THE SONS OF GOD AND THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN

[The following extract is taken from Dr W. H. Green’s “Unity of the Book of Genesis,” in which he deals with the conceit so widely adopted by the Higher Critics that the “sons of God” mentioned in Gen. vi. 2, 4, are angels. In his translation of the Old Testament Dr Moffat has introduced this view into his text, and translated “sons of God,” angels—”Now when men began to multiply over all the earth, and had daughters born to them, the angels noticed that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them that they chose.” Dr Green was one of the most distinguished Hebraists of his time, and in the above work, and also in his “Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch”; “General Introduction to the Old Testament—The Canon”; “General Introduction to the Old Testament—The Text”; “Moses and His Recent Critics,” and the “Hebrew Feasts in Their Relation to Recent Critical Hypotheses Concerning the Pentateuch,” Dr Green did noble work in combating the modern views of the Bible, and was a voluminous writer. The bibliography of his works and articles to learned periodicals and the religious press occupies twelve pages of the “Presbyterian and Reformed Review.” Dr Green was appointed Professor of Biblical and Oriental Literature in Princeton Theological Seminary in 1857 at the early age of 26, and occupied the chair until his death in 1900. He had at his appointment such distinguished colleagues as Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, and Joseph Addison Alexander.]

THE Sons of God (verses 2, 4) are not angels nor demi-gods,* whose intermarriage with the daughters of men brought forth a race of monsters or superhuman beings.

1. This purely mythological conceit was foisted upon the passage in certain apocryphal books like the book of Enoch; also by Philo and Josephus, who were misled by the analogy of ancient heathen fables. But

* The Targums and some other Jewish authorities understand by “sons of God,” nobles, men of high rank or official station, who in Ps. lxxxii. 6, are denominated “sons of the Most High”; and by “daughters of men,” women of inferior position, as in Ps. xlix. 2; lxi. 9, “b’ne adam” are contrasted with “b’ne ish” as men of low degree with men of high degree. But no such contrast is suggested here; and the intermarriage of different classes in society is nowhere represented as displeasing to God or provoking the divine judgment.

it was repelled by the great body of Jewish and Christian interpreters from the earliest periods, though it has been taken up again by a number of modern scholars. It is assumed by them that a transgression of angels is here spoken of, though the existence of angels has not been before mentioned, nor in any way referred to in the previous part of the book of Genesis. This view has no sanction whatever in Scripture. Jude, verses 6 and 7, and II. Pet. ii. 4, have been tortured into sustaining it; but they contain no reference to this passage whatever. And there is no analogy anywhere in the Bible for the adoption by the sacred writers of mythological notions in general, or for the idea in particular of the intermarriage of angels and men. Sexual relations are nowhere in Scripture attributed to superior beings. There is no suggestion that angels are married or are given in marriage: the contrary is expressly declared (Matt. xxii. 30). Male and female deities have no place in the Bible, except as a heathen notion, which is uniformly reprobated. The Hebrew language does not even possess a word for “goddess.” The whole conception of sexual life, as connected with God or angels, is absolutely foreign to Hebrew thought, and for that reason cannot be supposed to be countenanced here.

1. The sole foundation for this mistaken interpretation is the allegation that “sons of God” must, according to Scriptural usage, mean “angels”; which, however, is not the case. Even if that were the more usual and obvious interpretation of the phrase, which it is not, the connection in which it stands would compel us to seek a different meaning for it here, if that were possible, and one which would be compatible with marriage. “Sons of God” (b’ ne ha-elohim) is a poetic designation of angels occurring three times in the book of Job (i. 6; ii. 1; xxxviii. 7); and a like expression (b’ ne elim) is found twice in the Psalms in the same sense (xxix. 1; lxxxix. 6). . . . Angels are nowhere so-called in the Pentateuch, nor anywhere in the Bible, but in the few passages already referred to.

2. On the contrary, “sons of God” is a familiar designation of the chosen race, the worshippers of the true God. Moses is instructed to say to Pharaoh (Ex. iv. 22). Thus saith Jehovah, Israel is my son; let my son go. So Deut. xiv. 1, Ye are the sons of Jehovah your God. In the Song of Moses (Deut. xxxii.) this idea of sonship occurs repeatedly. Verse 5, They have dealt corruptly with him, they are not his sons. Verse 6, Is Jehovah not thy father? Verse 18, He is called the Rock that begat thee, the God that gave thee birth;

and the people are called (verse 19) His sons and His daughters. Hos. i. 10, Ye are the sons of the living God; xi. 1, Israel is called God’s son.

Isaiah in repeated passages speaks of the people as God’s sons (Isai i. 2; xliii. 6; xlv. 11). In Jer. xxxi. 20, the Lord calls Ephraim His dear son, His favourite child. In Ps. lxxiii. 15, the pious are called “The generation of God’s children.” And, on the other hand, the worshippers of false gods are called their children. Thus (Num. xxi. 29), the people of Moab are spoken of as the sons and daughters of Chemosh. Mal. ii. 11, an Israelite who had taken a foreign wife is said to have married the daughter of a strange god. It is in entire accord with this Biblical usage that the pious race, who adhered to the true worship of God, are called the sons of God in contrast with the descendants of Cain, who had gone out from the presence of Jehovah, and abandoned the seat of His worship entirely.

1. And this brings the verses before us into correspondence with numerous other passages of the Pentateuch in its practical aim. The law of Moses again and again forbids intermarriage with the Canaanites, lest they should contaminate Israel and seduce them to idolatry. The book of Genesis inculcates the same lesson when it depicts Abraham’s concern about the marriage of Isaac (xxiv. 3, 4), and that of Isaac and Rebekah about the marriage of Jacob (xxvii. 46; xxviii. 1, 2), the distress which Esau’s marriage caused his parents (xxvi. 34, 35; xxviii. 6-8), and the trials of Jacob’s family at Shechem (xxxiv.). If the verses before us point out the ruinous consequences of the intermarriage of the godly race with the ungodly, it furthers an aim which the writer of Genesis and of the Pentateuch evidently had greatly at heart. A warning not to intermarry with angels would be altogether unmeaning.

2. This explanation of how it came to pass that the pious portion of the race were infected with the universal degeneracy is not only appropriate in the connection, but it is necessary to account for the universality of the following judgment, which is repeatedly and largely insisted upon. This is an integral and essential part of the narrative, the omission of which would leave an unfilled chasm. The primal source of human corruption had been germinally shown in the Fall (chapter iii.); the degeneracy of the Cainites had been traced (chapter iv.). Nothing but good, however, had thus far been said of the race of Seth (iv. 26; v. 22, 24,

29). That this pious race were themselves involved in the degeneracy which had overtaken the rest of mankind, is here stated for the first time. But this is necessary to explain why the whole race of man, with the exception of a single family, should be doomed to destruction.

1. The explanation now given is further confirmed by verse 3, where sentence is passed for the offence described in the preceding verse. In what the offence consisted, if the sons of God were angels, is not very obvious. It is not illicit intercourse which is described; the terms used denote lawful marriage. But if it was wrong for the angels to marry women, the angels surely were the chief offenders; and yet no penalty is denounced upon angels. The divine sentence falls exclusively upon men. There is such an obvious incongruity in this that Budde insists that verse 3 is an interpolation and does not belong in this connection, but has been transferred from the account of the fall of our first parents. The incongruity that is alleged, however, does not show the verse to be an interpolation, but simply that the mythological sense which has been given to the passage is false.

2. The word Nephilim [giants], occurring in verse 4, has given rise to the strange deduction that this passage originally stood in no connection with the account of the flood; that the author of it in fact knew of no such event. The only foundation for this inference is that the same word is found again in Num. xiii. 33, in the evil report of the spies respecting Canaan. If the Nephilim here spoken of were still in existence in the days of Moses, how could there have been a catastrophe in the interval which swept away all mankind except the family of Noah? But this rests upon the unproved assumption that the Nephilim of the book of Numbers were lineal descendants of those of Genesis. And on this uncertain basis the author or compiler of Genesis is charged with the absurdity of introducing a passage as preliminary to the deluge, which by its very terms implies that no deluge had taken place. Could he have so grossly mistaken its meaning? Or is it not possible that modern critics may have put a wrong interpretation on these isolated verses? The mere fact that the same term, “Nephilim,” is applied both to the antediluvians and to Canaanites is a very slender premise on which to base so extraordinary a conclusion. The word is obscure in its meaning and its derivation. It is more probably an appellative or descriptive term than a Gentile noun.

The LXX. [Septuagint] translates it “giants”; other old Greek versions render it “assailants” or “violent men.” It does not occur again in the narrative of the conquest of Canaan, as though it were the proper name of a tribe, but only in the report of the spies, whose excited imagination could best express the terror inspired by these men of great stature and powerful frame by saying that they were the old giants revived.

It is further to be observed that the Nephilim are not said to have sprung from the union of the sons of God with the daughters of men. The statement is that the Nephilim were in the earth prior to these intermarriages, and also after these intermarriages had taken place. But it is not said that they were in any case the fruit of such marriages. The critics, however, tell us that though this is not expressly stated, it is implied. This is by no means necessarily so. But suppose it to be granted; the mythological interpretation is an impossibility nevertheless. The idea that the Nephilim were a superhuman race sprung from the union of angels with the daughters of men is completely nullified by the explicit declaration that the Nephilim existed before such marriages took place, as well as after. No new species of creature can be intended, therefore, whose origin is traced to the intermarriage of different orders of beings.

1. It is objected that the “daughters of men” must have the same universal sense in verse 2 as in verse 1; and that the contrast of the “sons of God” with “the daughters of men” shows that different orders of beings are here referred to. But this contrast works precisely the other way. It has been already shown that in Scripture language the sons of God are His chosen people—the God-fearing race. In contrast with them “the daughters of men” are necessarily limited to the rest of mankind, the ungodly mass. Abundant illustrations can be given of the restriction put upon universal terms by their context. In Jeremiah xxxii. 20, God is said to have set signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, in Israel, and among men. It is said of the wicked (Ps. lxxiii. 5), “They are not in trouble as men; neither are they plagued like men.” In Judges xvi. 17, Samson says: “If I be shaven I shall become weak and be like all men.” No one has ever inferred from these passages that Egypt and Israel, the wicked and Samson, belonged to some other race of beings because they are set in contrast with “men.” The universal term is restricted by its connection; and hence the English version properly inserts the word “other” and reads

“other men.” A precisely parallel case may be found in the sentence pronounced upon the serpent (Gen. iii. 15), “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.” The seed of the woman interpreted by the following verse and taken in its unlimited sense would denote all her descendants. But the contrast with the seed of the serpent necessarily limits it to those of the race who have not fallen under the power of evil, and of whom alone it can be said that they shall bruise the serpent’s head.

1. Whatever interpretation be put upon doubtful expressions in verse 3, it plainly intimates the divine purpose to inflict some penalty affecting the life of the whole human race. “His days shall be an hundred and twenty years,” if spoken of the generation then living, would mean that they should not survive that limit; if of successive generations of men, that this should henceforth be the term of human life. The former is demanded by the context. The latter is preferred by critics whose uniform usage is to interpret at variance with the context, if possible. It is here absolutely without support. There is no suggestion anywhere that the duration of human life was ever fixed at one hundred and twenty years. It is contradicted by all that is recorded of the ages of subsequent patriarchs from Noah to Jacob. This verse, then, explicitly points to a catastrophe, in which that whole generation should be involved, and which should take place in one hundred and twenty years. . . . This passage has been considered thus at length in order to show how futile is the critical allegation that the opening verses of chapter vi. are imbued with mythological ideas, and have been inserted here from some unknown document, and made to bear a sense at variance with their original and proper meaning. We have before seen how groundless is the assertion that iv. 17-24, implies that there had been no deluge. Neither is there any such implication in xi. 1-9. The further conclusion that these passages are isolated extracts from a common source, which knew nothing of any such catastrophe, falls of itself.

Some have written to me, that I am possibly too joyful of the cross; but my joy overleapeth the cross, and is bounded and terminated upon Christ. I know that the sun will overcloud and eclipse, and that I shall again be put to walk in the shadow; but Christ must be welcome to come and go, as He thinketh meet. Yet He would be more welcome to me, I trow, to come than to go.—Rutherford.

Luther at the Diet of Worms

LUTHER had been for a moment overawed on the evening before when he had to appear before so august an assembly. His heart had been agitated at the sight of so many princes before whom great kingdoms humbly bent the knee. The thought that he was going to refuse obedience to men whom God had invested with sovereign power gave him deep concern; and he felt the necessity of seeking strength from a higher source. On this morning of the 18th April he had moments of trouble, when the face of God was hid from him. His faith becomes faint; his enemies seem to multiply before him; his imagination is overpowered. His soul is like a ship tossed by a violent tempest, now plunged to the depths of the sea, and again mounting up towards Heaven. At this hour of bitter sorrow, he turns his face to the ground, and sends forth broken cries, cries which we cannot comprehend, unless we figure to ourselves the depth of the agony from which they ascended up to God—”God Almighty! God Eternal! how terrible is the world—how it opens its mouth to swallow me up! and how defective my confidence in Thee. How weak the flesh, how powerful Satan! If I must put my hope in that which the world calls powerful, I am undone. The knell is struck, and judgment is pronounced. O God! O Thou my God! assist me against all the wisdom of the world. Do it. Thou must do it. Thou alone, for it is not my work, but Thine. I have nothing to do here: I have nothing to do contending thus with the mighty of the world! I, too, would like to spend tranquil and happy days. But the cause is Thine: and it is just and everlasting. O Lord, be my help! Faithful God, immutable God! I trust not in any man. That were vain. All that is of man vacillates. All that comes of man gives way. O God, dost Thou not hear? My God, art Thou dead? No, Thou canst not die! Thou only hidest Thyself. Thou hast chosen me for this work. I know it. Act then, O God! . . . Stand by my side, for the sake of Thy well-beloved Son, Jesus Christ, who is my defence, my buckler, and my fortress.”

After a moment of silence and wrestling, he continues thus:—”Lord, where standest Thou? I am ready to give up my life for Thy truth, patient as a lamb. For the cause is just, and it is Thine. I will not break off from Thee, either now or through eternity! And though the world should be filled with devils, though

my body, which, however, is the work of Thy hands, should bite the dust, be racked on the wheel, cut in pieces, ground to powder, my soul is Thine. Yes, Thy Word is my pledge. My soul belongs to Thee. O God, help me! Amen.”

This prayer explains Luther and the Reformation. This meditation by one who is sacrificing himself to the cause of truth is found among the collection of pieces relating to Luther’s appearance at Worms, under Number XVI., among safe conducts and other documents.—J. H. M. D’Aubigne, D.D.

James Arminius and His Teaching*

ARMINIUS, or as the Dutch called him, Harmensen, was born at Oudewater—a quaint old town of South Holland, lying on the Yssel, and about half-way from Rotterdam to Utrecht. This was in the year 1560—fourteen years after the death of Luther and four years previous to that of Calvin.

The parents of Arminius were peasants, and while he was a child their humble home was burned by Spanish soldiers—his parents murdered, and he left an orphan. For some time the young boy was employed as a servant in the village “herberg” or inn, but having attracted the attention of several well-to-do people by his dexterity and cleverness, he was kindly taken under the care of a clergyman, who superintended his education until he was fitted to enter the University of Utrecht. During his course at the University this benefactor died, but another came to his rescue, who transferred him to the University of Marburg. From thence he was removed again to Leyden, and thus enjoyed superior advantages for acquiring what of learning and culture the Dutch, then the first scholars in Europe, had to confer.

At length, at the age of 22, to round out his studies, he was sent to Geneva, where he had the high privilege

* This article is an extract from “James Arminius: or False to his Trust,” by the Rev. George Sayles Bishop, D.D., New Jersey, and recently published by the Sovereign Grace Union (98 Camberwell Grove, London, S.E.5), (price 2d). It gives a very good account in short compass of Arminius and his teaching. Dr Watts, Belfast, used to say that Arminius never did anything to fight the battle of the Reformation, and when he appeared on the scene it was only as a disturber of the peace.—Editor.

of studying under Beza, the successor of Calvin, in whose arms the great Reformer died. Already, in Geneva, the spirit of Arminius began to show itself. To great activity of mind and ardour of inquiry, he added a self-sufficiency and self-assertion, which soon expressed itself in whispered criticisms upon the professors, and in an artful sowing of the seeds of discord, chiefly by means of private conversations, which resulted in drawing together a party of young malcontents, and led to his dismissal.

This circumstance impaired to no small degree the confidence hitherto placed in Arminius—but, regarding his vagaries as the crudities and unintentional irregularities of youth, which larger and matured experience would overcome, his friends resolved to overlook them, and projected for him an extended tour through Italy, including Rome. Here again, however, the unhappy youth proved false to principle. In Rome he adopted the maxim: “Do as Romans do.” At least he is accused of kissing the Pope’s toe, and of a secret understanding with Bellarmine, the chief antagonist of Protestantism.

His cleverness, however, still blinded his Netherland friends to his inward dishonesty. In spite of strange hints, now and then, of that which was not loyal, Arminius was elected one of the pastors of Amsterdam. Here, while posing as most orthodox among the orthodox, he surreptitiously promulgated opinions, the inevitable tendency of which was to undermine and overthrow the doctrine professed and to stir distrust and dissension. He was soon accused of not loving the Doctrines of Grace, and many of his brethren began to look upon him and upon his expressions with deep apprehension.

At length, in 1602, the illustrious Francis Junius, Professor of Divinity in Leyden, died, and the friends of Arminius conspired to place him in the vacant seat. Notwithstanding the most strenuous efforts of the staunch orthodox, the thing was accomplished, and Arminius became the professor—the Classis, however, in setting him apart, exacted from him a solemn and particular promise and pledge that if it should be found that he held any notions other than those of the Belgic Confession, he would confess this in private to his ecclesiastical peers and conscientiously refrain from disseminating them broadcast.

Arminius agreed to this, and on entering upon his professorship, he seemed to take much pains to clear himself from all suspicion by publicly proclaiming the

received doctrines—doctrines which he afterward as publicly contradicted and which his intimate friends acknowledge were against his convictions at the very time.

This course of things went on a year or two, when it was all at once discovered that Arminius was in the constant practice of maintaining one set of opinions in the professor’s chair, and another and opposing set by means of private manuscripts and talks among the students. He was also accustomed while publicly commending the characters and sentiments of the Reformed divines, to artfully insinuate such things as were adapted indirectly to bring them into discredit—lower their influence and weaken their hold on the popular mind.

It was observed along with this, that those who associated with Arminius became disaffected—fell off in their warmth of attachment to principle, and were often dropping words and hints which could not but do damage to the faith and the peace of the Church. “In this posture of affairs,” says Dr Samuel Miller, to whose valuable essay upon the Synod of Dort I am indebted for assistance in regard to these facts, “In this posture of affairs the magistrates of Leyden, alarmed by the evils which were at work, besought Arminius to hold a conference with his colleagues of the University, before the Classis respecting those doctrines to which he objected, that the extent of his objections might be ascertained and made known. But this Arminius declined. In the same manner he treated one proposal after another—declining all explanation—either before a committee or before a Church Court. Now and then in Synod and Classis, and even by secular men, the attempt was made to move in the case, but Arminius was never ready, and had always insurmountable objections to every method proposed. It was evident that he wished to gain time in which his leaven might work to put off all decisive action until he should have such an opportunity of influencing leading minds in the country as eventually to prepare them to side with himself. Thus he went on, evading, postponing, concealing, shrinking from investigation and endeavouring in secret to throw odium upon the doctrines and their adherents, hoping thus gradually to diminish their power and ultimately to gain a majority in whatever Synod then might be called.

“It is a painful narrative,” says Dr Miller, “but may truly be affirmed to be the history of every heresy which has ever arisen in the Christian Church. When heresy arises in an Evangelical body it is never open and frank. It always begins by skulking and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of ‘advanced thought,’ of vast improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the ‘old dead orthodoxy’ and the antiquated errors of our fathers; but when charged with deviations from the accepted faith they complain of the injustice of the accusation as they differ from it only in certain expressions, and indeed only in words. This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. They are almost never honest and candid as a party, in the avowal of their sentiments, until they gain strength enough to feel sure of some degree of popular support. Thus it was with Arius in the 4th Century, with Pelagius in the 5th Century, with Arminius and his companions in the 17th, with Amyraut, the father of modern New-Schoolism, who ruined the orthodoxy of the Huguenots of France, with Channing and the Unitarians of Massachusetts when the last century came in. These men denied their real tenets, evaded examination or inquiry, declaimed against their accusers as merciless bigots and heresy-hunters, and strove, as long as they could, to agree with their orthodox neighbours, until the time came, when, partly from inability to hold in any longer and partly because they felt strong enough to come out, they avowed their real opinions.

An illustration of the working of the same corruption has been furnished by a great denomination of our country during the last two decades of years, and while granting that the rank and file who follow their beck are innocent of wrong intention and are led by the plausible whispers of “progress” and “peace,” it is patent to all observation that the leaders of the so-called “Revision” are men of precisely the spirit just now depicted—as like to Arminius as Z is to Zed.

Finally, in the case of Arminius, as in the present juncture, there was a universal desire that a Council should settle it. From the Provinces of Holland there went up to the States General a petition that a National Synod should meet “for the purpose of “revising” the Belgic Confession and the Catechisms of the Church.” The Synod of South Holland took alarm at this, and begged the substitution of a less radical word in the place of “revising.” This attempt to call a National

Synod, through the influence of Arminius, failed, but he could not stave off the issue. Finally the nerve of the Church was aroused. Men like Gomarus, Voetius, Bogerman, and others threw off their cowardice, and a Synod embracing representatives from the whole Protestant world was convened, in the city of Dort, for the purpose of helping the Synod of Holland to cope with an evil now grown so formidable that it threatened, like the North Sea, to break in all her dykes.

Before that Synod, made up of Commissioners of the Church of Scotland, of Bishops of the Church of England, then Calvinistic, and of delegates from Germany, the Palatinate, Switzerland and France,* Arminius was summoned. A greater summons, however, awaited him. Agitation and horror of mind seized on the unhappy man in his 49th year. To it he succumbed. “In his last sickness,” says his friend and apologist, Bertius, “he was sometimes heard to groan, and sigh, and cry out, ‘Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and of contention to the whole earth. I have lent to no man on usury, nor have men lent to me on usury, yet every man doth curse me!'”

Such is the report of his friend. Those who opposed him did not hesitate, however, to apply to him those words of Zech. xi. 17 and xiv. 12—”Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! The sword shall be put upon his arm and upon his right eye; his arm shall be clean dried up and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.” “And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh shall consume away, while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.”* The death of Arminius is like many another interposition where enmity to the truth and to its supporters has been artful, concealed, wilful and virulent. God has a way of reaching the case which is beyond the circle of man’s ken or action. His providence all down the ages sets its solemn seal to this unalterable fiat: “The lip of truth shall be established for ever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment.”

* The French delegates were prevented from attending by their Roman Catholic King.

* Hansen, “Reformed Church in the Netherlands.”