Sons of God and Daughters of Men – Part 3

I received this letter yesterday from one of our readers, and I would like to share the first part of it. Then, what I would like to do is answer it!

Dear brother in Christ,

I’m [55-65] years old, pastor a church and have been a student of the Holy Bible for many years. Although I agree with most of your articles, I am quite sure you are far off base on this area. I also poo-pooed” this idea [that demons “came down” and had sexual relations with women who then bore children by them] for years till I found upon deeper bible study and prayer that the giants in the earth could not be the children of the people in the earth as this would violate one of Gods’ laws of creation. He said, “let everything bring forth after its own kind” giants many feet tall as in the case of Goliath and the giants that inhabited the earth in the promised land could not be children of the natural peoples of the earth.



First, I must completely disagree with you in your emphatic statement, “giants many feet tall as in the case of Goliath and the giants that inhabited the earth in the promised land could not be children of the natural peoples of the earth”.

This is demon theology.

This is theology that kills those who are deformed, that gives justification for “putting to sleep” those that aren’t like us. This is the same type of theology that apartheid used against the blacks, the same type of theology that Hitler used against the Jews (and Christians, and anyone he didn’t like). It’s “justification for killing” theology. Suppose someone Goliath’s size were to come along to your party tonight, for example. What would you do? Would you seek to kill him because he was obviously “not a child of the natural peoples of the earth” (as you say in your letter)?

Here, let me give you a lucid example of some people that are “obviously” “not children of the natural people of the earth” – thalidomide children (some have no arms, for example, only hands that stick out from their sides). The person is deformed, or “unusual” (but we will heartily conclude he is special!) on account of some variation in the genetic component of his make-up. In this case, it is a genetic deformation that caused the problem. The man, or woman, was unfortunate enough to be a victim in such circumstances — no fault of his own.

Did God love Goliath? You bet he did!

Does God love the Jews more (or less) than he loves the other people of the earth? You bet he does NOT! Only that, God originally chose the Jews to REPRESENT HIM in this earth, to relate God’s goodness, and kindness, and mercy, to the OTHER people of the earth (and he still has a special purpose for them that will come to fulfillment one day). Now when the Jews shunned God, they by necessity also shunned God’s CALL ON THEIR LIVES, and God said, as it were, “You are not REPRESENTING ME LIKE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO. PEOPLE WILL NOT BE BLESSED THROUGH YOU LIKE I WANT THEM TO BE. I’M TURNING TO THE GENTILES.”

And that’s what we read in Scriptures record. (I’ll spare the quote here.)

To recap, then, God neither prefers nor abhors SHORT people because they are short, or TALL people because they are tall, or GIANT people because they are giants (or Nephilim, as the Scriptures call them in Genesis 6). But rather, he has a HIGH DISREGARD FOR SIN IN GENERAL AND THAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM. It is SIN!

I admit, Genesis 6 can be a tricky passage. The meaning of “sons of God” must be derived from the context of the preceding chapter (Genesis 5). So, too, can the word “giant” or “Nephilim” throw people. But it shouldn’t at all, if we are careful to read everything in its context. I tried to show yesterday that everything that was WRONG about the people that God judged was SIN RELATED and not DEMON RELATED AT ALL. That is crucial to our “overcoming” this bad theology which has been revolving around the earth, trying, somehow, to “dismiss” the people of the earth back in the days of Noah — and I fear today, as well.

Notice, for example, the following verse: “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” (Genesis 6:8). That is because the other people DIDN’T! Of Noah, it says, “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.” (Genesis 6:9) If you read it again (carefully, this time), I think you will see that the Genesis 6 passage has everything to with “giants” especially in terms of being PROUD, HAUGHTY, PUFFED UP, and ARROGANT. This is the “real meaning” of “giant” in Genesis 6 — it may not necessarily have to do with size at all! (Think about it.) That is what the “renown” part of the passage is all about, that is why the word “renown” is even mentioned:

“There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” (Genesis 6:4)

Thus, they were the “olympic champions” (so to speak) of their day. They were the heroes, the superstars, the Wayne Gretzy (whom the world has unrighteously, and unlawfully called “the Great One”, a term which Wayne Gretzy himself has never denied, to his own shame and damnation, I fear! Today, Wayne Gretzy (recently indicted into the Hockey Hall of Fame) would be called a “man of renown” in the same sense that these men in Noah’s day were said to be “men of renown” (and “giants”). Yes, Wayne Gretzy is a “giant” … he is THE “Great One” according to the world of today. But what has happened to OUR GOD IN THE MEANTIME? HE HAS BEEN ROBBED OF HIS GLORY?

Meanwhile, God says to those who rob him of his glory and his honor, “Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me!” (Malachi 3:8) And, “I will NOT give my glory to another!” (Isaiah 42:8). Just think about that, and stop wondering when the judgment suddenly falls on the West as a whole, too swift and too powerful to hold back. Stop wondering. TODAY IS THE TIME TO REPENT AND NOT TOMORROW!

Now this is NOT the ONLY place in Scripture where the word “renown” is used in this same manner. Just check out these following verses:

“And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown” (Numbers 16:2)


“And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment. … And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation.” (Numbers 16:20-21,32-33)

The Scriptures, then, refer to these “men of renown” way back in Noah’s day, prior to the flood, and in Mose’s day, as well — both referring to individuals who were JUDGED BY GOD.

Dear brother, I am not mad, or mocking when I say this, but I heartily APPEAL TO YOU TO EXAMINE Genesis 6 once again and tell me WHAT the term “sons of God” means on the basis of CONTEXT ALONE AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF WHAT YOU BELIEVE THE TERM MEANS IN THE BOOK OF JOB (which is where the “demon theology” comes from).

Here’s what I’m getting at! The term “sons of God” is used in a VARIETY of different ways throughout the whole of the Bible. NOT ALL of these ways is the same! The only WAY to TELL what is the CORRECT interpretation is to understand it on the basis of CONTEXT.

My hat is blue. I feel blue. I drank a blue. (In Canada, we have “Labbatt’s Blue” beer, and the word “blue” here would be easily understood to mean “a type of beer”.)

Here’s another example. “He [Peter] stood condemned.” (Galatians 2:11) Contrast this with: “There is therefore NO condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 8:1) How then could the apostle Peter, who confessed Jesus Christ as the Son of God, stand condemned? Is the Bible wrong? Do Galatians 2:11 and Romans 8:1 contradict one another? No, but rather, the meaning of the words “condemned” in Galatians 2:11 and in Romans 8:1 is different! The Romans 8:1 passage means, “eternally condemned before God,” whereas the Galatians 2:11 passage simply means “most assuredly in the wrong.”

Need I say more?

The “sons of God” definition of Genesis 6 must NOT come from the book of Job (as the proponents of this false doctrine teach), but rather, FROM GENESIS 5, the PASSAGE WHICH PRECEDES IT AND IS RIGHT IN LINE WITH IT. IN FACT, WITHOUT GENESIS 5, YOU REALLY CANNOT UNDERSTAND GENESIS 6 IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT, FOR THE TERM “SONS OF GOD” REFERS TO THE HUMAN DESCENDANTS OF GOD AS DESCRIBED IN GENESIS 5. But it means much more than that.

Genesis 5:1 – This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him”.

Adam, then, was the first “son (or descendant, or human creation, for that matter) of God” (small ‘s’ if you will).

The two “sons of God” are placed side-by-side, in fact, in 1 Corinthians 15:45: “The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” (1 Corinthians 15:45)

Thus, both are “sons of God” in their own right. Both are “descendants of God”, as it were. Jesus, of course, is not “offspring” in the same sense that normal human beings are “offspring” — but, then again, neither was Adam himself “offspring” in the “normal sense”. Yet, both can still rightfully be called the “son of God”, as long as we remain true to what the term means for each.

Now the entirety of Genesis 5 has to do with this thing “begetting and dying”. (Just read it and you’ll see.)

“Adam … begat a son in his own likeness” (Genesis 5:3).

“Seth … begat sons and daughters” (Genesis 5:6-7)

“Enos … begat sons and daughters” (Genesis 5:9)


And it goes on. Right to chapter 6, where we read about the “sons of God,” which means “descendants of God” but … alas, it means MORE than that. The terms “sons of God,” I believe, is primarily an AUTHORITY STATEMENT, and somewhat of a sarcastic ridicule (by God) on what happened back in Noah’s day! My explanation as to why I believe this is so is as follows (and you don’t have to believe this if you want, but I think it makes a good deal of sense, so I would encourage you to at least think it over):

Back in Noah’s day, the men FORSOOK their God-given ROLE BEFORE THEIR HOLY CREATOR, TO BE LEADERS AND REAL “sons of God.” These men (like us today), could have had it made (as it were). If only they believed, and trusted in a loving Creator, they would not have been wiped out — they would have had this amazing authority as “SONS OF GOD”! Now our authority is RESTORED from the fall in Christ Jesus, and the fact that the term “sons of God” can and IS used as a type of AUTHORITY STATEMENT IN SCRIPTURE is easily seen from a passage like Galatians 3:26 – “For ye are all the children [or sons] of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” This passage referes to our AUTHORITY as believers. Thus, I say, that the Genesis 6 usage of the same term also is along these same lines.

Being “descendants of the most of high God,” they could have AT ANY TIME APPEALED TO THEIR MAKER AND RECEIVED AN IMMEDIATE RESPONSE OF APPROVAL (and/or pardon for their sin). Their needs — and especially their need for approval — would have been FULLY MET IN THE CHRIST WHO WAS TO BE GIVEN ON THEIR BEHALF. But they forsook all that in favor of lusting after women (that is a twisted way of trying to find approval). Thus … they were judged! What a shame! All because they refused to find their unconditional acceptance in their GOD alone (as we ourselves have been commanded to do, lest we also perish). Just think about that, will you please? I won’t go into all of the quotes here. But here is one:

“For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” (Galatians 1:10)

By definition, those who don’t serve Christ, are servants of the devil. “Ye are of your father the devil”, Jesus accused those Jews that did not believe in him. These were those that sought not the approval of God, but of men only. And thus, Jesus put them in the devil’s camp!

In closing on this point, then, if we don’t treat Genesis 5 properly, then we can’t treat Genesis 6 fairly. If we decide that, because of our theology, that we want to skip over to the book of Job to get our “picture” of what “sons of God” means, and forsake entirely what God has just said in his word in the previous chapter, then we have done a grave injustice to the Scriptures, and we will not get the proper interpretation of this passage.

Thank you, brother, and pastor, for writing. I will try to deal with some of your other points in some following articles, because I want to address all of your concerns, because I am also concerned that you are perhaps being “hung up” on some technicalities that are not, in fact, according to the Scriptures.

(More on Monday.)