I want to provide a few examples to unearth the best evidence for how Scripture is taken out of context, especially when using the Adventist Framework. Remember, while each of you might be coming from a different background, my goal is to show how interpreting the Biblical text through the lens of the Seventh-day Adventist Church can be misleading and damaging to understanding both salvational and non-salvational subjects. These examples are not exhaustive but relate to several different subjects and levels of confrontation.
Sons of God, Daughters of Man, and the Great Controversy Theme
I want to start with a topic with no significant doctrinal issues to the Adventist church. The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 has been debated for centuries, going back to Justin Martyr, Eusebius, and Origen, within a hundred years of Jesus. Honestly, I never really paid much attention to this passage of Scripture or heard anyone talk much about it. Gen 6 is one of those passages that got swept under the rug until I was introduced to a Hebrew scholar named Dr. Michael Heiser. Heiser’s academic work intrigued me so much and pushed me further into the world of academic studies! I owe so much gratitude for the work of Dr. Heiser.
But I’m getting ahead of myself.
I want to read through the passage, and then we will work through the Adventist interpretation of this challenging passage. Once we have a clear understanding of the Adventist understanding and why they view the passage the way they do, we will explore the different contexts of the passage and recent scholarship and see how and why this might diverge from the Adventist interpretation.
“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” (Ge 6:1–4)
We are only six chapters into the narrative of Genesis, and we have a plot twist. Humans are doing things that humans should be doing, multiplying on the face of the land. Notice in verse 2 that the phrase ‘sons of God’ is compared with the ‘daughters of man.’ The text then further details the sexual relationships between these two groups of individuals in verse 4, making it very clear that when this sexual interaction took place, there were children born, and these children became “the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”
As we previously discussed, the key to understanding the Adventist framework and interpretation is through the lens of Ellen G. White and the Great Controversy Theme. (If you haven’t read my previous articles on this, you can find them here.) I’ll also remind us of the official stance that the Seventh-day Adventist church takes about Ellen G. White’s writings and how the church is to use them for understanding Scripture:
“We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.” [1]
So, while individual Adventists may not utilize Ellen to interpret their views of passages, the official stance of the Seventh-day Adventist church is that her writings correct inaccurate interpretations derived from tradition, human reason (even though Ellen was a human), personal experience, and modern culture. Suppose Ellen White makes a statement on the topic or passage at hand. In that case, we must consult and align the interpretation with her statements if we will have a genuinely Adventist interpretation.
In the early infancy of the Seventh-day Adventist church, the founders knew it would be essential to establish their own newspaper to broadcast the unique views and understanding of Scripture during the ‘End Times’ of the world. James White, co-founder of the Seventh-day Adventist church and husband to Ellen White, published the first of many weekly newspapers on June 4th, 1874, calling it The Signs of the Times. This newspaper outlet, published by the Pacific Press, a Seventh-day Adventist publishing house, focused on explaining Bible prophecies and ‘signs of the times’ related to Christ’s second coming.
On February 20, 1879, Ellen White wrote an article for The Signs of the Times, explaining the differences between Seth and Cain.
“Seth was a worthy character, and was to take the place of Abel in right-doing. Yet he was a son of Adam, like sinful Cain, and inherited from the nature of Adam no more natural goodness than did Cain. He was born in sin, but by the grace of God, in receiving the faithful instruction of his father Adam, he honored the Lord in doing his will. He separated himself from the corrupt descendants of Cain, and labored, as Abel would have done had he lived, to turn the minds of sinful men to revere and obey God.” [2]
We see that Ellen White is already setting up the Good vs. Bad debate. Seth is on the side of ‘right-doing’ and will be compared with the characters on the other side. The Great Controversy Theme begins to show up very clearly.
Notice the details:
- Seth is a worthy character, taking the place of Abel in right-doing.
- Seth honored the Lord in doing God’s will.
- Seth is separated from Cain
- Cain is labeled as corrupt, along with Cain’s descendants
Good versus Evil. Those who obeyed versus those who did not obey.
As Ellen goes on to provide her own commentary on the characters in the Genesis account, she shares insight into the separation between those who are good and those who are evil, using language like ‘infidelity,’ ‘separate,’ and ‘solitude,’ and weaving a narrative of holy versus unholy, obedient versus disobedient. This idea will show up in her statements about the law of God (which always means the 10 Commandments, unless the law is being given a negative light. Then, in her mind, it would become only the civil/ceremonial laws), and those who obey versus those who do not.
“There were those upon the earth who acknowledged God, who feared and worshiped him. Yet righteous Enoch was so distressed with the increasing wickedness of the ungodly that he would not daily associate with them, fearing that he should be affected by their infidelity, and that he might not ever regard God with that holy reverence which was due his exalted character. His soul was vexed as he daily beheld them trampling upon the authority of God. He chose to be separate from them, and spent much of his time in solitude, giving himself to reflection and prayer. He waited before God, and prayed to know his will more perfectly, that he might perform it. God communed with Enoch through his angels, and gave him divine instruction. He made known to him that he would not always bear with man in his rebellion—that it was his purpose to destroy the sinful race by bringing a flood of waters upon the earth.” [3]
In Ellen White’s mind, everything was good or bad. You were either abiding by God’s authority and following the Mosaic Laws, or you trampled on them.
There is very little in the Bible about Enoch’s work and his importance in the biblical narrative. This enigmatic figure mentioned in Genesis 5:24 has generated much speculation over the ages. Why? Well, not much is said in the Old Testament at all. But we get a glimpse of this individual through the lens of the author of Hebrews and Jude.
“By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” (Heb 11:5–6)
“It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” (Jud 14–15)
The only absolute clarity the Bible gives us about Enoch is that he pleased God because of his faith and was a prophet who brought a message of judgment. Scripture doesn’t give us details on his relationship with God, what was said, or the people Enoch prophesied to. It wasn’t until the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls in the caves of the Qumran community that we began to uncover further details about this figure. These discoveries wouldn’t begin to be unearthed until the major archeological discovery in August of 1954. There isn’t enough space here to detail further findings of Enoch through the scrolls at the Qumran cave 4, but understand that this was almost 100 years after Ellen White’s articles in the Signs of the Times Newspaper.
Ellen continues her narrative as she further describes Enoch:
“Enoch continued to grow more heavenly while communing with God. His face was radiant with a holy light which would remain upon his countenance while instructing those who would hear his words of wisdom. His dignified appearance struck the people with awe. The Lord loved Enoch, because he steadfastly followed him, and abhorred iniquity, and earnestly sought a more perfect knowledge of his will, that he might perform it. He yearned to unite himself still more closely to God, whom he feared, reverenced, and adored. The Lord would not permit Enoch to die like other men, but sent his angels to take him to Heaven without seeing death. In the presence of the righteous and the wicked, Enoch was removed from them. Those who loved him thought that God might have left him in some of his places of retirement; but after seeking diligently, and being unable to find him, they reported that he was not, for God took him.” [4]
Notice that Ellen now adds this enigmatic figure’s beautiful appearance and actions. In Ellen’s mind, if you could commune closely with God, your figure, knowledge, and actions would be so closely with the mind of God that you would no longer be of this world. This was a common theme among all of Ellen’s writings. You were either for God, or you were against him. The members of the early Adventist church were either listening to Ellen White and her writings, which in her mind would lead them closer to God or if anyone opposed her or her writings, they would be demonized and labeled partners with Satan.
A week after her article in the Signs of the Times, she continued her narrative with another article. This one made the famous claim regarding Genesis 6:1-4 that no Adventist scholar today will dare to go against.
“Those who honored and feared to offend God, at first felt the curse but lightly, while those who turned from him and despised his authority felt its effects more heavily, especially in stature and nobleness of form. The descendants of Seth were called the sons of God; the descendants of Cain, the sons of men. As the sons of God mingled with the sons of men, they became corrupt, and by intermarriage with them lost, through the influence of their wives, their peculiar, holy character, and united with the sons of Cain in their idolatry. Many cast off the fear of God, and trampled upon his commandments. But there were a few who did righteousness, who feared and honored their Creator. Noah and his family were among the righteous few.” [5]
Ellen White is clear. As you pick up your Bible and start to read Genesis 6:1-4, the characters in the Biblical plot can only be seen through this good vs. evil lens.
| Godly | Ungodly |
| Honored and feared to offend God | Turned away and despised God’s authority |
| Light effect of the Curse | Heavy effect of the Curse |
| Good stature and noble form | Poor stature and lack of noble form |
| Sons of God | Sons of men |
On the surface, this really doesn’t seem like an overstep. But I need to ask an honest question. Does the Bible cast the story in this light? Is this the context of which the author of Genesis is attempting to share?
As the story of Cain is coming to a close, we read something interesting:
Then the Lord said to him, “Not so! If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him. Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. (Ge 4:15–16)
Cain wasn’t evil in the eyes of God. God loved and protected Cain with a mark of protection. This would prevent his descendants from dying out slowly because of Cain’s killing of his brother. Nothing in the Biblical text connects the idea that Cain was evil and Adam’s other sons are now special or more holy.
Unfortunately, what is read into the text from the Adventist perspective is this Great Controversy Theme. Remember what Herbert Douglass said about this very topic:
“… the GCT (Great Controversy Theme) clarifies the distinctiveness of Adventist theology we may point to Adventist eschatology. The Adventist eschatological framework sets us apart from every other denomination that speaks of the end of the world because it is governed by the GCT…This “mutually supportive cluster” of ideas that marks Adventist eschatology exists today because the GCT informs all areas of Adventist thought. Every area, because it unfolds from this organizing principle, is coherent and interactive with all other areas. Helping believers to be restored physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually is the purpose of the gospel and everything to do with the Advent.” [6]
The Great Controversy Theme, the battle between good and evil, informs ALL AREAS OF ADVENTIST THOUGHT. This concept that one is either for God or you are against Him, shows up in the interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4. The plot has been set. Cain is Evil and Seth is Good. Now this idea is read into the text. The geologies in Genesis 4 (Cain) and Genesis 5 (Adam), are now cast in a good and evil lens.
This is why well-known Adventist Scholars like Ángel Manuel Rodríguez responded in 1996 to this question around who the sons of God are in Genesis 6:1-4 as follows:
“In Genesis 4 and 5 the human race is divided into two main groups: the descendants of Cain (Gen. 4:17–24) and those of Seth (verses 25, 26). In Genesis 6:1, 2 this division is clearly recognized by referring to those who followed the Lord as “sons of God” and to the rest of humanity as “men.” There is nothing in the immediate context to suggest that the “sons of God” are kings, angels, or heavenly beings.” [7]
Claiming that the phrase ‘sons of God” is clearly recognized as those who followed the Lord and the rest as ‘men’ is furthest from the truth. But rather a clear insertion of the Great Controversy Theme into the text.
It’s no surprise that Francis D. Nichol follows suit in his response to the phrase ‘sons of God’ in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Vol. 1:
“This phrase has been interpreted in various ways. Ancient Jewish commentators, the early church Fathers, and many modern expositors have thought these “sons” to be angels, comparing them with the “sons of God” of Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. This view must be rejected, because punishment soon to be meted out was for the sins of human beings (see v. 3), and not of angels. Further, angels do not marry (Matt. 22:30). The “sons of God” were none other than the descendants of Seth, and the “daughters of men,” of the godless Cainites (PP 81). God later spoke of Israel as His “firstborn son” (Ex. 4:22), and Moses called the people of Israel “children of the Lord your God” (Deut. 14:1).” [8]
Notice carefully that when Nichols says, “The “sons of God” were none other than the descendants of Seth, and the “daughters of men,” of the godless Cainites,” there is no Biblical reference; rather, Ellen White is cited as the authority on this statement. If we look at the EGW reference, we will find something interesting. Ellen adds other aspects of the Great Controversy Theme into the mix.
“The Sabbath was honored by all the children of Adam that remained loyal to God. But Cain and his descendants did not respect the day upon which God had rested. They chose their own time for labor and for rest, regardless of Jehovah’s express command.” [9]
All one has to do is think about the historical timing of this narrative and use Scripture to refute this nonsense claim around the Sabbath being honored by the children of Adam. From a Biblical perspective, Adam and his children didn’t even know the Sabbath. The concept of the Sabbath, given inside the Mosaic Covenant, wouldn’t be made known to the Israelites until hundreds of years later. Not until we get into the book of Exodus will we see the Sabbath come into the Covenant narrative.
“You came down on Mount Sinai and spoke with them from heaven and gave them right rules and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and you made known to them your holy Sabbath and commanded them commandments and statutes and a law by Moses your servant.” (Ne 9:13–14)
But Ellen White does not pay attention to these types of details because she is telling her own narrative, which isn’t from God. It can’t be from God since it contradicts and adds to the Biblical text.
Ellen continues:
“For some time the two classes remained separate. The race of Cain, spreading from the place of their first settlement, dispersed over the plains and valleys where the children of Seth had dwelt; and the latter, in order to escape from their contaminating influence, withdrew to the mountains, and there made their home. So long as this separation continued, they maintained the worship of God in its purity. But in the lapse of time they ventured, little by little, to mingle with the inhabitants of the valleys. This association was productive of the worst results. “The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair.” The children of Seth, attracted by the beauty of the daughters of Cain’s descendants, displeased the Lord by intermarrying with them. Many of the worshipers of God were beguiled into sin by the allurements that were now constantly before them, and they lost their peculiar, holy character. Mingling with the depraved, they became like them in spirit and in deeds; the restrictions of the seventh commandment were disregarded, “and they took them wives of all which they chose.” The children of Seth went “in the way of Cain” (Jude 11); they fixed their minds upon worldly prosperity and enjoyment and neglected the commandments of the Lord. Men “did not like to retain God in their knowledge;” they “became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” Romans 1:21. Therefore “God gave them over to a mind void of judgment.” Verse 28, margin. Sin spread abroad in the earth like a deadly leprosy.” [10]
One Adventist scholar after another will claim that the context is clear. Nothing in the text claims that the sons of God would be anything other than humans. It couldn’t be anything else. Brushing over the honest challenges of the text and never dealing with the debates that have gone on for centuries about this very topic. It makes sense when you can’t go against the narrative of Ellen White. She holds the wand of perfect interpretation. Ellen White and her contrived Great Controversy Theme hold the ultimate authority of correct interpretation for the Adventist Framework.
While this article isn’t the place to formulate all the recent scholarship and evidence that is entirely contrary to both Ellen White’s writings and Adventist Scholarship, I would like the text to speak and share a few thoughts that aren’t tainted with the Great Controversy Theme.
What is Wrong with This Picture?
The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was read by the early church and often times quoted by the New Testament writers. The work of translation happened over the course of a couple hundred years, from the mid-3rd century B.C. to the end of the 1st century B.C. This is at least over a hundred years before Jesus. Most are unaware that Jesus quoted more from the Septuagint than any other text of the Old Testament. This Greek translation of the Old Testament was sacred to the Jewish community because of the influence of the Greek language. You might be wondering why the Septuagint is being discussed regarding the interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4. We will find something interesting if we open an English-translated Septuagint and read the text.
“And it happened when humans began to become numerous upon the earth, and they had daughters, 2 the angels of God, having seen the daughters of humans, that they were beautiful, took for themselves women from all whom they picked out.” [11]
Why would the Septuagint understand the phrase בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ (Hebrew for ‘sons of God’) as ‘angels of God’? The most ancient rendering of the text understands these figures as angelic beings that copulated with the daughters of men. While this argument is not enough evidence to sway a person, it is a good start.
Pointing out the flaws in the Sethite view is straightforward because the position has significant weaknesses. First, Genesis 4:26 does not state that only Seth’s descendants “called on the name of the Lord.” This notion is read into the text. Second, this interpretation falls apart when trying to explain the Nephilim. We do not have the space in this article, but we will at another time. Third, the women in the passage are not labeled as “daughters of Cain” but as “daughters of humankind,” meaning there is no direct connection to Cain mentioned in the text. The Sethite view, therefore, relies on details that are not actually in the text, which contradicts sound exegetical practices. (It relies on the writings of Ellen White for Adventism’s view.) Fourth, there is no instruction or prohibition against certain marriages in the passage—there were no distinctions like “Jews and Gentiles” at this point in the narrative. Lastly, nowhere in Genesis 6:1–4 or elsewhere in the Bible are Seth’s descendants described as “sons of God.” That idea is simply an assumption made by proponents of the Sethite view.
A closer look at Genesis 6:1–4 reveals a clear distinction between two groups—one human, the other divine. The text highlights the growth of humanity on earth, mentioning only daughters being born. This does not imply that only girls were born after Cain and Abel; instead, it sets up a contrast. The first group consists of human females, referred to as “daughters of humankind.” Verse 2 then introduces the contrasting group—the “sons of God,” who are not human but divine.
The problems with the Sethite view are more numerous than can be addressed here, but its weaknesses are apparent. The theory collapses under the weight of its inconsistencies. Under the Adventist framework, it only holds together to push away all academic work that opposes Ellen White’s statements. Remember, the Great Controversy Theme informs EVERYTHING inside the Adventist’s Biblical Worldview.
One last thought: it is incorrect to argue that the Sethite view holds water simply because the writers and editors of the Torah lived under the law. In Genesis, we see examples of close-relative marriages before the laws of Sinai. For example, Abraham and Sarah had the same father but different mothers, a union that would later be prohibited by the Torah (Gen 20:12; Lev 18:9, 11; 20:17; Deut 27:22). The legal framework established at Sinai is not assumed elsewhere in Genesis, so it cannot be used as a backdrop for interpreting Genesis 6:1–4. The text has no basis for the idea that human intermarriage was condemned. Lastly, such a rigidly literal interpretation fails to account for details like where Noah’s sons came from.
This article aimed to inform the reader of the lens through which an Adventist will see and interpret passages in the Bible. For an Adventist, Ellen White and the Great Controversy Theme are the aperture and the shuttle speed on the Adventist interpretive lens. While we didn’t go over in great detail what the most accurate and up-to-date interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 might be, you can find the most recent scholarship on the topic through the works of Dr. Michael Heiser and Amar Annus. One thing is for sure: the Sethite view of Genesis 6:1-4 is archaic, out of date, and unbiblical. But that is par for the course with many of the Adventist interpretations because they rely on the words of a dead prophet from the 1800’s.
While this topic is not of major doctrinal significance or salvational issues, the examples in the next few posts will deal with major doctrinal issues that diverge from mainstream Christian thinking.
In Christian Love,
[1] Conference of SDA, “Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White – Adventist.Org.”
[2] Ellen Gould White, The Signs of the Times, n.d., 227.
[3] Ellen Gould White, The Signs of the Times, n.d., 227.
[4] Ellen Gould White, The Signs of the Times, n.d., 227.
[5] Ellen Gould White, The Signs of the Times, n.d., 229.
[6] Douglass, “The Great Controversy Theme: What It Means to Adventists.”
[7] Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, “Genesis 6:1–4,” in Perplexing Scriptures Explained: Old Testament to New Testament, Perplexing Scriptures Explained (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2016).
[8] Francis D. Nichol, ed., The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 1 (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978), 250.
[9] Ellen Gould White, The Story of Patriarchs and Prophets as Illustrated in the Lives of Holy Men of Old, vol. 1, Conflict of the Ages Series (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1890), 80–81.
[10] Ellen Gould White, The Story of Patriarchs and Prophets as Illustrated in the Lives of Holy Men of Old, vol. 1, Conflict of the Ages Series (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1890), 81–82.
[11] Rick Brannan, Ken M. Penner et al., The Lexham English Septuagint, Second Edition (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), Ge 6:1–2.
0 Comments