From the Editor’s Notebook
The Annual Meeting
On November 13, 1982, the Annual Meeting of Food for the Flock Inc. was convened in Toronto. It was agreed unanimously that we should continue to publish the magazine for still another year, and this, in dependence upon our Lord for His continued supply of all needs.
The only thing overshadowing our meeting was the absence of our beloved brother and associate editor, Mr. James Gunn. It was the first time he had missed an Annual Meeting since the magazine was started in January 1955. Two weeks later he was called Home to be with Christ.
One new member was added to our committee: Mr. Donald K. Steele of Peterborourgh, Ontario, whose series on “The Young Man” has appeared in most of the issues of the magazine since the summer of 1981.
I would remind our readers that all matters of an editorial nature should be sent to the Editor, 9257 Caprice Drive, Plymouth, Michigan 48170. All business matters, including change-of-address notices, should be sent to the Treasurer, Box 353, Etobicoke, Ontario, M9C 4V3. Questions for “The Question Column” should be sent to Dr. James T. Naismith, 66 Morgandale, Cresc., Scarborough, Ontario, M1W 1S3.
The following is an up-dated list of the committee members of Food for the Flock Inc. and their various functions:
Officers
President — Douglas R. Telfer
1st Vice-President — James T. Naismith
Treasurer — William Hamilton
Secretary — Lillian Telfer
2nd Vice-President — Joseph Cumming
Operational
Editor-in-Chief — W. Ross Rainey
Question Column Editor — James T. Naismith
Administrative Chairman — Douglas R. Telfer
Vice-Chairman — William Burnett
Publication Committee — William Burnett (Chairman), Graham Swales, Joseph Cumming, Russ Took, James T. Naismith, Douglas R. Telfer, W. Ross Rainey
Business Manager — Mrs. Joan Hamilton
Assistant Business Manager — Lillian Telfer
Circulation Mgr. (Canada) — Russ Took
Circulation Mgr. (U.S.A.) —Jay Walden
Additional committee members are: Ray Fox, Sydney Green and Donald K. Steele.
Journeying Through Jude (Part 5)
As previously indicated, there are three basic views held by evangelicals on the problematical text of Jude 6. Personally, and in spite of its difficulties, I am inclined toward the interpretation that Jude 6 refers to Genesis 6:1-4, and that “the sons of God” (Gen. 6:2) refer to certain fallen angels who came down from heaven and lusted after “the daughters of men.”
An advocate of this view was the late Robert J. Little who, for many years, was the radio pastor of the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, Illinois. In answer to the question, “Who are ‘the sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men’ referred to in Genesis 6:4-5?”, Mr. Little wrote:
“These verses say: ‘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. 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.’
“Scholars differ in their views of the meaning of this text. It appears that the condition described resulted in the flood, and so was something far more serious than the sins common to man. But many consider that the ‘sons of God’ were the descendants of Seth, who were believers, and that the ‘daughters of men’ were the descendants of Cain, who were unconverted. It is considered that the mingling of believers with unbelievers would have led to the obliteration of a knowledge of the true God in the earth, because the ungodly women of Cain’s line corrupted the godly men of Seth’s line, resulting in an immoral mode of life.
“To me this seems artificial, although many scholars take that view. It seems strange that it was the men who were godly, and the women ungodly; that all of the house of Seth were believers and that none of the women of Cain’s line were believers. It seems strange, too, that these men all chose ungodly wives, or at least in sufficient number and proportion to bring about the judgment of the flood. Also, the intermarriage of believers with unbelievers would not produce a race of giants, or necessarily ‘men of renown.’
“The other view adopted also has difficulties, so it is not a case of one view being perfectly clear, and the other manifestly false. If that were so, there would be no difference of view.
“It seems to me that the difficulties of the second view are more resolvable than those of the other. In this second view the ‘sons of God’ represent fallen angels who took upon them a human form. Of course it is at once argued that this is impossible, but we know that in some cases angels did take human form. We cannot know the circumstances, nor the limitations, but wherever angels appeared in human form it was always as men, and never as women. This would account for ‘the sons of God’ being all of one classification sexually, and would also indicate the contrast with ‘the daughters of men.’
“In the Old Testament believers were not called ‘sons of God’ except in one passage, and that is prophetical. However, angels are referred to as ‘sons of God’ in the Book of Job. In this case, the ‘daughters of men’ would not mean only descendants of Cain, but any woman of Adam’s race, of whatever particular family. If the bodies of these ‘men’ were exceptional, as seems probable, they would have been attractive to most women; and their offspring may well have been ‘giants,’ ‘men of renown.’
“This would have been a corruption of the human race, and stories about these ‘men of renown’ may have been the source from which came the mythological stories which abounded in later times. This corruption of humanity is thought by many to be referred to in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, where we read of a special group of fallen angels who ‘left their proper habitation,’ and are now kept in chains under darkness. This is not true of the ‘demons,’ who regularly roam the earth, according to the New Testament. There seem to be two distinct classes of fallen angels, one of which is free, the other bound. Such a mingling of different orders of creation might well have brought on the universal flood, and it may be significant that Noah was described in Genesis 6 as ‘perfect in his generations.’
“However, I do not think we should be dogmatic about it. Many Bible Scholars prefer the first view.”1
(To be continued, D.V.)
1 Robert J. Little, Here’s Your Answer, pp. 17-19. Reprinted by permission.