Truth
On
Tough
Texts
ISSUE 5–
December/2005
Who In the
World Were Those “Sons of God”?
(1)
Gen. 6:4; 1 Pet. 3:18-20;
2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6
PERHAPS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST OF debated
texts is Genesis 6:4, which refers to the “sons of God”
and “daughters of men.” Along with it, however, are
three related texts. Let’s quote all four and then deal
with them collectively:
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. (Gen. 6:4)
For Christ also hath once
suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he
might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh,
but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and
preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were
disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited
in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,
wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water (1
Pet. 3:18-20).
For if God spared not the
angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and
delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved
unto judgment (2 Pet. 2:4).
And the angels who kept
not their first estate, but left their own habitation,
he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness
unto the judgement of the great day (Jude 6).
Tragically, the
debate over these verses has gone on for centuries. I
say “tragically” because one view is based exclusively
on pagan myths instead of the sole authority of
Scripture. Sadly, and shockingly, the most common view
is that there was an invasion of the earth by fallen
angels (the “sons of God,” Gen. 6:4) who cohabited with
earthly women (the “daughters of men”) and produced a
race of giants. It is absolutely incredulous to me that
a large portion of Evangelical Christianity today holds
this view when the fact of the matter is, as we will
prove, it is totally pagan in origin.
To explore this great
debate, let’s first consider why the “sons of God” were
not fallen angels, second their true identity, and third
the identity of the angels in Jude 6.
I. Why the “Sons of God”
Were Not Fallen
Angels
Let us examine three
reasons why the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 cannot
possibly refer to fallen angels.
This View Is
Untenable
By untenable we, of
course, mean that the view is difficult to maintain and
is even indefensible. To put it simply, this theory
is just plain fanciful. Respected pastor and author
Warren Wiersbe puts it this way: “The whole explanation,
though held by teachers I respect, to me seems a bit
fantastic.”[i] And that is putting it
mildly. Joseph Exell (1849-1909), a British clergyman
who compiled the monumental, multi-volume work, The
Biblical Illustrator, rightly brings out the fact
that Jewish rabbis tended toward views that were
fantastic. He writes, “Hence Apocryphal Jewish
literature assumes this [theory] constantly . . .
which, nevertheless, seems fanciful and
ungrounded.”[ii]
Actually, the Jewish
Scriptures themselves assume this. The Tanakh
Translation of Genesis 6:4, for example, reads: “It was
then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on
earth—when the divine beings cohabited with the
daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the
heroes of old, the men of renown.” But “translating” the
Hebrew ben elohim as “divine beings” is total
conjecture and is not really translating at all, rather
it is interpretation. Ben clearly means “son” and
elohim, while it sometimes
refers to any god, usually refers to the supreme “God.”
There is absolutely no linguistic support for “divine
beings,” and such translation is
indefensible.
We’ll come back to this
later, but we need to point out here that this view has
its roots in Old Testament pseudepigraphal books.
These are books that have been proven over and over
again to be unreliable, extremely fanciful,
mythological, mystical, and pagan. So, as we’ll
see, this theory, in the final analysis, is of pagan
origin and has no Scriptural support
whatsoever.
This View Is
Unthinkable
I submit this point
out of real burden. For not only is this theory
unthinkable, it is also quite
objectionable. The Word of God makes it very
clear that angels are “sexless,” that is, incapable of
physical relations. Matthew 22:30 plainly declares
that angels “neither marry nor are they given in
marriage.” Of course, the proponents of this theory
immediately say, “Angels took human form.” That is
certainly true; angels have, more than once, appeared in
human form. These appearances are called “theophanies,”
physical presentations of Deity. But may we submit that
appearance is one thing while incarnation
is quite another. Angels that appeared human did
not necessarily become
human.
This is further
demonstrated by the fact that Jesus was the only
incarnate manifestation of God. No angel was ever
an incarnation. They were not human; they were
spirit. In his book, Studies in Problem
Texts, J. Sidlow Baxter includes
a lengthy chapter on the identity of the “sons of God,”
which is the best study I have read on the subject. In
it he writes:
As for the suggestion that
these evil angels somehow took human bodies to
themselves and thus became capable of sex functions, it
is sheer absurdity, as anyone can see. Both on
psychological and physiological grounds it is
unthinkable.[iii]
“Fallen Angel
Theory” proponents try to answer this problem by saying
that Matthew 22:30 only says that angels “do not
marry,” but that it doesn’t say they could not or
did not. Others insist that the verse only says
that angels in heaven don’t marry, so perhaps
they can on earth. But is
this not just playing word games? Is not the implication
clear that angels are sexless? Why in the world would
angels be capable of sex anyway? The whole subject is
utter nonsense. And may we add, no other Scripture
states that angels married humans. As any first year
seminary student knows, to base a teaching on a single
Scripture reference (Gen. 6) is bad hermeneutics.
Additionally, this
theory is extremely objectionable. Think of it! Our dear Savior was an
incarnation. Are we to believe that these wicked angels
were like Him? In the final analysis this theory brings
our Savior down to the level of these fallen angels. In
fact, the incarnation of God is no longer something
unique. Put bluntly, it makes His incarnation “old
news” because it had been done before. No, a thousand
times no! We must not allow our Savior to be thus
defamed.
This View Is
Unscriptural
Again, the “Fallen
Angel Theory” maintains that the “sons of God” in
Genesis 6 refer to fallen angels who assumed human
bodies, cohabited with human women, and produced a race
of giants on the earth. It also maintains, however, that
this sin was the main reason for the
flood, and that Jude 6 (along
with 1Pet. 3:18-20 and 2 Pet. 2:4) also refers to this.
Let us deal with a few of what the proponents of this
theory call “proofs” and compare them with
Scripture.
First, it
maintains that the term “sons of God” (Gen. 6:2) is a
title used for angels. Again, this is absolutely true;
we find this title used for angels in Job 1:6, 2:1, and
38:7. But the fact that many ignore is that all
three of these refer to unfallen angels, not
fallen angels. Is it not
unthinkable that God would ever refer to Satan as
“a son of God?” He is, indeed, “the son of perdition,”
but he would never be a Son of God. Why then would a
Scripture writer refer to any other fallen angel as a
“son of God?”
We can also point out that
Moses mentions angels some fifteen times in the
Pentateuch, but not once does he refer to them as
“sons of God.” The “Fallen Angel Theory” proponent,
however, leads us to believe that just this once Moses
is referring to “fallen angels.” But why? Are we to
conclude that Moses was inconsistent or that he had a
lapse in thinking?
Second, it
maintains that these angels cohabited with human women
and produced a race of giants. But this is a violation
of Genesis 6:4, which is simply misread by the angel
theorist:
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 (emphasis added).
This clearly shows
that the “giants” were already on the earth when these
events were taking place. They were not the
offspring of this cohabitation.
It is also important
to understand the word “giant,” which has been greatly
misunderstood and abused. It simply does not
necessarily mean “giant” as
we think of the word. One reliable Hebrew source makes
this clear:
Actually, the translation
“giants” is supported mainly by the LXX [the Septuagint,
the Greek Old Testament] and may be quite
misleading. The word may be of unknown origin and mean
“heroes” or “warriors,” etc. The . . . transliteration
“Nephilim” is safer and may be correct in referring the
noun to a race or nation.[iv]
So, these were not
necessarily “giants,” rather they were “warriors,”
“men of violence.” This is further substantiated, in
fact, by the context—“the earth was filled with
violence” (6:11). Why? Because the earth was filled with
these “men of violence.” Right in line with this is our
next point.
Third, the
“Fallen Angel Theory” maintains that these “giants” were
the main reason God destroyed the earth through the
flood. But may we submit: that is simply not what the
Scripture text says. Genesis 6:3
and 5 clearly declare:
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 . . . 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
(emphasis added).
God’s judgment was
poured out on man, not angels. While this theory
says the “giants” were destroyed in the flood, if this
were true, why do we see “giants” in Numbers 13:33? The
twelve spies saw “giants” (Nephilim, “men of violence”) in the land of Canaan. But
how could this be true if these “giants” were killed in
the flood some 800 years earlier? Charles Ryrie well
summarizes our thoughts thus far:
Nephilim.
From a root meaning “to fall;” i.e., to fall upon others
because these individuals were men of strength (only
other use of this Hebrew word is in Num. 13:33).
Evidently they were in the earth before the marriages of
Gen. 6:2 and were not the offspring of those marriages
from which came the mighty men (military men) and men of
renown (of wealth or power).[v]
Fourth, the
“Fallen Angel Theory” maintains that the clauses “even
as” and “in like manner” in Jude 6 show that Sodom and
Gomorrah sinned in like manner as the “angels” in
Genesis 6. But this not only violates the grammar
but also the context. Verses 5-7 contain three
separate historical examples that serve as
warnings. They do not overlap, neither is one like
the other; they are completely separate. The angel
theorist, however, insists that “even as” and “in like
manner” indicate that Sodom and Gomorrah sinned in the
same way as the fallen angels of Genesis 6. But, again,
both clauses are used simply to emphasize the phrase
“are set forth for an example.” We’ll see later who
those angels were who “kept not
their first estate,” but for
now just consider these two verses this
way:
The angels who kept not
their first estate are set forth as an example, even as
and in like manner as Sodom and Gommorah and the cities
about them are set forth as examples.
In the same vein,
the angel theory also has a very serious problem with
the specific sins present in each of these
instances. To put it simply, even if Jude
were saying that these fallen angels sinned in exactly
the same way as the Sodomites did, then the angels in
Jude cannot possibly be the
same ones as in Genesis 6. Why? Because the Sodomites
were guilty of homosexuality, while the so-called
“fallen angels” of Genesis 6 are not guilty of
homosexual acts, rather relations with earthly
women.
Fifth, the
“Fallen Angel Theory” maintains that I Peter 3:18-20
shows that the fall of the angels took place “in the
days of Noah.” E. W. Bullinger, who was notorious for
his fanciful views in several areas, even maintained
that Christ, in His resurrection body, went and
preached to these fallen angels! How absurd! If the
above passage isn’t enough, farther along in the context
we read: “For this cause was the gospel preached also to
them that are dead” (4:6). All this clearly shows that
men were being preached to, not angels. This
passage is simply saying that the Spirit of the
preincarnate Christ was preaching through Noah.
But because these men rejected God’s message, they are
in prison (hades) awaiting final judgment.
This view is, in fact, the position of many reliable
writers. Older scholarship includes, among others, the
rock-solid Puritan commentator Matthew Henry. Twentieth
century scholarship includes the beloved Harry Ironside,
Charles Ryrie, Roger Raymer in Dallas Seminary’s The
Bible Knowledge Commentary, and
others.
Sixth, the
“Fallen Angel Theory” maintains that 2 Peter 2:4 also
shows that the angels fell “in the days of Noah.” Of
course, the reason these proponents want to show that
the angels fell in Noah’s day is because they think this
gives credence to the angel’s “invasion” of the earth
and their cohabitation with human women. But all this is
wasted effort. Note the verse again along with its
context (vs. 5-6):
For if God spared not the
angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, 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; And
turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes
condemned them with an overthrow, making them an
ensample unto those that after should live
ungodly;
It is so obvious
that these verses are presenting three separate
historical incidents that it’s ridiculous to argue
otherwise. In fact, here is one of the several
similarities between Jude and 2 Peter 2. The passage in
2 Peter 2 is not teaching that the angels fell in the
days of Noah because the incidents are presented as
being separate and independent from one other. Much
confusion is eliminated when this principle is
observed here and in Jude
6.
Theologian Louis Berkoff
also points out that the “Fallen Angel Theory” actually
teaches “a double fall” of the angels: Satan fell
through pride, but the other angels fell because of
“their lusting after the daughters of men.” He goes on
to say, however, that this teaching was “gradually
discarded . . . during the Middle Ages” and then adds,
“in view of this it is rather surprising to find that
several modern commentators are reiterating the idea in
their interpretation.”[vi] Indeed, how tragic that
many today are still holding to a once discarded
view.
We’ll conclude this
study in our next issue.
Dr. J. D.
Watson
Pastor-Teacher
Grace Bible
Church
NOTES
[i]
Warren Wiersbe, Be Alert
(Wheaton: Victor Books), 1984, p.
140.
[ii] Joseph Excell,
The Biblical Illustrator, Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1956), p.
401.
[iii] J. Sidlow Baxter,
Studies in Problem Texts
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974), p.
152.
[iv] Laird R. Harris,
et. al. (Editors), Theological Wordbook Of The
Old Testament (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1980), Vol. 2, p. 587.
[v] Ryrie Study
Bible (NASB
edition).
[vi] Louis Berkhof, Systematic
Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1993 reprint), pp. 141,
148.
