Romans 9, Predestination & Total Depravity

To say that mankind went downhill after Adam’s disobedience would be an understatement – but it took MANY, MANY CENTURIES for man to get to the point of complete depravity described in Gen 6:5. “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.” Verse 6: “The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.” I find that to be a statement with rather far-reaching implications, and NONE of those implications support the Calvinist notion of God’s exhaustive sovereignty. But – that is another subject. Apparently, at this point in history, mankind in general was unredeemable. Verses 11 and 12 say, “Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.” How did this happen? Was it because man was “fallen” and living from a depraved nature with no recourse unless God monergistically regenerates him? No, not exactly. Gen 6:1,2 tells us.

 

REMEMBER THE CONTEXT! Chapter 4 tells us of Cain, and about how he went out from the presence of the Lord. The latter part of chapter 4 gives us the descendants of Cain. These descendants were “out of the presence of the Lord” by birth, being born in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Chapter 5 gives us the descendants of Adam through Seth. Of Enoch and Noah it says that they “walked with God”. Of any kind of alienation from God there is not so much as a hint. Therefore I conclude that the children of Adam through Seth did NOT go “out of the presence of the Lord.” That is said ONLY of Cain and would also apply to his descendants.

 

Because of the mention of the birth of Seth (Gen 4:25) after speaking of Lamech, who is the 5th generation from Cain, I conclude that Cain had quite a head start over Seth when it comes to quantity of progeny. The children of Cain vastly outnumbered the children of Seth.

 

Keeping this context in mind is important when coming to chapter 6. It says in 6:1 that when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, that daughters were born to them. The men (and daughters) being spoken of are the descendants of Cain. This is consistent with Gen 4:26 as stated above. Verse 2 says, “…the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.” The “sons of God” being spoken of are the descendants of Seth. Concerning the popular notion that this refers to fallen angels mating with human women: The concept of spirits copulating with human women is commonly found in pagan cultures, both east and west. But where do we find that notion ANYWHERE else in scripture? Nowhere. There IS historical evidence that both interpretations existed in early Christianity as well as in Judaism. I will document some of those sources that support my position shortly but keep in mind that the historical argument can go either way. So what we are left with is the immediate context. There is NOTHING in the immediate context that speaks of fallen angels, or spiritual beings copulating with human women. What’s in question is the phrase “sons of God.” What the immediate context indicates is that the “sons of God” are the descendants of Seth and the “daughters of men” are the descendants of Cain. What it also says is that the “sons of God” took to wife whomever they chose. So the corruption being spoken of in 6:11 is predicated on the descendants of Seth freely choosing, against God’s will, to intermarry with the descendants of Cain.

 

Those who hold the “fallen angels mating with human women” theory would point to the Nephilim (v 4) as a contextual indicator that the union was unnatural and produced unnatural offspring (giants) and therefore the fallen angels interpretation is correct.

 

Greg Boyd espouses this position in his book, God at War. In general, I greatly respect Dr. Boyd. However, concerning a couple of interpretations of Genesis 6 which include the one I am espousing, he says, “Perhaps most significant, neither interpretation explains the Nephilim. The passage assumes that these giants were unnatural, and it explains this by referring to the unnatural union that brought them about – the union of the ‘sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men.’ Interpreting the ‘sons of God’ as either righteous men or mighty rulers does not explain why their offspring were unnaturally huge and identified with the giants of various mythological traditions” (God at War, p 139).

 

Dr Boyd continues his argument by contrasting the phrases “sons of God” and “daughters of men.” He then says, “The starkness of this contrast explains why their unnatural union produces mutant progeny (God at War, p 139).”

 

Firstly, Moses refers to angels 15 times in the Pentateuch. In every case but one he calls them “angels” – the exception is Genesis 3:24 where he calls them, “cherubim” – nowhere else does Moses refer to angels as “sons of God.” The fact that nowhere else in the writings of Moses are angels referred to by the phrase, “sons of God” plus the fact that angels as such are not indicated anywhere in the immediate context of Genesis 6 argues compellingly, in my opinion, against assigning the contrast alone with enough weight to overcome these other factors.

 

Secondly, the text doesn’t say the progeny are mutant. It says the exact opposite. It says that the progeny were “the mighty men who were of old, men of renown (v 4).” How Dr. Boyd gets “mutant” from "mighty men" &/or “men of renown” I have no clue. Neither does the text say that the Nephilim are the offspring of the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men. It says that “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 [the daughters] bore children to them [the sons].” How could the Nephilim be the offspring when they were on the earth in those days, when the sons of God came into the daughters of men, and also afterwards? In other words, the Nephilim were concurrently on the earth, when the sons came into the daughters. They were not the sons, nor were they the offspring. Notice the daughters bore “children”, not Nephilim, and not giants. These children were “mighty men…men of renown.” Without getting into exactly what the Nephilim were, the immediate context does not support the idea that they were the offspring of fallen angel/human women sexual relations, or that they were mutant. It says that they “…were on the earth in those days…” They were already on the earth in the days when the sons of God came into the daughters of men.

 

Thirdly, calling the descendants of Seth “righteous men” is devaluing the significance of the contextual contrast between the descendants of Seth and the descendants of Cain. Cain’s descendants were born “out of the presence of the Lord” while Seth’s descendants were not. The significance of this contrast is further underscored when speaking of Noah, who was “blameless in his generation” – that is, pure in his bloodline or ancestry. More on this subject below.

 

Fourthly, the REASON that fallen angels mated with human women, according to proponents of that position, was that it was an attempt to destroy humanity; to frustrate God’s will for man. However, the REASON the scripture gives is, “the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful.” This is a distinctly human reason for having sex, wouldn’t you say? Especially for males. You know, being visually oriented and all that! Also, it says that the sons of God “took wives for themselves.” This phrase, “took wives” does NOT mean mere sex just to satisfy lust. It means that the sons of God MARRIED the daughters of men. “Took wives” is a Hebraism for marriage.

 

Question: Why would fallen angels, in rebellion against God, comply with God's law and enter into MARRIAGE with human women rather than taking them by force and simply impregnating them?

 

Dr. Boyd raises another argument thusly: “Further, while there is clear evidence that gods or angels were called ‘sons of God’…there is no clear [scriptural] precedent for calling a lineage of male descendants … “sons of God” (God at War, p 139).

 

Firstly, as we have already pointed out, as far as the books of Moses go, there is NO clear evidence that gods or angels were called, “sons of God.” There IS clear evidence in the Mosaic writings that angels were called, “angels.” Immediate context is more important than remote contexts when trying to ascertain what the author meant. 

 

Secondly, the Hebrew phrase, bene ha'elohim, translated “sons of God” in Genesis 6 is a technical construction. There are only two other places in the entire Old Testament where this phrase occurs - Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 (in Job 38:7 the definite article ha is missing.) To say that “…while there is clear evidence that gods or angels were called ‘sons of God’…” is not true because there are only two other instances where the phrase occurs, and they occur in a completely different book that has a completely different author, both instances occur in the same context and therefore it could be argued that they constitute only one example, and the fact that “sons of God” should be understood to be “angels” in that pericope is inferential, not explicit. In fact, Job 1:6 and 2:1 refer to human beings presenting themselves before the Lord as in Exodus 23:17, 34:23, 34:24, Deuteronomy 16:16, 31:11, Numbers 8:10, 16:16, and 1 Samuel 10:19.  For a more detailed argument concerning the "sons of God" in the Book of Job, go here.

 

Thirdly, the Old Testament DOES contain MANY references to human beings being called, "sons of God." Here are a few.

 

1) Hosea 1:10 – “You are the sons of the living God.” Here the phrase “sons of God” definitely refers to humans, not angels.

2) Deut 14:1 – In speaking of Israel, it says, “You are the sons of the Lord your God.”

3) Hosea 11:1 – “When Israel was a youth I loved him and out of Egypt I have called my son.”

4) Isaiah 43:6 – “Bring My sons from afar” speaking of Israelites.

5) Exodus 4:22,23: “Israel is My son, My firstborn.”

 

Fourthly, there is no clear precedent in scripture for angels, fallen or otherwise, mating with humans, and furthermore the immediate context doesn’t support that notion. Immediate context is more important than remote contexts when trying to ascertain what the author meant, especially if the remote contexts are extra-biblical, i.e. Greek and/or Canaanite myths about “gods” copulating with humans, i.e. Boyd's "various mythological traditions". Why are the respective genealogies of Cain and Seth given immediately prior to the text on the intermarriage of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men?” Because it’s relevant to what the author is subsequently talking about. The “fallen angel” position renders the previously given genealogies irrelevant which is, in effect, ignoring the immediate context.

 

As far as the historical record goes, both views (and others) can be easily documented. But for those who are interested I have compiled several sources that document my position. There IS precedent for my position in early Christianity (Julius Africanus and Augustine among others) although admittedly it is the minority view, but more importantly, there is historical support from orthodox Judaism before and during New Testament times.

 

Wayne Grudem says,

 

"The following list shows nine other texts where non-angelic interpretations are held:

 

While Philo himself calls these 'sons of God' angels in one place, he later called them 'good and excellent men' Q. Gen. 1.92).

 

Moreover the Targums and the Rabbinic literature are unanimous in viewing the 'sons of God' as human beings. Targum Onkelos on Genesis 6:2 and 4 reads 'sons of princes' (or great men, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has the same. Targum Neofiti has 'sons of the Judges' in both verses.

 

Tosefta, Sotah 3: 9a interprets 'sons of God' as men of the generation of the flood.

 

In the Midrash Rabbah, they are understood as 'sons of judges' and as leaders (Gen. R. 26.5 on Gn. 6:2, quoting Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, c. AD 140), or as the generation of men at the time of the flood.

 

Symmachus translates Genesis 6:2 as 'the sons of the rulers.'

 

Although this material is admittedly somewhat later than 1 Enoch and Jubilees, which are both to be dated in the second century BC, the citations from Philo and the Targums are certainly not irrelevant for New Testament exegesis—indeed, the Rabbinic material generally represents a stream of Jewish tradition which is certainly relevant as a background for New Testament studies. And the citations in this second group are diverse and frequent enough to give strong indication of the existence of a 'non-angelic' view of the 'sons of God' in Judaism, especially more orthodox Judaism, before or during the time of the New Testament (Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, IVP, 1988, pp 211, 212).

 

There ARE sources for the 'non-angelic' view in Judaism during New Testament times and pre-New testament times. One doesn't have to rely on 2nd century writings to make a case. In citing ancient sources Dr. Grudem has failed to mention the so-called “Lost Books of Eden.” These are ancient Jewish writings from several centuries before Christ. Portions of these books are in the Talmud, which indicates their standing in Judaism. The 2nd Book of Adam and Eve tells in great detail how the children of Seth were corrupted by the children of Cain, in spite of exhortations from each Sethite patriarch on his deathbed, and from God Himself, that the children of Seth were to have nothing to do with the children of Cain. In chapter 11, verse 4, it says of Seth and his descendants, “But because of their own purity, they were named "Children of God," and they were with God, instead of the hosts of angels who fell; for they continued in praises to God, and in singing psalms unto Him...” So we have here an indication that, at least in some quarters, historical Judaism took the phrase “children of God” to mean “children of Seth” and so “daughters of men” would therefore mean “daughters of Cain.” We also find that, espoused along with that position, that the children of Seth were “with God” and that they took the place of the hosts of angels who fell. This was in spite of “the Fall” and the banishment from Eden.

 

Another case-in-point is Josephus, who perhaps in full knowledge and in accord with the 2nd Book of Adam and Eve, knows nothing of original sin, but affirms that the Sethites were in the highest degree virtuous and wise by nature. He derives from "the Fall" not even one evil affecting the whole race. All this is consistent with the immediate context of Genesis 6.

 

At any rate, we see that the Calvinist notion of total depravity as a result of “the Fall” is nowhere to be found in the account of said “Fall”. Cain’s alienation from God was due directly to his sin of murdering Abel, and DID indeed affect HIS descendants. The descendants of Seth were NOT affected by Cain’s sin, they were known as “the sons of God” and it explicitly says of Enoch and Noah that they “walked with God.” The corruption of mankind spoken of in Genesis 6 was explicitly due to the children of Seth intermarrying with the children of Cain. Even if Dr. Boyd’s position on the “sons of God” is correct, the conclusion in relation to the doctrine of total depravity is not affected. Mankind’s depravity in Genesis 6 is due to the “sons of God”, whomever they may be, intermarrying with the “daughters of men” and NOT a depraved nature automatically passed from generation to generation due to Adam’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden.

 

In Genesis 6:9 it says that Noah “was blameless in his generation.” This does not mean that Noah was morally blamelss as even a cursory reading of the story will show - immediatly after the flood he got drunk and passed out naked in his tent. What it means is that there was no admixture of the blood of Cain with the blood of Seth in Noah. No genetic material (genetic/generation) from Cain in Noah. This understanding gives even more contextual weight to the respective genealogies given previously. There was no blood of Cain in his ancestry (blameless in his generation), nor had Noah married a daughter of Cain, and the blood of Seth was undefiled in him, and his children. Because of the great Flood, the lineage of Cain has been completely eradicated from the face of the earth. Everyone alive today descends from Seth, through Noah, and does NOT automatically inherit the depravity and alienation from God that marked Cain and his descendants.

 

One final thought concerning the “Fall” of man. Christians of all persuasions would hold that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was an unfallen man. That is, if we equate "unfallen" and "without sin." Indeed the New Testament refers to Him as the “second Adam.” Yet to most people, and especially to those to whom He was closest, his boyhood friends and neighbors, He was virtually indistinguishable from anybody else. “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him.” (Mark 6:3) In response to Peter’s confession that He was the Christ, Jesus said, “…flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” (Matt 16:17) Apparently it took a revelation from God Himself in order to discern who Jesus was. After Peter’s confession Jesus instructed the disciples “they should tell no one that He was the Christ.” (Matt 16:20) Apparently there is not that big a difference, at least outwardly, between a “fallen” man and an unfallen man, and most people would not know the difference unless they were told.

 

Next: Ephesians 2:1-3: Dead in Transgressions and Sins