Sermon Tone Analysis

Introduction

-Tonight I want to look at one of the more confusing and or controversial passages in Scripture.

It is so short, and yet it has caused debate for thousands of years.

In the first five chapters of Genesis, God created all things, including His imagers (humanity).

They joined in with the rebellion of the serpent, and sin entered into the world.

And we see how sin just spreads and spreads like wildfire.

It is demonstrated in the story of Cain and Abel, and is passed down Cain’s lineage.

But even the chosen lineage of God’s elect is affected by sin.

-And that gets us to this particular passage, where the moral decline of humanity shows no signs of stopping, and is actually enhanced (if that is at all possible).

But what in the world is meant by what is said?

-The non-controversial part of this passage is that man’s moral decline has spiraled even further down.

The wickedness of mankind was at its peak, and every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Because of this wickedness, God was grieved and made the decision to judge mankind.

He was going to wipe man and beast and almost everything off the face of the earth.

Except, there was one man who found favor in God’s eyes, and God would start anew with this one man—Noah.

Noah would be a new Adam, and it is through Noah that God’s covenant with man and creation would be renewed.

But God would start again.

-All of that is not controversial.

That is pretty straight forward.

What isn’t as straight forward is the beginning part of the passage.

Who are the sons of God and the daughters of men and what in the world is a Nephilim and what happened?

Therein lies the problem.

-No matter how we might interpret all of that, one thing is clear, whatever it all means, it contributed to the increase of wickedness among humans.

This union and its results contributed to the moral decline—not that it needed any more help or encouragement, because mankind was declining pretty good on its own.

But whatever happened here just kind of put it over the edge.

-But I want you to consider the possibilities of what it these verse mean:

(1) The sons of God are heavenly beings that procreated with human women

PROS:

* “Sons of God” elsewhere in Scripture refers to heavenly beings

*Jewish literature during the second-temple period (late BC, early AD) favored this view.

Literature from that time expounded on this episode.

For example, 1 Enoch (which is not Scripture and not inspired) records things this way:

6.1 And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters.

2 And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.’ 3 And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: ‘I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.’ 4 And they all answered him and said: ‘Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.’

5 Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it.

6 And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it.

7 And these are the names of their leaders: Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl.

8 These are their chiefs of tens.

(The book of Enoch would go on to say how these heavenly beings then taught men warfare and magic and a bunch of other stuff that contributed to the wickedness on earth bringing about the flood)

*2 Peter 2:4-5 and Jude 6 might refer to this incident

CONS:

*Humanity suffers for sins of heavenly beings (although, they had become corrupt in sin…).

(However, we notice in v. 7 that because of man’s sins that animals and birds pay the price, so....)

*No biblical evidence that even when heavenly beings take on corporeal form that they can function in this manner (might be implication of Jesus’ saying in Matthew 22:30)

*Seems very mythical

(for more arguments on this view see works of Michael Heiser)

(2) “Sons of God” refer to rulers or aristocrats.

PROS:

*Jewish kings like David referred to as son of God

*Might refer to warlord types who coerced women into harems and ruled with cruel tyranny

CONS:

*Not sure what the sin was or corruption that mankind so bad (while polygamy not ideal, it was not unheard of even after flood)

*Fails to square with the context

(3) “Sons of God” refer to the godly line of Seth joining in forbidden unions with the ungodly line of Cain

PROS

*Notes about godliness abound in the context

*Other corresponding verses in Scripture warning against union of believers and unbelievers

*This is the view held by many of the Church Fathers and Reformers

*It corresponds with the delineation between the two lineages in the previous chapters

*It gives reason for the moral corruption—the godly line has been tainted by the ungodly line

CONS

*Not necessarily a natural use of the phrase “Sons of God” (although not unheard of—could be “godly sons”)

*Jewish literature does not seem to reflect this idea

*Almost unheard of until the time of Augustine

-We cannot be too dogmatic about it because every biblical scholar and pastor seems to have their own take on it.

I personally think that either the heavenly being view or the lineage of Seth view are possible (the view about it being rulers I don’t think has enough evidence).

I will lean more toward the lineage of Seth view, but am always open to hear reasons or arguments for the other view.

-Another question is the meaning of the 120 years in v. 3. It could refer to mankind’s life expectancy being brought down to 120 years (which is a lot lower than the 900 years we saw in the previous chapter) or it could refer to the time from this declaration to the flood.

After the flood people still lived longer than 120 years, but life expectancy did slowly decline.

While I think that it might refer to the time until the flood, again, I am open to either.

-Another problem is what to do with the term Nephilim.

Some of your translations may say giants because that is what the Greek LXX translates it as.

But there are questions about their relation to the Sons of God and daughters of men, as well as with the mighty men mentioned in v. 4. Are the Nephilim the children of the union in v. 2? The problem with that is that the term appears again in Numbers 13:13 to refer to some of the inhabitants of Canaan as being these huge people (therefore, probably why the LXX used the word for giants).

Since whoever the offspring of the Sons of God and daughters of men were, they were destroyed in the flood, so it is probably a more general term.

-The wording of v. 4 also seems to indicate that the Nephilim were mighty people but they were contemporaries with the Sons of God and daughters of men, not the result from them.

It is more likely that the mighty men mentioned in v. 4 are the offspring of the Sons of God and daughters of men.

They were most likely mighty as warriors, and so they increased the bloodshed upon the earth.

They did mighty deeds, but the deeds that they did were against holiness and righteousness.

-So, there may be a lot of things that we cannot come to a conclusion on in the first 4 verses, but the results of whatever it was cannot be missed.

The Lord observed that the wickedness of man was great on the earth.

Not a whole lot of detail is given as to what this wickedness entailed.

We think that things are bad now, it may have been even worse back then.

Again, there is an emphasis being passed down through all these chapters since Chapter 3 that sin had completely corrupted humanity.

Since sin first started, it’s perverted effects have been magnified a million fold.

There was no goodness or righteousness in humanity.

For the vast majority of humans the intention of the thoughts of their hearts were only evil continually.

-And it was because of this corruption and then the expression of that corruption in action that God would act.

It says that the Lord regretted that He had made man on earth and that it grieved His heart.

These are what are called anthropormorphisms, which are human attributes described of God for us to gain a better understanding of Him and who He is and how He works and what is going on.

But we have to understand that these are limited.

What is used to describe God is the best that human language can do to give us an idea.

-The reason I bring this up is because certain more liberal theologians will look at this and run with it to the nth degree.

They’ll say that these verses indicate that God is not omniscient because He didn’t know this was going to happen—it took Him by surprise.

And they think it says that God changed as a being because He changed His mind.

But you just have to be careful with these things, and just take some things at face value.

We have a human expression given to God to describe ultimately maybe a motivation for what is about to happen.

-That the Lord regretted that he made man on the earth in no way takes away from His love for mankind—the love that would eventually lead to the cross.

It’s just a way of expressing reasons for the flood.

And it says that humanity’s wickedness grieved God.

God is not an unfeeling robot.