War of the Seeds: Sons of God in Genesis and JobaEUR"A Covenantal Exegetical Look

By Drew Worthen

This work analyzes a subject of some controversy in light of sound hermeneutics and exegesis while building upon biblical truths that support this undertaking. This is not a simple academic exercise but rather instills in believers a sense of encouragement whereby we can arrive at biblical truths based on accurately handling the Word of God while taking a pastoral approach in applying these truths.

The subject at hand is the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 and the book of Job, together with NT revelation that reveals who these "sons of God" are in both Testaments.

Determining who these sons of God are in Genesis 6 and Job is more than simply winning an argument. It is at the crux of the spiritual war that began in the garden and continues today but can be misunderstood and therefore undermined by improper biblical approaches.

This manuscript helps to set the stage for a proper redemptive historical look into the people of God and catapults the believer into a future hope that God promised to the patriarchs through a coming Messiah whose lineage in Luke 3:23 states, "Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph," and ends back in the garden in verse 38, "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

This is an instructive biblical account of the war that was precipitated between the two seeds that God set at odds with each other after Satan's temptation and Adam's rebellion. And as I move through the biblical particulars, the story finally ends as a "happily ever after" description of what God accomplishes through His victorious Son with His people ultimately ruling and reigning with Him on the new earth among the new heavens.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Christian Faith Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Nov 19, 2021
• ISBN: 9781098088804

Book preview

cover.jpg

War of the Seeds

Sons of God in Genesis and Jobâ€"A Covenantal Exegetical Look

Drew Worthen

Copyright © 2021 by Drew Worthen

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods without the prior written permission of the publisher. For permission requests, solicit the publisher via the address below.

All scriptures, unless otherwise stated, are taken from the NAU translation of the Holy Bible.

Christian Faith Publishing, Inc.

832 Park Avenue

Meadville, PA 16335

www.christianfaithpublishing.com

Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

A Fourth View

Seed of the Woman

Seed of the Serpent

My People

Exegesis of the Text

Daughters of Men

Nephilim

God Judges Men or Angels in the Flood?

Watery Judgment vs. Fiery Judgment

Sons of God Marrying Daughters of Men

Varied Verses Addressing the Phrase Sons of God

Five OT Verses with the Exact Phrase Sons of God

Sons of God Must Mean Angels

My People, Not My people

God Chooses

God’s Angels

A Remnant

Sons of God in the Book of Job

Sons of God, Human Beings in Heaven, Presenting Themselves before the Lord

Sons of God, Human Beings on Earth, Presenting Themselves before the Lord

Sons of God, Angels, Presenting Themselves before the Lord in the Book of Job

Last Holdout for Angels Being Designated the Sons of God

All scriptures, unless otherwise stated, are taken from the NAU translation of the Holy Bible.

Introduction

So why write on the subject of the sons of God in Genesis 6 and Job? After all, isn’t this analogous to writing on subjects like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Or if nothing is impossible with God, can He create a boulder so large that He can’t lift it?

I mean, who cares if these sons of God are angels, Sethites, products of the Nephilim or any combination of these groups? Even if we never discover the truth on this matter, it won’t change anything, will it? It doesn’t really make any difference, does it? Isn’t this really one of those issues that falls into the category of nonessential doctrines, whatever that means? Of course, on the other hand, if God revealed His words to the world, what parts are essential, and what parts are nonessential?

Having said that, I would concede that specific doctrines relating to God, Jesus Christ, and redemption are all doctrines that would form a hill to die on whereas a hill that buttresses something similar to the mode of baptism (apologies to my Baptist friends) or a particular eschatological position as it relates to the return of Christ (apologies to all my pre-millennial, post-millennial, and a-millennial friends) could be issues that might take a back seat to, let’s say, the deity of Christ.

But there’s another way to think about those perceived nonessential issues, and that is, if I were going to make an argument for any issue in a particular portion of the Word of God, would it be important how I proceeded? In other words, if I were to make a case for the resurrection of the dead, particularly the bodily resurrection of our Lord and Savior, would it be important to follow a biblical set of guidelines to arrive at that conclusion?

When Paul addresses accurately handling the word of truth in 2 Timothy 2:15, who defines what is accurate? How do we arrive at what is accurate? Is being accurate a subjective exercise? Or are there actual objective rules to follow to arrive at accuracy?

And if we can define the accuracy of a particular doctrine using certain methods or rules, do those rules apply only to the important doctrines? Or do they apply to all of the Word of God?

Because if they only apply to certain doctrines, then I believe there is a legitimate reason for saying that it really doesn’t matter what you believe about the nonessentials as long as you are happy with your conclusion.

However, if the accuracy that Paul speaks of is meant to cut straight to the issue, which is actually what the word accuracy implies, then what is the straight line to the truth, whatever the issue might be? And if there is a straight line, is there room for curves and angles?

In theological terms, this straight line that Paul addresses is known as biblical hermeneutics which is the science and art of discovery pertaining to proper interpretation as you attempt to arrive at not only what the words mean in a particular text but also what God was actually conveying in those words to the original readers and by extension to us today.

And by the way, the discipline of hermeneutics and exegesis is not reserved for theologians who have a PhD at the ends of their names. Paul’s exhortation to Timothy to handle accurately the word of truth was directed to a young man who simply sat under Paul’s teaching and example and then, in turn, taught anyone else who would listen.

There are a myriad of books and articles you can read on this subject of hermeneutics, and I include a short list at the end of this book. And though the thrust of this book doesn’t include a detailed outline of this discipline of discovery, I employ sound hermeneutics to seek answers like any good investigator, and hopefully, you’ll recognize some of the principles at work along the way.

And so what is important for this particular endeavor relating to the sons of God is not just arriving at the finish line with an answer as to who they are but following the essential road signs along the path that allows for the journey to be done in a methodical way that assures the runner the knowledge that he knows where he is going at every step so as to arrive successfully at the finish line.

And just as important is the ability to take that knowledge and apply it in such a way that the wisdom from above through the Holy Spirit’s guidance that accompanies that knowledge from God’s Word is applied to our personal lives to the glory of God.

And so whether we are studying the doctrines on the atoning work of Jesus Christ or the gifts of the Holy Spirit or, dare I say, the mode of baptism (you’re welcome, my Baptist and Presbyterian friends), we need to accurately handle the word of truth and not just conclude that because the road is hard in discovering answers to biblical issues that it doesn’t really make any difference.

So when it comes to the issue of who the sons of God are in Genesis and Job, does it really make any difference? Maybe I can answer that with another topic that successfully raises no little heat in the Christian community.

A few years back, my wife and I were sitting in a Sunday school Bible study at a church to which we belonged. And a general statement was made to the entire class. The statement was attached to the question as to whether or not God created the world in six literal days. The teacher (an elder in that denomination) was doing a survey of the Bible, and the book he was dealing with was Genesis, primarily the first three chapters at that particular time.

He put forth the proposition that it was not Moses’s intention to elucidate on any particular cosmology when he wrote Genesis. Rather, the important point to make is that whatever means God used to bring the universe into existence, it is God alone who originated that process.

He then went on to explain some of the potential processes that old earth advocates in the Christian community subscribe to and what some young earth advocates in the Christian community subscribe to. And then he alluded to the official stance of the denomination, which was written so as to imbibe a spirit of inclusivism since we certainly don’t want to offend anyone with a different take on the issue.

The New York Times reported the official decision of the denomination back in 2001 this way:

Leaders of the Presbyterian Church in America voted today to allow varying interpretations of biblical accounts of creation.

Members of the 300,000-member church, the country’s second-largest Presbyterian denomination, had debated whether the biblical Book of Genesis means that God created the universe in six 24-hour days or six ‘’figurative’’ days, which some see as a concession to evolution and modern science.

The general assembly of 1,500 male ministers and church elders voted two to one to reject an effort by some conservative members to label as exceptions interpretations that do not support the literal view.

‘It allows men to be faithful to their convictions of what the scripture teaches,’ said the Rev. John Yenchko, the pastor of New Life Presbyterian Church in Dresher, Pa.

The denomination, which believes the Bible is the strict and infallible rule of faith, has grappled with the meaning of a section of the Westminster Confession of Faith, its chief doctrinal standard. The section says that God created the world ‘in the space of six days.’

Having been familiar with the decision of the approximately 1,000 of the 1,500 hundred male ministers of the general assembly, I immediately recognized that what this teacher was hanging his hat on was not the perspicuity of the actual text of Scripture in Genesis but the fallible musings of people who were, in my estimation [conceding] to evolution and modern science as they apparently grappled with the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, in the space of six days (I’m obviously missing something).

At the end of his monologue, this elder/teacher made the statement, So whether you believe in a young earth or an old earth, it really doesn’t make any difference.

Well, so as not to let a good argument be lost on the moment, I raised my hand in the class, and without waiting on this Sunday school teacher’s acknowledgment, I blurted out, It does make a difference!

To the horror of many in that class, including the senior pastor’s wife sitting directly in front of me, turning to see where the train wreck was about to take place (I can still see that look to this day), I went on to politely but firmly make the argument that if God has spoken, then it would behoove us to understand precisely what He has said by dealing with His actual words in context.

Now, I think we would all agree that God does not speak out of both sides of His mouth. That is not to say that He may not say one thing to mean more than one thing.

For example, when God speaks of Israel, He may have more than one meaning of the term Israel in mind depending on the context.

When Israel was a youth, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. (Hosea 11:1)

This, of course, is a reference to the nation Israel that came up out of Egypt by the mighty hand of God. But it is also a reference to another Israel that came up out of Egypt.

So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: out of egypt i called my son. (Matthew 2:14–15)

Here, in Matthew, the one who was called out of Egypt, a reference to Israel by the prophet Hosea, is Jesus Christ as the name Israel is attached to him in an eschatological sense as being the true Israel.

But this example, and others like it, is different from saying that we can choose how God created in completely different ways; over long periods of time through miraculous and/or natural means or exclusively through miraculous means in six literal days. But the only way anyone can arrive at a proper answer is to exegete the passages at hand with an eye on the genre of the book, which in the case of Genesis is historical narrative.

If the Word of God is speaking to us today, do we make those words into an anachronism to include a popular eighteenth or nineteenth-century secular cosmology? Did the original hearers and readers of Genesis believe that the words evening and morning, one day, a second day, a third day, etc., included periods of millions or billions of years?

If someone doesn’t want to believe that an almighty eternal God can simply speak the universe into existence in the span of six literal days, that’s fine. But to agree that the Bible is the Word of God and then take the words of God that are straightforward and turn them into a justification to embrace popular culture or popular science, so as not to give the sense that we are not with the times, then you’ll have to excuse me for erring on the side of God and His Word.

It is this same premise that drove me to look at Genesis 6 and Job with an eye not on tradition or a pseudoscience approach but on the actual words of the texts in question. In fact, what drove me to this was one of a number of books I was utilizing when I was teaching a class on Genesis and eventually bumped into this issue.

The particular book is entitled The Genesis Account by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, a book I would highly recommend which includes a robust defense of the literal six-day account of creation. I was impressed at Dr. Sarfati’s theological as well as scientific approach to the issue, but when I got to the later portions of the book, specifically Genesis chapter 6, I noticed that his exegesis became thin as he jumped into his explanation of the passage that my book centers upon.

Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. (Genesis 6:1–2)

As you’ll see later in my work on this passage and others tied to it, his position, which I will try to fairly elucidate later in this study, is one that many people in the church subscribe to, and that is that the sons of God in Genesis and Job are angels.

I actually tried to contact Dr. Sarfati to see if we could communicate on this issue but was unable to make any connection at the time, although I found a Facebook page that someone hosted who was promoting the writings of Dr. Sarfati. I did leave a note on that page expressing my concerns about the angels = sons of God position but was told that posting something negative on the site that didn’t agree with his position on the sons of God was essentially straining at gnats.

I did write back to say that I didn’t think it was something unimportant in light of the need to treat Genesis 6:1–2 the same way Dr. Sarfati treated the first three chapters of Genesis. However, despite that fact, I was informed that such a post on that Facebook site would not be accepted. I did concede that I would still promote his books. We agreed to disagree.

But like that elder/teacher in that Sunday school class who thought cosmology was an unimportant point of Genesis 1–3 and stated that it didn’t make any difference, in essence, I heard the same phrase from a person who was an advocate for Dr. Sarfati who felt the same about Genesis 6:1–2.

And what I came away with is that in some cases, we can pick and choose how one arrives at biblical answers to difficult passages and that in the end, for many people, it really doesn’t make any difference.

To that, I would simply say as I did in that class a few years back, it does make a difference. Either God has spoken or He hasn’t. And if He has, then we need to do our best to arrive at a biblical answer from the actual words that God has given us through His prophets and apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; again, what the Apostle Paul aptly refers to as accurately handling the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15).

So why, for example, does it matter how God created His universe? Because if we can simply dismiss that an almighty creator spoke this universe into existence in the span of six days, as He has revealed in His Word, and conclude that it was either a fairy tale, poetry, or some dark and mysterious explanation to obfuscate the science behind what really happened over millions or billions of years, then what prevents someone from doing the same with any other portion of Scripture that doesn’t fit with a natural approach to the truth, be it turning water into wine or resurrecting someone from the dead? And so, in like manner, who cares if the sons of God are angels, mighty princes or kings, or some godly offspring of Seth?

Because it can’t be all of the above at the same time and if we have sufficient biblical evidence that we can utilize in an exegetical pursuit to get to the bottom of what has been conveyed through God’s Word, then that’s the direction Bible-believing Christians should go, accurately handling the word of truth.

Though I believe I have produced a viable biblical answer to the question posed about the sons of God, the bigger issue is should we not then apply the same biblical approach to what some refer to as nonessential issues that we use on those essential doctrines that would certainly include: the virgin birth of Christ, His deity, His sinless life, His ministry of miracles and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, His death on a cross for the forgiveness of sins and His bodily resurrection from the dead and subsequent ascension back to the Father?

These and other biblical issues have all been called into question and, in some cases, attacked by Christians over the years, never mind the world. Therefore, I believe it is imperative to take serious our claim that the entire Bible is God-breathed and therefore fully authoritative in and of itself.

So with that in mind, it’s time to take a biblical look into this supposed dilemma. Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6:2,4; Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7? Many of you may be surprised but hopefully encouraged in your faith as we venture down this path.

Short list of articles on Hermeneutics:

A Basic Overview of Hermeneutical Principles:

https://austinbiblechurch.com/sites/default/files/documents/A%20Basic%20Overview%20of%20Hermeneutical%20Principles.pdf

Four Principles of Hermeneutics:

http://effectualgrace.com/2017/01/16/four-principles-of-

hermeneutics/

Hermeneutics Practical Rules for Biblical Interpretation:

http://004db15.netsolhost.com/SundaySchool/HighSchool/Hermeneutics01.pdf

Four Principles of Hermeneutics:

https://www.apologeticsindex.org/5846-biblical-interpretation-rules

Hermeneutics Articles:

https://www.reformedontheweb.com/hermeneutics/.html

I am not sure where I heard the story years ago, but as I remember it took place during World War II where a group of US Special Forces in the European theater known as the Army Rangers took on the German forces. The Army Rangers were and are known for their tenacity during the most strenuous of circumstances under fire.

As the story was related to me, it centered on the special training the Rangers underwent that included the ability to fight and succeed, especially as they were surrounded on every side by the enemy.

For most soldiers, this would be a disastrous encounter, but for the Rangers, it was seen as an opportunity. And the way the story unfolded was that somewhere during the battle of the Bulge in the densely forested Ardennes region in Belgium and Luxembourg, a group of Rangers were intermingled with regular Army troops.

During this engagement with the German SS, they found themselves cut off and surrounded on every side. For a number of the regular Army troops, this led to near panic, but as fate would have it, the Rangers were able to organize the troops and set up a defense.

And here’s where the story became interesting. As the Germans began to close in, a soldier in one of the foxholes shouted out to one of the Rangers, There’s no way we’re going to get out of here alive! We’re shut into a box!

The response came back from one of the Rangers, No, soldier, we have them right where we want them.

Whatever the veracity of the details of the story, I never forgot the imagery that it created in my mind, circumstances