While I view the old Scofield reference Bible as a fine reference Bible, there are some points of disagreement. One such point is his view that the "sons of God" of Genesis 6:2-4 are not fallen angels, but rather the godly sons of Seth who chose to intermarry with the ungodly daughters of Cain. His note reads as follows:
"Some hold that these "sons of God" were the "angels which kept not their first estate" Jude 6. It is asserted that the title is in the O.T. exclusively used of angels. But this is an error Isa 43:6. Angels are spoken of in a sexless way. No female angels are mentioned in Scripture, and we are expressly told that marriage is unknown among angels. Mt 22:30 . . . The uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that verse Ge 6:2 marks the breaking down of the separation between the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain, and so the failure of the testimony to Jehovah committed to the line of Seth Ge 4:26. For apostasy there is no remedy but judgment Isa 1:2-7,24-25; Heb 6:4-8; 10:26-31. Noah, "a preacher of righteousness," is given 120 years, but he won no convert, and the judgment predicted by his great-grandfather fell Jude 14-15; Ge 7:11."
Since I do not particularly enjoy the wild possibilities that must be considered with the fallen angels view, I actually wish that I could subscribe to Scofield's view, but I can't. Here are some of my reasons:
(1) Scofield is incorrect in his treatment of the term "sons of God." The exact phrase "sons of God" is found five times in the Old Testament, two in Genesis and three in Job. The two in Genesis are found here in Genesis 6:2 and in 6:4. The other three Old Testament occurrences are in the book of Job, the oldest book of the Bible. So, the term "sons of God" in the Old Testament is found only in the two oldest books of the Bible, Job and Genesis. The three Job occurrences are as follows:
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." (Job 1:6)
"Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD." (Job 2:1)
"When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:7)
All three occurrences refer to spirit beings, and two of the occurrences have Satan himself, also a spirit being, in the group. Scripture with scripture, there is no precedent for claiming that the "sons of God" are mere men. The three witnesses found in Job, a book which predates Genesis in authorship, establishes the "sons of God" as something other than men. It's certainly true that God is opposed to the integration of the righteous and the wicked throughout the scriptures, but He never terms this the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men." Something very different happened in Genesis 6.
(2) If God had intended for us to interpret "sons of God" as the sons of Seth, then He could have simply said, "sons of Seth." Hoping that we would interpret "sons of God" as being the godly children of Seth when no scripture says this would be almost a vain hope since it is the way of God to teach us scripture WITH other scripture. Had God already told us that the children of Seth constituted a "godly line" or perhaps "godly sons," then maybe the Scofield view would carry more weight, but God never made such statements, nor did He ever call men the "sons of God." Adam was "the son of God" (Luke 3:38), but he died spiritually when he sinned and failed to reproduce sons in God's image (Gen. 5:3).
(3) Scofield's desperate attempt to use Isaiah 43:6 is downright embarrassing to serious students of scripture, since the verse is a PROPHECY of a future reality when Israel is converted to Christ, not a declaration of Old Testament doctrinal truth. The verse says, "I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth." The verse is a prophecy that is yet to be fulfilled, and the verse does not use the exact term "sons of God," as do the other five references previously given. The fact that Scofield gave only this verse as a reference shows the weakness of his view.
(4) After the initial five "sons of God" references in the two oldest Old Testament books, the term is not found again until the NEW Testament, where it enjoys 6 occurrences (John 1:12; Rom. 8:14, 19; Philip. 2:15; I John 3:1-2), all of which have reference to believers in Christ who have BECOME sons of God as a result of having received Christ.
(5) The New Testament's first usage of the term "sons of God" makes it very clear that men had not been sons of God since Adam's fall and that only through Christ THE "Son of God" could sonship be regained. John 1:12-13 says, "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." A man is a son of God when he is BORN of God by believing on Christ. No children of Seth were born again, so no children of Seth were "sons of God." It makes no sense to say that receiving Christ would give people power to have what they already had. No, believing on Jesus would give people what they did NOT have, divine sonship, which had been lost in Adam since Genesis 3.
(6) Scofield denies that the "sons of God" of Genesis 6 are the angels which kept not their first estate (Jude 6), yet the word of God offers no other historic setting for these angels to fall or an account of their fall. In other words, Jude's comments about "the angels which kept not their first estate" refers to exactly WHAT?
II Peter 2:4-5 clearly places these fallen angels into the context Noah and the flood: "For if God spared not the ANGELS THAT SINNED, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved NOAH the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in THE FLOOD upon the world of the ungodly." Scripture with scripture, angels fell in the days of Noah, Genesis calls them "sons of God," and Job verifies the terminology as being scriptural.
(7) Scofield does not bother to explain how the union of godly Sethites and ungodly Cainites produced GIANTS, yet Genesis 6:1-4 clearly indicates that this happened. Saved people marry unsaved people all the time, yet we do not see ten and twelve-foot kids on the junior high basketball team, nor do we see 95-yard field goals being kicked by giant football kids wearing size 22 cleats. Something more than humans were cohabitating in Genesis 6.
(8.) Scofield's statement that "Angels are spoken of in a sexless way" is just plain false and is unworthy of his fine reference Bible. Angels in the Bible are spoken of as MEN from Genesis to Revelation: Genesis 18:1-3; 19:1, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15-16; Judges 13:6; Luke 24:3-6; Hebrews 13:2; Revelation 21:17. Scofield's reasoning that angels are sexless, since they aren't female, is quite bazaar, since everyone else in the Bible who isn't female is MALE!
(9) He also blunders by stating that "marriage is unknown among angels" and giving Matthew 22:30 as his reference. Big mistake. Matthew 22:30 speaks of the angels IN HEAVEN not marrying. That's why they had to LEAVE heaven, their "first estate" (Jude 6) and come to the earth.
(10) As if knowing his argument to lack strength, Scofield then attempts to add a bit of weight to his position by appealing to the "uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation." Seriously? You just fumbled the scriptural football half a dozen times and now you're going to impress us with a quarterback sneak? LOL! Hit the bench, Cryus; we'll take it from here.
Look, I know the fallen angel view is wild, but so is the Revelation scenario when they come again: "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and HIS ANGELS WERE CAST OUT WITH HIM." (Rev. 12:9; emphasis added) The context is the great tribulation when the devil goes into panic mode ON EARTH because of his time limitations (12:12). The very next chapter introduces the antichrist. If there's no new thing under the sun (Ecc. 1:9-10), then Revelation 12:10-12 is a repeat of what has happened in the past. Just read a bit of Greek mythology, if you think this is new.
I might also add that the reasoning that God would not have made the angels with reproductive ability is flawed, because the fallen angels view does not require that God Himself equipped the angels to reproduce. Satan was the ringleader of this rebellious plan, so it is very likely that Satan concocted a means by which the fallen angels acquired the necessary blood and DNA for reproduction in hopes of corrupting the seed (Gen. 3:15) and destroying God's redemption plan. How all of this happened exactly, I do not profess to know, but given what we see with modern-day sex perversion, transgenderism and genetic engineering, it doesn't seem at all far-fetched to this writer that Satan and his angels might have experimented with such in the days of Noah. In other words, Doc's "blood-sucking angels from Jupiter" might not be as crazy as it sounds. I guess time will tell. Meanwhile, keep your generations perfect (Gen. 6:9), and look out for anyone trying to "mingle themselves with the seed of men" (Dan. 2:43).
James L. Melton
biblebaptistpublications.org
