Biblegems #265
Last week’s post, “Giants—Myth or
History,” generated some excellent questions. These questions will be addressed
in this and subsequent posts.
Question: On identifying the “sons of God” (Gen. 6:1-4) as angels:
Is
it not the clearer indication in Matthew 22:30 from our Lord that angels are
sexless? Is there any Biblical reference to the ability of angels to have sex
at all, let alone match human chromosomes? Where does it say that the sons of
God were fallen angels? Where does it say that angels can impregnate?
There
are three theories on the identity of the “sons
of God” in Genesis 6:1-4, all of them controversial.
Theory
1: Fallen Angels
Theory
2: Godly descendants of Seth
Theory
3: Dynastic Rulers (Dynastic Rulers is the weakest, biblically.)
Identifying
the “sons of God” as fallen angels
has been a widely held position throughout church history.[i]
This
has been challenged in recent times, based on the theory that angels are sexless,
incapable of interbreeding with humans. Billy Graham popularized this theory in
his book, “Angels: God’s Secret Agents.”[ii] He interprets Matthew 22:30 to mean:
“The Bible teaches that angels are sexless.” Here is the passage:
Matt.
22:30 At
the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will
be like the angels in heaven.
This
verse actually says nothing regarding angel gender or biology. What Jesus teaches
here is that there will be no marriage
ceremonies among the resurrected people of God, just as there are no
marriage ceremonies for angels.
To assume
this means that angels and resurrected humans are sexless goes beyond the
meaning of the text. The Bible teaches that God designed the male / female
nature of mankind as an “image” in
the created realm of God, who is Spirit (Gen. 1:27). Nowhere does Scripture suggest that humanity becomes
gender-neutral in the resurrection.
Additionally,
the term “sons of God” is used only
of angels in the Old Testament (Job 1; Job 38:7; Ps. 29:1; Ps. 89:7). The Septuagint
(Greek translation) of Genesis 6:1-4 translates “sons of God” as “angels.”
In the New Testament, Jude 6-7 specifically mentions “…the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but
abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with
everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and
Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and
perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of
eternal fire.”
Only Genesis
6:1-4 matches Jude’s description of angels committing immoral acts similar to
that taking place in Sodom and Gomorrah.
Peter also
refers to these disobedient “spirits”
that God has since ”imprisoned”:
2
Pet. 3:19-20 “…the imprisoned
spirits—to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the
days of Noah while the ark was being built.”
Finally, angels
often change into human form in Scripture. Who is to say that genetic
duplication is not involved, especially given the biblical evidence above supporting
the interpretation that the “sons of God”
are fallen angels?
How appropriate
that Jesus “…has gone into heaven and is
at God’s right hand with angels,
authorities and powers in submission to him” (1Pet. 3:22).
[i] Supported
by Philo, Josephus, Justin, Ambrose, the apocryphal book of Enoch, Delitzsch,
Driver, Cassuto, Henry Morris, von Rad, Speiser. See: Chronological and
Background Charts of the Old Testament, 1978, The Zondrvan Corporation. Pg. 35
[ii] Angels:
God’s Secret Agents. Billy Graham, Doubleday & Company, Inc. Garden City,
New York. 1975. pg 33
Comment by Tim Carpenter:
ReplyDeleteIn response to Pastor Paul's thoughts on the Genesis 6:1-4 passage. I thought I could insert my thoughts in red and leave his in black. But this site will not allow that. So here are all my thoughts with {PP} and a word or two to identify Pastor Paul's comments.
Actually, there is a fourth theory that suggest that Genesis 6:1ff is a polemic against the pagan idea that rulers are of divine origin. While they may have demonic influence and empowerment, they are certainly not divine. But these demonically empowered "god-like" rulers were most likely flaunting their power upon the daughters of men (harems) and this, as we well know is an atrocity in the eyes of God. However, given the context of Genesis 4-5 it is most likely that those imperious rulers were from the line of Cain.
{PP} Identifying the “sons of God” as fallen angels has been a widely held position throughout church history. [i]
ReplyDeleteWell... Josephus is not of Christian influence or theology. Philo was a Jewish philosopher who tried to allegorize the Old Testament to meet with Roman philosophy. Using those two is quite 'counter productive' for a Christian interpretation. By Justin are you referring to Justin the Martyr? HIs inclusion of the Greek philosophers into the 'acceptable' sphere of Christian thought is subject to criticism for his line of thinking.
Ambrose's view of the Old Testament was influenced by his dependency upon the Septuagint version which is helpful but not necessarily canonical.
It is interesting to note that Ambrose's disciple, Augustine, understood that the "sons of God" were the descendents of Seth.
As for the apocryphal book of Enoch. The adjective leaves enough said.
The rest of your 'Christian history' are fairly modern but only a small portion of the wide spectrum of views taken on this passage.
The point of that is this: Any position on this passage is more speculation than solid Biblical teaching. It is not a passage to make much to do about something because, as the Bible clearly teaches. All that had breath perished except for those in the ark.
The main point in this passage is that mankind, not angels, had really really, really messed up... to the provocation of God's wrath.
If "sons of God" would indeed be angelic beings, would the Bible give such a high status of righteous standing to those who are fallen? Certainly righteous angelic beings would not incarnate themselves to impregnate women. So on what basis could anyone use the righteous term "sons of God" to fallen angels?
The New Testament does clearly state that the "sons of God" are those who have been bought and redeemed by the blood of the Lamb and filled with His Holy Spirit. (Romans 8:24, Galatians 3:26, etc)
While we can speculate what the term means in Job, there is no clear definition there. But they are certainly not ‘fallen angels.’
Certainly the use in Daniel, while in the mouth of the unregenerate emperor who could only find some kind of wording for that which was supernatural, we certainly would not equate the pre-incarnate Christ or a 'good angel' with fallen angels of Genesis 6. The ‘son of God’ here is definitely not a fallen angel.
Finally Psalm 89:6 again is not clear that it is referring to angelic beings or God's people. The context may lend support for divine beings in competition to God but the Psalm is a voice against the existence of such competition since YHWH is the one and only God. Again, ‘fallen angles’ are not even in the thinking here in this passage.
To use the term "sons of God" for fallen angels is not good Biblical study.
That brings up the essential argument that is Genesis 6. Pagan religions teach that divine beings would mix with humans and create monsters of mythological proportions. Far from supporting that notion, Genesis 6 prevents such ideas. It debunks it. It does so by the logical context of the Pre-diluvial presentation of the monotheistic transcendent God who created heaven, earth, and all that lives. Genesis wards off any pagan mythological presumptions. In this context, we are given a view of a growing conflict between Seth's righteous line and Cain's unrighteous line. They collide and compromise in Genesis 6. The result is God's clear judgment on mankind and not angels. To twist 1 Peter or other passages to imply that God judged angels at the time is an attempt to read into something that was not there. No reader of Genesis at the time or later learns of God's judgment on any so called 'angelic monsters'. The judgment is clearly and thoroughly upon man whom God made in His image and it is man that bears the full wrath of a universal flood.
{PP} This has been challenged in recent times, based on the theory that angels are sexless, incapable of interbreeding with humans.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a recent 'argument' against the sexual attack of fallen angels upon human women. St. Augustine is certainly not recent, nor is Matthew Henry and others of the Reformation such as Luther and Calvin. The text of Matthew 22:30 is not about marriage ceremonies. It is about which husband would be the husband of woman who has had several Levirate marriages. Jesus' answer... none... because there is no marriage in the resurrection. That is not a denial of gender. But it is the revelation that husbands and wives will not be husbands and wives, nor will there be marital union. The illustrative reason that Jesus gives is that they will be like angels in heaven.
If the angels are not married then why would they have sexual powers? What would the purpose be? Or do they, like animals, just mate whenever the urge hits them? Of course we cannot answer those questions because they are pure speculative. The clear teaching is that angels are not married. Period. Nor will humans be. Period.
So how could fallen angels take wives to themselves? Genesis 6:2 is very clear that they took them as wives. In other words.... they married them! They were not concubines or rape victims. They were "isha"... bones of bones, flesh of flesh.
{PP} Additionally, the term “sons of God” is used only of angels in the Old Testament.
In the New Testament, Jude 6-7 specifically mentions Only Genesis 6:1-4 matches Jude’s description of angels committing immoral acts similar to that taking place in Sodom and Gomorrah.
Context in Jude is critical. Jude is warning his readers (V 4) that there are those who creep into the fellowship of God's family "long ago who were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."
Then Jude reminds them how Jesus saved the Israelites out of Egypt but that older generation was destroyed because they did not believe. Then he reminds them how the there were "angels who did not stay within their own positions... but left their proper dwelling, He has kept eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day."
Then Jude discusses the judgment upon cities such as Sodom for their sensuality. NO WHERE does Jude say that it was the angels who did such sensual deeds. It was those cities and those ungodly people who pervert the grace of God.
{PP} Peter also refers to these disobedient “spirits” that God has since ”imprisoned”:
2 Pet. 3:19-20
You must have a different Bible than I do. Maybe that is our problem! Do you mean 1 Peter? Many Biblical scholars understand this to be those who, like the rich friend of Lazarus, who were imprisoned in the place of torment since they were disobedient while Noah preached to them. Angels are not mentioned in particular here. Plus, I do not know of any passage in the Bible that says that angels are redeemable? It is for people that Christ went to preach, not the fallen angels who took wives to themselves.
{PP} Finally, angels often change into human form in Scripture. Who is to say that genetic duplication is not involved, especially given the biblical evidence above supporting the interpretation that the “sons of God” are fallen angels?
Again, where in the Bible does it say that "fallen angels" are called 'sons of God?
{PP} How appropriate that Jesus “…has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him” (1Pet. 3:22).
Amen!