Under concluding review, from part 1 and part 2, is the paper Theological Analysis of the Interpretation of “Sons Of God” Based on Genesis 6:5 by the Adventist University of Indonesia’s Ludwig Beethoven J. Noya, Stimson Hutagalung and Milton T. Pardosi. Note that the English in the paper is only very slightly broken.
I previously covered their view on the issue of the Genesis 6 affair pertaining to aliens and angels.
SETHITES
The intro then quotes Genesis as stating, “sons of God” and then states:
The various interpretations are ‘children of God’ as descendants of Seth, as proposed by Matthew Henry. He said that the children of God who call upon the name of God marrying the daughters of humans who live with worldly living culture and is a stranger in the eyes of God. By doing so, the descendants of Seth did not keep themselves as they should do to maintain the purity of self and hate apostasy, through intermarriage with the descendants of Cain.1
Of course, this is all made up stuff so as to buttress the assertion that the sons/children of God are Sethites.
Adam Clarke is referenced affirming the Sethite view2 and Charles W. Carter “also commented on this matter by referring to the appointment of Seth as a son by God in Genesis 4 and the history of the descendants of Seth who produce godly people.”3 Well, I am unsure what it means by the “appointment of Set as a son by God” and also one must speculate in order to conclude that, someone, “the descendants of Seth” were all “godly people.” In fact, even those who claim as much must deviate from it as the Sethite theory demands it as we are told, “Matthew Henry commented on…the descendants of Seth, but they did not keep themselves in purity and hatred towards heresy by mixing with the descendants of Cain” who are the other side of the speculative coin and we are told that they were all ungodly. Indeed, reference is then made to Robert Jamieson who specified that these were “mixed marriages with the apostate descendants of Cain.”4
Francis D. Nichols noted that “a judgment given in verse 3 not to angels but to man, other than that in Matthew 22:30 Jesus said that angels do not marry.”5 That is actually quoted form a Seventh-day Adventist Bible commentary which is pretty shocking, although not surprising as it is common to personages who deny the angel view. Indeed, Genesis 6 elucidates the judgement upon humans and yet as a result of the actions of the sons of God and Nephilim. In any case, angles are regularly referred to as “man” or “men” (see Genesis 18:22, 32:24, 37:15, etc.) since they look like humans males (no wings, no halos). Also, Jesus never “said that angels do not marry” what He stated about humans is that “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven”: not that angels do not marry but that angles in heaven do not marry which is why the ones who did are called fallen.
This is followed up with a subsection asserts, “Angels Does Not Have an Reproduction Ability” which repeats this error even while actually quoting the whole verse, “Three times in the Gospels, Jesus revealed that angels do not marry. The first is : ‘For in the resurrection they ‘do not marry nor are given in marriage,’ but are like angels in heaven’…Thereby, this verse is a clear statement that the righteous people who will be raised for the coming of Christ will not marry nor are given in marriage, because they are like the angels in Heaven. In other words, the life of the angels in heaven are not married nor given in a marriage” (emphasis added for emphasis).
Based on missing the very point of the text they are quoting they then write, “The writings of Ellen G. White” the prophetess and founder of Seventh Day Adventism “also supports this concept by writing that the doctrine of the marriage and the birth in Heaven is not a part of prophecy that can be trusted.”6
Yet, they did not completely miss the point as they note that “the words ‘in heaven’ does not merely represent a place where they can not perform marriages. The word ‘in Heaven’ can also be interpreted as the nature of Heaven or ‘Heavenly.’”7 They conclude that “the nature of not married nor given in a marriage is heavenly, or the culture of Heaven. And as the angel who were holding a nature of Heaven or Heavenly, they still have these nature. Angels who have fallen into sin was not separated from these nature, because they actually originate from the same place which is Heaven.”
Well, this is so much fancy footwork—not even fancy actually—it is again the nature and culture of heaven and so those who sought marriage fell from heaven and that they still maintained their nature due to having originated from the same place as angels who remained loyal is a category error: both are still angels but some rebelled. Oddly, they do not quote Jude or Peter who both speak to this issue, “angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation” (Jude 6) and “the angels that sinned” (2 Peter 2) both of whom liken the angels’ sin to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah with reference to going after “strange flesh.”
They go on to state that “Even they had move to another place, it does not give them the ability to mate and marry” yet, moving to another place, as in falling from heaven, took place when they acted upon their ability to mate and marry—forbidden as it was to them in heaven.
They also state that their error on this issue “is supported by Christ’s statements about the human condition at the end of time similar to the situation in the days of Noah before the Flood. ‘For as in the days before the flood were eating and drinking, ‘marrying and giving in marriage,’ till the day Noah entered into the ark’ (Matthew 24:38, emphasis added). Parallel this verse appeared in Luke 17: 26-27. If we compare the statement of Jesus in this verse with Matthew 22:30 will we get a comparison as follows:”
Yet, this is much ado about nothing as of course Jesus was speaking of humans in this case and referring to going about ones daily business being unaware of or ignoring the coming judgment.
We can see that they ignore that which they have clearly see in their conclusion that “the concept of ‘angels do not marry’ does not agree with the theory that the sons of God in Genesis 6: 4 were the angels, because angels do not have the reproductive ability, and Jesus’ statement in the text above it can be concluded to be an angel are not those who in the days before the flood, married and mated.”
Again, the concept is not “angels do not marry” but angels in heaven do not marry. Also, they correlate marriage with reproductive ability due to the Greek gameo (G1060) referring to “to marry a wife” and, note the qualifying term, “can also be interpreted as ‘sexual intercourse’” (emphasis added). Since Jesus never said anything about angels not marrying then, by the same standard, He also never said anything about angels having no reproductive ability.
A further argument again “the concept of marriage between angels and humans” is “two elements that make up both the creature.” As to the stuff of which angels are made they cite and assert, “In Hebrews 1:7 states that the raw material forming the angels is spirit and fire.” The text states, “And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire” they seem to think that maketh refers to the raw material forming the angels. The text is reiterating the next cited one, “Embodiment forms of the word ‘spirit’ described in Psalm 104:4, which is in the form of wind.” The text states, “Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire” maketh his angels not maketh his angels from fire. The reason they correlate spirit and wind is that wind or breath and spirit are the same word this is the case in both Hebrew and Greek. That he makes them spirit/winds and fire likely means to sending them forth (swift as wind, see John 3 states, “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth”) for judgment.
The paper then states, and I quote directly, “Melihat bahan baku pembentukan yang berbeda dari kedua makhluk ini, adalah hal yang tidak mungkin untuk memiliki pemahaman keduanya dapat bersetubuh atau melakukan hubungan seksual” which for some reason goes untranslated but which basically means, “Seeing that the formation of raw materials different from both of these creatures, it is not possible to have an understanding of both can have intercourse or sexual intercourse” and they then state outright, “because men and angels are formed from different raw materials of formation, so it can not have an intercourse.” In any case, even if they were made of or from spirit and fire this has nothing to do with their physicality, ability to copulate with humans, etc. since, after all, Adam was formed of or from dust/dirt/earth and he copulated with Eve who was formed of or from his rib.
BIRTHS OF CAIN AND SETH The paper makes an issue of that “After Eve gave birth to Cain, she said, ‘I have gotten a man From the Lord’” and it is asserted that “This paragraph should read as follows: ‘I have gotten a man, the LORD.’ These words show confidence Eve on Cain regarded as the embodiment of an offspring that God had promised which is written will crush the head of the devil who bruise his heel in Genesis 3:15. However, this assumption is shattered when Cain condemned for his action to Abel.” Well, the assumption was not Eve’s but is the paper’s authors’.
They then note, “After the birth of Seth, Eve said, ‘God has given me another child instead of Abel; because Cain killed him.’ The word ‘grant’ should be translated as ‘appointed,’ because through this statement, it seems that Eve no longer have a personal thought or assumpted [sic.], but he stated that it is God who establishes Seth as the entry way of salvation for mankind, through Christ.”
This is much ado about nothing but the authors are making something of nothing in order to buttress their “theory of the sons of God in Genesis 6: 4 is a descendant of Seth, because after the birth of Seth, Eve statement stating that the Seth is appointed by God.”
ADAM’S LIKENESS AND IMAGE
They claim that Genesis 5 stating that Adam begat “a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth” means that Seth was meant “to follow the image of Adam, and Adam followed the image and likeness of God.” Their point is to, again, make something of nothing so as to buttress their conclusion. Thus, they claim “that Seth is in the image of Adam, not Cain and Abel…to provide a comparison that contrasts with the other descendants of Adam which does not reflect the image and likeness of God, Cain.” They emphasize that “there is no record that Cain reflects the image of Adam, as was the case with Abel”—Seth, actually—even though they noted, rightly or so it seems to be, that “Seth is the one who looked more like Adam.”
Yet, they then press their point by asserting “Embodiments of the image and likeness of God who is present in Seth, and are not present in Cain, not merely the physical aspect, because physically, Seth and Cain are the same human being” by which they surely mean that they are both human beings.
INTERMARRIAGE BETWEEN BELIEVERS AND UNBELIEVERS – DESCENDANTS OF CAIN AND SETH
They make another run at dichotomizing “the descendants of Seth who rely on God, with the descendants of Cain who rely on themselves as a human being.” They then review some “of the records in the book of Genesis tells us that marriage between believers and unbelievers are not pleasing in the eyes of God”:
They thus declare that all Sethites were “believers” and “godly” and all Cainites were “unbelievers” and “apostate.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.