While the heavens are the works of Christ’s hands, they shall perish (Heb 1:10-11). “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip” (Heb 2:1). When we read that particular passage in Ge 6 concerning the “Sons of God,” we who live in these last days just prior to the coming of the true and divine Son of God ought to take the most earnest heed from that very passage. This is because Jesus Christ warned us about those particular sins that were rampant in that very same period of time as follows:

“But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh“ (Mt 24:36-44, underline is my emphasis).

I want to point out that Jesus, when referring to the entire human race, ripe for judgment, just prior to the flood used the universal phrase of “…they were …marrying and giving in marriage,” and He did not point merely to some small subgroup of beings like the “Sons of God” (whether they be angels or the sons of Seth), or to the “the daughters of men” (whether they be the daughters of Cain or not), or to some few powerful men who may have been possessed by angelic beings. Rather, He pointed to all men and women, who would, except for the grace of God, very soon perish at the hands of Almighty God.

Men have the strong tendency to suppose that the practices today of our far more advanced society must be much improved over that which was common before the flood, and that man has “evolved” greatly since then, and especially those practices associated with their own religious group. But if we are to heed the warning words of Jesus, the practices of our own age ought to be kept in view. While commenting upon the above dire warning of Jesus in Mt 24, John Gill said that, “…the sense is, as were the practices of the men of that generation, in which Noah lived, so will be the practices of the men of that age, in which the son of man comes; or as the flood, which happened in the days of Noah, was sudden and unexpected; it came upon men thoughtless about it, though they had warning of it; and was universal, swept them all away, excepting a few that were saved in the ark: so shall also the coming of the son of man be;” (emphasis mine).

Gill is quite correct to mention the thought life of man, so that we are not thoughtless about the second coming, because GOD brought the flood, since men’s thoughts were so very evil (Ge 6:5). Although the outward and visible sins of the people before the flood should be kept in view, the inward evil thoughts of the heart ought to be kept foremost in our minds as we now turn our attention to Ge 6:1-4 and the subject of the identity of the “Sons of God.”

The brevity of the passage: Victor Hamilton says concerning the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” that, “Again we note that the Scriptures introduce these two groups without fanfare or explanation. No commentary on their origin or specific identification is offered.” The Ge 6:1-4 passage is both short, and the context is without detailed explanation, therefore it is controversial and has been interpreted in many different ways. In part, this is because fallen man, lacking specific details from the passage that points explicitly back to himself, is inclined to look outside of himself or his own religious group, and find the meaning and application to be directed toward a limited number of other beings, and conveniently find some exotic interpretation that enables him to exclude himself, and instead look over at “them.” But Jesus pointed to the behavior of all men in that time period, and took that opportunity to warn everyone to be watchful, and be ready for His soon coming. Since Jesus Christ uses the pre-flood behavior in a manner that indicts man universally, it just may be that the brevity and lack of detail is quite purposeful on God’s part so that His warning and application of Ge 6 would be seen to apply to mankind in general, and so that whoever reads the passage will take it more seriously.

The sin involved: With the seriousness of the flood in mind, it would behoove us to ask the following question: What sort of wicked, perverse, and heinous activity was the generation before the flood involved in that called for such a radical judgment as the universal flood of Noah? Jesus said that wicked and perverse generation of people, “…were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage.” Does this mean that all eating, drinking, and marrying is evil and subject to the radical judgment of God? God forbid! But on the other hand, if we are indulging ourselves in those innocent appearing activities, and if our practices are at the expense of appropriate thoughts, worship, and actions toward our Lord, then such neglect is tantamount to the hatred of God, is in direct violation of the “Great Commandment” (Mt 22:36-40), and therefore is subject to the radical judgment of God, “For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God” (De 4:24).

As prophesied by our Lord Jesus, people are nowadays greatly abusing these very same practices, and indulging themselves in an intemperate manner as the world waxes worse and worse (2Ti 3:13). John Gill goes on to say,

they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage: not that these civil actions of life were criminal in themselves, had care been taken that they were not abused. It is lawful to eat and drink, provided it be in moderation, and not to excess; and to marry, and give in marriage, when the laws, rules, and ends thereof, are observed: and therefore this must be understood, either of their wholly giving themselves up to the pleasures of life, and lusts of the flesh, without any concern about the affairs of religion, the worship and glory of’ God, the welfare of their souls and their approaching danger, of which Noah had given them warning; or of their luxury and intemperance, in eating and drinking, and of their libidinous and unlawful marriages; for the word here used for eating, signifies eating after the manner of brute beasts: they indulged themselves in a brutish way, in gluttony and drunkenness; and it is certain from the account given of them, in Ge 6:2, 4 that they entered into unlawful marriages, and unclean copulations: wherefore these things may be spoken of them, as what were really sinful and wicked, and denote a course of sinning, a constant practice of these sins of intemperance and lust, and which is still more fully expressed in the next clause: until the day that Noe entered into the ark (emphasis mine).

People in this our own wicked and perverse generation are eating so much that being fat is more recently talked about as another “disease,” drunkenness is the cause of most highway deaths, and the sin of divorce and remarriage has risen to an unprecedented level even in the Christian church, and church leaders are guilty accomplices to even multiple divorces and remarriages with their ever increasing permissiveness. John Gill, who lived from A.D. 1697 to 1771, wrote in a generation which yet understood the concept that some marriages are just “not lawful” (Mr 6:18), but the very concept of an “unlawful marriage” has virtually disappeared from usage, since any and all marriage ceremonies today are accepted in churches as being “lawful,” and that quite independent of the past histories of the man and the woman.

Having now pointed out that Jesus would have us (1) be ready for His soon coming, and (2) be watchful for Him, instead of focusing upon the activities of “…eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage,” let us now turn to the details of Ge 6:1-4.

THE VARIOUS VIEWS AS TO THE IDENTITY OF THE “SONS OF GOD” IN GE 6:2

I will use the Sons of God article by John Walton in the “Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch” as an outline of the various views and issues, and bring into that context the summarized views of a number of conservative and orthodox authors.

Summary of the Dictionary Article by John H. Walton

1. History of Interpretation.

1.1. Early Jewish Interpretation. Some Jewish sources attribute the identification of the “Sons of God” to angels or “watchers.” My Brenton copy of the Septuagint has them rendered as uioi tou Qeo (“sons of God”), but Jamieson says that the Alexandrine text has instead oi aggeloi to Qeo (“angels of God”). I have included a lengthy quote from Josephus in Appendix I of this paper, which follows in that direction.

1.2. New Testament Interpretation. Some have brought forward two passages in the New Testament concerning the punishment of angels in order to support the angelic hypothesis, namely 2Pe 2:4 and Jude 6. However, there is no certainty that the New Testament authors are even referring to the event of Ge 6, because it does not specify any such punishment of angels.

1.3. Christian Interpretation. ‘The earliest church fathers continued supporting the “angels” view.’ But by the time of the Reformation, many orthodox teachers (like John Calvin as noted below) had adopted the view that they were the sons of Seth.

COMMENTATORS OPPOSING THE ANGELIC THEORY

Victor P. Hamilton finds some possible support for the angelic theory in Jude 6-7 and perhaps 1Pe 3:19-20 and 2Pe 2:4, but in opposition he cites Mr 12:25 that angels do not marry. But I think that Hamilton has a stronger point, ‘…that the most serious flaw in this explanation is that the perpetrators of the crime are nonhuman beings, but the recipients of judgment are human beings – “my spirit shall not abide in man…he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.”’ There is nothing in the Ge 6:1-4 passage that indicates that the Lord is wroth with any angels. And if the actual criminals were, indeed, angels, then why is the judgment not explicitly upon the guilty angels instead of upon all of mankind, except for eight?

John Calvin dismisses the angel theory with, “That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity;…”

John Gill dismisses the angel theory by saying that “…those sons of God were not angels either good or bad, as many have thought, since they are incorporeal beings, and cannot be affected with fleshly lusts, or marry and be given in marriage, or generate and be generated.”

James G. Murphy dismissed the idea of angels by saying, “Moreover, we are here in the region of humanity, and not in the sphere of superhuman spirits; and the historian has not given the slightest intimation of the existence of spiritual beings different from man.”

Allen P. Ross does not believe that they were angels, because that view conflicts with Mt 22:30. And furthermore, Ross believes that the Ge 6 passage is a refutation against the common pagan belief that giants were of a divine origin.

COMMENTATORS FAVORING THE ANGELIC THEORY

Eugene H. Merrill favors the angelic view and said, ‘Similarly the intermarriage of the sons of God and the daughters of men was indicative of a waywardness that prompted the Lord to comment that man’s wickedness was great and that “every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time” (Ge 6:5). Contextually it seems that intermarriage speaks of an intercourse between angelic and human beings, an illegitimate bridging of divinely segregated orders of creation that produced the monstrous “Nephilim,” the “heroes of old, men of renown” (Ge 6:4). Again man, the image of God who was commissioned to rule over all things, placed himself in subjection to demonic powers over which he should have been master’ (emphasis mine).

Even when commenting upon the Tower of Babel, Merrill hearkens back to our subject passage with,

the importance of the Tower of Babel lies in its interruption of the implementation of the covenant mandate, a feature it shares in common with the account of the intermarriage of angels and men in Ge 6:1-4. That act of rebellion resulted in the catastrophe of the Flood, following which the offspring of Noah “were scattered over the earth” (Ge 8:16). Similarly, as a result of the Lord’s preempting the tower construction, He “…scattered them over the face of the whole earth” (Ge 11:9). The language is too formulaic and precise to be considered coincidental. The two stories themselves must be addressing common themes and interests in addition to the general idea of disobedience of the Adamic Covenant (emphasis mine).

Merrill then gives his opinion for God’s overall reason for a radical judgment as follows: ‘What is fundamentally at work in the story of the angels and men is the demonic attempt to frustrate the purpose of God that man should “be fruitful and increase in number” (Ge 1:28), for the narrative begins by observing that the intermarriage commenced precisely “when man began to increase in number” (Ge 6:1). Whatever else the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” might mean; their illicit relationship resulted in the crippling of that aspect of the mandate. Perhaps they had begun to produce a race of monsters, genetically incapable of reproduction, thus leading to an end of humanity’ (emphasis mine).

John Goldingay, who does not believe that the snake of Ge 3 is a figure for Satan, in the context of discussing how sin came into the world as a result of a heavenly being says, “Ironically, Genesis does associate supernatural beings with the world’s sinfulness, but it is Ge 6:1-4 that does this, not Ge 3 (see Sons of God, Daughters of Man)” (emphasis mine).

Daniel E. Fleming, while writing about the land in the middle East says, ‘Later, the marriage of human daughters to “sons of God” invades this terrain by marrying into heaven, so to speak (Ge 6:1-4)’ (emphasis mine).

Joe M. Sprinkle says, ‘On the other hand, Jude 7 does refer to certain angels who, similarly to Sodom and Gomorrah, “likewise” acted immorally and “went after strange flesh” (sarkos heteras); thus, Jude compares pejoratively what is probably the angel-to-women unions of Ge 6:1-4 with the male-to-male lusts at Sodom (see Sons of God, Daughters of Man)’ (emphasis mine).

COMMENTATORS ON THE SETHITE THEORY

Calvin makes the case for the sons of God being the descendents of Seth, “…because they were the sons of God by adoption, whom he had set apart for himself.” Calvin said concerning Ge 6:1 that there had been 10 patriarchs in the line of Seth, “with whom the worship of God remained pure, now relates, that their families also were corrupted.” He further states that the sons of God had mingled themselves with the children of Cain, and thereby “…the sons of the pious, whom God had separated to himself from others, as a peculiar and hidden treasure, became degenerate.” Calvin said that the sons of God were not the “giants” in Ge 6:4, but “The giants, then, had a prior origin; but afterwards those who were born of promiscuous marriages imitated their example.” And thus the children of the “sons of God” became “men of renown” (Ge 6:4b), who were prideful and wicked men that “…gain honour by their crimes.”

Gill, like Calvin, said that the “giants” of Ge 6:4 were not the sons of God,“…as there were giants before this general defection, so there were at this time, when there was a mixture of the Cainites and Sethites; which were the offspring of the sons of God, or posterity of Seth, mixing with the daughters of men, or the daughters of Cain.”

Murphy believed that the “sons of God” refers to an apostasy of the godly descendents of Seth, but that the “daughters of men” referred to the daughters of man in general, and not just the “daughters of Cain.” He finds the origin of the phrase “sons of God” to be Eve’s statement in Ge 4:25 whereby she attributes the birth of Seth to “God.” And by this hypothesis, he limits the “sons of God” to descendents of Seth alone, who is godly, because he retained the purity of a moral character. And with that conclusion in mind, Murphy said that, “The phrase sons of God, means an order of intelligent beings who retain the purity of moral character originally communicated, or subsequently restored, by their creator.” But I ask, how is that statement of Eve’s concerning Seth so different from her rather similar statement in Ge 4:1b, wherein Eve said concerning Cain, “…I have gotten a man from the LORD?” Since both sons were from God or LORD, why would the phrase “sons of God” only apply to an alleged godly line of Seth?

With the reasoning as above, Murphy concludes that the evil committed was “…that of promiscuous intermarriage, without regard to spiritual character. The godly took them wives of all; that is, of the ungodly as well as the godly families, without any discrimination.” And then from this circumstance, that is, the promiscuity of the alleged “godly” Sethites, Murphy sees that the whole human race will rapidly degenerate. But I ask, since promiscuity is not an indication of “godliness, ” then how is it that commentators try to label the Sethites as “godly” when they are also now promiscuous in Genesis 6? Relatively speaking, it could well be that the Sethites generally were more godly than the Cainites, but certainly in the absolute, they were not so perfect in spirit that it would require a “second fall” by way of promiscuity to make them suddenly sinful in the sight of a holy God! It seems to me rather, that since Adam and Eve could, and did, sin in the garden even while in their initial state of innocence, why should we be surprised that any of their fallen race sin also?

Jamieson says in the support of the Sethite theory that, “…the entire context of this passage refers to men as having corrupted their ways, and being, by the withdrawal of God’s Spirit, doomed to punishment. For these and other reasons, this opinion as to the connection of angels with women is generally opposed by orthodox divines as contrary to all sound notions both of philosophy and religion.”

Allen P. Ross believes that the “Sons of God” were probably not confined to the godly line of Seth, because “this does not do justice to the terminology or the context.”

Hamilton points out one drawback concerning the Seth-Cain interpretation. Although that interpretation seems to take into account the Seth and Cain material in Genesis chapters 4 and 5, if one tries to draw parallels using the two terms “daughters” (only used of daughters of Sethites up to that point) and “taking wives,” then he finds that “If one pursues those parallels, however, it will be quickly observed that they equate the sons of God with the Cainites (the Cainite Lamech took wives for himself, as did the sons of God for themselves) and the daughters of men with the Sethites, that is, the reverse of a time-honored explanation.”

COMMENTATORS ON THE POWERFUL HUMAN RULER THEORY

Allen P. Ross believes that “They were probably powerful rulers who were controlled (indwelt) by fallen angels. It may be that fallen angels left their habitation and inhabited bodies of human despots and warriors, the mighty ones of the earth.”

Hamilton makes a very good point concerning the Powerful Human Ruler theory in that the sin is but by a limited number of individuals, “And yet God’s penalty is aimed at mankind. …and judgment that will reach almost cosmic proportions.”

1.4. Critical Interpretation. Many critical scholars in recent times who have taken a mythical view of the Bible have returned to some form of a supernatural identification with the “Sons of God.”

2. Context Association. Whether our Ge 6 passage is primarily an introduction to the flood narrative, a passage that is primarily independent, or is a summary conclusion to the Seth material in Ge 5 is not certain. However, Walton seems to think that the literary linkage favors the latter.

3. Material Distinction. Walton points out that although Mt 22:30 does state that angels do not marry, it “…stops short of explicitly affirming that sexual relations would be impossible.” I reply that the Genesis 6 passage does not focus directly upon sexual relations, but rather upon a more formal relationship with the women. It states that the sons of God took for themselves wives in marriage, which would seem to violate the true and factual statement about angels in Mt 22:30.

3.1. Evidences. In order to lend support to the “angels” view, Walton states that the phrase “Sons of God” appears elsewhere in the OT and refers to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), and that certainly is true, however, Jamieson points out that ‘…angels are not designated “the sons of God” in any part of the Pentateuch.’

3.2. Problems. Walton points out the syntagmic combination “son(s) of X” can be taken in the sense of “belonging.” Therefore, it “…could be a group of humans who are related to the divine through their office,” and cites Ex 22:8-9 and Ps 82:6 and several other passages to support that view.
4. Theological Distinction. Walton takes issue with the theological thinking whereby
a. the lines of Cain and Seth “remained separate for millennia,” and that
b. “the entire line of Seth was godly and the entire line of Cain was wicked.”

I believe that Walton’s point is well taken, because such thinking is certainly not from a close exegesis of the text, and is in fact quite an extrapolation from specific statements made about only one man from each family line, namely Enoch and Lamech. John Gill may have cited the true source of that extra-biblical thinking, namely some “Arabic writers” as I have noted in Appendix II. The story from the Arabic authors has the family of Seth distinctly separated for generations from the Cainites for the sake of holiness, but in the time of Jared the two lines began to mingle, not by force, but by marriage. So the story goes that by such marriages the holy and peculiar people of God were mingled with the profane, and that raised the ire of God in terms of the flood.

4.1. Evidences. Walton points out that, “…there are a number of passages that warn against pollution by marriage to those outside the elect line.”

4.2. Problems. Walton makes 2 good points.

a. It is ‘…difficult to see the phrase “daughters of men” in theological terms referring to females of the line of Cain.’

b. The Bible does not designate the line of Seth as being of the elect, and neither is it written in the Bible that the Sethites were ethnically or geographically isolated from the Cainites.

5. Social Distinction. Although Walton writes about things like the “right of the first night” and the Gilgamesh Epic, I am going to dismiss that section entirely, because “…there is no precedence for ancient kings as a group being referred to as sons of God.”

6. Conclusions. Although he finds the lexical foundation to be slim, Walton does say that the ‘Direct lexical evidence favors the “angels” view…’

MY CONCLUSION AS TO THE IDENTITIES OF THE “SONS OF GOD”

I first want to look at the context of the subject passage. I have placed all references to beings (other than physical earth creatures and God Himself) underlining words as follows:

“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 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 it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them” Ge 6:1-7 (underline is my emphasis).

Observe that the immediate context of the “sons of God” is immersed entirely with human beings. With regard to the sin of each of those “sons,” since “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually,” and presumably because God saw that their “iniquity…is full” (Ge 15:16), then God’s spirit would “not always strive with man.”

I agree with Hamilton and Murphy that God’s anger and judgment here is directed toward the “flesh” of man, and there is no evidence at all that God was then angry with angels. That angels are not “given in marriage” is decisive for me. Although it could well have been the case that evil angels served as instigators in the flood judgment upon man, certainly that same judgment, as a physical flood, would not at all endanger or kill angels, which are spirit beings.

There is probably some truth (at least in principal) with the Sethite theory. However, from the very scanty evidence for it, along with the likelihood that at least some of it is an embellishment based on some Arabic writers, I find the case for restricting the “Sons of God” to only the “godly” line of Seth to be wanting. And for the same reason, I find the case for the “daughters of men” being restricted to only an ungodly line of Cain to be equally scanty.

If we turn to the New Testament for wisdom in discerning just what types of beings that the “Sons of God” might be, and as a clue look for the Septuagint phrase in Ge 6:2 of “uioi tou Qeo” then there are two passages that are of interest, namely, Ro 8:14, 19 which read as follows:

Ro 8:14 “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (uijoi Qeou).

Ro 8:19 “For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God“ (uijwn tou Qeou).

So, we have evidence (at least here in the New Testament) that any man who is led by the Spirit of God can be termed as being of the “Sons of God.” I agree with Ross in that the “Sons of God” should not be confined only to a godly line of Seth. My conclusion is that all of the godly men (whether they were of the line of Seth or that of Cain) who had been godly in the period somewhat prior to the onset of the flood were waxing worse in behavior. And then when the remnant of godly men (as their various lusts in the physical became worse) made the dire mistake of also abusing God’s institution of marriage (the specific sin of Ge 6:2), and used the institution of marriage as just another tool to fulfill their lust, then as an act of judgment God stopped striving with those men by His Spirit (the spiritual penalty), and God soon followed that with the flood (the physical penalty for man’s “flesh”).

Jesus Christ did not mention either angels or Sethites, but rather issued a general warning to all men, and pointedly spoke of particular sins that was rampant then, and that same sin will also characterize the actions of men just prior to His soon coming. Maranatha!

“But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. …Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh“ (Mt 24:36-44, underline is my emphasis).

INDICTMENT

What characterized the “last days” before the flood of Noah? There were the outward actions of “marrying and giving in marriage,” along with the imaginations and thoughts of men that they would get away with it. Surely today, there is an increase in adultery in the ordinary sense. That is, there is an increase in that type of adultery whereby married persons are having extramarital affairs. But the other wicked activity of adultery that is also taking place presently, which goes by almost unnoticed by the church, and certainly is no more restrained, by the church, is the vast increase of divorce and remarriage in the church.

Jesus, in no uncertain terms taught that the very act of marriage to a divorced person (with a living spouse) constitutes another form of adultery (Mt 5:32, 19:9, Mr 10:11-12, Lu 16:18, Ro 7:1-3). Where are the righteous preachers today, like Noah, who would have the courage to stand up and thunder against the rampant “marrying and giving in marriage” (Mt 24:38b) taking place now right in the church of God? Even today the “Sons of God” (men in the church who have the call of God upon them, and ought to be taught by righteous preachers like Noah, so that they then know better) are “marrying and giving in marriage,” that is, marrying the “daughters of men” without restraint. How so? Take careful note that the specific sin of the “Sons of God” in Ge 6:1-4 was not extramarital affairs, but rather involved the very act of getting married! Taking the scene in Ge 4 somewhat further, the following question ought to be asked. What specifically was the condition of man so that in the mind of God it necessitated a flood judgment upon the “Sons of God”? The answer is in Ge 6:5b, which says, “…that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” And so it is today. Since churches are allowing unlawful marriages to take place indiscriminately, then its members are changing partners, and with some people that sometimes repeatedly, and no one seems to be the wiser.

The “Sons of God” of today need only to sue their lawful spouse (in violation of 1Co 6:1-8) in a secular court, and having then obtained the secular permission and a divorce decree, are soon accepted back into the fold of the church along with the other “Sons of God,” who have done the same. Sometimes those spouses left behind by such unrestrained “marrying and giving in marriage” are sitting in the same church, and often no else one seems to be ashamed about the destroyed marriage. And then after a season of stress over the damage done, no one takes particular notice anymore. Why? Because the progression of the spiritual apostasy in the church has reached the point so “…that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Ge 6:5b).

But in what sense is this spiritual blindness? Was the scene in Ge 6 one of complete debauchery or that of a sexual orgy? Not at all, rather, it took place within the cover of “marrying and giving in marriage,” a measure of an outward show of decency and order. And the same scene is about us even today with the rampant unlawful marriages taking place by way of divorce and remarriage, and that without godly restraint by church leadership. The “Sons of God” of today wrongly think that everything is proper before God, since a secular Bill of Divorce had been obtained, and perhaps the marriage ceremony had been performed even in the church. But God knows that in this respect, their very thoughts (lusting after other men’s wives) are only evil continually, and they had committed adultery already in their hearts (Mt 5:27-28) even as they first looked upon that other woman to lust after her, while married to their first and lawful spouse. The evil thoughts of Ge 6 obviously were along the lines of thinking that they could choose wives without restraint, and get away with it under the guise and cover of the divine institution of marriage.

APPENDICES

Appendix I

Josephus, “The Antiquities of the Jews” Book 1, Chapter 3, page 33.

CONCERNING THE FLOOD; AND AFTER WHAT MANNER NOAH WAS SAVED IN AN ARK, WITH HIS KINDRED, AND AFTERWARDS DWELT IN THE PLAIN OF SHINAR

1. (72) Now this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers, and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness; whereby they made God to be their enemy, (73) for many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, That these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. (74) But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and, being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better; – but, seeing that they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land (emphasis mine).

Appendix II

John Gill, Volume 1, Page 46, Commenting on Ge 6:2

[T]his is to be understood of the posterity of Seth, who from the times of Enos, when men began to be called by the name of the Lord, Ge 4:25 had the title of the sons of God, in distinction from the children of men; these claimed the privilege of divine adoption, and professed to be born of God, and partakers of his grace, and pretended to worship him according to his will, so far as revealed to them, and to fear and serve and glorify him. According to the Arabic writers, immediately after the death of Adam the family of Seth was separated from the family of Cain; Seth took his sons and their wives to a high mountain (Hermon), on the top of which Adam was buried, and Cain and all his sons lived in the valley beneath, where Abel was slain; and they on the mountain obtained a name for holiness and purity, and were so near the angels that they could hear their voices and join their hymns with them; and they, their wives and their children, went by the common name of the sons of God: and now these were adjured, by Seth and by succeeding patriarchs, by no means to go down from the mountain and join the Cainites; but notwithstanding in the times of Jared some did go down, it seems; see the note on Ge 5:20 and after that others, and at this time it became general; and being taken with the beauty of the daughters of Cain and his posterity, they did as follows: and they took them wives of all that they chose; not by force, as Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom interpret, for the Cainites being more numerous and powerful than they, it can hardly be thought that the one would attempt it, or the other suffer it; but they intermarried with them, which the Cainites might not be averse unto; they took to them wives as they fancied, which were pleasing to the flesh, without regard to their moral and civil character, and without the advice and consent of their parents, and without consulting God and his will in the matter; or they took women as they pleased, and were to their liking, and committed fornication, to which the Cainites were addicted; for they spent their time in singing and dancing, and in uncleanness, whereby the posterity of Seth or sons of God were allured to come down and join them, and commit fornication with them, as the Arabic writers relate (emphasis mine).