Posted on 08/11/2012 10:55:08 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
No subject on angels would be complete (and this treatise is far from complete), without dealing with the passage in Gen. 6, one of the most controversial, confusing, and convoluted Bible passages. The incident happened just before the global Flood, and whatever position one may take as to the identity of the culprits, their sin was a partial reason (along with the violence) for the world disaster (Gen. 6:5; 11).
Moses tells about the “sons of God” cohabitating with the “daughters of men” resulting in the production of nephilim translated “giants” and/or “fallen ones.” Some scholars contend that the “sons of God” were humans in the linage of Seth while the “daughters of men” were women in Cain’s linage. Whoever these people were, it was a forbidden sexual sin that led to the Flood. It is noteworthy that the men chose the women that were “fair” suggesting that the women’s relationship to God was not important. Moreover, why would sex, even illicit sex, between men and women produce nephilim or any other unusual offspring?
Before giving my reasons for believing that the “sons of God” were fallen angels, we need to consider II Peter 2:4-5, “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.” Whatever these angels did, it resulted in them being thrust down to Tartarus. This is the only time Tartarus is used in the New Testament or the Septuagint, but it was often used by Greek authors (Homer, Philo, Pindar, etc.,) as the dark, dismal, doleful, deep abyss of Hades in the heart of the Earth.
What in the world was Peter writing about? He is clearly referring to fallen angels. But if they were those who followed Satan in rebellion, why were not all the demons in prison? Obviously, these imprisoned “spirits” had more to their résumé than rebel and follower of Lucifer. Maybe they were the “ugly” angels who did far more than rebel against God.
I think the only reasonable explanation is that they were the angels who pretended to be human and had sexual relations with human females and the results were so horrific that God put them in prison. If there are good angels, bad angels, then these are the ugly angels: the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Furthermore, this would explain Jude 6 where he wrote, “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.” I think it is obvious that the imprisoned spirits in Jude and II Peter are the same demons who were judged by God for their sins as recorded in Genesis 6.
Those who believe the sinners were men maintain that sex between angels and humans is unreasonable, unnatural, and very unthinkable since angels are sexless. However, while the Bible teaches that there is no marriage in Heaven (Matt.22:30) and we will be like the angels, that does not mean angels are sexless. Needless to say (but I will anyway) to appear human, they had to take on either male or female bodies!
The “sons of God” term is used of both men and angels in the Scripture; however, that particular word in Genesis 6 is never used of humans, according to Willmington’s Guide to the Bible (that every serious Bible student should possess) and other sources. Friends with whom I have discussed this issue, after referring to “sons of God” always bring up the “fact” that angels are sexless. Maybe, maybe not. Angels can take on human form and could have been sexually involved; after all, they did other human things such as eating, walking, sitting, etc., as all humans do. Evidently the perverts in Sodom thought them human enough to try to have sex with them.
Moreover, Genesis 6 clearly states that the offspring of the union between “sons of God” and “daughters of men” were very unusual, even giants. However, Adam Clarke says that there are seven words for giant and not all of them mean people of enormous stature. No one suggests that every child born of humans would be unusual, even giants. No, the sexual incompatibility of demons and humans seems to have resulted in nephilim or “fallen ones.”
I pulled down my valuable set of Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews to see what the ancients thought of Gen. 6. Josephus wrote of the sons of Seth, “They made God to be their enemy, for many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good.” The translator’s footnote on that page reveals: “This notion, that the fallen angels were, in some sense the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity.” That position of Josephus and the revelation that the ancients thought the culprits were fallen angels should impress those who take the opposite position, after all, he was an expert on the Jews and his work was done two thousand years closer to the event we are discussing. Furthermore, the Greek Old Testament Septuagint identifies the “sons of God” as “angels of God.”
Because of the preponderance of evidence in favor of demon activity in Genesis 6, I have finally taken the position that angels cannot rebel again and demons were sexually involved in Genesis 6.
Whatever the correct interpretation is, it is a fact that sin will divide, defile and destroy anyone without discrimination as to race, gender, and national origin–human or angelic!
Copyright 2012, Don Boys, Ph.D.
(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 14 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Three years ago, the second edition of ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse! was published, and his new eBook, The God Haters is available for $9.99 from www.thegodhaters.com. These columns go to newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations. His other web sites are www.cstnews.com and www.Muslimfact.com. Contact Don for an interview or talk show.)
Spiritual beings that, throughout Scripture, do very physical things, themselves, and have very physical capabilities....
Do the demonic possessions in scriptures result in anything supernatural in the humans that are possessed? What is there to preclude the same effect in physically altering the reproductive genetics of the one's they possess....being that angels themselves cannot procreate by God's design? There are demonic so-called "healings" of people's physical infirmities in some cases even today which are used to draw people down a false path and away from God. That would seem to me to be a form of genetic alteration or molecular cell manipulation.
Oh, I didn’t say I didn’t enjoy it...but after 20 years of personal study, I’ve pretty much heard all the counter arguments.
Oh, I didn’t say I didn’t enjoy it...but after 20 years of personal study, I’ve pretty much heard all the counter arguments.
There is NOTHING controversial, confusing or convoluted about what Moses is told to write.
The Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of God. Eve was seduced by the devil and the Adam outright disobeyed the commandment of God. Hence they had removed from them the Tree of LIFE and were required to live off the labor of their own hands. Then by the time Noah is born, this earth is polluted by the fallen angels that the only family NOT affected is Noah and his family.... hence the flood. The flood was because the blood line to Christ had been polluted.
I was trying to save you a lot of typing on the topic. It’s a little like trying to talk me out of using my authorized KJV of the Bible and into using a contemporary version. I’m set in my ways on that as well. :)
I agree....if there is anything that appears to be controversial, confusing or convoluted about any passage of the Bible it has to do with a misunderstanding on the part of the reader, not the penman or ultimately the author.
Well it is like reading Adam blaming God and that 'woman' that God gave him for his sin. Political correctness has NOT only afflicted the political stage, it is just NOT religiously correct to accept what God had his elect write. But hey as it is Written there is nothing new under the sun... some preachers/priests do it for the fame and fortune.
Well that is not what the Bible actually says.
The Bible does say that "the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, . . ."
There is no indication here in Genesis ch. 6 that any angelic being possessed and/or indwelled anyone.
The Bible doesn't use the words trinity or rapture either .....and several others I can think of....but clearly both of these are taught in scripture.
BTW, there really are skeletons of giants being found. Their heights vary from ~ three meters to five meters, so far.
There are also lots of faked youtube vids of ‘giants’, generated by a contestto see who could produce the best fakes.
[1] The word “offspring” in Acts 17.28 is quite different. It is [Greek script] (genos), which means merely kin or kind, our genus as being originated by God.
This is why angels are called “sons of God” in every other place where the expression is used in the Old Testament. Job 1.6 ; 2.1 ; 38. 7. Ps. 29.1 ; 89.6. Dan. 3. 25 (no art.).[2] We have no authority or right to take the expression in Gen. 6.2, 4 in any other sense. Moreover, in Genesis 6.2 the Septuagint renders it “angels”.
Angels are called “spirits” (Ps. 104. 4. Heb. 1. 7, 14), for spirits are created by God.
That there was a fall of the angels is certain from Jude 6.
The nature of their fall was clearly stated in the same verse. They left their own [Greek script] (oiketerion). This word occurs only in 2 Cor. 5.2 and Jude 6, where it is used of the spiritual (or resurrection) body.
The nature of their sin is stated to be “in like manner” to that of the subsequent sins of Sodom and Gomorrha, Jude 7.
The time of their fall was given as having taken place “in the days of Noah” (1 Pet. 3.20. 2 Peter 2.7), though there may have been a prior fall which caused the end of “the world that then was” (Gen, 1.1. 2 Pet, 3.6).
For this sin they are “reserved unto judgment”, 2 Pet. 2. 4, and are “in prison”, 1 Peter 3. 19. Their progeny, called Nephilim (translated “giants”), were monsters of iniquity ; and, being superhuman in size and character, had to be destroyed (see Ap. 25). This was the one and only object of the Flood. Only Noah and his family had preserved their pedigree from Adam (Gen. 6.9, see note). All the rest had become “corrupt” (shachath) destroyed [as Adamites]. The only remedy was to destroy it (de facto), as it had become destroyed (de jure). (It is the same word in v. 17 as in vv. 11, 12.) See further under Ap.25 on the Nephilim.
This irruption of fallen angels was Satan's first attempt to prevent the coming of the Seed of the woman foretold in Gen. 3.15. If this could be accomplished, God's Word would have failed, and his own doom would be averted.
As soon as it was made known that the Seed of the woman was to come through ABRAHAM, there must have been another irruption, as recorded in Gen. 6.4, “and also after that” (i.e. after the days of Noah, more than 500 years after the first irruption). The aim of the enemy was to occupy Canaan in advance of Abraham, and so to contest its occupation by his seed. For, when Abraham entered Canaan, we read (Gen. 12.6) “the Canaanite was then (i.e. already) in the land.”
In the same chapter (Gen. 12. 10-20) we see Satan's next attempt to interfere with Abraham's seed, and frustrate the purpose of God that he should be in “Isaac”. This attempt was repeated in 20. 1-18.
This great conflict may be seen throughout the Bible, and it forms a great and important subject of Biblical study. In each case the human instrument had his own personal interest to serve, while Satan had his own great object in view. Hence God had, in each case, to interfere and avert the evil and the danger, of which His servants and people were wholly ignorant. The following assaults of the great Emeny stand out prominently :----
The destruction of the chosen family by famine, Gen. 50. 20.
The destruction of the male line in Israel, Ex. 1.10, 15, &c. Cp. Ex. 2. 5. Heb. 11.23.
The destruction of the whole nation in Pharaoh's pursuit, Ex. 14.
After David's line was singled out (2 Sam. 7), that was the next selection for assault. Satan's first assault was in the union of Jehoram and Athaliah by Jehoshaphat, notwithstanding 2 Chron. 17. 1. Jehoram killed off all his brothers (2 Chron. 21. 4).
The Arabians slew all his children, except Ahaziah (2 Chron. 21. 17 ; 22.1).
When Ahaziah died, Athaliah killed “all the seed royal” (2 Chron. 22. 10). The babe Joash alone was rescued ; and, for six years, the faithfulness of Jehovah's word was at stake (2 Chron. 23.3).
Hezekiah was childless, when a double assault was made by the King of Assyria and the King of Terrors (Isa. 36.1; 38.1). God's faithfulness was appealed to and relied on (Ps. 136).
In Captivity, Haman was used to attempt the destruction of the whole nation (Est. 3.6, 12, 13. Cp. 6.1).
Joseph' fear was worked on (Matt. 1.18-20). Notwithstanding the fact that he was “a just man”, and kept the Law, he did not wish to have Mary stoned to death (Deut. 24.1) ; hence Joseph determined to divorce her. But God intervened: “Fear not”.
Herod sought the young Child's life (Matt. 2).
At the Temptation, “Cast Thyself down” was Satan's temptation.
At Nazareth, again (Luke 4), there was another attempt to cast Him down and destroy Him.
The two storms on the Lake were other attempts.
At length the cross was reached, and the sepulcher closed ; the watch set ; and the stone sealed. But “God raised Him from the dead.” And now, like another Joash, He is seated and expecting (Heb. 10 .12, 13), hidden in the house of God on high ; and the members of “the one body” are hidden there” in Him” (Col. 3. 1-3), like another Jehoshaba ; and going forth to witness of His coming, like another Jehoiada (2 Chron. 23. 3).
The irrruption of “the fallen angels” (“sons of God”) was the first attempt ; and was directed against the whole human race.
When Abraham was called, then he and his seed were attacked.
When David was enthroned, then the royal line was assailed.
And when “the Seed of the woman” Himself came, then the storm burst upon Him.
[2] In Hos. 1. 10, it is not beni-ha-Elohim, as here, but beni-el-chai.
____________________
Source: Companion Bible, Appendix No. 23.
I think a better reading of that passage is thy seed being Satan's followers and her seed being God's people, ie., Israel.
If we look at Gen. 5 we see the line of Seth. He was born after Abel was killed by Cain. IOW, the line of descendants from Seth are the sons of God. It is their marrying the daughters from the line of Cain the daughters of men that Gen 6 is describing.
I do not agree with the claim that Genesis 6 is one of the most controversial, confusing, and convoluted Bible passages.
Moses wrote down what he was told to write, he had no first hand flesh experience of the events. I consider it most informative to reflect on what Moses wrote down in the description of the formation of the Adam. The flesh was formed but the flesh was not living until the 'breath of life' which literally means soul, was breathed into his nostrils. YET not one word is mentioned about when the Adam's soul was created, yet it existed.
Also the 'condition' of the Adam's flesh body was such that from it was removed a 'curve' (NOT a literal rib, as I was taught as a child), from which the woman was formed. Now that tells me that each soul before conception where gender is decided, contains the fullness of characteristics of male and female. Why else would the God established union of one man and one woman as becoming one flesh? Both were equally required to replenish this earth.... well now except no flesh man was needed for the conception of Christ... The question almost always ignored is when were all souls created? According to what Moses penned the soul existed before the flesh body. Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine: that soul that sinneth, it shall die. Thus far only the devil and those 'souls' of Genesis 6 have been judge to die.
Interesting now is it not that when asked by His disciples what would be the 'sign' of His return one of the signs was that it would be again as it was in the days of Noe... (Matthew 24:37-39) This has not happened yet, but the stage does appear to being set for their return.
Because of the 'religiously' correct teachings I was given through my childhood, like the sin of the Adam and Eve was eating an apple, I was 'shocked' when I actually read the account for my self the Garden Party took place in a fig grove. I have yet to eat any kind of literal fruit and discover I was naked. So who created this so called controversy?
I have a Companion Bible that I have nearly worn out.
That doesn't work for many reasons. No humans are "sons of God" without regeneration, the new birth. Seth's line was not regenerated.
The very language, "sons of God," "daughters of men" makes it wrong. You have to explain why the females in Seth's progeny are not also "daughters of men."
Why would the males in Seth's progeny, marrying the daughters of other men produce Giants ?
What would have been the danger to earth, the attack on the seed (Gene. 3:15), or the offense against God, should the males in Seth's progeny marry the daughters of any others?
The Scriptures never call Seth's progeny "sons of God," nore do the Scriptures ever call Cain's progeny, "daughters of men."
There is no particular curse upon the females of Cain's progeny.
What about Enoch? He was in this line.
Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
Why would the males in Seth's progeny, marrying the daughters of other men produce Giants ?
The term "giants" doesn't necessarily mean they were 10' tall. The Israelites encountered other tribes they thought were "giants" who just appeared that way because they were so aggressive. This is after the flood so it's unlikely that the nephilim repopulated the earth. They were all killed in the flood.
The Scriptures never call Seth's progeny "sons of God," nore do the Scriptures ever call Cain's progeny, "daughters of men."
Chapter 6 immediately follows Chapter 5 in which the line of Seth is written about. I think it is more likely that in this instance the phrase "sons of God" refers back to them. Other than chapter 6 we don't see any other instances where Angels may be procreating with humans. We have a lot of Scripture that points out that Angels do not procreate with other Angels and while they may appear to have physical form and can perform incredible acts in the physical world they are spiritual beings.
BTW, I love these threads. I wish I had seen them sooner. FWIW, if you post something like this you can click on my screen name and you will find an end times ping list. You will find a lot of posters who will be interested in this kind of topic.
GIANTS in Genesis 6, is exactly the same sense as the giant that young David faced in open combat.
According to Genesis 6:4, ("and also after that") this phenomenon of sons of God cohabiting with daughters of men was not isolated to the time immediately prior to the flood ; it took place in subsequent generations in Canaan and Israel. Thus, it is not talking about Seth's progeny, which if claimed through Noah, would be dispersed even unto our own day in all three races of men.
No, Enoch was not a "new creature" in the sense of regeneration ; was never labeled a "son of God." The expression "son of God" ALWAYS refers to a direct, individual creation of God: either by physical/material creation (including the angels, who are called "sons of God" in the OT; or in the NT sense, being created after the image of Christ. Men in the OT---not even Enoch, Abraham, David, etc. were "born again". Christ had to die and be raised from the dead before INDIVIDUALS could be "born again."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.