That Where There is No True Religion There are No True Virtues

For though the soul may seem to rule the body admirably, and the reason the vices, if the soul and reason do not themselves obey God, as God has commanded them to serve Him, they have no proper authority over the body and the vices. For what kind of mistress of the body and the vices can that mind be which is ignorant of the true God, and which, instead of being subject to His authority, is prostituted to the corrupting influences of the most vicious demons? It is for this reason that the virtues which it seems to itself to possess, and by which it restrains the body and the vices that it may obtain and keep what it desires, are rather vices than virtues so long as there is no reference to God in the matter. For although some suppose that virtues which have a reference only to themselves, and are desired only on their own account, are yet true and genuine virtues, the fact is that even then they are inflated with pride, and are therefore to be reckoned vices rather than virtues. For as that which gives life to the flesh is not derived from flesh, but is above it, so that which gives blessed life to man is not derived from man, but is something above him; and what I say of man is true of every celestial power and virtue whatsoever.

St. Augustine, City of God, 19.25.

St. Augustine on Scripture

“How amazing is the profundity of your words! We are confronted with a superficial meaning that offers easy access to the unlettered; yet how amazing their profundity, o my God how amazingly deep they are! To look into that depth makes me shudder, but it is the shudder of awe, the trembling of love”

—St. Augustine, Confessions XII, 14, 7.

Revelation: Three Identities Considered

Identity of the Four Horsemen of Rev. 6:1—8

In some measure, the general identity of the four horsemen is somewhat bound up in the more particular question concerning the identity of the first horseman, he that rides the white horse.  I understand this to be none other than Christ, who has conquered, is the Conqueror, and is coming as Conqueror in the unity and context of the book (Jn. 16:33; Rev. 1:13ff.; 2:26—27; 3:21; 5:5; 6:2, 16; 11:15; 12:11; 14:1, 14; 17:14, and of course 19:11).  As Hindson noted, this view has some historical traction.[1]  That notwithstanding, I would argue that it has the most promising exegetical traction as well. 

All perspectives, even those opposed, recognize that there is as obvious correspondence between the color of the horse ridden in 6:2f. and that of the pony in 19:11, where Christ is clearly identified as the rider.[2] Hindson, however, argued that apart from the color of the horse “there is no point of similarity between Christ and this [in 6:2f.] rider.[3]  However, consider the parallels between the contexts (from which the meanings arise).  In 19:11f. Christ “judges and goes to war” (cf. 6:4ff).  In both contexts, the rider is wearing a royal-victor headdress (6:2; 19:12); a blood issuing from judgment is highlighted (6:12; 19:13); white linen/robes occurs in both passages (6:11; 19:14); the judgment involves a sword in both contexts (6:4; 19:15), and both are understood to be the result of the Lamb’s/God’s wrath (6:16; 19:15).  So, yes, there are other similarities. 

Although Hindson seems to minimize the significance of the horse’s color as a clue to the rider’s identity, Ladd makes much of it.  As Ladd mentioned, “white is always a symbol of Christ, or of something associated with Christ, or of spiritual victory.”[4]  The antichrist in white is oxymoronic and counter to a most important motif in the book. 

Ladd himself denies that Christ is the rider.  Rather he understands it to represent the victory of the gospel.  “The rider is not Christ himself but symbolizes the proclamation of the gospel of Christ in all the world.”[5]  I know of no other instance were the victory or proclamation or expansion of the gospel enjoys the device of personification, which would be required here, if Ladd were correct.  It seems to me that Ladd is confusing the Who of the passage with the means of accomplishment.  Indeed, Christ rules with the Word of his mouth, the gospel; however, the text indicates the Rule, not how he rules.  What’s more from the context is judgment.  Of course the apostate world’s rejection of the gospel brings judgment, the context here suggest direct judgment for idolatry and the persecution of the saints.  

Furthermore, in his argument against this position and for the view that the future antichrist is the rider, Hindson remarked, “This rider’s [of 6:2] crown is called a stephanos, “victor’s wreath,” whereas, Jesus wears the diadema, “royal crown” (19:12).  This much must be granted; however, it is not very significant.  In 3:11, the word-keeping saints at Philadelphia were promised a stephanos that no one could take, as those worn by the white-linen clad twenty-four elders in 4:4, 10.  In 12:1, the remnant-woman of Israel is said to have had a stephanos of twelve stars.  And in 14:14, the Lord Jesus is wearing a stephanos.  On the contrary, as Hindson pointed out, in 19:12, Christ is wearing many diademata; but, so is the seven-headed dragon in 12:3, as is the seven-headed beast in 13:1.  Therefore, Hindson’s objection, based on the differences in headdress between Christ and the antichrist, is question-begging. 

Many other positive arguments point to Christ as the rider in 6:2.[6]

From the premise that Christ is the rider, it would seem that the three subsequent horsemen signify the various means by which Christ executes his judgments (cf. Lev. 26:18—28; Eze. 14:12—23; Zech. 1:8—15; 6:1—8 for formative OT background). 

The Identity of the 144,000 of 7:4—8, 14:1—5

Like Nathaniel, these are “Israelite(s) indeed, in whom is no guile” (Jn. 1:47; Rev. 14:5).  It must be agreed with Hindson, that “it is clear that these are literal Israelites.”[7]  The reference to mount Zion in 14:1 points plainly to Jerusalem.  In earlier chapters, the Revelator had scotching words for the blasphemous Jewry, “they that call themselves Jews, but are not,” rather they “lie” and are of the “synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9).  The 144,000 therefore represent true Israel, the remnant church, which serve as a foil to these apostate Jews.  YHWH had promised to gather to himself the remnant of Israel, who would be settle among a throng from the nations.  As YHWH announced through the prophet Micah, “I will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will surely gather the remnant of Israel; I will put them together as the sheep of Bozrah, as the flock in the midst of their fold: they shall make great noise by reason of the multitude of men” (2:12).  And, again, as Zephaniah described them, “The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth” (3:13), so too here in Revelation 14, for “in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless” (v. 5). 

However, my perspective is greatly at odds with Hindson’s, regarding when these “firstfruits” were/are harvested.  Hindson pushes this group into the indefinite future of a yet-to-come tribulation period.[8]  In contradiction, first, I believe the number is figurative rather than literal, whereas Hindson tends toward a literal reading.[9]  The remnant’s number is the tribes of Israel squared and multiplied by a thousand (12 x 12 x 1000), which is clearly symbolic, especially being found in the foremost symbolic and numerological book in the entire canon.  The number signifies Israel consummated, complete, and perfected.  The thousand multiple is likely based on the most basic military division used of the camp of the hosts of Israel in the OT (see Num. 10:2—4, 35—36; 31:1—5, 48—54; 2 Sam. 18:1; 1 Chron. 12:20; 13:1; 15:25; 26:26; 27:1; 28:1; 29:6; 2 Chron. 1:2; 17:14—19; Ps. 68:17).[10]  It is also worth noting that twelve and one thousand are later multiplied in the dimensions of eschatological City of the New Jerusalem, which is measured 12,000 cubed (Rev. 21:16).  Does this mean that the consummated Temple[11] will have the literal floor space of 2,250,000 square miles?  No.  Rather it is 12,000 times 12,000, which provides the sum of 144,000,000.  It is symbolic. 

Secondly, James addressed his epistle to the “twelve tribes in the dispersion” (1:1), which were the Jewish Christians that made up the primitive church, especially that in Judea.  These, said James, made up a “kind of firstfruits of his creatures” (Gk. aparchē; cf. Rev. 14:4).  In the context of the Paul fleshing out the redemptive-historical relationship between Jews and gentiles under the new covenant economy, he refers to the Jews as “firstfruits” (Rom. 11:16).  Elsewhere, Paul alludes to the firstfruit motif by referring to the first generation of Jewish converts to Christ as “we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory” (Eph. 1:12).  Therefore, I understand the 144,000 to be the first generation of Jewish converts to the Messiah, and that their number is symbolically representing that of completion. 

Babylon the Great of Rev. 17 – 18

The epithet “Babylon the great” is likely based on Daniel 4:30, which couches it in worldly pride set in opposition to God’s kingdom.  Frankly, at this point I am divided between the view that posits Babylon as either the Roman Empire or the geographical Jerusalem of John’s day.  Although it is not without its difficulties (as though any view of the Apocalypse is!), I lean toward the latter, first century Jerusalem. Granting that no other book of the NT contains more OT allusions and echoes that Revelation, that must play an important interpretive role.  She is also called the “Mother of Harlots” (Rev. 17:5).  This title is said to be written on her forehead.  The forehead being a sign of hardhearted obstinacy toward YHWH (Eze. 3:6—9).  In Jeremiah 3:3, apostate Israel is said to have a “whore’s forehead.”  John’s most frequent appellation for Babylon, however, is the “great city” (Rev. 14:8; 17:18; 18:10, 16, 18, 19, and 21).  In 11:8 John said that “the great city…is where our Lord was crucified.”  This is clear reference to Jerusalem.  So, if Babylon is the great city, and the great city is Jerusalem, then it necessarily follows that Babylon is Jerusalem.  For a very competent consideration of the evidence for this position see D. Ragan Ewing’s “The Identification Of Babylon The Harlot In The Book Of Revelation,” especially chapter four.[12]   

While I have my reservations with either Rome, which has the vast majority of historical support, or Jerusalem, I am relatively sure that the Babylon of the Revelation is not some speculative revived Roman confederacy, as popularly held by many.  As Hindson recognized, Revelation is a sort of Tale of Two Cities.  “It sets forth the contrast between the…the city of the great harlot, and the city of the Bride of Christ, the New Jerusalem.  The great harlot is portrayed in direct opposition to the Bride of Christ.”[13]  If, however, the earlier observation that the true Jews, the 144,000 serve as a foil for the “synagogue of Satan,” then if Babylon is old Jerusalem it would specially serve as the foil for the New Jerusalem.  What I find most interesting is the view that posits Babylon as the apostate church.  What is interesting about this is that the same perspective argues that by Revelation 4:1, the true church is raptured out of the world.  One of the arguments for this is the idea that the church is not explicitly mentioned (by name I guess?) anywhere after that point in the text.  If that is the case, however, how then would these identify the false church here in chapters seventeen and eighteen?  Both conclusions rest on very shaky ground. 

---

[1] Edward Hindson, Revelation: Unlocking the Future (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2002), 81.

[2] See, e.g., Hindson, ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1972), 97—98.  For an exhaustive list of the “white” stuffs in Revelation, see 98.

[5] Ibid., 99.

[6] Not least, there are strong parallels in the construction of the opening phrases. See, e.g.,

Καὶ εἶδον…καὶ ἰδοὺ ἵππος λευκός, καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν…διαδήματα (19:11, 12)

καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἵππος λευκός, καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν…στέφανος (Rev. 6:2)

[7] Hindson, Revelation, 89.  As an aside, it bears pointing out that Hindson’s description of amillennialism on the same page, which began, “This approach sees no millennium of any kind on the earth.  Rather, amillennialists tend to view so-called millennial prophecies as being fulfilled in eternity,” is one of the poorer caricatures I’ve personally read.  

[8] Ibid., 93. 

[9] “The number seems to be literal.” Ibid., 89.

[10] David Chilton, Days of Vengence: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Horn Lake, MS: Dominion Press, 2006), 206—207.

[11]Note that the only other cube mentioned in the entire Bible is the holy of holies of the Solomonic temple (1 Kg. 6:20), which is where YHWH dwelt with his people, so too here.  

[12] As found at http://bible.org/series/identification-babylon-harlot-book-revelation.

[13] Hindson, Revelation, 173. 

WHO WERE THE SONS OF GOD?

INTRODUCTION AND INTERPRETATIONS FROM ANTIQUITY

The phrase “sons of God,” in Gen 6:2 and 4, has been subject to a variety of interpretations.  Once fringe views are excluded, we are left with three possibilities.  The phrase “sons of God” refer to either (1) fallen angels, or (2) Sethites, or (3) rulers/nobles.  The earliest interpretations were almost unanimously view (1), fallen angels. 

            The Second Jewish Commonwealth apocryphal work 1 Enoch, dating around the second century B.C., provides one of the earliest commentaries on Gen 6:1—4, presenting the sons of God as angels (see 1 Enoch 6 – 11).  The primitive popularity of the angel view is also reflected in some of the manuscripts of the Septuagint (e.g., Alexandrinus), which translates the Hebrew term בני  האלהים (bene elohim) with ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ (aggeloi tou theou), “angels of God.”  The angel view is further testified to by a number of other Jewish apocryphal and apocalyptic works, such as, Jubilees 4:15, the Testament of Reuben 5:6,  2 Baruch 56:12—16, 2 Enoch 18:4, and the Genesis Apocryphon 2:1.  Both Philo (Gig. 2:6) and Josephus (Antiq. 1.3.1) appeared to follow this view (1) as well.  In addition to these early Jewish interpretations are a number of early Church fathers who likewise viewed the sons of God as angels.  Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Lactanitus, Irenaeus, Cyprian and Ambrose are names that the angel view may boast as authorities.[1] Finally, the two central NT texts that appear to support angel view must not be ignored (i.e., 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6).  However, these passages will be adequately interacted with in the sections below in parts comparing modern perspectives.

            The following table is illustrative of the historical and statistical dominance of angel view over that of the Sethite in early Jewish and Christian interpretation.[2]

Date	Writer	Angels	Sethites	Reference
c.250 BC	Various	X		Septuagint, Gen. 6:3
165-64 BC	Unknown	X		1 Enoch 6-19; 86-88; 106: 13-15, 17
150 BC	Unknown	X		Jubilees 4:15, 22; 5:1
100 BC	Unknown	X		Damascus Document (Qumran) 2:16-19
20 BC-50 AD	Philo of Alexandria	X		Giants 6-7
37-100 AD	Josephus	X		Antiquities, Book 1.3.1 (73)
c.70	Pseudo-Philo		X	Biblical Antiquities 3:1-2
Late 1st Cent.	Unknown	X		Genesis Apocryphon 2:1
Late 1st Cent.	Unknown	X		2 Baruch 56:10-14
c.100-c.165	Justin Martyr	X		1 Apology 5; 2 Apology
c.115-202	Irenaeus of Lyons	X		Demonstration 18; Heresies 16.2
c.130	Rabbi Akiba		X	[Greek translation of OT]
130-160	Rabbi Simean b. Yohai		X	Genesis Rabbah 26:5-7
130-160	Rabbi Jose		X	Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108a
2nd Cent.	Athenagoras	X		A Plea for the Christians, 24.
Late 2nd Cent.	Symmachus		X	[Greek translation of OT]
c. 150-215	Clement of Alexandria	X		Miscellanies 5.1.10
c.160-c.225	Tertullian	X		Idolatry 9; Veiling 7; Women, 1.2
c. 160-240	Julius Africanus		X	Chronology, Fragment 2
240-320	Lactantius	X		Divine Institutes 2.15
263-339	Eusebius of Caesarea	X		Eusebius, Preparation, 5.5
306-373	Ephrem the Syrian		X	Commentary on Genesis 6.3.1
340-397	Ambrose of Milan	X		Noah and the Ark 4.8
c.345-420	Jerome	X		Hebrew, 6.4
374-407	John Chrysostom		X	Homily on Genesis, 22.6-8
363-420	Sulpicius Severus	X		History, 1.2
354-430	Augustine of Hippo*	X	X?	City of God 15:22-23

KEY: X indicates agreement with this view

            Although views (1) and (2) dominated in antiquity, view (3) was not without a voice.  “Genesis Rabbah 26:8 (fifth-sixth century A.D.) cites R. Simeon b. Yohai (A.D. 130—160) as insisting on the interpretation ‘sons of nobles’ and placing a curse on anyone who promulgated the ‘angels’ theory.  By the time of the medieval rabbis, this interpretation had become entrenched.  Rashi, Ramban and Ibn Exra all favored identifying the sons of God as rulers or judges.”[3]  

            Among critical scholarship today, all three views identified above have their heavy-hitting protagonists.  View (3), the Sethite view, however, has consensus among conservative scholars. “The most common view of orthodox interpreters has been that the ‘sons of God’ were the men of the godly Sethite lineage.”[4] We will now turn to three modern scholars, each supporting one or the other of the respective views on the sons of God.

SONS OF GOD AS SETHITES: GEERHARDUS VOS

The old Princeton student and then professor of biblical theology, Geerhardus Vos, was a proponent of (2), the Sethite view.[5]  Vos is particularly sensitive to two motifs that appear in the fore of the antediluvian epoch of revelation.  First, he notes that the antediluvian context of Genesis is not primarily concerned with the sphere of redemptive progress, but with the development of the race in general, which he recognizes is ultimately significant for the development of the plan of redemption.  Second, Vos points out that the revelation on the whole bears negative rather than positive connotations.[6]  These observations, with others below, play a role in him settling on the Sethite view.

            Vos further notes that the narrative develops in three stages. 

It first describes the rapid development of sin in the line of Cain.  In connection with this it describes the working of common grace in the gift of invention for the advance of civilization in the sphere of nature.  It shows further that these gifts of grace were abused by the Cainites and made subservient to the progress of evil in the world.  We have here a story of rapid degeneration, so guided by God as to bring out the inherent tendency of sin to lead to ruin, and its power to corrupt and debase whatever of good might still develop…The details of the description are evidently chosen with a view to emphasize the result.[7]

With this backcloth in mind, the narrative goes on to contrast the wickedness of the Cainite to the progress of the godly line of Seth (Gen 4:25—5:32).  With respect to the Sethites, nothing is said of secular or civil progress; rather, it is the continuity of redemption that is stressed.  “The two kinds of progress appear distributed over the two lines of the Cainites and the Sethites.”[8]

            Vos couches the situation in the context as he interpreted it, saying, “The character of the period in this respect finds clearest expression in what is said…about the commingling of the Cainites and Sethites through intermarriage.  The latter allowed themselves to become assimilated to the wickedness of the former.”[9]

            Because he so carefully recreated the context of the unit, Vos does not believe that the Sethite view needs much technical defense; “[it] alone would seem to fit into the construction of the period to serve the purpose of showing the necessary outcome of sin, when left to work itself out freely.  If the angel theory be accepted, this will tend to obscure the idea aimed at.”[10]  To inject a source ab extra, i.e., fallen angels, would interrupt the development of human sin that Moses so carefully created.  Vos recognizes that the evidence for the angel view from Jude 6, admitting that it does give the angel view some force, yet it is far from conclusive.

            Furthermore, in connection with the terms ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of men,’ Vos makes the point that in Hebrew idiom sometimes a genus is set over against a part of that genus as though they were mutually exclusive.  He cites Ps 73:5 and Jer 32:20 as explicit cases of this idiom.  Both classes mentioned are naturally speaking, mere men; so, the sons of God are men, but sons of God besides, thus marking their distinguished status.  These are the Sethites, for Vos.  Finally, he mentions that in 6:3, 5—7 we find the divine evaluation of things and pronouncement of pending judgment on the antediluvian race of man and his sphere of sovereignty; angels are not mentioned at all.

SONS OF GOD AS ANGELS: HENRY MORRIS

Henry Morris represents a resurgence among orthodox interpreters, which is increasingly adopting the angel view, and not without good exegetical reason.[11]  For Morris, taking the term bene elohim to refer to angels is the “obvious meaning.”[12]  That the term is used explicitly for angels elsewhere in the OT is crucial for Morris.  He cites, of course, Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7.  The similar language of Dan 3:25 (bar elohim) refers to either angels or a theophany.  Finally, in Ps 29:1 and 89:6 the variation of the term (bene elim) clearly means angels.  Morris also references presidents in both Jewish and Christian historical theology, dominated by the angel view, in support of his thesis. 

            Liberalistic interpreters are quick to dismiss the angel view on the ground that it smacks of supernaturalism, something that is presuppositionally incredible for them.  Some, however, will accept a mythologized variation of the angel view.[13]  Morris does not concern himself with treating these objections; rather, he treats the primary rejection of conservatives who discard the angel view on the basis of Jesus’ teachings in Matthew. 

            The primary objection raised against the angel view is Jesus’ teaching concerning the resurrection in his debate with the Sadducees in Matt 22:23—33.  Therein, Jesus makes the remark that “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (NIV).  This, it is said, would appear to preclude the angel view of the sons of God, which presents them as having “took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.”  Therefore, if in the resurrection people will not marry, and this makes them similar to the angels in heaven, then angels must not marry, or so the reasoning goes.  Morris, however, does not find this reasoning persuasive at all; he deals at length with its implications. 

            Morris raises the point that Jesus’ remark is not equivalent to saying that angels are sexless.  Instead, in Scripture, angels are given masculine pronouns and are described as having the appearance of men.  Moreover, in Jesus’ teaching the angels are qualified as the angels “in heaven” (Matt 22:30).  What is true for angels “in heaven” may very well not be true of fallen angels, Morris contends.[14]  A count against the Sethite view, according to Morris, is the fact that not all the Sethites were godly, which is made obvious by their demise in the deluge.[15] 

              For Morris, the toughest issue that the angel view must wrestle with is the nature of the union of women and angels and the prospect of their offspring.  “Admittedly, however, there is a grave difficulty in the idea of angel-human sexual unions, not only the question of whether such a thing is possible, but even more in the theologically paradoxical and grotesque nature of the progeny of such unions.”[16]  Morris answers the difficulty by postulating that angels were using the bodies of possessed men.  “Thus, the ‘sons of God’ controlled not only the men whose bodies they had acquired for their own exploitation, but also the women they took to themselves in this way, and then all the children they bore.”[17]

SONS OF GOD AS NOBLES/RULERS: JOHN WALTON

Walton begins his investigation respecting the identity of the sons of God with the cautious reminder that “This issue is one of the thorniest in Old Testament interpretation.”[18]  Walton admits that the case for the angel view has tremendous lexical strength, especially based on a synchronic analysis of the phrase.  He warns, however, that confident conclusions drawn from such an analysis depends in good measure on the phrase or term having a broad lexical base throughout Scripture.  It is this dependence on a broad lexical base that Walton calls “the weak link in the armor of the ‘angels’ view.” [19]  Despite the term sons of God having a limited lexical base, Walton offers three lines of reasoning for why it cannot be maintained.

            (1) Cohabitation between angels and humans has no immediately obvious connection with the purposes of Genesis; (2) an angelic intrusion is considered out of place in the sequence of episodes recounting the advance of human sin;[20] and (3) the mythological tone is at odds with life in the real world as we know it, though in the end our interest in the world as the Israelites knew it.[21]  Nevertheless, Walton has the honesty to admit that the burden of proof still lies with either the Sethite or rules view to build a convincing lexical case for the respective view, one that makes sense in the literary, cultural, and theological context.  Walton says, “I believe such a case can be built for a variation of the ‘rulers’ view.”[22]

            Walton assumes that the ‘sons of God’ were oppressive despotic kings, rulers, or nobles, whose sin—an primary source of oppression—was the practice of the ancient, ever-despised practice of the divine right of the first night.  “In this practice, the local authority (whether king, governor, or lord of the manor) imposes his will in his people by demanding and exercising the right to spend the first night with any woman who is being married…The wording of Genesis 6:2, that ‘the sons of God…married any of them they chose,’ would be an apt description of this practice.”[23]

            Walton argues that accepting this view allows for a very natural progression of the account of sin in the narrative:  individuals (Adam and Eve) à family (Cain) à society leaders (sons of God) à everyone (Flood).[24] His argument for this view, however, is one largely dependent on ancient Near Eastern background material, which helps provide a window into the worldview and culture of the original audience.  The concept of the divine descent of kings and nobility in the ancient Near East was copious, a point which strengthens the ruler view.  Walton cites numerous examples of this.  “From Sumerian times (e.g., Eannatum, Gudea), through Old Babylonian (e.g., Hammurabi), into Middle Assyrian (e.g., Tukulti-Ninurta) and Neo-Assyrian (e.g., Ashubanipal), it was part of the royal prerogative to claim divine heritage.”[25]  Walton leans most heavily on parallels between parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis 6.[26]

            Birney, who also deftly defends the ruler view, offers this summary of the passage.  “The ‘daughters of men’ were women in general, the ‘sons of God’ were famous mighty rulers…the sin was polygamy, and the judgment was that the breath of life would be taken away from man in 120 years.”[27]

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS

I personally find the ruler view interesting and challenging, although far from convincing, due to its crass dependency on reconstructive background parallels and inferences.  Furthermore, the scanty background parallels for the practice of right of first night, and utter lack the practice elsewhere treated in Scripture, the ruler view has a deep sense of anachronism for me.[28]

            In the unity and context of the rest of Torah (even into Joshua and Judges) the Sethite view holds pride of place in my estimation.  The original audience was saved out of the house of Egyptian bondage and “set-apart” as Yahweh’s special people.  As such, the whole of Torah commands and galvanizes a perpetual antithesis between Israel and the nations, especially those in the land to which they were headed, the Canaanites.  I believe, therefore, that the Sethite view provides the best framework for reading Gen 6 as the original audience would (or should) have. Genesis 6 was another illustration of the war between the “seeds,” set into motion in 3:15. 

            My settlement on the Sethite view is, however, an uncomfortable one.  When confronted with the pertinent latter-NT texts, and the accompanying background material concomitant with them, it seems most likely that the NT authors did themselves espouse the angel view, which was part and parcel of their literary, cultural, and theological context.  This presupposition would have therefore been back of their inspired writing, and thus is an authoritative interpretation for Gen 6.  I find myself hard-pressed between the angel and the Sethite views, praying that further study and illumination will help me to resolve the dilemma and create a cognitive rest on the issue.   

---

[1] This paragraph is greatly indebted for its content to John Walton’s entry, “Sons of God, daughters of men.” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch.  T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, editors (Downers Grove, IL: IVP.  2003), 794.

[2]  Robert I. Bradshaw, “Creationism & the Early Church,” chapter 5. http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm (Accessed on November 18, 2010).  *Exception must be taken with Bradshaw’s reading of Augustine’s view, presenting him as subscribing to view (1), angels.  Henry Morris understands Augustine’s position as (2), Sethites (The Genesis Record [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.  1976], 166), as does this present writer’s reading of Augustine, see City of God XV:23.  Also see John Walton, who calls Augustine’s view a variation of the Sethite view, “Sons of God, daughters of men,” DOT:P, 794.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Leroy Birney, “An Exegetical Study of Genesis 6:1—4.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 13, no. 1, pp. 43—52 (Winter 1970), 45.

[5] Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.  1948), 45—51.

[6] Ibid. 45.

[7] Ibid. 45—6. Italics added.

[8] Ibid. 46.

[9] Ibid. 48.

[10] Ibid.

[11] The Genesis Record, see 164—70.  Also, Walton cites Westermann, who said that we can basically consider the debate “closed.”  Westermann adds, “The number of voices supporting the view that they [sons of God] are human has diminished,” in “Sons of God, daughters of men,”  DOT:P, 795.

[12] The Genesis Record, 166.

[13] Ibid. 168.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid. 168—9.

[17] Ibid. 169.

[18] Genesis in The NIV Application Commentary.  Terry Muck, editor (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.  2001), 291. 

[19] Ibid. 292.

[20] Note the similarity of this line of criticism to that of Vos, see fn. 7.

[21] Genesis, 292.

[22] Ibid. Op. cit.

[23] Ibid. 293.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid. 294.

[26] These parallels are presented on pp. 294—95.

[27] Leroy Birney, “An Exegetical Study of Genesis 6:1—4.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. (Winter: 1976): 43—52.  52.

[28] Walton actually appeals to the movie Braveheart in a footnote, see Genesis, 293 fn. 2.