February 1927
94
T h e
K i n g ’ s
B u s i n e s s
having children in Old Testament times invariably applies to angelic be ings. The following passages clearly refer to God’s spiritual people as His sons or children: Isa. 43:6; Deut. 14:1; 32:5 ; Ps. 73:15. The expres sion “sons of God” has a natural connection with the preceding chapters of Genesis, where we read of Cain having killed Abel, a man of faith, yet still a godly line was preserved through Seth. The enemy now seeks to corrupt the chosen line by bringing about unions with the daughters of unregenerate men. The Cainites were already depicted as a violent and lustful people. In the third verse we find God’s Spirit striving with His chosen people, who were falling into evil ways. God’s rule is invariably sep aration (1 John 2:15-17; 2 Cor. 6:17). When the peo ple of God degenerate, judgment is close at hand. The second verse implies that these sons of God mar ried. Scripture tells us that angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. If spirit beings are here referred to, it is necessary to suppose that they assumed corporeal form capable of passion. What evidence is there that spirit beings have the power to produce offspring, since they are created beings? Is there any proof that such a hybrid race ever existed ? W hence T he G ia n t s ? One of the main points in the argument is the refer ence to “giants” in verse 4 and we are told that this word means “fallen ones” and proves a hybrid race resulting from the union of women with demons. But does the text show that these giants were the offspring of the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men? It specifically states that “there were giants at that time and that AFTER that” the sons of God and the daughters of men came together and their children became men of influ ence and renown in the world. Giants existed, in other words, prior to the union in question and continued to exist, as is proven from the findings of archeologists. The word “giants” here used is regularly used of oversized men (Num. 1 3 :33; Deut. 2:11; Josh. 12:4). We cannot see therefore that the words of the text justify the inter pretation. , The story proceeds to show the almost complete break ing down of the line of Seth (v. 5), until at length only eight persons could be persuaded to enter the ark. Noah and his family found grace in the sight of the Lord, and it is significant that the word “grace” occurs for the first time in Scripture in the 8 th verse. Grace is always com ing to light when the sin of man reaches its climax. We believe the great lesson of the story is the warning against sinful unions of God’s people, such as tend to break down stability in the home and in the nation. We take it tha t if you do not like the King’s Business you will register your disapproval with the Managing Editor a t once. Otherwise, there is bu t one logical thing to do— show it to your friend and get him to subscribe.
Was There a Half Demon Race In the Time of Noah ? T HERE are many unique interpretations of familiar portions of Scripture that seem to be much in vogue, even among some of the more popular Bible teachers. There is always a tempta tion to bring forth something novel and it is usually not difficult to supply some Scripture support for these ideas. We have in mind the theory concerning the opening words of Genesis 6 , which considers the “sons of God” there referred to, as having been angelic or spirit beings who in some wáy incarnated themselves in human form and pro pagated a race half human and half demon. The “giants” of the 4th verse are taken to be the half-demon offspring of these spiritualistic unions. It is pointed out that these “sons of God” must have been those referred to in Jude 6 —“angels who kept not their first estate.” It is true that some very early writers may be quoted as having adopted this interpretation, yet it never became widely accepted for the reason that the conception does not fit in with the immediate context and one is compelled to search to far corners of the Bible for passages that would seem to support this view. Most of the admittedly great interpreters do not adopt this theory but take the more natural view that there was a compromise between the godly line of Seth and the lustful line of Cain. Dr. W. H. Green, in his recent book, “Unity of the Book of Genesis,” says: “This purely mythological conceit was foisted upon the passage in certain apocryphal books like the book of Enoch; also by Philo and Josephus, who were misled by the’ analogy of ancient heathen fables but it was repelled by the great body of Jew ish and Christian interpreters from the earliest periods, though it has been taken up again by a num ber of -modern scholars. It is assumed by them that a transgression of angels is here spoken of, though the existence of angels has not been before men tioned, nor in any way referred to in the previous part of the book of Genesis, This view has no, sanc- ' tion whatever in Scripture. Jude, verses 6 and 7, -and 2 Pet. 2 :4, have been tortured into sustaining i t ; but they contain no reference to this passage what ever. And there is no analogy anywhere in the Bible for the adoption by the sacred writers of mytholog ical notions in general, or for the idea in particular of the intermarriage of angels and men. Sexual relations are nowhere in Scripture attributed -to superior beings. There is no suggestion that angels are married or are given in marriage: the contrary is expressly declared (Matt. 22:30). Male and female deities have no place in the Bible, except as a heathen notion, which is uniformly reprobated. The Hebrew language does not even possess a word for “goddess.” The whole conceptidn of sexual life, as connected with God or angels, is absolutely foreign to Hebrew thought, and for that reason cannot be supposed to be countenanced here.” N oting T he S cripture L anguage It may be helpful to many, in view of the present con flicting interpretations, to review the matter and note the exact language of Genesis 6 . It is pointed, out that “sons of God” in the Old Testa ment is the title used for angels. Some passages, no doubt, wilj lend themselves to this contention. On the other hand, it is not altogether true that the thought of God
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker