In recent times there has been some
controversy surrounding the origin of what the Bible calls the Nephilim.
The verse in question here is found in
Genesis 6: 1 – 6 “And it came to pass,
when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born
unto them,
2) That
the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they
took them wives of all which they chose.
3) And
the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is
flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4) 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.
5) And
GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that
every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil
continually.
6) And
it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at
his heart.”
There
are three common views on the identity of the 'sons of God' (Bene Ha Elohim) marrying the 'daughters
of men' in Genesis 6.1-4:
1.Descendants of Seth married descendants of Cain
2.Nobles married commoners
3.Angels married human women
THE SETH LINE VIEW
This view supports the idea that the descendants of
Seth married descendants of Cain
The
account in Genesis 6.1-4, then, is telling us that there was a mingling of
righteous men (The Sethites) with unrighteous women, leading directly to the
wickedness that prompted God to flood the world. Already there is a problem
with this position because the intermingling of the Gentile nations is not
forbidden by God.
Because
Cain's descendants in Genesis 4 are inferred to be more wicked (based on the
progression of Genesis 8.8-24), while Seth's descendants are inferred to be
more righteous (based almost entirely on Genesis 4.25-26), it is common for
adherents of this view to further inaccurately identify the righteous 'sons of
God' with Seth's offspring and the 'daughters of men' with Cain's.
A common
criticism of this view is that the Genesis account mentions neither Seth nor
Cain, so identifying the 'sons of God' and the 'daughters of men' as their
descendants, respectively, is accused of presupposing too much about the
author's intention.
Another
point here is that IF the descendants of Seth were “righteous” then why did
they all die in Noah’s Flood? This view is rather fragile and collapses easily
when tested against the Word of God.
It was in the 5th century AD that the
"angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an
embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had
begun within the Church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the
church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these
views.)
Even today there is a resistance to accept
the text as it stands. The idea that angels can have sex with women is
frightening and abhorrent.
Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the
traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity.
Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite
interpretation as a more comfortable ground.
Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the
orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth"
interpretation. This
view was popularized by Augustine in his book City of God, chapter 23, and the
argument amounts to the following: the 'sons of God' designates people who are
faithful to God, and hence are being contrasted to people not-faithful to God.
Augustine
also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages.
It is still widely taught today among many
Churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing.
If the text was intended to contrast the
"sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so? Seth
was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and
the "daughters of Seth" There is no basis for restricting the text to
either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of
daughters of Elohim.)
There are many outstanding Bible teachers
who still defend this view in spite of the fact that nowhere in the Bible is
there even a hint that the “Sethites” were more righteous than any other family
on the earth.
Another question on the Seth View is
this...Where in Scripture does it refer to the Seth Line as “sons of God?”
In 1 John 3: 1, 2 Christians are referred
to as the “Sons of God” because, like the Angels and Adam, we are created anew
at the rebirth. Whereas we were the sons of Adam through a sexual union prior
to salvation, we are now the “Sons of God” like Adam is and the angels are.
1 John
3:1, 2 “Behold,
what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called
the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
Beloved,
now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we
know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as
he is.”
The Sethites were NOT the “sons of God.”
They were the sons of Adam.
Nowhere in the Bible does it refer to the
Seth line as the “sons of God.”
Nowhere in the Bible does it refer to the
Cain line as “daughters of men.”
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the
Seth line was particularly righteous.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the
Cain line was particularly unrighteous.
Unnatural Offspring
The most fatal flaw in the specious
"Sethite" view is the emergence of the Nephilim as a result of the
unions between the Sethites and the daughters of men. (Bending the translation
to "giants" does not resolve the difficulties.)
It is the offspring of these peculiar
unions in Genesis 6:4 which seem to be cited as a primary cause for the Flood. Procreation
by parents of differing religious views does not produce unnatural offspring.
Believers marrying unbelievers may produce "monsters," but hardly
superhuman, or unnatural, children! It was this unnatural procreation and the
resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the
judgment of the Flood.
The very absence of any such genetic adulteration
of the human genealogy in Noah's case is also documented in Genesis 6: 9 “These are the generations of Noah: Noah
was a just man and perfect in his generations,”
Noah's family tree, it seems was
distinctively unblemished. The term used, tamiym, is used for physical
blemishes.
Why were the offspring of the “sons of God”
uniquely designated as “mighty” and ‘men of renown?” This description
characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merely
men, even if godly.
A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no “women of
renown” are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites?
Were there only "Y" chromosomes available in this line?)
Consider carefully what this view proposes.
It assumes that God placed a prohibition on intermarriage between the line of
Seth and the line of Cain. However, some of the men in the line of Seth fell in
love with and married some women from the line of Cain ( though nothing is said
of the sons of Cain marrying the daughters of Seth. For some obscure reason,
this upsets God so much that He destroys the inhabitants of the earth because
of this intermarriage.
A final thought here is this. The union
between the “sons of God” produced the Nephilim
who were a hybrid between human and angelic
beings. They were giants. Why would the Sethites and the “daughters of men”
produce giants? To deny that they were giants is to tread on very thin ice. The
Septuagint translates the word “giants “in Genesis 6: 4 as “Gigantes.” Not only that but numerous
other passages in the Bible are quite specific, giants roamed the earth in
times past.
NOBLES MARRIED COMMONERS VIEW
Recognizing the deficiencies of the first
view, some scholars have sought to define the expression the sons of God by
comparing it with the languages of the Ancient Near East.
It is interesting to learn that some rulers
were identified as the son of a particular god.
In Egypt, for example, the king was called
the son of Ra.
In
the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, is used for men in
positions of authority.
This view,
originating in 2nd century AD from rabbinic thought, is that “sons of God” refers
to members of nobility. We know from a variety of texts from the Ancient Near
East that rulers were regularly yet erroneously referred to as the “sons of
God'.
In this
case, the “sons of God,” or the rulers of the ancient world are forcefully
taking women from the common folk, which is attested to in Ancient Near Eastern
culture.
While
the “sons of God” label could possibly refer to nobility, both of views presented
here suffer from the particular designation of the women as being 'daughters of
men'.
The
phrase “of God”, seems completely unnecessary if both the “sons” and “daughters”
are humans.
In this
view the “sons of God” refer to tyrant kings who seize the “daughters of men”
as they want. The sin here is the polygamy to gain political power.
Their sin was not intermarriage between two
groups--whether two worlds, (angels and man), two religious communities
(Sethite and Cainite), or two social classes (royal and common) but that the
sin was polygamy.
It was the same type of sin that the
Cainite Lamech practiced, the sin of polygamy, particularly as it came to
expression in the harem, the characteristic institution of the ancient oriental
despot's court. In this transgression the sons of God frequently violated the
sacred trust of their office as guardians of the general ordinances of God for
human conduct.
The
problem is that there is no hint in the text that anything like this is going
on.
In fact
there is no concept of nations until Genesis chapter 10 which is after the
Flood.
The
mention of kings does not occur till the time of Abraham. Polygamy was common
amongst all peoples including the Jews, including David and Solomon.
But this
view contends that the sin of polygamy was so great that it deserved the wiping
out of the entire earth. Really?
A
distinction between royalty and commoners did not exist in the first seven
chapters of Genesis. Also, nowhere does the Old Testament forbid the marriage
between two classes of people. A few kings practising tyranny, and advocating
polygamy and paganism, hardly seems enough reason o destroy the earth in a
global flood.
The whole idea of power hungry men, seeking
to establish a dynasty by the acquisition of a harem seems forced on the
passage. Who would ever have found this idea in the text itself, unless it was
imposed upon it? Also, the definition of the Nephilim as being merely violent
and tyrannical men seems inadequate. Why should these men be sorted out for special
consideration if they were merely like all the other men of that day?
Personally,
I think that the SETH LINE VIEW and the NOBLES MARRIED COMMONERS VIEW were a
reaction to the next view.
ANGELS MARRIED
HUMAN WOMEN
The
third view is that a group of angels (the “sons of God”) descended upon the
earth and married human women (the “daughters of men”). This view has been the
target of bitter attacks which is why we will look at it more fully.
Who
are the Sons of God?
Who
were the sons of God? The Hebrew term here is “Bene Ha Elohim.”
This
term is found throughout Scripture as a reference to angels. This term is consistently used in the Old Testament for angels, and
it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the
ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century
before Christ, and also by the early Church fathers.
The term "sons of God" is a
general term which means “to be brought into existence by God's creative act.”
Because the term carries this meaning, it
is used very selectively. Throughout the Old Testament the term "sons of
God" is ALWAYS used of angels.
The term is used in Job: 1:6; 2:1, and 38:7
and elsewhere. No one debates that the other places where "sons of
God" is found in the Old Testament clearly refer to angels, but because of
the implications found here in Genesis 6 there is a reluctance to see it for
what it is because the implications are mind boggling. We cannot make Genesis
6:1-4 the single exception to the rule.
By the way this is the first mention of the
“sons of God” in the Bible. The ‘Law of First Mention’ demands that we
establish who they are and what their significance is.
In the New Testament the term "sons of
God" is expanded.
Adam is called the son of God (Luke 3:38)
because he was brought into existence by a direct act of creation. Believers
are called sons of God (John 1:12) because believers are considered to be a direct
act of creation in that they are a new creation. Before they became the “sons
of God” they were the “sons of Adam.”
In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is
called a “son of God.”The entire Biblical drama deals with the
tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam's initial immortality
forfeited. Christ uniquely gives to them that receive Him the power to become
the “sons of God.” Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new
creation, at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of
God and in every respect equal to the angels.
But in Genesis, the text is dealing with a
specific Hebrew expression, Bene Ha Elohim,
and, as it is used in the Hebrew Old Testament, it is a term that is always
used of angels.
The distinction in this passage, then, is
not between Sethites and Cainites, but between humanity and angels, the word ‘men’
here emphasizes humanity.
The term "sons of God" emphasizes
angels. There is no way around this.
The second key expression in this verse is
“daughters of men.”
This is a generic term for women, which
includes females of both Sethites and Cainites. What the verse is saying is, “the
sons of God saw the daughters of men.”
There is no justification for this verse to
be interpreted to mean “godly males” intermarried with “ungodly females.”
Think about it... Would truly godly men
marry ungodly females?
The "daughters of men" simply
means womankind, and the "sons of God" refers to angels.
If the meaning is kept consistent with its
usage elsewhere in the Old Testament, the passage is clearly speaking of fallen
angels intermarrying with human women.
This is obvious in two ways.
First, it is always a one-way
intermarriage; it is always “sons of God” marrying “daughters of men.” There is
no record of “daughters of God” marrying “sons of men.”
If the distinction was between Sethites and
Cainites, it simply would not happen this way.
In human society, intermarriage occurs both
ways. Today, saved males sometimes marry unsaved females, and sometimes saved
females marry unsaved males. If the other claim was true, it would mean that
male Sethites married female Cainites, but male Cainites never married female
Sethites, which is entirely unlikely.
Intermarriage would thus be confined to
godly men with ungodly women, but not godly women with ungodly men. But in
Genesis 6 there is only a one-way intermarriage, the “sons of God”
intermarrying with the “daughters of men.”
Second, the context clearly speaks of a
cohabitation that is unusual and unnatural and eventually causes the worldwide
Flood. Verses 1-4 deal with the angelic cause of the worldwide Flood, while
verses 5, 6 deal with the human cause. Cohabitation between Sethites and
Cainites would not be unusual or unnatural, while cohabitation between angels
and humans would be.
The term “...they took them wives of
all which they chose” implies certain dominance or force in this union. The
“taking” here does not appear to be a reference to a loving couple who have mutual
respect or love for each other.
It
seems to be a union to satisfy the “sons of God” rather than a normal
relationship.
Oiketerion “Oy-kay-tay-ree-on”
The very term oiketerion, alluding
to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the
precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had
disrobed.
Jude 1:6 “And the angels which kept not their first
estate, but left their own habitation, (G3613 Oiketerion) he hath reserved
in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”
"Habitation" or 'oikoterion'
is a word used only one other place in Scripture, referring to our spiritual
bodies after the resurrection.
2 Corinthians 5:2 “For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house(G3613 Oiketerion) which is from heaven:”
The fallen angels who “disrobed” in order
to take on human form in order to satisfy their lusts have abandoned their
“habitation” to assume a lower life form; namely human.
Hebrews 2:6, 7 “But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou
art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Thou
madest him a little lower than the angels; thou
crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy
hands:”
The difficulty we have in thinking of
angels cohabiting with mortal women stems from our un-Biblical idea that
'spirit' equals immaterial or insubstantial. In fact, spirit is MORE
substantial than matter and governs matter. We live in the shadow of a larger
reality. Jesus in his resurrected body ('oikoterion')
could pass through the walls or locked doors behind which the disciples were
hidden.
If the angels were designed to govern
various material realms under God, they are able by nature to manipulate matter
in ways far beyond our technological abilities. We do know they can take
physical form as men, and walk, speak, eat and otherwise manipulate matter as
we do while in our form. With their abilities to mould matter at a spiritual
level to the extent even of taking on an apparently fully functional human
body, we cannot logically rule out an ability to engender semi-human offspring
through use of manufactured DNA from those bodies.
Remember,
these are fallen angels whose work is rebellion and corruption of all
that God has made good. And we do know that they are especially involved in
blaspheming the Lord through attacking and destroying His image in mankind,
spirit, soul, and body.
Angels don’t marry?
Those who do not like this teaching object
to it by quoting Matthew 22:30, claiming that this verse clearly teaches that
angels are sexless: “For in the
resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the
angels of God in heaven.”
What Jesus said is that human beings “in
the resurrection” and "in heaven do not marry, nor are [they] given in
marriage.” The angels that Jesus was speaking of are angels in heaven. The
comparison is not with angels in general, but with angels in heaven.
Jesus compared men in heaven to angels in
heaven. Neither men nor angels are said to be sexless in heaven but we are told
that in heaven there will be no marriage. There are no female angels with whom
angels can generate offspring. Angels were never told to be fruitful and
multiply as was man.
The emphasis is that in heaven, good angels
neither marry nor are given in marriage. Matthew 22:30 makes the same point
about human beings who also do not marry or are given in marriage.
What about humans here on earth? Humans on
earth certainly do marry and are given in marriage. This is a contrast between
what happens in heaven as compared to what happens here on earth. Genesis 6,
however, is speaking of angels on earth. So in heaven, angels do not marry, nor
are they given in marriage, and humans in heaven will not marry nor be given in
marriage. But Genesis 6 discusses things happening on earth. Angels are never
declared to be sexless.
In fact, the male gender is always used.
Matthew 22:30 teaches that angels do not procreate after their kind, meaning
that angels do not give birth to other angels. But angels are always described
in the masculine gender, not in the feminine, nor in the neuter.
They are always masculine gender in both
the Old and New Testaments. Whenever angels became visible, they always
appeared as young men. Anytime an angel appeared to a person he always appeared
as a young man and never a woman (Genesis 18:1 - 19:22; Mark 16:5-7; Luke
24:4-7; Acts 1:10, 11).
Matthew 22:30 cannot be used as an argument
against the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4, because it is dealing with
a situation on earth, not in heaven; nor does Matthew 22:30 teach that angels
are sexless.
Another question is: “Why did Satan have some of his fallen angels intermarry with human
women?” The reason for this can be
understood by investigating the greater context of Genesis. Three chapters earlier
in Genesis 3:15 we read “And I will put
enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall
bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”
Here, the first Messianic prophecy is
recorded.
The prophecy declared that the Messiah
would be the seed of the Woman, and this Seed would crush the head of Satan.
What is happening in Genesis 6:1-4 is a satanic attempt to corrupt the Seed of
the Woman by having some of his angels take on human form.
Angels always appear as young males when
they take on human form; they intermarried with humankind to try to corrupt the
seed. Therefore, the events of Genesis 6:1-4 were a satanic attempt to cancel
out the prophecy of Genesis 3:15.
Who are the daughters of men?
The “daughters of men” does not denote a
restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is
clearly intended.
These daughters were the daughters born to
the men with which this very sentence opens:
“And
it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and
daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men
that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” (Genesis 6:1, 2)
It is clear from the text that these
daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed,
from (all) the Benoth Adam, "the
daughters of Adam."
There is no apparent exclusion of the
daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the
daughters of Cain? All of Adam's female descendants seem to have been involved.
Notice too that the verse calls them the
“sons Of God,” not the “sons of Adam.”
Furthermore, the line of Cain was not
necessarily known for its ungodliness.
From a study of the naming of Cain's
children, many of which included the name of God which signified a certain
righteousness.
Genesis
6: 1 “And it came to pass, when
men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto
them,...”
This verse emphasizes the multiplication of
humanity before the Flood.
The Hebrew word for "men" used
here is generic and refers to humanity in general, including male and female.
The word, as such, cannot be limited to the sons of Cain. It included both
Sethites and Cainites, and both of these groups died in the Flood.
Another key word found in this verse is the
word “daughter.”
It is a Hebrew word that means
"females." The emphasis in the second part of the verse,
"daughters were born unto them," is on the female portion of
humanity. Again, the expression cannot be limited to the female descendants of
Cain, as some teach.
It simply is a word that means "the
female portion of the population." We could accurately read this verse as
follows... “Man [humanity] multiplied and daughters (females] were born unto
them.”
The distinction in verse 1 is not between
male Sethites and female Cainites, but the emphasis is on the female portion of
humanity in general which would include both Cainites and Sethites.
New Testament Confirmations
“In
the mouths of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.”
(Matthew 18: 16)
In Biblical matters, it is essential to
always compare Scripture with Scripture.
The New Testament confirmations of Genesis
6 in Jude and 2 Peter are impossible to ignore.
“For
if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], 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” (2 Peter 2:4-5)
Peter's comments even establishes the time
of the fall of these angels to the days of the Flood of Noah. Peter's
vocabulary is provocative. Peter uses the term Tartarus, here translated "hell." This is the only place
that this Greek term appears in the Bible.
Tartarus is a Greek term for “dark abode of woe”; “the pit of darkness in
the unseen world.” In Greek mythology,
some of the demigods, Chronos and the
rebel Titans, were said to have rebelled against their father, Uranus, and
after a prolonged contest they were defeated by Zeus and were condemned into Tartarus.
Jude 23 also alludes to the strange
episodes when these "alien" creatures intruded themselves into the
human reproductive process:
And the angels which kept not their first
estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains
under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
“Even
as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving
themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth
for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (Jude 6, 7)
The allusions to "going after strange
flesh," keeping "not their first estate," having "left
their own habitation," and "giving themselves over to
fornication," seem to clearly fit the alien intrusions of Genesis 6. (The
term for habitation, oiketherion, refers to their heavenly bodies from
which they had disrobed.)
These allusions from the New Testament
would seem to be fatal to the "Sethite" alternative in interpreting
Genesis 6. If the intercourse between the "sons of God" and the
"daughters of men" were merely marriage between Sethites and
Cainites, it seems impossible to explain these passages, and the reason why
some fallen angels are imprisoned and others are free to roam the heavenlies.
The Meaning of Genesis 6 for Christians
Today
While the New Testament has much more to
say about the activities of Satan and his demons, few of us seem to take our
spiritual warfare seriously. We really believe that the Church can operate on
human strength and wisdom alone, or with a little help from God.
We often attempt to live the spiritual life
in the power of the flesh. This is like entering a gun battle with a pen-knife.
We urge all Believers to rededicate their
lives and redouble their efforts, to remind them that our only strength is that
which God supplies.
As our redemption draweth nigh, the battle
today between the sons of Satan and the sons of God (in the New Testament sense.)
Romans 8:14 “For
as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God”
Roman
8: 19 “For the earnest expectation of
the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.”
Our battle today is even more intense than
it was in the days of old.
Satan's doom is sealed, and his days are
numbered (cf. Matthew 8:29).
Let us, then, put on the spiritual armour
by which God equips us for the spiritual warfare of which we are a part
(Ephesians 6:10-20).
Let us learn that Satan attacks us through
similar instruments today. I am not aware of any instances in our times when
fallen angelic beings have invaded the earth in human form to further Satan's
cause. Nevertheless Satan still works through men.
Such men are false apostles, deceitful
workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even
Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if
his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end
shall be according to their deeds (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).
Just as Satan sought to corrupt men by
disclosing himself in the form of superior human beings, so he works through
angels of light today. We are inclined to suppose that Satan works most often
and most effectively through the obviously reprobate.
Today Satan's best work and, in my
estimation, his most frequent work is through those seemingly moral, devout,
and pious talking men who stand behind the pulpit or sit on the governing board
and talk about salvation in terms of society rather than souls, and by means of
works rather than faith. Satan continues to advance his cause through men who
are not what they appear to be.
Notice too that Satan does his best work in
the very areas where men and women place their hope of salvation.
The enemy is not above promoting himself
through atheism or other Isms, but he finds great success in the arena of
religion. He wears his most pious expression and uses religious terminology. He
does not seek to abolish religion only to abort it by cutting out its essential
element, faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ as the substitute for sinful
men.
He will readily join any religious cause so
long as this ingredient is omitted, or distorted, or lost in a maze of legalism
or libertarianism.
What better way to sidetrack and distract
well meaning souls and to blind the minds of men? “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which
believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image
of God, should shine unto them.” (2
Corinthians 4:4)
Where is your hope for immortality? Is it
in your offspring? That way did not work for Cain.
Is it in your work? Do you wish to build an
empire or to erect a monument to your name?
It will not last. All of these things
perished in the flood of God's judgment.
Only faith in the God of the Bible and,
specifically, faith in the Son He has sent will give you immortality and liberate
you from the curse.
The only way to become a “son of God” is through the Son of God.
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father,
but through Me.” (John 14:6)