Relevant Passage: Genesis 6:1-4
Current Debate: Bibleforums.org
Theory #1 Fallen Angels
This interpretation equates the 'sons of God' with angels that fell and (or possibly so that) they could have sexual relationships with human women. The offspring of these unions were giants. Strengths: This phrase 'sons of God' refers to angels elsewhere (3 times in Job*), but isn't used of humans in the Old Testament. The book of Enoch takes this interpretation and Jude quotes Enoch as, apparently, a valid source. The Hebrew term 'nephilim' comes from the root 'to fall' possibly referring to 'fallen' angels. Weaknesses: Humans are also called called God's children thoughout Scripture, even in the Old Testament (Hosea 1:10, for example). The book of Enoch was almost certainly not written by Enoch, but seems to have originated in the last century before Christ as part of the apocalyptic genre. Matthew seems to indicate that angels aren't capable of sexual relationships. This view is usually held by those attracted to mystical interpretations.
*Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7
Theory #2 Seth's Line
This interpretation equates the 'sons of God' with God's people. The problem was that men from God's holy line mixed (sexually) with worldly women. The fruit of these unholy matrimonies was negative. Strengths: This view seems to fit the context of God's displeasure with mankind (no mention is made of displeasure with angels). The term 'giant' can also refer to one of great carnality. If this view is correct, it is very similar to the problems faced in Canaan when the Israelites made the same mistake. This is the majority view today among scholars. Weaknesses: This view discounts the interpretation of the book of Enoch. It seems to have been the minority view in ancient times. This view is usually held by those who avoid all mysterious interpretations.
So what do you think?
4 comments:
Matthew, I'm of the persuasion that "nephilim" refers to fallen angels. In reference to the whole angels are a-sexual, I think we need to remember angels took on human form throughout the bible, I'd tend to think this would include sexual organs. I mean why else would the peopl of Sodom want to sodomise when they visited Lot.
I don't doubt God can allow angels to manifest themselves, or that this would include taking on a complete human form. I can't think of an example, though, of fallen angels taking human form off the top of my head.
If we have examples of how angels manifested themselves in human form, why wouldn't it be a logical induction that fallen angels have the same capability?
Because in my worldview angels can't manifest 'themselves'...God must allow it. And I'm not sure (not positive either) that God would allow fallen angels to take on human form for the purpose of sexual intercourse.
Post a Comment