- Parent Category: FAQs
- Category: Bible Questions about Mankind or Humanity
- Published on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 10:55
Does Genesis 6:1-5 refer to the marriage of angels with human beings? If not, please give reasons for rejecting this theory.
I believe it is a purely fanciful speculation, without any real base of probability or Scripture. What is in question is rather the intermarriage : of men of the Seth line—the godly seed, with women of the Cain line— the worldly seed. Hitherto these had kept apart, as they always should. It is affirmed that the expression, “Sons of God,” always refers in Scripture to angels. It certainly does, I judge, in Job 1:6; Job 2:1 and Job 38:7. But these are holy angels; Satan with the brazen audacity, which characteriSes him and his followers, presents himself among them, but there is no reason to suppose he or other fallen beings could thus be described. Or are we asked to believe that holy angels were tempted by lust toward women? The whole idea is grotesque. Angels are of a entirely different order of creation to human beings. But analogous xpressions such as, “Sons of the Most High,” and “Sons of the living God” (Psalm 82:6; Hosea 1:10), seem to refer to men, and in the New Testament the exact expression is applied to Godfearing men and women (see Matthew 5:9; Romans 8:14, 19). And I judge it is the same here. Then it is stated, but quite incorrectly, that the result of this “unholy union” was nephilim, which is the Hebrew word for “giants” anglicised, so as to convey to our minds something mysterious and monstrous. But a careful reading of the passage shows that these “giants” were already in the earth at the time, before these marriages took place, and then we get the words, “And also after that (giving the facts of verse 2), when the Sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,” the result was “men of renown,” not half-angels_haf but true human beings, so that the union seemed to succeed, but God only saw increased depravity in the earth.
The only other place where this word, (nephilim occurs is Numbers 13:33: “And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak (which come) of the giants.” There is not a hint that these were not real men, like the rest of the Anakins, e.g., Goliath and his four brethren, etc. ft is asserted that “nephilim is connected with a verb, “to fall,” and that these mysterious beings were “fallen”_”apostates” etc., but Gesenius denies this meaning, and says the true meaning is, “fallers on,” or “attackers,” i.e., violent men. There must, it is supposed, have been a further “angelic intermarriage” after the flood to account for the appearance of these “giants” in the land of Canaan; for all the first company would have been drowned We may suppose what we like, but there is no hint of such a thing in Scripture. As a matter of fact the whole speculation seems directly opposed to our Lord’s own words, when Speaking of the resurrection state :—“In the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 22:30), ergo.—the thing is impossible. This surely ought to suffice to show that “the angels that kept not their first estate,” of Jude 6, have nothing to do, as has been affirmed, with the “sons of God” in Genesis 6. Such speculations have no real scriptural ground, and we should avoid them carefully.