# Genesis 6:2



## tcalbrecht (May 3, 2007)

> That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.



I've been having an exchange with a person in another forum over this matter, and the view that "sons of God" refers to fallen angels.

In his commentary, Calvin says:



> That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious.



I was listening to John MacArthur this morning and was kinda surprised when he off-handedly made the same claim. I then found this statement by him online:



> That's a description of demons who assumed human form and cohabitated with women, producing a demon hybrid race. That race may have been the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6:4. Nephilim is derived from the Hebrew verb naphal, which means "to fall." It can refer to those who are violent, and in Numbers 13:33 refers to people of great size. Genesis 6:4 describes them as "mighty men" and "men of renown." So apparently that hybrid race was powerful, large, and violent.”



Is it really within the bounds of orthodoxy to suggest that fallen angels had sexual relations with human woman and produced another race? Anyone have a pointer to a Reformed theologian who holds to the fallen angel view?


----------



## BobVigneault (May 3, 2007)

Here's a long thread on the Nephilim here.

Personally, I believe that angels did actually mate with human women. Can I back it up from scripture. Nope, scripture is too vague on the subject, so I won't even try.

My personal conviction comes from the similarity of myths passed down in different cultures. In Persia you had the Jinn, in Roman lore you had Hercules and the Titans, in Hebrew lore (Book of Enoch) you have the Nephilim, and there are others that I can't recall at the moment.

Like the flood showing up in so many different histories, this tale of the gods mating with humans and then being locked away is a common tale.

That's my view, I'm reformed and I'm a theologian (wannabe).


----------



## sastark (May 3, 2007)

"to fall"...hmm... is there anything that happens in the first, oh say, 5 chapters of Genesis that has to do with "falling"? I'm with Calvin on this one, the idead of humans mating with demons/fallen angels is so backwards it hardly warrants refutation. But, in reference to Bob's metion of common myths: I personally believe that the Titans refers to long-living descedents of Adam. I think that after the Flood, human lifespans gradually declined until you get to "three score and ten years". Perhaps the Titans and other such myths (the Gin Bob mentioned) are the remnants of pre-flood histories passed down from generation to generation after Babel.

Edited to add: I realized after posting that this can be read as coming across pretty mean. I do not mean to attack anyone personally, I just find the angel/demon theory absurd in general.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 3, 2007)

I like the angels/demon interp because it cleans up those other obscure an troublesome verses:

Jude 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 


2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly

Peter even uses the word Tarturus borrowing from the Titans story.

Further this interp gives a reason why God destroyed every living thing. The earth had become inhabited with creatures that were part angel and man, the angel part making them unredeemable. 

There is no where enough info to be dogmatic about my view. It was the view of some of the early church fathers so I wouldn't call it absurd. It's definitely weird to the modern ear.

This is certainly not a primary doctrine of our faith and I would strongly caution anyone from researching very deeply into it. There are too many intersections with the occult and magick and things unhealthy to our sanctification. The scripture is vague on the the topic, lets be satisfied that the answer is not meant to be found because it's not really important to redemptive history.


----------



## KMK (May 3, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> I like the angels/demon interp because it cleans up those other obscure an troublesome verses:
> 
> Jude 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
> 
> ...



Great post!

Bullinger dedicates a section in the appendix of The Companion Bible to this subject. I lean in Bob's direction on this but would not be disappointed if it were ever conclusively proven false. It is one of those 'thrilling doctrines' that could distract from serious Bible study.


----------



## satz (May 3, 2007)

Just thinking out loud here...

Is there even any evidence from the bible that angels are sexual creatures in the same way as humans?

Are they even 'male' in the same way as humans are?


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 3, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> I like the angels/demon interp because it cleans up those other obscure an troublesome verses:
> 
> Peter even uses the word Tarturus borrowing from the Titans story.



Bob,

I’m not seeing how the theory helps with the understanding of these verses.

Also, don’t we have a problem the basis of justice for God’s condemning these “creatures”? They were not sons of Adam, so they did not have his sin imputed to them. And we have not testimony in Scripture of imputation of sin to angelic beings. 

And why would the Scripture refer to fallen angels as “sons of God”? In what way are they God’s sons?



BobVigneault said:


> Further this interp gives a reason why God destroyed every living thing. The earth had become inhabited with creatures that were part angel and man, the angel part making them unredeemable.



Don’t we already have that reason given to us in Gen. 6:6,7. “And the Lord was sorry that *He had made man on the earth*, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord said, ‘*I will destroy man *whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.’”

It says “man”, not angelic half breeds. And he lists the creation order, man, beasts, and birds of the air. 



BobVigneault said:


> The scripture is vague on the the topic, lets be satisfied that the answer is not meant to be found because it's not really important to redemptive history.



But it does need to be consistent with what we know of redemptive history. With the Bible being silent on any sort of redemptive plan for angelic beings, this theory seems to cause more problems than it solves.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (May 3, 2007)

It seems to me that in order for the Angelic-Human hybrid theory to be viable, it must answer a few questions. 

First, where did they get their bodies? I understand that certain elect angels, at specific times, appeared to have bodies, and if Abraham's visitors were the Pre-Incarnate Christ, and 2 other angels, (Genesis 18) even ate. But these were *elect* angels, sent with Christ to do His bidding--namely to rescuse Lot and his family from Sodom. I have no trouble with the Lord granting temporary bodies to angels for His own purposes, but how can reprobate angels get hold on bodies?

Second, how can the term "Sons of God" be applied to *fallen* angels. I do see how it can be applied to elect angels, but I cannot see how the other can be so. 

Third, the flow of Genesis 4-5 traces, very clearly, the 2 races of men, godly and ungoldy. Surely context is in favor of "Sons of God" being understood of the Covenant race. 

Fourth, as the brother said earlier, it was not for a hybrid race that the flood came, but for the wickedness of *man*. 

Fifth, if the flood was sent to wipe out the hybrid race, why do they persist after the flood? (Numbers 13)

It seems that this interpretation creates so many other problems. The understanding held by most reformed commentators seems to comport so much better with the passage, and the purpose of Genesis to dilineate between the 2 races of humanity, elect and reprobate.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 3, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> Bob,
> 
> I’m not seeing how the theory helps with the understanding of these verses.
> 
> ...



*You may be right there Tom but it sure makes for an interesting way for friends to shoot the breeze on a quiet spring evening.*


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 3, 2007)

I hold to the fallen angel interpretation. This is how we got the race of Giants. An aboration of the normal human.


----------



## MW (May 3, 2007)

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> It seems to me that in order for the Angelic-Human hybrid theory to be viable, it must answer a few questions.
> 
> First, where did they get their bodies? I understand that certain elect angels, at specific times, appeared to have bodies, and if Abraham's visitors were the Pre-Incarnate Christ, and 2 other angels, (Genesis 18) even ate. But these were *elect* angels, sent with Christ to do His bidding--namely to rescuse Lot and his family from Sodom. I have no trouble with the Lord granting temporary bodies to angels for His own purposes, but how can reprobate angels get hold on bodies?
> 
> ...



  

For what it's worth, I think it is outside the realms of orthodoxy, and I'm kind of surprised to see people resurrecting the weird speculations of ancient times, and the even weirder theories of the anabaptists.


----------



## KMK (May 4, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> For what it's worth, I think it is outside the realms of orthodoxy, and* I'm kind of surprised* to see people resurrecting the weird speculations of ancient times, and the even weirder theories of the anabaptists.



Even on PB?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 4, 2007)

I honestly dont think its that weird Rev. Winzer. If we can believe that God came in the form of a man and died and rose again. This is not that weird. But then thankfully an interpretaion on this is not a test for orthodoxy  but I got ot go my mom is in tooth pain now.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 4, 2007)

I wanted to end with a brief by A.W. Pink from his 'Gleanings in Genesis'. 



> We turn now to consider the occasion of the Flood. "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" (Gen. 6:1, 2). There has been considerable difference of opinion among commentators and expositors in respect to the identity of these "sons of God." The view which has been most widely promulgated and accepted is, that these marriages between the sons of God and the daughters of men refer to unions between believers and unbelievers. It is supposed that the "sons of God" were the descendants of Seth, while the "daughters of men" are regarded as the offspring of Cain, and that these two lines gradually amalgamated, until the line of distinction between God’s people and the world was obliterated. It is further supposed that the Deluge was a visitation of God’s judgment, resulting from His peoples’ failure to maintain their place of separation. But, it seems to us, there are a number of insuperable objections to this interpretation.
> 
> If the above theory were true, then, it would follow that at the time this amalgamation took place God’s people were limited to the male sex, for the "sons of God" were the ones who "married" the "daughters of men." Again; if the popular theory were true, if these "sons of God" were believers, then they perished at the Flood, but 2 Peter 2:5 states otherwise—"Bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly." Once more; there is no hint in the Divine record (so far as we can discover) that God had yet given any specific command forbidding His people to marry unbelievers. In view of this silence it seems exceedingly strange that this sin should have been visited with such a fearful judgment. In all ages there have been many of God’s people who have united with worldlings, who have been "unequally yoked together," yet no calamity in anywise comparable with the Deluge has followed. Finally; one wonders why the union of believers with unbelievers should result in "giants"—"there were giants in the earth in those days" (Gen. 6:4).
> 
> ...



Well maybe it was not so short but Im pretty much in allignment with Pink's view. I dont except the Jewish interp that it was generals or great kings. I dont believe it was the Godly men of the time though it is something I can live with. Anyway until I write my position on this I will duck out. Good day. NOw where is that Dentist???


----------



## BobVigneault (May 4, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> For what it's worth, I think it is outside the realms of orthodoxy, and I'm kind of surprised to see people resurrecting the weird speculations of ancient times, and the even weirder theories of the anabaptists.



Oh dear, I just pray that no one resurrects the weird speculations of Melancthon or we entertainers of Nephalimic theoris are going to DROWN. I don't want to go that way.


----------

