The Daily Bread 0031: Biblical Fluency (Part Six)

Genesis 6: Sons of God or Sons of Set

One of the greatest and most prevalent controversies in scripture is found in the book of Genesis chapter 6. Genesis 6: 2 When the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, they took women for themselves, choosing among them all. This verse has brought many disputes when those who were the children of God, these were the descendants of Set ?, or fallen angels ?. This verse is what we know as a "dark verse" and must be interpreted in the light of clearer verses relating to it. Every dark verse will usually not have an obvious explanation, but it will undoubtedly have its clarification in other verses of the bible. In this case we must go later in the bible (river) and then return and see what clarification is more fluid with the interpretation of this verse. The next time we see the term "sons of God" in the scriptures is Job 1: 6 And there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. And then Job 2: 1 And it came to pass that one day when the children of God came to present themselves before the LORD, that Satan also came among them to present themselves before the LORD. Notice that in each of these instances this term is referring to angels, not men. On some other occasions we see where God says 1 Chronicles 22:10 He will build a house for my name, and he will be my son and I will be his father; And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever. In this instance, however, he is speaking of Jesus. Although we might think he speaks of Solomon in the context "the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever" is obviously referring to Jesus. Now, we can no doubt note that the word in the Old Testament refers to angels as sons of God, changing suddenly and referring to men as such would be a contextual problem and in fluency, so that Genesis 6 should have been Referring to Angels and not to men. In the New Testament in the book of John we notice something John 1:12 But to all who received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God. The man who has believed in Jesus is given the power to be called the son of God; This was impossible in the Old Testament, since no one was in Jesus. They obeyed the law, yes, but they were not in Jesus.

Believers are not "children of God" in the same sense that Jesus is the son of God, if we were also deity. The secret is that as Jesus is the Son, and we have put our faith in him, then while we are in him we are also children, but only because we are in him and he is Son. To explain this better, we could say that what is said about Jesus can be said of us because we are in him, and only for that. For example, Ephesians 2: 6 and together with him raised us up, and made us sit in the heavenly places with Christ Jesus, this verse tells us that we are seated with Christ (in him) in heavenly places. Can we take this literally? Of course not, we are not sitting in heaven, but as Jesus is Ephesians 1:20 who operated in Christ, raising him from the dead and sitting at his right hand in the heavenly places, and we are in Jesus, then we are also In the seated in heavenly places. So the term son of God in the Old Testament where no one had even accepted Jesus could not refer to men. Again and again God speaks to Ezekiel and says to him "son of man" being Ezekiel or man of God. Since we have established that this term in the Old Testament is for angels, and we clarify why the New Testament refers to men as the son of God, we can look for more source of fluidity.

It should first be noted that there is absolutely no biblical evidence that the so-called sons of God in Genesis 6 are descendants of Set (which is the second theory), this belief was first suggested because it was more "comfortable." Celsius and the Roman Emperor Julian the apostate used the traditional belief that they were angels to attack Christianity, Julius Africanus "Christian traveler" began to use this position (set sons) as a more comfortable and general method, Cyril of Alexandria repudiated by Complete the orthodox position that they were angels and Augustine embraced the Setista theory; But this (the sons of set = sons of God) is the most recent belief, the belief that they were angels was what was known and believed from ancient times, being the orthodox posture. The book of Enoch is not part of the Canon, however, it gives us an idea of ​​the belief of the Jews of that time, and tells us that they were angels and that is to say that the book of Jude quotes the book of Enoch.

As fluency must come from the Bible and the Bible only let us see what Judas tells us. Judges 1: 6 And the angels who did not keep their dignity, but left their own dwelling place, kept them in darkness, in eternal prisons, for Judgment of the great day;
7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the neighboring cities, which, like those, having fornicated and gone after vices against nature, were put, for example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. This book of judas is a single chapter, but it is a mine of information. It tells us that "the angels who did not keep their dignity, but abandoned their own dwelling place." To this point we could say that it is the fallen angels who disobeyed together with Satan, but it is what follows below that helps us understand the Panorama as such "has kept them in darkness in eternal prisons for the judgment of the great day" this is extremely important, because we know that the angels who disobeyed Satan in its entirety are not in prisons, on the contrary they are free to do theirs , Of which Paul tells us that we have no struggle against flesh and blood but against these powers, that is, they are free.

So who are these angels who are prisoners waiting for the day of judgment? Nothing more or nothing less those who in Genesis 6 took women for themselves and had relations with them. Verse 7 is even more explicit as it relates these fallen angels to Sodom and Gomorrah. "Like Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring cities, which in the same manner as those, having fornicated and gone after vices against nature" notice that it tells us that Sodom and Gomorrah "like those" who were those? The angels of course, but not only tells us this but what was their transgression, "having fornicated and gone after vices against nature." We know that the angels sinned before Sodom and Gomorrah, for the account of their transgression is in Genesis 6 by this tells us that Sodom and Gomorrah as well as the angels having fornicated, that is to say that the sin of the angels was fornication and vices in Against its nature. Although these sins of fornication are referring to Sodom and Gomorrah but note that it says "just like them" is to let us understand that like those of Sodom and Gomorrah the angels also fornicated. Now, fornication is all sexual sin, so it is easy to deduce that the sin of these angels was sexual, and says that it was against nature, this is because the angels are not supposed to have sex, it is against Of its nature! As if this were not enough Peter also speaks on this matter 2 Peter 4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them into hell and delivered them into prisons of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 And if he did not spare the ancient world, he kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven other people, bringing the flood upon the world of the wicked. Peter reiterates what is written in Judas but helps us to link the period in which this happened, so that there is no doubt - first tells us that I do not forgive them but I throw them into hell (the prison) reserved for the Judgment but Important here is that it tells us that this happens before the flood because in the next verse we are told that I do not forgive the old world either by destroying it with the flood. So biblical fluency points out that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were angels and not sons of Seth. There is other evidence to show that it was the angels who were called children of God (nephilim) or nephal = literally the fallen. Now, why does not the Bible give us an obvious and direct answer? For the following reason: Proverbs 25: 2 Glory of God is to cover up a matter; But the king's honor is to search him. So that Our God reserves the right NOT to expound something completely clear in the scriptures, but it is our honor to scrutinize it.

NOTE: Homosexuality the reality is that this topic should not be at all controversial, not for a true Christian. The bible gives no hint in the least that this is permissible, much less that it has changed in the scriptures. This is only a cause of debate in the churches that have fallen into apostasy by calling it evil good and evil good, accepting heresies and doctrines of demons. Through the scriptures there is a single law and doctrine (a single fluency) in this: it is sin. Each of the biblical quotations concerning this tells us the same thing. Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a wife; It is an abomination. Leviticus 20:13 And if any man take counsel with a man as with a wife, then he hath done an abomination; Both are to be killed; On them shall be their blood. Romans 1:27 And likewise also men, forsaking the natural use of the woman, were kindled in their lewdness with one another, committing shameful deeds men to men, and receiving in themselves the retribution due to their loss. 1 Timothy 1: 10