How to Study the Bible III – The days of Gen. 1 & the sons of God in Gen. 6

Well, contrary to the usual, we have just one side of one page. I had an actual, an additional handout that was like nine pages long. I thought, well, that's a bit much. So anyway, we'll work through on this one. And this is a question, who are the sons of God in Genesis 6? So I think the best thing to do to introduce that is to turn to Genesis 6. And read it here. Okay, so this is during the time of Noah, of course, Genesis 6.

Now, it came about when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and the daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took wise for themselves whomever they chose. And then the Lord said, My spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh. Nevertheless, his days shall be one hundred and twenty years. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came into the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of the now.

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and that he had grieved his heart. The Lord said, I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to the birds of the sky, for I am sorry that I have made them. And Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. These are the records of the generations of Noah. And Noah was a righteous man. And it goes on like that. So Noah's told them to make an ark of gopher wood and all those instructions. So the question is, who are these sons of God that are referred to in Genesis 6?

And by no surprise whatsoever, there are several different interpretations of that. And as we mentioned previously, there's multiple interpretations of almost everything in the Bible, if you look around. And so one of the things we've said is that, just to pick a number, if you've got six different interpretations, how many of them are wrong? At least five. At least five, right? You said at least five are correct. God intended one specific thing, and so we ought to pursue that one specific thing, and do so by thorough observation first. All right, so you've got that kind of statement.

To summarize, the three major, and there are actually some minor differences within them, three major interpretations are one, fallen angels embody themselves as men and cohabit with human women. And then the next one, So that's angelic creatures. The next one, apostate Sethites.

So ungodly Sethites marry depraved Cainites. So the idea is you've got a pollution of the godly line by the mixed marriage between the two. And then you've got the third one is ambitious despots. Despotic chieftains marry a plurality of wives. So a polygamy of Cainite princes to expand dominion. So, and then the question is, what does each of them produce? One in the angelic creatures category, that is, fallen angels embody themselves as men and produce then monstrous giants.

The apostate Sethites idea has wicked tyrants. And then the next one, the ambitious despots, dynastic rulers. Now, any initial thoughts about these, about these interpretations? Jim's shaking his head. The apostate sethites and the ambitious despots, I've never really thought about. They're just a little bit further away from what I think.

Yeah, now, where I got this chart from, back in Christmas 97, I was given this as a Christmas present, and let's see here. Okay, so this is the original chart, which is actually fairly sparse, lots of space in it, and not quite so many categories. So I emailed this fellow, because it's a fellow that I happen to be familiar with the author of this book, and got permission then to reproduce the chart, which I've adapted over the years, and I've continued to make changes to it even as of just this last week. And one of the things to glance ahead on is the bottom of this colored section of the chart is proponents, that is those who favor this view.

And he has the names Albright through Smith. I'm trying to think, the only one of those guys I've actually met in his list is Wright. But, and then since then I added Wenham, that's Gordon Wenham, and then Arnold Pruchtenbaum, whom I've met, and then John Folk, that's how I pronounce it, James Montgomery Boyce, Henry Morris, Darby and Ironside. So those are some different names of those who favor the fallen angelic creatures viewpoint. I have included mostly his same names. I've added Constable and W. H. Griffith Thomas to the apostate Sethite's view. And I think I may have added Livingston to the ambitious despot's view.

In one respect, what difference does it make who the proponents are? Some of them you trust. In other words, if you look at it and say, well, this is somebody whose interpretive approach I often find trustworthy, that tends to make me more trustworthy of the view, although I still need to ask, is this correct? You understand their background and what they teach.

In other words, a part of it is how does this person tend to interpret, right? If I find someone, okay, this guy has a lot of lines over this view, but this guy is often interpreted in a way that's just wildly out of anything I would consider normal.

Let me take, for example, apostate Sethites, the second line, Jameson, Fawcett, and Brown, really bad. Yeah, really bad. They are anti-rapture Calvinists who think that Jesus was ever virgin. Excuse me, Mary was ever virgin, and Jesus' birth was virgin, but that Mary continued to be virgin after that. Are they Catholics or something? Semi.

So when you look at the different names, it may say, well, that name, look at this person's other interpretations. They make me less inclined to follow that. It makes me wonder about it more. When I look at those who have favored the angelic creature's interpretation, there are some there that I often agree with, and there are some that I would say, maybe not. So it's kind of a mixture. Nonetheless, I keep finding more and more of that category. As a matter of fact, I've run out of room without changing the font size. somewhere, right?

I'm surprised that Schofield favors the apostates. Yeah, he went to that, but it's interesting, kind of in the line, I haven't seen, for example, Schaefer say anything on this, nor Walvert, but Ryrie did, and he favored the angelic creatures viewpoint, so he kind of broke with that Schofield one. So, yeah.

Are these the people that they're talking about in Genesis 4 that whoever kills Cain, are these the people that would possibly, I mean, who else inhabited the earth at that time that would kill Cain? Here's an interesting thing. Let's walk through something. OK, who were the sons, the named sons of Adam and Eve? Abel and then Cain. And what happened? Cain killed Abel. Cain killed Abel.

And then what's the next son? Seth, right? Was that the only sons of Adam and Eve? No. Did they have daughters? Yes. Yeah, they had other sons and daughters, right? I frequently have contact with atheists on the net and that's one of the things, well here's Seth and James and Abel, how on earth did they have any offspring? Look over here, and Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters, like Genesis 5-1.

I always thought it was interesting that the lineage of Cain never gives any time to death. One of the things that we have with Cain is that it's like the continuity of the line didn't matter. It didn't matter because what's going to happen to them all? They're all going to die. They're going to get cut off.

So that's one thing. All right, so now let's take a look at one more thing, because I think this is one of the things that has leaned a number of people, including myself, to see that the angelic creature's view is a view that's consistent with other passages. So turn with me to 1 Peter 3, 19 and 20. 1 Peter 3, and we'll turn more into 2 Peter 2. So 1 Peter 3, 19 and 20.

So, Christ also died for sins once for all, but just for the unjust, so that he might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit, in which he went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Who are the spirits in prison? All the unregenerate. So let's kind of hold that thought.

Now turn also to 2 Peter 2, 4 and 5. For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell, and committed them into pits of darkness reserved for judgment, and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly. This is listed in the 5th or 6th box down, New Testament references to the angelic sin in 1 Peter 3, 19 and 20, 2 Peter 2, 4 and 5, and notice that this is in reference to the days of Noah. Alright, so we have that, so this is the second Peter 2, 4, and 5 passage that we just read here. So these are angels that sin. Are these angels that are still in heaven? No. So the angels sin, and when did they sin?

Probably. Around the time of Noah, right? It's related to Noah. When you say the time of Noah, you're probably... Scripture's probably saying pre-flood. Yeah, in other words, it doesn't say exactly that, but did not spare the ancient world. Right. So that would relate to that.

So here are angels that sinned. They're not angels that stay in heaven. If angels sinned, did they stay in heaven? No. So these are fallen angels, and we'll have another question to explore. Are there angels that sinned that are still roaming the earth? Probably. Yes. Yeah, this is demonic creatures, right? Demons. And that's what demons, that's what we call them. Jesus encountered them, the apostles encountered them, right?

One question would be, why do some of these sinning angels remain allowed to be on the earth for a time, and others are kept in pits of darkness? I would think the answer to that question is that the angels that are kept in pits of darkness probably are the ones that intermarry.

So in other words, putting these together, it would make some sense. You've got spirits in prison, 1 Peter. You've got angels at sin that are kept in pits of darkness, and in both cases related to the time of Noah. Now let's turn to Jude, verses 6 and 7.

Yes. If we're talking about degree of evil in the angels, then it's hard for me to understand why Satan would be allowed to roam around on the earth when certain angels are sent to target or wherever. So why would that be? Yeah, well, let's talk about that, and I think that's something that we'll address here.

So let's turn to the book of Jude. verses 6 and 7. And angels who did not keep their own domain but abandoned their proper abode, he has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day. Very interesting. Also in that second Peter passage and this one here in Jude, the next subject is Sodom and Gomorrah.

It was one sexual sin. And let's ask this question, were angels looked upon as sexual beings? Yes, in Sodom and Gomorrah. And by the way, Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality, it was same-sex stranger rape. It was what? Same-sex stranger rape. They weren't interested in Job's daughters. They weren't interested in Job. They wanted those strangers that come in. Very bizarre perversion.

But nonetheless, both Sodom and Gomorrah in these last two passages we looked at is the next topic. So what you have is a pattern in 1st Peter, 2nd Peter, and in 3rd Peter here, talking about spirits or angels clearly, and 2nd Peter here in G, and in answer to Stan's question, angels in heaven, there are angels in heaven, sexual beings? No. The angels in heaven are sexual beings, but they're not sexual beings. The angels that left their domain, that is, their domain was, okay, look, you're angelic creatures, but what do angels embody themselves as? Do they embody themselves as men and women, like such by an angel? Just men. Just men is the only appearance that we have as a masculine appearance. We've got in our modern era a lot of mythology that's developed where angels are somehow tempted.

Angels from the Lord are not somehow tempted to intermarry. That's not keeping the domain, right? So those angels that violated the domain, as I see it from these passages, that is, that stepped outside of their realm as fallen angelic creatures and intermarried were the ones who were then kept in prison.

Tartarus is the name of Peter. And by the way, in Revelation there are, and we won't have time to turn to it, in Revelation there are spirits that are kept in the abyss. It's an alternate name for Tartarus. It's the Abyssos, and that means the bottomless.

They're kept in there, they're locked there, and they're released from earlier times. They're released from earlier times for five months. They're allowed to get out for five months during the tribulation period. And during that period, do you remember what form they take? For five months they come out with a locust-slash-scorpion appearance. For five months to sting, and they only sting unbelievers. And people will want to die, but can't. Yes, Marilyn? How could they procreate with humans if they aren't sexual beings? Well, the fact is, the only way that this would work is that they are sexual beings, and they embody themselves as men.

That has been the one thing that has caused people to look to the other interpretations. But as we look at the passages here in 1 and 2 Peter and in Jude, And even in the passage in Revelation, where they're let out for five months in a specific form, the idea that they're sexual beings does come out. And in fact, we even see with the following passages with Sodom and Gomorrah, they're looked upon as sexual beings. So, and they did leave their domain, you have to ask what was leaving their domain different from the other demons that are allowed to just roam about?

Becoming a sexual being from a non-sexual being. In other words, the ability for angels to embody themselves as men is a given. Righteous angels did that. But to become a sexual being was something that only some of the fallen angels apparently did. So could they have become sexual beings because they inhabited? Ah, so here is a variation. This is in the footnote on the bottom of the page here. Morris, that's Henry M. Morris, has proposed the idea that it's a demon possession. And that's, I think, the question you're asking?

And it's interesting, Ironside didn't write a formal commentary on Genesis, but he did write commentaries on these passages in 1 and 2 Peter and in Jude. And in the passage in Jude, he doesn't talk about demon possession, but he does seem to favor this angelic creature's view. When he talks in 1 and 2 Peter, he then kind of waffles and goes toward this demon possession idea that Henry Morris also has put forth. With the demon possession idea, there's a few things I would look at.

One is that the language is not the language of demon possession and then that possessed body then was intimate. If you compare it to other passages where they're intimate, where it describes intimacy, which, starting in Genesis, you'll find those passages. Where it describes it, it doesn't describe it in that way. It describes it as if this body then entered the female body. And I guess I have another question, and that is, in the New Testament, where Jesus encounters demon possession, And he does so in a number of places. What are some of the instances you can think of?

Legion. Pardon? Legion. One is over on the east shore of the Sea of Galilee, about 200 yards away from where Courtney stopped to get gas. And just down the hill from there was where there was the guys, you know, the demons or legions. So, you know, thousands. He's got a legion of angels at least. 600, but possibly more. So that would be one instance.

Can you think of any instance where Jesus encountered demon-possessed people where they were capable of marrying and leading a family? What was the usual response to demon possession? How does that get described? Illness. Yeah, and what you see is some guy throws himself in the fire and they're out of control and things of that sort. So you don't see demon possession taking on that kind of an expression, and in fact it seems to be incapacitating. as being married, which it talks about repeatedly, and even reproducing. Mary Magdalene, Mary from Magdala, was one who had demons in her, and Jesus cast them out. Yeah. Seven, even. Seven, yes. Children, demon-possessed children were brought to Jesus, too. So that would be?

They were possessed from birth then? Yeah, it's a good question as to how early that started. We're not always told, but we say, OK, my boy has this, right? And when that started, we're not always given information. But I can't think of any instance where demon possession made someone even capable of carrying on marriage and reproduction and that sort of thing. It seemed rather to be incapacitating. So that wouldn't be from the parents that that child was being possessed. So if what we're seeing in Genesis 6 is demon possession, it expresses itself like nothing else in scripture. We don't see any other description of demon possession that shows itself like this. So the reason that they possess human beings is because it's a better existence for them?

Because when that guy that had all those and then Jesus cast them out into the swine and then the swine went into the sea, did those demons then die because they drowned? Or would they just not be in the pigs any longer, and they would go off and do something else? Oh, they would not be in the pigs, because the pigs are dead, right? Right. Just like those beings that were there before the flood, no longer around, right? Right. So disembodied. Disembodied.

So that must be a state that they try to eliminate. They may need to have some kind of What we find as a pattern is that these demons seek embodiment. That's a pattern. And that embodiment may even be, as Paul describes, and actually the Old Testament describes, that embodiment of demons may even be in an idol. that, as Paul described as Corinthians, that demons are behind these idols. And so that embodiment may even be in an idol.

I think starting all the way in Genesis, where the evil one is a serpent, whatever that was, I think this is an area that we cannot quite understand. What happens between the heavenlies and the earth? But there's something clearly that gives these demons capacity to change or like become a serpent and then a man and just, anyway, embody, disembody. So I think this is one of those areas where we can see there is something there, but I don't know how effective it is to see. what is the core issue? Does that make sense? Because I don't know if I have all the information.

Yeah, what you're referring to is essentially the ability of these fallen angels to take on a form that they should not and that ultimately what's going to happen to Satan In fact, what's going to happen to all the demonic creatures, all the fallen angels? They're going to be thrown into the lake of fire, which Jesus says was prepared in perfect temps for Satan and his angels. And so that's their ultimate destiny. At one point in time, some of the demons, expressing themselves through a demon-possessed man, come up to Jesus and said, you're not going to start torturing us yet, are you? So they know what's next. They know who he is. They know what's next. They know what's going to happen. Putting the picture together, the demons have a sense of, look, We know where we're headed. We know who's going to judge us. There's this spiritual insanity that somehow figures that this is going to have a different outcome. I don't know. Between here and here we can somehow manipulate things. I don't know. It is an insanity.

It doesn't make any sense to know that Jesus is going to judge me and that sometime my time is going to come and I'm not going to like it. But I'm going to choose this anyway. But isn't that the way human beings operate when we sin as well? It's a spiritual insanity. It's just nuts. It doesn't make any sense.

So back to the question of why certain angels are being locked up and Satan is allowed to roam around on the face of the earth as it says in Job, then basically he's being limited in what he can accomplish as far as evil on the face of the earth because of the angels that he's allowed to use while he's here, right? Yeah, if you look at it, Satan and the demons will do all sorts of evil things. That's just what they're going to do, right?

What you see is that the fallen angels were given some kind of a crossover point Look, don't you guys go and cross over and intermix with these human beings. If you do so, if you violate your domain, you will be locked up. You won't have even the ability to roam the earth. And so what you find is those fallen angels who are still going about, and they're terminal. There will come a time when that ends.

But those who are still going about have not violated this domain and stepped over, and they've done all sorts of evil things, right? No question about it, and they will do all sorts of evil things, but they have not stepped across this line into being sexual beings that interact with human beings.

But those that have are then locked up in Tartarus or the To be released in the end times. To be released in the end times for five months, as described in Book of Revelation. By the way, that's the only one of the 21 judgments that's given a specific period of time. Five months, you get to look like this, and you get to act like this, and you only get to sting the unbelievers, and then you go back. That's it. And you don't get to reproduce either. So now, we have another factor here.

Some of the Greek Old Testament copies have, instead of Sons of God, instead of the Anthropos, instead of Sons of God, they have Angelos. So what that means is that at least some of the people who were doing some of the translating believed that those were angels, that that was the proper interpretation. So they actually translated it that way.

So what are some of the biggest challenges to the idea that angelic beings are man-made? are meant by sons of God in Genesis 6. So it seems to be consistent with these other passages in 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude, and even in Revelation where you've got one of these beings doing in this abyssos, this bottomless pit. Well, those are the same ones that are talked about in 1 and 2 Peter and Jude.

It's essentially what Marilyn was bringing up, and that is that it's a little hard to imagine for us physiologically. How does an angel even embody as a man? How does that physiologically interpret into reproducibility? And it seems to be an action on the part of these fallen angels. to violate their domain and step into that realm. But that's one of the things that has caused some people to say, I just can't handle that interpretation and go to the others.

Then there are a few passages in the New Testament where we are referred to as sons of God. Okay, well then let's talk about this term sons of God. Who all gets called sons of God over the realm of scripture? Jesus is called the Son of God. Good point. Does that come up in the Old Testament or in the New? In the New Testament. So it's a New Testament terminology. Do we get called the Sons of God in the New Testament? Yes we do. Is there any use of the term Sons of God that is ancient in the Old Testament? Yes, the ones in Genesis.

Job. Job is an ancient book, likely from about the time of Abraham. So an ancient book, and Job has the sons of God clearly describing angels in chapter 1 and chapter 2. This is where Satan comes and asks permission to test Job. And the angels are then called the sons of God in those passages, and in 38.7 as well. Sons of God sang. Morning stars sang. Morning stars sang. Yes?

Isn't there also a place, I think it's in the Psalms, but one of the answers that Jesus gave to the Pharisees was that you are God's. g-o-d-s, he doesn't specifically say sons of gods, but he does say that, doesn't say in scripture that you are gods, small g. Yes, and that gets often to an interpretive thing that gets pretty complex, but it isn't sons of God, right, in terms of that term. You could extrapolate to that, because they exist. Right, right.

And let's ask this question, what are some of the different terms used for angels? One is we have from Job, clearly, sons of God. Can you think of other terms that are used for angels? Angel of light. Pardon? A light. An angel of light, okay, which would be one of the things Satan appears as an angel of light. What's another term used for angels? Angelic beings. An angelic beings. Stars. And what else? Stars. Stars.

Yes, messenger, and this is the Angelos, which is the Greek term, messengers, right? It's the one we point out is used in some of the Greek Old Testament passages at Genesis 6. Yeah? And isn't Baal, B-A-A-L, considered master or lord? So actually Satan could be actually Lord, with a small l, right? Because he's Baal, B-A-A-L, which means master.

Looking at Satan, there's a whole bunch of terms for Satan, and as a matter of fact, the book of Revelation uses multiple versions of that, so it's very clear that he is a fallen angelic being and is at the head of a hierarchy. So we have different terms for angels and certainly different terms for Satan himself. How about spirits? Is another term that is used.

Are angels ever just called men? Only when it's specifically saying they took the form of men. The ones that visited Abraham looked like men. The ones that first came to... Let's see. The one that first came to Sodom and Gomorrah appeared as him. And then how about the ones who were in Acts chapter 1? Here's the disciples. Jesus has ascended. Who talks to them? There were a couple of men. Two men. And that's not the only instance, but sometimes they'll simply be described as men. Appearing as men. And so in terms of their appearance, they just appear as men.

Isn't there also something about that you don't know if there are angels among you? Right, with that of Hebrews, some have entertained angels unaware of it, which is referring to Abraham who entertained angels and then it became clear that these angels are here on a mission and their mission is dealing with Sodom and Gomorrah. You gave me enough information that the Sunday school teacher in me was like, wait, I know this one.

One of the things we found in Revelation chapter 12 is a third of the angels fell. Satan is at the head of the hierarchy of those angels that fell. Among those that fell, based on studying this thing out, it appears that those who left their domain are now held in in prison, in pits of darkness, in the abyssos, in the Tartarus, and those who continue to roam about the earth. But they all ultimately will have an end in the lake of fire, which has been prepared, perfect tense, for them.

And it says God is spirit and truth. So that's the same as the angels, right? The good angels, I would assume, would stand for truth as well. Why would that not be what God is? I mean, spirit and truth, He is a spirit. Angels are spirits and they embody whatever it is they embody. So let's think through this. Are we spiritual and physical beings? Yes, we are. We are created beings. The angels, are they spiritual beings? Yes. Are they created? Yes. Yes, they're created spiritual beings.

And what's interesting is that whereas we have a physical body, and that's characteristic of who we are, we're not alive, right? And we'll always be, which is interesting because we're going to have a different kind of body. So, we're always embodied.

Right. Now, angels. Let's talk about angels. Do angels have to have a body that shows up in this physical realm? No. Can they have a body that shows up in the physical realm? Yes. Yes, they can. So, different beings. Have you ever heard of the death of an angel? No. No. And why don't you have angels die? because it's not what God has for them. Their embodiment is very different than ours, right? There's no angel cemetery. They're very different creatures. Here we are capable of reproducing, and as a matter of fact how we get more and more people, and we get subsequent generations, the angels do not.

And so that's one of the things of violating that domain and then trying to intersect with human beings, that was what these angels were being punished for. So can an angel be having an abidance one time and then not another time? Can they go back and forth on that? Yeah, it appears they can come and go. You know, we have, matter of fact, who are the two angels that are named that are on the Lord's side? Gabriel and Michael, that's it.

We don't have any other names. The Jews actually made up a number of other names, so they come up with seven. They made up five more names, and then they put those on amulets and sold them to the Gentiles. Let's cook up some names, because they have to have names. But Paul says, I got the answer for that. Jesus is the name above all the names you can cook up. pay attention to.

Okay, so let's take a brief look at the apostate Sethites and the ambitious despots in the few minutes we have left here. Alright, so descendants of Seth, because we only have Abel and Cain and Seth as the only named descendants of Adam. We know that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Genesis says exactly that. And so these are Sethites of the line of Seth. But so these Sethites marry these depraved Cainites, is the supposed idea there.

Now, one of the problems that we encounter is the term sons of God was not really used for believers in the Old Testament. And we don't have anything in the context or anything from that time that would reinforce that idea. The other is the offspring, these rather bizarre, unique, monstrous offspring that appear to be generated from the offspring. So to have Sethites and Canites suddenly develop these grotesque, monstrous offspring would be hard to explain.

Just by the intermarrying of the lines. Just a quick question, are pyramids pre-flood? There are those who think so. I don't know so. One of the things you're talking about, the Giza pyramids, for example in Egypt those are the big trio of pyramids next to the Sphinx that you see. Those predate Abraham. Abraham very likely saw them when he went to visit Egypt. And the Jews didn't build them. There weren't any Jews when those were constructed. So some have presented the idea that those pyramids survived the flood. And in the Middle East there are various kinds of pyramids, and some of those are even being reproduced in the New World, different kinds of pyramids. So some ideas along that line have developed.

I would have to say, I don't know. Yes. However, the Egyptians that were placed in them, where we have evidence of them, were not particularly large. The other thing is we don't have any command that, okay, Yusefites don't intermix with this other group. So it's kind of a concoction, the idea that you're supposed to keep these groups separate or something. There's no command to do that.

Then we have the ambitious despots category. So this is the polygamy of canine princes to expand their dominion, dynastic rulers. Well, there have always been people who try to dominate other people. And that's always happened, right? We've had it happen in the last century.

I'm going to be talking about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in the main service here momentarily, and for a particular spiritual reason. But it's just another example. Somebody trying to dominate somebody else, that's been going on for centuries. I have a conjecture it may have happened this year somewhere. Yeah. One group of people or one person dominating other people. This happens all the time.

It's human. Was that not Satan's problem? He tried to dominate God? Yeah, if you look at what motivates people, power is one of the things that motivates people. Power for some people is very important. By the way, power for some people is very important. In the body of Christ is power important. Only the Lords. Only the Lords. As a matter of fact, there's the exhortation not to pursue power. And what the Corinthians were doing was exactly that. Trying to do this kind of human pyramid building. And that was a problem. So Paul went after it.

So anyway, but this ambitious despots thing, that's been a problem from before the flood. It's been a problem for centuries. It's been a problem in the last century numerous times. And it's still a problem. And it'll probably continue to be a problem until Jesus comes. Essence of pride, right? Right. Yeah, so it was a problem probably before the flood. It has been a problem.

For a long time, people liked to get either a person or a group of people or a family on top and control other people and invade people and dominate people and be oppressive. That's just been going on for centuries. It started with the serpents. Why would that be a chronic problem in our present time? Why is that a chronic problem? Because we are talking about the world, the flesh, and the devil. Between the world, the flesh, and the devil, it just keeps happening again and again.

Well and at the key, Satan wanted to be like God and then he convinced Eve that well maybe she could be a little bit more like God. So anytime people have this idea or any being has this idea to be like God, power is like okay now power. I mean God and power, essentially you have to marry those two.

Okay, we've just about run out of time. So at any rate, what I see is it's not without some questions, but it appears that the best explanation that fits the context as well as the subsequent connected passages seems to be the angelic creatures idea. It does bring up some questions that we can't directly address, partly because we can't go and do some biological examination and say, oh yeah, that would work, or it wouldn't, or something like that. But it seems to make the most sense of all the scripture. And I see the apostate Sethites and the ambitious despots seem to be kind of a concoction. I don't see it being consistent with scripture. And the problem has been a chronic problem, not one just from before the flood that would cause God to decide to destroy the pre-flood world. Any other thoughts, questions? Yes?

I think it's kind of interesting that one where the guy was possessed and then he was not possessed anymore and then it was all swept clean as the example goes. But yet, he didn't receive the Spirit of God. So, even more angels came in and possessed this person after he was clean, right? Yeah, something is, Jesus could rid people of demon possession, but it wasn't necessarily permanent. Right, and since the house was swept clean, they say that even more came and possessed this person, right?

Yeah, and we can talk about, for example, are we eternally saved? Like Craig addressed just recently here. Are we eternally saved? Demon possession seems to be something that can reoccur. It's not kind of in the same category. So once Jesus casts out a demon, it doesn't necessarily mean that that's a permanent fix. Yeah?

Just so that we don't only walk out of here understanding what Sons of God are, what do you think are the main principles of Bible study that were able to lead us to this insight? Okay, I think one of the things is historical context. That is, if I find this term Sons of God, certainly it's elsewhere. But do I find it referring to angels in an ancient historical context? And I think the best example of that is Job, where it's very clearly angels that are there. The term is used elsewhere for other than angels. But in terms of the historical context, it's quite different, right?

So I'd say one of them is looking at the historical context. By the same token, Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God used lots and lots and lots in the New Testament. Kingdom of Heaven explicitly in the book of Matthew. Do I find it in the Old Testament? Not at all, right?

So historical context, what does this term mean in this historical context, is a biggie, right? So that, I think, would be one of the things to look at. The other is finding confirmation of it. And what we do is we find those passages we looked at in 1 and 2 Peter and in Jude and in Revelation. We find confirmation of that.

We don't find continued confirmation of this despots idea or the line of Seth. We would want to see, for example, that despots resulted in something unique that was pre-flood and we don't find that. We don't find anything about the line of Seth that somehow they're commanded we don't mess with these guys, or there is any such command. So those don't seem to have a match in the historical context.

And historical context matters. There are terms that are used throughout the entire Bible, in which case we can't separate things out historically. Example, is walked as a spiritual principle used in the New Testament. Yes it is. But we also go back to Genesis. Enoch walked with God. Noah walked with God. So there are terms like that. The term kings of the earth shows up all the way to the last chapters of Revelation, but it also shows up early in the Old Testament.

So there are some cases in which historical context doesn't allow us to separate things out. But in this case, it does. Thank you. OK. So let's pray. Lord, we do thank you for your word. We thank you for what's revealed. And certainly there are things in here that we could ask that we don't have full answers to and can't examine directly. There will come a time we who judge angels will know more then and have further insights into things than we do now. We trust you for that as well. We just thank you that you are faithful throughout the day. We pray in Jesus name. Amen.