Perhaps…but the Nephilim passage in Gen 6 describes “sons of God,” which seem to be a different sort of divine being than angels. (I assume that you are referring here to Matthew 22:30, which Heiser points out is limited to “marriage,” not sex in general). Also, I think that we modern people tend to think of heaven (and its inhabitants) and earth (and its inhabitants) as spatially disconnected realms—nobody thinks we can travel physically from one realm to the other. But the OT clearly thinks otherwise; heaven and earth can be traversed by divine and human beings. I also think that our categories of “physical” and “spiritual” beings are very modern. For instance, Abraham eats a meal with divine beings in Genesis, and Jacob wrestles an angel. Both of these events are very physical. We could say that these beings “assumed a human form,” which might be true, but the text doesn’t say that. It just says, “here’s the divine being, and now they are having sex/wrestling/eating a snack with humans.”
I think this is a really good point, and one I am wrestling with deeply. (For the record, I do affirm the virgin birth of Christ.) It’s interesting that the account of Mary’s conception does not use any explicit sexual language, whereas the Nephilim account clearly does. God says to Mary that she will be pregnant, and then she is. But I see how doubting the Nephilim account could make it more difficult to support the virgin birth.
Don’t worry, Albert; you’re already solidly a heretic --at least to those who have appointed themselves as strict guardians of orthodoxy. Your mere participatory presence here on this site already put you beyond the pale of approval to the same group. Maybe if in every other post you were warning all the rest of us here about the fires of hell, then you might find their, ummm, good “graces” again. I sat by someone at a meal the other day who was pontificating about seminary students from Princeton who had the gall to suggest that the Jonah story is “just a fable”. “Satanic” was the moniker applied, I believe. Followed by chortling disparagement of people with their fancy degrees facing God’s judgment. Not an entirely misplaced sentiment, to be sure. But an entirely missing Christian humility was on full exhibit, I think. There was no smiling and nodding. Just quietly eating and engaging them on an entirely different subject … and sober reflection on how often in my own life I’ve sounded like that too about similar things.
“The opposite of faith is not doubt … the opposite of faith is certainty.” --Anne Lamott (who I’m guessing would not meet with our inquisition’s approval, but the thought makes for an interesting reactionary sentiment --itself worthy of reflection and critique.)
I would say that as a Christian you are bound (in accordance with Jude 7) to conclude that they are Angels. I, however, as a Tanakh only guy, am on the fence. In my opinion, the only passage in the OT where the phrase B’nei Elohim clearly refers to divine beings is in Job 38 (though the phrase B’nei Elim does appear to refer to divine beings), and similar phrases, calling humans the children of God are found.
This website here offers a critique of the divine view (though I’m maybe playing devils advocate here):
I don’t think these accounts are that similar. At the annunciation, the Virgin Mary’s questioning was brute biology: “How can this be?” And there is no direct parallel in paganism to the miracle of the virginal conception of Jesus, since no contact was involved.
God is not said to be working miracles in the story where the sons of God mate with the daughters of men. It’s a creepy idea, anyway. The idea of intermediate heavenly bodies seem far-fetched (as much as I enjoyed Avatar). Why would these bodies be equipped with reproductive organs? What would their genetics look like? The story sounds like a bit of paganism, perhaps added to show how the world was in moral decay before the flood.
Could these “sons of God” be the origin of the legend of the incubi? The incubi went about at night, forcing themselves on sleeping human women and impregnating them, using either incubi sperm or sperm taken from human males. This probably helped to explain some potentially embarrassing pregnancies!
Good discussion. To analyze any part of Scripture, you need to put the text in the context of the rest of scripture. I do not believe this text refers to angels for two reasons:
In the New Testament, it clearly states that angels are not married or given in marriage (Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25)
The term “Sons of God” is used several times in the Bible to refer to those in the will of God (Hosea 1:10, John 1:12, Romans 8:14, 19, Philippians 2:15, 1 John 3:1-2), if the angels were mating with humans, I do not believe they would be in the will of God. There is one time, however, when the “Sons of God” is used in the context of angels in Job.
I take the position that the creation story of Genesis Chapter 1 and the creation story of Chapter 2:4 on are two separate and sequential events. I feel a reasonable person would come to this conclusion if they read Genesis without any preconceived notions. The “Sons of God” refers to the offspring of Adam and Eve (Adam is referred to as “the son of God” in Luke 3:38) and the daughters of men refer to the men and women created in Genesis 1.
By Adam and Eve not being the first H. Sapiens, this eliminates the conflict with evolution, as I feel evolution could have easily been the means by which God created life in Genesis 1.
Thank you Phil for your thoughts. Certainly this has been a point of biblical interpretation really over the ages. I do not know why the early church choose to gloss this over. Maybe we should ask that in a different post. I think that Heiser attempts to frame this in the context of the Biblical scribes world view. Please consider 2 Peter 2: 4
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment.
Jude 1:6. And the angels who did not keep their position of authority but abandoned their own home - these he kept in darkness bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great day.
These are references to the book of Genesis and really the non canonical but well known book of Enoch. The Biblical writers believed these were angels that had fallen.
Thank you for your comments Brad. Yes, Heiser is quite knowledgeable and interesting.
I am sure that you would agree, that we as Christians really have to believe in the spiritual existence of God and heaven with angels. I have no idea how they were able to procreate with humans. How ever the spirit becomes physical is not so much my concern here. More the point is that this event is what is described in the Bible. This event is also similar in other cultural descriptions especially that of the Sumerians. This is important because the Sumerians were the first civilization and could have a similar derivation from these events that the Bible describes. The Sumerians believed that their knowledge came from their gods the Annunaki and who came from mount Dilmun. The Sumerians kings also attributed their rule to their annunaki gods. The Nephilim in the Bible were considered hybrids human/angel and described as giants. They were not immortal but they were thought to contain an evil spirit that will curse and subject mankind through the ages by the evil intent of their cursed Angel “fathers” to create their own nations in defiance of God.
I can certainly think of some evil leaders through the ages.
Yes I should use the word “hybrid” in quotes. They are mortal and did die. For example Gilgamesh may have been a real person and the epic of Gilgamesh is in part about his search for immortality. I see John 3:6 to perfectly support this concept of the Nephilim. The nephilim were physical humans born of the flesh (of their mothers) and contained the evil spirit of their fallen cursed sons of God. The mortal Nephilim would die but their evil spirit continued on to “oppress, corrupt, fall contend, and bruise upon earth” according to Enoch 15:8-9.
Who was Mary, mother of Jesus?
At the time of the Fall, Lucifer’s mate was pregnant with their 13th child. Mary was born without her father present and this was the first painful birth in Heaven for this reason. Since Lucifer’s palace was destroyed in the battle to purge evil from heaven, Raphael went to live with Jesus. Mary was born in His house and she grew up with Him.
When it came time to plan Jesus’ birth, Mary volunteered, given their relationship in Heaven. She was incarnated at the appropriate time, into a pious family. Mary was pure in all terms of the word. Her divine spirit was young and she was unmarried in heaven. Like other prophets, she could hear the instructions the angels around her.
Ref: Walther, Hinz. Jesus – New Insights into His Life and Mission (Kindle Locations 1177-1181). ABZ Verlag Zurich. Kindle Edition.
I can only say that I agree with John Calvin who wrote, concerning Nephilim:
That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious. (From his commentary on Genesis.)
All this is totally incomprehensible to me. And, as far as I can see, it severely warps any possible role that the incarnate, Jesus, has in showing us the way to the Father, the God who created the Universe.
If it serves to clarify your purpose in life, fine. I wish you well!
Al Leo
I am not sure where the difficulty comes in understanding how Jesus does not lead us to the Father. I have attached my paper of the structure of Heaven based on Revelations 4 and Exodus’ description of the Menorah.
Jesus’ palace is closest to the Father’s. So, Mary grew up in Jesus’ home, down the street from God, so to say. You cannot get any closer than that to God the Father. This is why Mary was referred to as virgin - she was truly white as the virgin snow, growing in this proximity. Heaven was delighted that she was the one to volunteer to the King’s earthly mother, the One to lead us Back to God.
A strong case can be made for the sons of God (or ‘the gods’) being Lamechites, due to the fact that both seem to be identified with the Mesopotamian Apkallu. Since it is mentioned that Tubal-Cain invented metalworking, perhaps the Lamechites introducing this technology to the people of the ANE would have caused the violence mentioned in Genesis 6:11. The Lamechites were also polygamists, according to Jordan Peterson, polygamous societies tend to be more violent, as does this article from PsychologyToday:
This sounds to me like the sci-fi movie Noah. I love science fiction and read it all the time. To be sure we can read the Bible in the same way and put it with other classics of human fictional literature like the Odyssey.
But while you would attribute the greatest achievements of mankind to genetics from an illicit relationship with alien beings, I attribute the greatest achievements of mankind to the human mind and the inspiration of God. Thus the so called giants in Genesis 6 born of the lineage of Adam and Eve, “sons of God” as they took wives from the daughters of men became the leaders of human civilization not because they were genetic supermench but because they had the teachings of God.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
