God's restraint.

In addition, of course, Satan was not interested in just destroying the human race. He had wanted the human race to worship him as 'god' - he wanted to be worshipped! 

Concerning the analogy of the incarnation of the eternal Word, it was intended to answer the objection that it is impossible for a spiritual (non-physical) being to come upon a woman and cause conception. The Spirit of God did come upon Mary and resulted in the conception of Jesus. Anything beyond that would be inadequate, as you rightly observed. 

In Gen 6, what is more likely is angelic beings taking on the form of men... and marrying the daughters of men and multiplying 'themselves' through them. The angels in the form of real men visiting Abraham in the plains of Mamre, and Lot in Sodom should remove any doubt as to the possibility of angelic beings taking on the form of real men and interacting with real human beings. But what actually transpired, it is hard to say. And I would not speculate.

Your comment, "procreation of a type of human from this union between angels and humans" is most interesting because it is a fitting description of the offsprings of such union we read in Gen 6:4-5. Read them again. They were real human endowed with the superhuman qualities of the power and strength of angelic beings that fathered them, along with the perverse nature of the fallen angels.  Real mixed marriage WOULD NEVER produce such offspring. NOT even un-mixed marriage between the ungodly could produce such. 

Your comment "at best such humans are like ass that has no further offspring" is an apt observation. I don't know whether those super-human offspring of the perverse unions can reproduce themselves or not. Either way, it does not pose a problem to the issue at hand. 

The text does indicate that the 'sons of God' took themselves MULTIPLE wives to further their goal, "... that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." The clause "they took them wives of all which they chose" does strongly imply polygamy. 

Having said all these, it must be admitted that, there are elements of mystery that we won't be able to understand. 

I find it very hard to believe that mixed marriage could have such a devastating effect that necessitated universal destruction by God. Others do not have such difficulties. Moreover, before Gen 6, there isn't the slightest hint that mixed marriage was forbidden by God. It is a much later issue read into this text. It is classic anachronistic.

As for the reading in 2 Peter 2:4-5, what about the following verses, 6 & 7. Surely you just can't make a connection in verses 4 & 5 and not apply the similar rules of interpretation for v 6 & 7. A better explanation is these 4 verses refer to 4 different events, quite seperated from each other in time, but connected in its evil deeds. The devil and the fallen angels kept not their first habitation when they raise in rebellion against God.

## I suggest the 4 verses are describing about TWO events, one event in the old world, and one event in the new world - I think that's pretty obvious. Verse 4-5 speak of one event, and verse 6-7 another. In the former destruction, God delivered Noah, in the latter, God delivered Lot. In the former God did not spare the angels/the 'sons of God' and their offsprings; in the latter God did not spare the wicked of Sodom. 

Concerning your last statement, The devil and the fallen angels kept not their first habitation when they raise in rebellion against God", please consider the questions I have raised in a separate post. 

Assuming that your assertion is true, you MUST necessarily conclude from 2Pet 2:4 that ALL - ALL - ALL fallen angels have been "cast them down to hell, and delivered into chains of darkness, and reserved unto judgment." But is that true? Are ALL fallen angels "cast them down to hell, and delivered into chains of darkness, and reserved unto judgment"? If that were true, there would be no more evil spirits in the world we live in! 

<<Lastly, the reason God destroy the old world is because mankind is very corrupted. Why is it so? You said that the devil and his hordes of fallen angels had done it. I believe the interpretation of intermarriage and compromise of values brought the corruption of mankind.>>

## You stated the two main views aptly. I wonder why the marriage of the ungodly for so many generations – before and after - did not corrupt mankind? 

These are my thoughts at present. 

What I have said is all my present understanding, is always subject to further light from the Scriptures. Show me the Scriptures. Thanks. 

I must get ready to go to the NS camp in BM.

searching the Scriptures together with you,

sing

===