Part 1-of-2
That angels can appear bodily (as in Genesis 18) does not prove they are flesh in the same way men are
Agreed -- but as Jude says, these are "the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation", meaning, they are properly spirits, but they have attempted (by rebellion) to become flesh, that is, to change their own kind. What Jude is describing is a mirror-reflection of trans-humanism. Where trans-humanism is about flesh trying to become spirit (immortality, by our own "power"), the angelic sin in Genesis 6 is the mirror of this -- spirit beings who do not belong in flesh upon the earth (except as they may incarnate according to the will of God),
abandoning (that's the Greek) their own habitation for another which does not properly belong to them. So yes, angels are not flesh any more than men are transhuman spirits, but the heavenly-earthly rebellion of these sinful creatures seeks to reverse God's own architecture: In the beginning, God created the
heavens and the
earth. That is God's own separation, and that is why they rebel against it.
To treat that miracle as a pattern for angelic behavior—fallen or otherwise—is not warranted by Scripture.
Let's shelve that point for another time. I think it's an important point, but it's not necessary for this discussion.
Calling Him a “hybrid” in the same category as supposed angel–human offspring is not biblical language
To clarify, I'm certainly not saying he is in the same category. I'm not making any doctrinal novelty here, that is, I 100.0% affirm orthodox doctrine of Jesus Christ, the one and only unique God-man, begotten, not made, very God of very God who dwelt among us, was crucified, buried and rose again the third day. No one and nothing is comparable.
My point is that Jesus is -- by right, and through pure holiness -- heaven come down to earth (speaking loosely), which is the very thing that the fallen angels of Genesis 6 sought to do, but for blasphemous and wicked purposes. Jesus became incarnate, fully human, in order to save the world. The fallen angels sought to incarnate through blasphemy in order to wreak the wickedness of Genesis 6. If you read Genesis 3-6 as a single unit, the message is clear: Satan's goal in tempting Eve was the wickedness of Genesis 6! They already knew the Good, they did not know the Evil. The devil wanted to show them the knowledge of Evil, which knowledge they received in Genesis 6! That was the whole point! And that's why the Nephilim are coming back! (Matt. 24:37)
Finally, you suggested that Matthew 22:30 applies only to holy angels, and that fallen angels may violate that order. But the Lord’s statement is about the nature of angels as God created them: they “are as the angels of God in heaven” in that they do not marry.
By definition, it can only be talking about the holy angels, those who obey God. Those who are disobedient will do whatever is within their capacity to do, if it serves their rebellion -- just like disobedient men do whatever it is in the capacity of men to do, if it serves their rebellion. Humans were certainly not created to do homosexual sex, and yet they do. So it is for the rebellious angels of Genesis 6.
Scripture nowhere says there is another class of angels
"Class" has nothing to do with it -- angels can incarnate (Scripture proves), they can eat (Scripture proves), and they can do any number of other things that are beyond human comprehension (see Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation, etc.) That angels would have the power to cause biological reproduction is nowhere denied in Scripture, and is a far less impressive or powerful thing than the things that Scripture tells us they *can* do. In answer to your point that it is an attempt to plunder God's own unique creative power, of course, you are absolutely right, and that's exactly what Jude says they did -- they ABANDONED their own dwelling (or "proper station"), which is also a perfect summary of Isaiah 14:12 and context.
To assert such a biology for fallen angels goes beyond what is written.
"Biology" is the wrong way to think about it. The text is describing something more like "unauthorized incarnation". They are doing what they are already capable of doing (by nature), but they are doing it in an unauthorized way, in rebellion to God, rather than obedience to him.
(3) 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 do not mention reproduction.
Fair enough, but the point is that they are definitely talking about Genesis 6, they are not some generic teaching that there is "some group" of angels "somewhere" that "some time" did "something" that happened to be an abandonment of their proper dwelling -- they are specifically discussing Genesis 6, and we know that because Jude is quoting Enoch which is all about Genesis 6 (the canonicity of Enoch itself being irrelevant to this point).
The nature of the sin is not specified as sexual;
It may not have involved corporal union, but the blasphemy that was produced (mixed offspring) was at least as wicked as corporal union would be, so it's a moot point. This is why I point to transhumanism in this discussion -- even if it is all done in a laboratory, it's
still rebellion against God, the same as if there were corporal lust. That there was debauchery is directly implied, although not directly stated. Even on the Sethite view, this text is talking about sexual debauchery -- the angel-view changes nothing in that respect.
Let me set a little groundwork about heavenly creatures. We know that the heavens are unseen to us (John 1:18, etc.) and that all the affairs of both men and angels are seen to God (Heb. 4:13, etc.) Because we cannot see the heavens, as we can see the earth, we must restrict our speculations in respect to the heavens. However, this restriction is
bi-directional, that is, not only must we restrict our speculations in respect to what angels CAN do, we must also restrict our speculations in respect to what angels CANNOT do. Thus, from the mere fact that there is no passage in Scripture which says that the angels can bodily reproduce with earthly creatures, it does not follow that angels CANNOT do so, only that we cannot definitely assert that they CAN do so, unless Scripture demands it. There are no substantial objections to the possibility -- Scripture nowhere says it's impossible. The point of the angel view of Genesis 6 is not to be dramatic and edgy, even though many mishandle the passage in this way. Rather, the point is that the text itself
demands to be understood in this way, and not as a question of interpretation, but definitively so. There is no other reasonable understanding of the text once all the facts are thoroughly studied.
the emphasis is on rebellion and leaving their appointed place.
Agreed.
We know Satan fell by pride and rebellion (Isaiah 14; Revelation 12:7–9) without any hint of reproductive sin.
It is all tied to reproductive sin. The attempt to murder the Son of God (Luke 22:2,3,6) was an attempt to destroy the generative nature of the Triune being of God, who exists as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not Uncle, Nephew and Holy Spirit. This is a very important point, it is why Jesus is seated at the right-hand of the Father, the right-hand of the king being the seat reserved for the crown-prince and heir, and no other, not even the queen, who sits on the left-hand. All of these topics are connected. There are great mysteries, here, but it is not ALL mystery, which is how many churches sadly teach this topic. How many churches today could still be scolded by Paul, "Do you not know we will judge angels?" Very few know this!
The positive statements of Christ and Hebrews about angels as non‑marrying spirits weigh heavily against constructing a detailed hybrid biology on that silence.
Nope. The teaching of Jesus regarding the resurrection has nothing to do with this subject. He simply tells us the "proper dwelling" of the angels (they do not marry), which very dwelling Jude tells us the angels of Genesis 6 abandoned.
But Genesis 6:1–7 itself explains the Flood in terms of the wickedness of man filling the earth (Genesis 6:5,11–12). The passage’s own emphasis is on human hearts, human choices, and human violence.
We've revisited this points several times -- we definitely agree that this is the primary spiritual teaching of Genesis 6:1-7. But the reason that is the primary spiritual teaching is not because angels are not sinning in this passage, but because
we are humans, that is, the Bible is written to humans, not to angels. In fact, there is no "lesson" for these angels, because they were cast by God into Tartarus, and are reserved for judgment, as Jude and Peter tell us. The reason we are told about their rebellion is because it is crucial to understanding the coming of the Seed of the Serpent, that is, the Antichrist prophesied in Gen. 3:15. It's not primarily a moral teaching, it's history with massive prophetic implications.
the question is whether Moses intended us to read that unit in isolation
Obviously not. Nevertheless, you are imposing a systematic onto Genesis 4-6, and it is not a sound one. "Scripture interprets Scripture" doesn't mean pull just any passage and arrange it in just any relationship to any other passage; it means, use the thinking-patterns in Scripture itself, and apply those thinking patterns TO Scripture, to understand Scripture. Typology, for example, isn't a human invention, it's directly explained in the text of Scripture itself (e.g. Jesus is the "Second Adam"). From that, we have typology, not from human fancy. You are simply imposing a systematic onto the text that does not come from the text itself.
To be clear, I am also using a systematic, in respect to understanding the fallen sons of God of Genesis 6 in their prophetic connection to the Antichrist. But I can show this thinking pattern in Scripture itself, where it is applied to Jesus first, who is the Seed of the Woman. The lineage of Jesus is given to us in the Gospels, all the way back to Adam. So also, the Seed of the Serpent, the Antichrist, will have his lineage, back to the beginning, through the Nephilim, to the Serpent himself in Eden. That's not just an imposed systematic, it must necessarily be the case because the Antichrist will be the final and worst false-christ. Genesis gives us part of his lineage.
Genesis 4 and 5 have just labored to distinguish:
- A line marked by violence and worldliness (Cain and his descendants).
- A line marked by calling “upon the name of the LORD” (Seth’s descendants).
I agree as far as that goes. And I agree that it's connected to Genesis, but I disagree that "sons of God" and "daughters of Adam" are codes for "the line marked by violence and worldliness" and "the line marked by calling up on the name of the Lord", respectively. That's where we disagree. Moses was perfectly able to express himself linguistically, if he had wanted to say "the line of Seth" and "the line of Cain" (or a spiritual equivalent to these), he would have just said that. No need to use cryptic bible-codes with no parallel passages or clarifying passages anywhere else in scripture.
My point is not that the words by themselves mean “daughters of Cain,” but that within the narrative Moses has just contrasted a line that calls on the LORD with a line that does not.
While I don't disagree that you are pointing out a valid
spiritual parallelism, if Moses had intended only to indicate that, he would have just used direct language to that effect, as he does everywhere else in the Torah. "Some of those who had been faithful to God saw the daughters of those who were rebellious against God were fair, and took wives for themselves of whomever they chose." See how easy that is? God's word is perspicuous, it is not a Bible-code. I know we agree on that, but I think you're not applying it consistently. There is no getting around the fact that this passage is somewhat mysterious. Even after all the facts are weighed (including Enoch, etc.), there is STILL mystery in this passage. To wave it all away as just a simple spiritual lesson tying up Genesis 4 and 5 is not handling the passage rightly, it's deficient. Genesis 6:1ff is telling us about things that, in every other respect, are beyond our ken. It's compressed down to just the essential facts we absolutely need in order to understand the history of that time, and its prophetic implications to the end of the Age. Moses has given us exactly what we need, and no more. But it's not just a simple moral lesson to the effect that believers shouldn't party with the daughters of unbelievers. This overly-reductive reading doesn't hold the Scripture in high esteem, it lessens it.
(1) The term “sons of God” can be used in more than one way.
Scripture uses “sons” and “children” of God for:
- Israel as a nation:
- Future restored Israel:
- Believers in Christ:
We covered this point already -- the application of this label in Torah and the New Testament to the faithful members of God's congregation (the Old and New Testament church) points to the reality of our glorification in Christ, which I will get into a little further down -- this is an important doctrinal point.
In all these cases, the King James Bible applies the title “sons/children of God” to human beings. So it is simply not true that the title must be restricted to angels.
Even in the cases where it is not being used of angels, it is still referential to them. For example, in Revelation, Jesus says to John, "To the angel of the church in Smyrna (etc.) write ..." Clearly, this is addressed to the overseer (bishop) of that church, not an intangible heavenly being. But WHY does Jesus use the word "angel" to address a man?? Because, in Christ, we are being sanctified and, ultimately, glorified in the resurrection, where we
will be "as the angels of God" (Matt. 22:30). This is WHY Jesus says, "To the angel of the church of...", not to indicate that these are not men, but simply to indicate their future station and glory in eternity.
I agree that in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7, the “sons of God” are heavenly beings. Many interpreters also see angelic beings in Psalm 29:1 and 89:6. But even if every one of those Old Testament occurrences outside Genesis 6 refers to angels, that still does not prove that the phrase must always and only carry that sense.
Granted, but then you need some other witness as to why this specific passage is the odd one out. That's the point. Even in the passages you mentioned where the phrase is used towards the congregation, it is used that way specifically to refer to the angels -- their holiness, their calling, their devotion to God, and so on. To be the sons of God is not merely to be very righteous humans, it is to be holy creatures who dwell continually in the presence of God, something that mere men cannot do. Just as the bishops of the churches in Rev. 1-3 were not "literally" angels, so also the faithful congregation are not "literally" the sons of God, at least, not in fullness. Only in eternity will we inherit the fullness of that condition. For now, we have received THE RIGHT to BECOME the sons of God (John 1:12). We are co-heirs with Christ, but we have not yet inherited.
That does not prove Genesis 6 must be human, but it proves that “sons of God” can be a covenant title for men, not only for angels.
We don't disagree on that point -- the disagreement is that there is no other referent in Genesis 6 to which this would be referring. In Rev. 1-3, Jesus is referring the bishops of the seven churches. He refers to each of them as "angel", indicating their future glory and, thus, their current duties. Deut. 14:1 is using the term "sons of God" in precisely the same way, referring not to the literal sons of God (who dwell in heaven) but to the human congregation of Israel -- it is impossible to misunderstand the text. But Genesis 6 and the other passages that have no other referent are clearly just referring to the sons of God themselves, just as in Genesis 19, when it refers to the two angels, this isn't a metaphor for two very righteous men, it just means *angels*. There is no other referent in Genesis 19, so "angels" just means "angels", and nothing else besides. Likewise, in Genesis 6, there are no other referents (and no, you can't responsibly import them from Gen. 4,5), so "sons of God" simply means "sons of God", who are heavenly creatures, not earthly creatures. It is not referring to righteous/upright creatures, it is referring to wicked, rebellious creatures. They are not men of the line of Seth, and this is proved by their actions. They do wickedness because they themselves *are* wicked.
the title “sons/children of God” is plainly applied to humans in many places
But not all, see the other passages already cited.
So the fact that a phrase uses H1121 + H430 does not lock in one technical meaning
But that's not the argument -- the argument is this. If you have 8 occurrences of a phrase in Scripture, and 7 of them clearly refer to X, and 1 of them is uncertain, if you want to argue that the 8th occurrence is UNLIKE the other 7, you need another witness to actually demonstrate that. You can't just say "it COULD mean something else" because this is, as you noted above, a fallacious argument from ignorance. Anything COULD mean anything, the question is what DOES it mean. Ordinarily, if we have 1 unclear passage/phrase, we interpret it from the clear ones. It is also possible that this unclear passage/phrase has a unique usage from the other, clearer ones but, if so, there must be a witness to prove this, you can't just say "but it could mean something else." You have to give a reason, because it is the odd passage out. By default, it means the same as all the others, unless you can actually demonstrate otherwise. And the mysterious language of Genesis 6 makes this case all the stronger, because why would God use a phrase 7 times one way, and then in the 8th mysterious passage, use it to means something else, as though to confuse us intentionally? That's an absurdity, so of course bene ha'Elohim just means what it means in all the other passages: heavenly creatures of immense power.
You also appealed to the Septuagint, noting that it often renders the phrase as “angels.” That shows how those translators understood the Hebrew in their time, but it does not settle the question for us.
Because the Septuagint is quoted extensively in the New Testament, it is an authoritative translation. Only the Holy Spirit is the final interpreter of Scripture, but the Septuagint gets deference in respect to later interpreters who are further removed from the original source materials and who necessarily have an inferior command of ancient Hebrew.
The Septuagint is a valuable ancient translation, not an inspired commentary. In several places it paraphrases or interprets rather than giving a strictly literal rendering. So its choice of “angels” tells us how some Jewish scholars read the phrase; it does not prove that Moses could not have used the same Hebrew expression in a different sense when the context is different.
It demonstrates that the phrase "sons of God" refers to heavenly creatures, that is, to angels. Even in those passages where it is applied to the congregation of Israel, it is still by way of metaphor. The congregation is the referent of the analogy, the angels are what they are being compared to. "You are sons of God, so act like it"... "You are [will be] as the angels, so act like it." (See again Matt. 22:30)
(3) Context decides which sense applies.
In Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7, the “sons of God” are in a heavenly court context; there, the angelic sense is natural.
In Genesis 6, the context is earthly marriage, childbearing, and human judgment. The flow of the passage is:
- Men multiply.
- Daughters are born.
- Sons of God see them, take wives, and have children.
- God shortens man’s days and condemns the wickedness of man.
Reading “sons of God” as covenant men in that chain is straightforward; reading them as non‑embodied spirits who somehow participate in human marriage and reproduction pushes against the plain sense of Jesus’ later description of angels (Matthew 22:30).
The point of the angel view is not to make man innocent, any more than Satan's instigation of Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit makes Genesis 3 a story about man's innocence. Man was given by God the faculty of conscience so that he knew better than to disobey. The wicked men of Genesis 6 knew better than to act as they were acting, being made in God's image. And the primary spiritual lesson for us (humans) is to warn us about the extreme dangers of sin -- in the end, the whole world will be destroyed by it! But the spiritual lessons of Genesis 6 are not the SUBJECT of Genesis 6. The SUBJECT of Genesis 6 is the Flood, and its causes. In particular, in vv. 1-7, we are given TWO causes: 1) the wickedness of the fallen sons of God who intermingled with human flesh and 2) the wickedness of man's heart, which had become "only evil, continually". These are not disconnected narratives, they are one narrative, just as the Serpent's rebellion and Adam's disobedience in Eden are one, connected narrative. In Revelation, we read that the Dragon will delegate power to the Beast -- but why? Because this rebellion is and always has been a
dual rebellion occurring both on earth, and in the heavenly realms (Eph. 6:12). This latter point is what I think many would-be theologians draw back from because they substitute human reason -- how can there be evil in the dwelling place of Holy God!? -- in place of the word of God which simply
tells us there is a rebellion occurring *in the heavens* (Eph. 6:12), parallel to the earthly rebellion of mankind in Adam. Can I square that circle? Not fully, no. But it's what Scripture
says.
(4) New Testament “sons of God” do not turn believers into Genesis 6 beings.
The New Testament does teach that believers are adopted as sons and heirs:
But this is a change of status and relationship, not a change of created kind. We are still men and women, “flesh and blood,” awaiting resurrection. Jesus did say that in the resurrection we are “as the angels of God in heaven” in that we neither marry nor are given in marriage (Matthew 22:30), and Luke says we are “equal unto the angels” because we cannot die any more (Luke 20:36). Those verses describe certain ways in which our future state will resemble theirs; they do not say we become angels or share their created nature.
We will receive resurrection bodies, which are as unlike these bodies as the Sun is unlike the Moon (1 Cor. 15:41,42). "And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven." (1Cor. 15:49) We are being transformed into his likeness (2 Cor. 3:18). And what is that likeness? See the post-resurrection Christ who appeared as he pleased, who showed Thomas the wounds in his hands, but ate fish with the disciples, and opened the Scriptures on the road to Emmaus, in bodily disguise. These are only indications of what Paul is talking about, but they are sufficient to paint the overall picture: we will be completely unlike we are today, just as the angels are unlike us; just as Jesus said, we will be "as the angels", not only in the one respect he mentions, but in all the respects that God has determined for each of us individually, to this, one glory, to that, another. (1 Cor. 15:35ff)
We do not become angels or a new class of heavenly beings. The NT uses the same phrase to describe our adoption into God's family; it does not say we become of the same nature as the angels in Job 1–2 or that we are turned into the kind of beings that supposedly fell in Genesis 6.
We began in the likeness of the earthly Adam; we are being transformed into the likeness of the heavenly Adam. Our authority is greater than the angels, so we are not being transformed INTO angels. But they are heavenly creatures, as we will be, and even greater still see John 17. As Anselm summarized the Gospel, "God became man that man might become God".
Hebrews 2:5–16 underlines this by saying that the world to come is not put in subjection to angels but to Christ and the “many sons” He brings to glory; we are raised and glorified as redeemed men, not turned into the same order of being as angels.
We will have authority as the sons of God, in Christ. The sons of God are heavenly beings, they are not under earthly limitations. As we are transformed into the likeness of Jesus by the Holy Spirit, in glory, we will also be freed of earthly limitations. We will have royal authority in Christ, being made in God's own image, in order to be united to him (John 17, Eph. 1:10, etc.)
So the question is not, “Can ‘sons of God’ ever mean angels?” (it can, in Job), but, “Does Genesis 6, in its own setting, require that meaning?” I believe the answer is no.
Fair enough. My insistence is not the thing that should make the difference to you, in any case, it should be God's own word. Only beware of the subtlety of false teachings... they can seem ever-so-reasonable, but still have the poison of error hidden within. I know that warning applies to myself equally, I'm just saying keep watch, and never stop digging.
CONT'D
So...are you going by the standard of the Catholic church fathers or by moderrn archeology? Modern archeology and genetics say there were human / nonhuman hybrids which fits the point being made by others that the genocides in the Old Testament were justified because the "people" being killed weren't really "people."
