I'm gonna stand for the reading of Holy Scripture. Turning first to our New Testament lesson, 2 Peter chapter two. 2 Peter two, verse one, which I'm convinced has relevance for our Old Testament lesson and sermon text in Genesis 6. So read, or rather, listen to the reading with that in mind. 2 Peter 2. There were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you. who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed by covetousness. They will exploit you with deceptive words for a long time. Their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber. For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment, and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly, and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly. and delivered righteous lot who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked for that righteous man dwelling among them tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds. Then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment. And especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lusts of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord. This is the word of our God. We'll turn now to our Old Testament lesson and sermon text in Genesis 6. It has been some time since we have been in our Book of Beginnings series. We took out time for focusing on the incarnation and then on a new year. But this morning, Lord willing, we'll be starting afresh in Genesis 6, and we'll continue therein for many weeks to come. Let us read Genesis 6. Our sermon text will be the first four verses, but for context, I'll read down through verse eight. Now it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful. And they took wives for themselves, of all whom they chose. And the Lord said, my spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh, yet his days shall be 120 years. There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men, who were of old, men of renown. Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth. And he was grieved in his heart. So the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. May the Lord bless the reading and the proclamation of his holy word to our hearts for Christ's sake, amen. You may be seated. Genesis 6, one to four, is one of the most difficult and debated texts in the entire Bible. It's a strange passage, and it raises all sorts of mysterious questions. Who are the sons of God? Are they angels? Or are they men? And if they're angels, how can spiritual beings take human women as wives? Is that even possible? And where did the giants come from? Are they actually giants, or are they merely larger-than-life heroes? Now it might be tempting for us to skip this strange section and to jump ahead to the familiar and safe story of the flood and Noah's ark, but as I've said in the past, the Holy Spirit never wastes his breath. All scripture is profitable, including Genesis 6, one to four. And more than that, if we really lean into this text, I'm convinced that it is not a fringe portion of God's word. Actually, it is at the heart of the biblical plot line and drives the story forward. As one scholar puts it, if it's weird, it's important. And so it is with this passage. Among other things, it provides the background for the flood. The flood does not come out of nowhere. The immediate context is these verses. If you start in Genesis 3 and go to Genesis 6, what you find is an escalation of evil, a spiritual downgrade, what Gerhard von Raad calls an avalanche of sin. Three big sins. Genesis 3, Adam and Eve take of the fruit of the forbidden tree. Genesis 4, Cain strikes and kills his brother. And then you have Genesis 6, where the sons of God take of the daughters of Pharaoh. Men, Adam sinned with the ear in the garden. He didn't listen to the voice of the Lord. Cain sinned with his hand in the land of Eden. He struck his brother. And then the sons of God, as it were, sinned with their feet in such a way that they transgress a boundary and they bring destruction upon the entire worlds. This sin of the sons of God is one of what we could call three big falls in the story of Genesis. Of course, the original fall of Adam and Eve, then you have the sin of the sons of God that leads to the flood, and then finally, the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. But the big idea is this is part of an escalation of evil that is leading to some sort of decisive crisis moment. It's also a hinge point in the story. The story of the sons of God bears resemblance, on the one hand, to Lamech, if we go backwards, and to Nimrod, if we go forwards. Like Lamech, we find abuse of marriage, we find tyranny, and violence, and above all, pride. And this sin of the sons of God should also tell us something or remind us of the Garden of Eden, because what did Eve do in the Garden of Eden? She saw the fruit, that it was beautiful, that it was desirable to make one wise, and she took of it and she ate. Well here, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were literally good, and then they took. congregation, whoever the sons of God are, and whatever is happening here, their sin led to great evil, and that evil led to God's judgment, a worldwide flood that wiped out the human race with only eight exceptions, the eight souls aboard the ark. Now why was this sin? which some people might be tempted to skip over. Why was this sin so heinous and destructive? Well, at roots, and this is the big idea of this passage, the sin of the sons of God involved the transgression of sacred, God-given boundaries. It involved an improper union of heaven and earth. An improper mingling of the sons of God and the daughters of men in this high-handed sin led to the flood. We're gonna approach this difficult and debated text under three sets of three. First, we'll look at three interpretations that have been suggested, then we'll look at three applications, and then finally, three ways in which this passage points us to Jesus Christ. First, three interpretations of Genesis 6, one to four. The big question, besides who the daughters of men are, is who are the sons of God? Who are the sons of God? And this is debated because that phrase, which in Hebrew is bene Elohim, that phrase is sometimes used of godly believers. To them gave he power to become the sons of God. It's also used at times for human rulers. In Exodus 21.6, the sinner is brought to judges. brought to the sons of God. And then also, angelic beings are referred to by this title in Job 1 and 2, in 38-7, and also in Psalm 82, which we just sang a few minutes ago. And that's led to three interpretations of who the sons of God are. First, some people argue that the sons of God are the line of Seth. Remember, you have the godly line of Seth and the wicked line of Cain. You have these two lines. And people like Augustine and many in the Reformed tradition argued that when the sons of God marry with the daughters of men, this is a mixture, an intermarriage of the righteous line of Seth with the wicked line of Cain. And thus there's a mixing of the two seeds, the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. Now this interpretation has the advantage of being straightforward. We've been learning about both of these lines as we unpack Genesis 3.15, and it resolves certain, at least surface difficulties of the text. But there's some potential problems with this interpretation. For one thing, why are the Sethites here exclusively male, sons of God, and the Cainites, exclusively female, daughters of men. Why is all the masculinity on one side and the femininity on the other side? Also, why is the contrast one of God and man instead of righteous and wicked? It's not sons of godliness and daughters of wickedness, it's sons of God, daughters of men. And then finally, and this is a really hard question for anyone to wrestle with, where do the giants come from? Why is it when the sons of God intermarry with the daughters of men that the offspring are gigantic and unusual? What's going on? Well, that's led other people to suggest a second interpretation, and that is that the sons of God are wicked human rulers. Orthodox Presbyterian minister, Meredith Klein, was famous for championing this position, and he argued that in the ancient world, pagan kings claimed to be divine. that wicked pagan kings took to themselves the title Son of God, and that is true. And on that reading, when the text says that they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose, Meredith Klein argued that the sons of God, these kings, coerced women to join their royal harems. You think of perhaps even David, who sought and took Bathsheba for himself. On this reading, the sons of God are a continuation of Lamech, the man who took Ada and Zillah to be his wives and struck a man for wounding him. This fits the ancient context, but it doesn't answer all the questions. For example, once again, where did the giants come from? Well, that question of where giants come from has led to a third and final interpretation, which views the sons of God as wicked, supernatural beings. Not as the righteous line of Seth, drawn away by wicked women, and not wicked human rulers who assume to themselves divine prerogatives, but really fallen angels, or demons, Now, most of you, if you're tracking, and especially if you remember the words of our Lord, you might say, well, that's impossible because angels cannot marry. For instance, Jesus says in Matthew 22, 30, for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. We know from the rest of the Bible that God made man to be a race that propagates itself through ordinary generation, whereas the angels were created as a host. There was a definite number of angels, and angels do not reproduce themselves. In fact, they're almost, if not exclusively, masculine in appearance. What can we say about this objection? Well, first of all, the text doesn't actually say marriage, only that they took women. The word translated wives could just as easily be translated as women, generically. Second, do not is not the same thing as cannot. Saying that angels neither marry nor are given in marriage is different from saying that they cannot. marry or be given in marriage. Do not, does not equal, cannot. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Finally, Perhaps most importantly, as an answer to this potential objection, the mingling of the sons of God, which on this interpretation are angels, fallen angels, with the daughters of men, that mingling could have taken different forms. Some have suggested that it's not a literal union, but euphemistic for some kind of supernatural intervention, that demons, in some supernatural way, caused the birth of giants. Or others have argued that it could be a literal union, but mediated in some way. For example, it could have been mediated through human rulers, which we've already talked about, animated by demons. Demon-possessed or demonized human rulers who took women to themselves, or through religious rituals, such as cult prostitution. There's different ways this mingling could have occurred. Which of these interpretations is correct? The view that these are the sons of Seth, that these are pagan kings, or that they are demons, fallen angels? Well, I'm gonna put my cards on the table and not hold you in suspense, that I lean towards some version of that third view. that somehow fallen angels are involved in the process. And this might sound terribly weird to modern ears, but let me just say that the weirdness only underscores the wickedness. Again, if it's weird, it's important. So leaning into the possibility of this third interpretation, I'm gonna give you seven reasons. Seven reasons that suggest that angels might very well be the sons of God. First, the sons of God is used of angels throughout the Bible. Job 1 and 2, Satan takes his place in the heavenly throne room amidst the sons of God. In 38.7, the Holy Spirit describes the creation account with the sons of God shouting for joy. and then arguably in Psalm 82, where the Lord condemns the sons of God in his judgment. Second, I've already mentioned this, but in this passage, all the masculine terms are on one side, sons of God, with all of the feminine terms on the other, daughters of men. Third, the contrast seems to be between divine and human, sons of God versus daughters of men, not righteous and unrighteous. Fourth, and this might be the most important reason, this view alone explains where the giants come from. while all of a sudden giants spring onto the scene. Look at verse four again. There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Now the Hebrew word translated giants there is the word nephilim, and it is translated in the Greek a Septuagint, as gigantes, or giants. Somehow, this mingling of the sons of God and the daughters of men led to a gigantic race, an unusual group of warrior people, gibborim, mighty men of valor, heroes of gigantic stature. This unusual mingling led to an unusual offspring. Fifth reason, as I've already mentioned, this mingling could have taken different forms. Jesus spoke the truth when he said that angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. But this mingling could have been mediated through human rulers, animated by demons, or through religious rituals, such as cult prostitution. Sixth, this view has ancient support. And I don't want to lean too much into this, but it is interesting when you look at the ancient world that pagan mythology is full of the idea of supernatural beings taking to themselves human women. This could be a mythic distortion of something that actually happened in history. For example, Zeus, in Greek mythology, fathered Heracles in this manner. Not only that, but we find, again, in the ancient Near Eastern context, books like 1 Enoch, which are not inspired, but they are part of the cultural and literary milieu of the biblical authors. Also, Josephus takes this position, and more importantly for our purposes, many of the early church fathers thought that in some way, angels were involved. For instance, Justin Martyr in his apology said, the angels who transgressed their command mingled with women and thus fell. And really this was the standard interpretation until the mid-second century. Whether you were a rabbi or an early church father, most people, including Irenaeus, thought that somehow fallen angels were involved. Seventh reason, and the most important. This view seems to be reflected in the New Testament. If you go to Peter's epistles and you go to Jude, we find an inspired New Testament commentary on Genesis 6. And as I read these passages, think about how they assume, in my understanding, some sort of supernatural view of what's going on in Genesis 6. Jude 6 and 7 says this. And the angels, who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, he has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day. Now you wonder, what kind of sin did these angels commit? Well, verse seven says, as Sodom and Gomorrah. in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example. Likewise, also these dreamers defile flesh. When you read those verses in concert, Jude seems to be talking about an angelic sin like the sin of Sodom that was sexual in nature, which would fit an angelic reading of Genesis 6, one to four. Likewise, the apostle Peter speaks of the same sin in his second epistle, which we already read. God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell, literally into Tartarus. and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved for judgment and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly. Again, you have to connect the dots, but here, Peter speaks of an angelic sin in close proximity with the flood in Noah's day. Could he be speaking about Genesis 6, one to four? And then finally, the angels make another appearance in Peter's first epistle. 1 Peter 3 verse 18, for Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit. By whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison. who formerly were disobedient when once the divine long-suffering waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared in which a few, that is eight souls, were saved through water. Now there are different ways to interpret 1 Peter 3, Martin Luther argued that Jesus Christ, after he died on the cross and his body was placed into the tomb, in his soul descended into the place of the dead and proclaimed his victory over the spirits in prison. That would include the wicked sons of God and or the spirits of the dead giants. And so there's strong New Testament support that angels in some way or another are involved in Genesis 6. What are we to make of this passage? I should say that good men differ on how to interpret it. You have Augustine, who views it as the line of Seth. You have Klein, who argues it's the pagan rulers. And then people like Irenaeus, the early church father, who take it to be fallen angels. But for these seven reasons, I lean towards some version of the angelic interpretation. But having said that, it's not necessarily either or. We could say there could be a bonus or a hybrid interpretation. Because if you take the view that it's the line of Seth intermarrying with the line of Cain, this would be an event that would be demonic or satanic in origin. Just as Satan wanted the Israelite men to intermarry with the Moabite women at the provocation of the prophet Balaam. This would be supernatural in quality because They're being led astray by the evil one. Likewise, we've already mentioned this, but there could be demon-possessed or demonized human rulers who are taking to themselves human women. And so it's possible that these interpretations are not as far apart as they initially seem. More than that, whichever interpretation you find most persuasive, there is the same underlying problem. Whatever the sin is, and whoever the sons of God are, their transgression involves the crossing of God-ordained boundaries. In some way or another, it involves the improper union of heaven and earth, and because of that, Whichever interpretation you favor, the applications will overlap significantly. And that brings us from three interpretations to three applications. Three applications, each one based on one of the three main views of this text. And I believe each application is true in its own right, because you can draw it from different places in the whole counsel of God. And again, there's the same underlying theology, however you take the passage. First, when it comes to the view that this is the line of Seth, surely there's application here for us to refrain from intermarriage with unbelievers. God's people should not marry unbelievers. 2 Corinthians 6.14, do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. Instead, 1 Corinthians 7.39, Christians must marry only in the Lord. Again, if we take the view that the sons of God are the line of Seth, then especially, I speak to our covenant children, I speak to our covenant youth, those who are unmarried, consider the teaching of the word of God throughout the whole council of God that Christians should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. Second application. When it comes to the idea that these are human rulers that are in view, one application is to resist tyranny and degeneracy. Among other things, Genesis 6, one to four is a polemic against tyrants. Congregation tyrants take. The sons of God saw the daughters and meant they were fair, and they took of whomever they chose. Tyrants take. They take your money, your life, your liberty, your property, your devotion. In pagan countries, they even take your women for themselves. And even in this land, there are those who would like to take our young women and force them into a military draft. Whether it's excessive taxation, unjustified pandemic lockdowns or idolatrous emperor worship tyrants take. It's also a polemic against the kind of lust that led tyrants in the ancient world to seize women for their royal harems. This passage is a polemic against the Muslim gangs in England, against the Jeffrey Epstein's and the Andrew Tate's of this world, against all sexual immorality and deviancy. This passage affirms the biblical ideal of one man and one woman for life, not a tyrant taking women to himself as he pleases, but as our elder requirements from the New Testament state it, a one woman kind of man. Third and final application, when it comes to the angelic view, which again is the one that I favor in some form or another, we need to recover a supernatural worldview. Not just to refrain from intermarriage with unbelievers, though that is true, not simply to resist tyranny and degeneracy, but this passage forces us, really with whatever position you take, given the supernatural backdrop, to recover a supernatural worldview. I suggest and put to you that one of the reasons the angelic interpretation seems so strange to us is that we have been brainwashed and indoctrinated by enlightenment skepticism and materialism. We live in an age where the so-called scientific experts tell us that there's nothing that exists but matter in motion. There's nothing that matters. No heaven above us, no hell below, just matter in motion. The Enlightenment, I put to you congregation, was actually an endarkment that has disenchanted the world that God has made. Genesis six becomes for us modern folk a great litmus test to your fidelity to the supernatural worldview of the Bible. If it seems persuasive that the sons of God are fallen angels that in some way are mingling with human women, it forces us to reckon with the possibility that we might be embarrassed of the word of God. Congregation, let us not be embarrassed of anything in the Bible, but rather to embrace it, to lean into it. that this passage, among other things, encourages us that there is real spiritual warfare afoot, that as surely as the sons of God took the daughters of men, we are called to put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Interestingly, the Corinthian prophetess, covered her head because of the angels. We need, in the modern age, to recover the supernatural worldview of the Bible, that we live in a cosmos where heaven and hell are real, where angels and men are engaged in real conflict. Are these spiritual realities real to you? Let us recover this supernatural worldview together. We've seen three interpretations, three applications, finally, three ways in which this passage points us to Jesus Christ. I said at the beginning of the sermon, this is not a fringe passage. No, it provides the backdrop for the flood. And the flood is the watershed between the world that then was and the world that now is. It's important, but it's also significant because this passage points us, as all the scriptures do, to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. You say, how does it do that? Well, first, Jesus is the true son of Seth. He's the true Sethite. Unlike the sons of God, he rejected folly and sought wisdom. He judged the whore of Babylon, and he was betrothed to the daughter of Zion. Second, Jesus is the benevolent monarch. Unlike the sons of God, he laid down his life for his subjects, and he is utterly faithful to his bride, the church. Third and finally, Jesus is the incarnate, only begotten Son of God. It's true that sometimes human rulers are referred to as sons of God, believers are called that, and angels are called that. Sons of God. But the angels and men are creatures. They were made by God, but there is one who is the only begotten, the unique, uncreated, eternally begotten Son of God, and that is Jesus Christ. Unlike the sin of the sons of God, which was an improper mingling of heaven and earth, Jesus' incarnation represents and is the proper union of heaven and earth. and earth, the hypostatic union, God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever. By his death and his resurrection, Jesus killed the giants. Jesus defeated the demons. Jesus won a crown and he was married to the church. This passage gestures towards that great marriage supper of the lamb. In Genesis 6, one through four, as the contrast, as the photographic negative to the sons of God, I call you to behold King Jesus in his beauty, to behold your God. Even so come, Lord Jesus, come quickly, amen.