A Response to Doug Wilson and the Nephilim view
Well, here I am. I've probably lost count of how many articles I've read on "refuting Doug Wilson," and, "why Doug Wilson is wrong," etc. I certainly wasn't looking to write my own, and probably never would have if it had not been for a recent post on Blog and Mablog titled, "The Nephilim, Hades, and other Oddments."
Now, let me be clear. I am far from being a Wilson hater or someone who sifts every word written by him for the express intent of finding every error or disagreement that can be conjured. I actually really appreciate the perspectives, ministry and level-headed approach that Wilson usually takes. I am also far from being "in line" with him. I could easily list several points of disagreement, but that is not the thrust of this article.
However, one thing I do strongly disagree with is Wilson's view of the (infamous) chapter 6 of Genesis and the Nephilim of pre-flood people. Now, it is true that Wilson holds the majority position on this, and I am the minority. The vast majority of Christians (in my circles) hold to what is often called the "Fallen Angel" view. This was the perspective I was raised with, and I held to it for most of my adult life. I now hold to what is known as the "Sethite view." My mind was changed when I learned of the 5 Solas, and I realized that my long held assumptions about Genesis 6 were not based on scripture alone, but were something I was imposing upon it. There is also a third position that is outside the scope of this article, sometimes called the “Royal view.”
Wilson's comments are quite common and standard for his position, and I was unsurprised by what he said. He also brushed off the Sethite perspective in such a way that made me wonder if he had ever actually encountered it. I don't suppose Wilson will ever see this article, and I don't expect it would change his mind if he did. With all that said, I will take his post bite by bite, and answer the conclusions and objections the best that I can.
"The Flood did not happen because people were going to nightclubs too much. The Flood was brought about through our rebellion as expressed through perverse genetic engineering."
Wilson, in his usual attempt to make a certain subject relatable, tries to inject a little humor into it. I usually appreciate Wilsons light hearted anecdotes, here it is in bad taste. No, God did not destroy the pre-flood world because of nightclubs. However, scripture is clear as to why God did destroy it.
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. - Gen 6:5
And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. - Gen 6:12
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. - Gen 6:13
As we can see, scripture makes no bones about declaring how wicked mankind had become. So much so that the only thing that entered into the mind of man was evil and violence continually. While we do not know biblically the population of the pre-flood world, the long lifespans and ability to have children far beyond current ages could have easily produced a global population up to double what we now have on earth. All flesh had corrupted his way. All flesh. Keep that in mind.
So while night clubs were not in the picture, Wilson downplays the sheer evil and depravity that the earth experienced at the hands of these people. The earth was filled with violence, and because of this, God destroyed them.
The second thing Wilson says in that paragraph is regarding "perverse genetic engineering." This is pure assumption. Nowhere does scripture indicate this kind of activity. This theory comes from the Young Earth Creationist camp (of which I am a member) that attempts to give pre-flood man a level of technology that matches (or even exceeds) our own. I've even heard it speculated that man may have visited the moon before the flood. Not only is there zero fossil evidence for such technology, but there is zero biblical evidence as well. Theories that man was advanced enough to engage in gene splicing and was successful in blending the DNA of man with animals sounds cool on the face of it, but again, no evidence exists for this, just pure speculation and fantasy. Centaurs, mermaids, fauns, minotaur's and harpies are evidence of a colorful imagination, not evidence for pre-flood gene manipulation. My 5-year old imagines all sorts of fantastical creatures, yet his knowledge of DNA is quite limited.
I do not know to what extent Wilson’s views tend toward the pre-flood technological state of man, it may be something he has never considered. I do not doubt that pre-flood man was quite intelligent, and paired with long lifespans there was no doubt some level of technology that wasn’t seen again for millennia. However, there is no evidence for advancements that lead to genetic manipulation. The vast majority of our technology today is tied to fossil fuels, something that wouldn’t have existed in the pre-flood world. Also, if the technology was at such a peak as to even include space travel, why was Noah instructed to build a wooden boat in order to escape the global flood?
"The cosmological issues swirling around this topic provide a good case study on how easy it is to get Christians to be embarrassed by certain aspects of Scripture—even if they affirm their belief in technical inerrancy, and even if the text of Scripture is very plain on whatever the embarrassing subject is."
If I understand Wilson correctly here, he is submitting that anyone who disagrees with him on Genesis 6 is "embarrassed" by the Word of God. Even more, that there is a denial of scriptures inerrancy if one does not hold to his view. I hope I'm wrong in what he is saying here, because if this is Wilson's intention, he is toying with the very same rhetoric that gets applied to him by others regularly.
In fact, I would argue that to hold the Sethite view as I do, requires a robust dedication of inerrancy, because this is the position that does the least speculation.
I will not deny that Genesis 6 is a difficult chapter. The word Nephilim only occurs a couple times in scripture, and honest translators will admit they aren't sure what is meant by the word. However, most hardcore advocates for the Fallen Angel View (FAV) appeal to extra-biblical sources as evidence. Wilson himself does this later on.
I am not "embarrassed" by scripture. I believe in prophets being swallowed by fish, donkeys that talk, and staffs turning into snakes. There are plenty of other things I could be embarrassed by if that was my concern. I am however concerned when the active imaginations of men, impose something onto scripture that isn't there. This is certainly not a primary doctrinal issue. Good, Godly men have held both the FAV and Sethite view. However, like most theology, it has the possibility of touching other things that are very important.
"So with that said, I am arguing here that the Nephilim were the gigantic offspring of an unnatural sexual union between celestial beings (bene elohim) and human women. Before getting into the details, I should dispense with the one passage that appears to be saying that this is not even a possibility. Doesn’t Jesus say that the angels in Heaven can’t marry?
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. - Mat 22:30
But Jesus does not say that this cannot be done. He says that it is not done by the angels in Heaven."
Here, Wilson must deal with the text that is often used against the FAV. His response is pretty much the same one I would have made myself when I held the position. There's a problem though; In Matthew 22, the Sadducees (who don't believe in an afterlife or angels at all) are trying to trip Jesus up with a crafted question. They proceed to ask a question regarding Levirate marriage. (Who's wife is she? For seven had her.) Jesus responds by saying essentially, that in the resurrection, our bodies take on the same spiritual attributes as that of the angels. Sexual relationships do not occur within the spiritual realm. Why? Because spirits are sexless.
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. - Luk 24:39
Jesus is pretty comfortable claiming that a spirit does not have a physical body. Of course, an angelic being can manifest themselves as having a body, but nowhere does scripture indicate that this manifestation is compatible with human sexuality. Indeed, Genesis 6 is on the heels of the creation account, where God created all sorts of creatures after their kind. If physical beings who have sexual organs, cannot reproduce with each other (say, a human and a dog), why do we then leap to the conclusion that angels are somehow sexually compatible? Wilson tries to split hairs by saying "But Jesus does not say that this cannot be done. He says that it is not done by the angels in Heaven." This sounds cute, but I think it is actually evidence against his position. If these are not angels from heaven, why then are they referred to as the "sons of God?" Is there any other place in scripture where a fallen angel, i.e. demon, is referred to in such a manner? I think not. Indeed, the few other places where bene-elohim is used, it is certainly not discussing fallen angels. (and I will make the case that it might not be discussing spirits at all)
This sort of hair-splitting is what tends to happen when someone tries to defend the Fallen Angel View.
Wilson then links this Genesis 6 event with the account in Jude.
"The reason it is not done by them is that they were not the ones who left their assigned habitation. Those angels that did abandon their habitation incurred a great and grievous judgment because of it."
This is another common association. I find it interesting that in order to find evidence for the FAV, one must venture nearly to the opposite end of the bible, and try to impose a very symbolic passage upon the historical account of Genesis. This is the text.
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. - Jde 1:6-7
Jude is showing us how the Angels who rebelled against God, abandoned their habitation. They abandoned their created purpose. This is linked with the abandonment of mans creative purpose and the sin of sodomy, for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. Angels were created to dwell in God's presence, this created purpose was distorted when some of them followed Satan in his rebellion.
Mankind has a creative purpose, a dominion mandate to reproduce and fill the earth with descendants. The fallen angels and the men of Sodom are set forth as examples of ultimate rebellion against God's created order. FAV proponents point to this passage as evidence for sexual deviancy between man and spirit. However, the sin of Sodom was that of homosexual nature. It could not reproduce anything. The entire point is that angelic beings procreated with human women, yet Sodom is an example of unproductive defiance of God's created order. If Wilson and other FAV proponents really want to draw a line between Genesis 6 and Genesis 19, one nearly has to conclude that angels came down and had sexual relations with men, Something that is blatantly false based on the text of Genesis 6. This is the logical conclusion, though no doubt a FAV proponent would argue this. Jude is talking about how rebellion against God's created order never works out well. It's link to Genesis 6 is superficial, if it even exists at all.
"There is therefore no reason to use this passage [Matthew 22] to counter a number of other passages that explicitly show how these perverse unions were the reason for the Flood."
There are no explicit passages. The reason for the flood is made clear in Genesis 6. It is the sin of man.
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth...- Gen 6:5
And it repented the LORD that he had made man... - Gen 6:6
And the LORD said, I will destroy man... - Gen 6:7
The earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. - Gen 6:11
All flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. - Gen 6:12
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh has come before me... - Gen 6:13
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life... - Gen 6:17
If God destroyed the earth because the spirits got a little too flirty with mankind, it seems like God forgot to mention it.
"There is no reason to resort to the contrived idea that the bene elohim were actually descendants of Seth who apostatized by intermarrying with the daughters of Cain."
Here, I believe, Wilson exposes his lack of interaction with the Sethite view. He says the idea of intermarriage with non-believers leading to apostacy is "contrived." Scripture actually has a lot to say on this subject. For brevity I will only reference a few.
Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. - Deu 7:3-4
For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. - 1Ki 11:4
Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals. - 1Co 15:33
Without going deep into this subject, it should be plain from a reading of scripture that marriages between the righteous and wicked never end well. I believe this is one of the reasons Christians are told to avoid being "yoked together with unbelievers." It often results in apostasy, and this sort of union is everywhere discouraged in scripture. So yes, the righteous line of Seth becoming intermarried with the apostate line of Cain could easily produce never-before-seen depravity. This "contrived" idea is found more often within the pages of scripture than any notion of demon baby hybrids.
“Elsewhere in Scripture, the phrase bene elohim always refers to celestial beings.”
This is an assumption. It is not something that can be claimed dogmatically. Bene-elohim is used 5 times in the Old Testament. The phrase “Sons of God” is actually used more often in the New Testaments (obviously not in Hebrew), but FAV proponents will readily throw out the New Testament usage...why? The only reason I can see is because it supports the Sethite view.
In the New Testament, the term “sons of God” always refers to the righteous followers of the one true God. The Sethite view advocates for continuity between the Old and New testaments on this point, while FAV proponents actually argue for discontinuity. However, for the sake of time, I will not address the New Testament usage of “sons of God.”
Bene-elohim is used twice in Genesis 6, and 3 times in the book of Job. Now, I generally try to avoid creating doctrinal positions from the book of Job. It is utterly unique within biblical canon, and it is heavily poetic. This is not to try and discredit Job as anything other than the inspired Word of God, just an observation regarding the sort of literature this is.
The first place this term appears is in chapter 1.
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. - Job 1:6
This is when Satan appears before God, and God proceeds to brag about Job’s righteousness. Satan complains that God has set a hedge around Job, and that Job will fail in his faith if all of Job’s possessions are taken from him.
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. - Job 2:1
Again, Satan appears before God, God brags about Job's righteousness, in spite of his losses and tragedies. Satan counters and claims that Job will falter if his body is allowed to be afflicted. Satan is given permission to afflict Job’s body, and Satan departs from God's presence.
There is an assumption being made about these two scenes by the FAV proponent. The claim is that Satan is appearing before God in heaven, and that the “sons of God” are the angelic host presenting themselves before Him. So we must ask two questions:
Is the text of scripture explicit as to where God is?
Can men “present themselves” before God?
For the first question, the answer is simple. No, heaven is never mentioned. In fact, when God asks Satan where he’s been, he replies, “From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.” (Job 1:7, 2:2) Satan never says he left this activity to reach God.
Indeed, it seems to me, that idea of having a “day” in which the angels present themselves, would indicate that this scene in fact does not take place in heaven. Do not the angels surround God continuously? Are there “days” in heaven? Several texts seem to indicate that there is no passage of time in the heavenly/spiritual realm. Now, a FAV proponent would no doubt be unbothered by my pointing this out, probably explaining it away as “symbolic.” I have no problems with symbolism in scripture, but I think it's still a question worth asking.
Regarding question 2, I think we will start to see why I don’t believe Satan is approaching God in the heavenly realm. Can men present themselves before God?
And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thy days approach that thou must die: call Joshua, and present yourselves in the tabernacle of the congregation, that I may give him a charge. And Moses and Joshua went, and presented themselves in the tabernacle of the congregation. - Deu 31:14
And ye have this day rejected your God, who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations; and ye have said unto him, Nay, but set a king over us. Now therefore present yourselves before the LORD by your tribes, and by your thousands. - 1Sa 10:19
"So be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning to Mount Sinai, and present yourself to Me there on the top of the mountain. - Exo 34:2
"Then the priest who makes him clean shall present the man who is to be made clean, and those things, before the LORD, at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. - Lev 14:11
As can be demonstrated by these verses, the idea of presenting oneself before God can occur in a variety of ways. None of which require being in heaven. Indeed, Satan’s presence can be accounted for quite easily if we (just for a minute) suppose that this “presenting” before God is involving righteous men, rather than angels. We know that Satan is the “accuser of the brethren” (Rev 12:10) and therefore would naturally be amongst the righteous sons of God, seeking one whom he could accuse. These men may have been gathered into a central location for worship, maybe even at the tabernacle itself (speculation on my part, we have no certainty as to where Job lived). Satan appeared, looking for a man to accuse in the presence of God. God motions to Job, who was among the presenters, “Have you considered my servant Job?”
Satan was not appearing in heaven before God surrounded by angels. Instead, Satan was appearing before God on earth, amongst the righteous worshipers of the true and living God.
The third place where the “sons of God” is used in Job can be found near the end of the book.
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? - Job 38:7
It’s important to recognize that this verse appears in a long series of rhetorical questions that God is asking Job. Job, in his human desperation has questioned God and His sovereignty. God goes into it with Job and essentially gives him an “attitude adjustment.”
Question after question, Job remains silent, until at last he declares, “Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth.” (Job 40:4) These questions are framed to not have answers. This fact alone should defer us from trying to pull doctrinal truth from them, but nonetheless, I will attempt to explain how this verse could be viewed.
I want to be clear here. I do not want to impose something artificial upon this verse. I don’t want to be doing the same thing the FAV proponent does and claim a “one size fits all” approach to the term bene-elohim. It could be referencing angels. At first blush, this does seem to be the subject. However, if we examine the surrounding context, there are other options that come to the surface.
For instance, The preceding verses makes a discussion regarding the creation of the earth and a cornerstone being laid. One approach could look at this verse and link it to the other places where Christ is the cornerstone of creation.
Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes in Him will by no means be put to shame." - 1Pe 2:6
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. - Jhn 1:3
Christ is the creational foundation for all things. He is the true cornerstone. Thus, in this perspective, the “sons of God” who shout for joy, would be all those who trust in Christ.
Another way to see this is how it is linked with the next few verses where God discusses restraining the seas, and putting boundaries upon it. This occured after the flood, when God’s righteous wrath was kindled against those utterly depraved people. Thus, the “sons of God” would actually be referring to Noah and his family...Descendants of Seth. Creation (morning stars) and God's people (sons of God) all rejoiced at God's mercy and work of re-creation after global judgment.
None of these three interpretations of Job 38:7 are settled in my own heart. I only present them here because Wilson makes the claim that bene-elohim “always refers to celestial beings.” I have demonstrated that this dogmatic statement is not so dogmatic after all. The fact is, we simply do not know with 100% certainty that this term refers to angels. It might...but it just as easily might not.
Let me throw a few other verses out that support the claim that “sons of God” is a more suitable term for righteous God-fearers, rather than angels.
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. - Psa 82:6
Not only can followers of God be called “sons” but we are also called “god's.” This is not self-deification, but a testament to our status as children of God.
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: - Exo 4:22
Israel, a nation of people set aside by God, is declared to be His son.
Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. - Hos 1:10
While this passage is a New Testament reality, it is still an Old Testament text indicating God's people are in fact His children.
I still believe that a full-fledged view of who the “sons of God” really are, we shouldn’t restrict ourselves to the Old Testament alone. Any view that accepts not only Sola Scriptura, but also Tota Scriptura, should really not try and separate any Old Testament text from a New Testament unveiling.
However, I have already gone too long on this one subject, but it was necessary for understanding the Sethite perspective.
“And if it had been a merger between the lines of Seth and the line of Cain, why is all the masculinity on one side, and all the women on the other? And why on earth would such unions result in giants?”
As far as the one-sided masculinity, this is just how the bible speaks. Men take women to be their wives, not generally the other way around. These were very beautiful women according to the Genesis 6 text, and so men indulging in the marriage of these women is not at all out of step with how scripture describes the process.
And Lamech took unto him two wives... - Gen 4:19
And Abram and Nahor took them wives... - Gen 11:29
Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan... - Gen 36:2
And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and served their gods. - Jdg 3:6
This is just biblical language in describing the process of “taking wives.” I am unable to find any text (with the exception of Isaiah 4:1, which is describing God's judgment upon Israel) in which women “take husbands” in the same way.
And as far as the Giants go, this is another assumption. The text does not say that the giants are the offspring of the Daughters of men/Sons of God union. The text says that “mighty men, men of renown” are the result. Not only this, it says that this occurred after the giants were on the scene.
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. - Gen 6:4
The Giants are being used as a time reference, and the chronology is given within the verse itself; Giants--->Sons came into the daughters--->children are born--->These became mighty men.
Scripture regularly uses the phrase “in the days of” as a time reference.
And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shina... - Gen 14:1
The famine that was in the days of Abraham… - Gen 26:1
In the days of Shamgar the son of Anath, in the days of Jael... - Jdg 5:6
Then there was a famine in the days of David three years… - 2Sa 21:1
In the days of Pekah king of Israel... - 2Ki 15:29
And it came to pass in those days... - Exo 2:11
In those days there was no king in Israel... - Jdg 17:6
Using the giants as a time reference is nothing out of the ordinary for scriptural descriptions. The giants were not the offspring of the Sons of God with the Daughters of men, instead, these events occurred “after the days of giants.” In fact, scripture is pretty clear that the offspring were men. They were “mighty men...men of renown.”
If the giants were the offspring of an unholy union between man and demon, and if this union was so deplorable for God to destroy the entire world, why then do giants appear again later?
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. - Num 13:33
This is the account of the spies sent into the land of Cannan, and the Israelites were so afraid of them that they decided to disobey God and not take the promised land that had been given them. Now this is an important verse because it is the only other place where Nephil is used. Genesis 6 and Numbers 13 are the only places this word occurs. However, there is another word for giant that is used far more often, and it is linked with Nephil by this verse.
Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims. - Deu 2:11
Here, the giants are called Rephaim, but we know that this is the same race as the Nephil because of the connection to Anak. The sons of Anak are Nephil in Numbers 13, but the Anakims (sons of Anak) are called Rephaim in Deuteronomy.
The word Rephaim is used 25 times in scripture, and so now we can get a larger view of this race. Also, giants are called “Emims” by the Moabites (Deu 2:11) and “Zamzumims” (Deut 2:20) by the Ammonites. This is very interesting because in Genesis 14 we find this passage.
And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim, - Gen 14:5
This is during the time of Abraham! Here we have a war involving the races of (possible) giants, and the King Chedorlaomer is leading a campaign against them. Why does any of this matter? Because, if God destroyed the entire world because of the existence of the giants (demon-human hybrids) then why are they showing up shortly after the flood? Why do they show up in the land of Canaan almost a thousand years post-flood? Why do the giants show up during the reign of King David? Obviously by the time of David, their numbers had dwindled, and they were nearly extinct, but they were around nonetheless.
Now some FAV proponents have noticed this problem and have suggested that maybe these giants were somehow created by the same unholy union of demon and man, but that this wasn't as widespread as it had been pre-flood, so God decided it didn’t warrant global destruction. Others have speculated that maybe one of Noah’s daughters-in-law possessed the Nephil DNA and passed it along post-flood.
Both of these options are, in my opinion, making a mockery of God's righteous judgment. If God destroyed the earth with a flood because of these abominations, then God's judgment simply wasn’t thorough enough. A global flood wasn’t good enough.
In the Sethite view, these giants are simply a race of men. It is merely a genetic curiosity. Clearly the Nephil/Rephaim were a distinct people, and were fully men, not hybrids. The human genome is capable of producing a wide variety of statures, and Western explorers of Africa reported isolated tribes of both people of gigantic stature, as well as pygmies. It is no stretch for a Sethite proponent to believe that this sort of genetic diversity existed before the flood. The geologic record shows that many types of animals (that still exist today), grew to gigantic proportions pre- flood. I have yet to see an FAV proponent make the case that, these too, were the offspring of demonic entities.
“And why would the entire ancient world concur with the reading that this was a perverse celestial/earthly connection, from Josephus to Beowulf to the Book of Enoch—from responsible histories to oddball books?”
Here, Wilson does what almost all FAV proponents must do: appeal to extra-biblical sources. The worst offenders appeal to the Book of Jubilees (a book that says animals could speak before the flood), because in that book, Eve is seduced sexually by Satan. This is where the Serpent Seed doctrine comes into its own. According to this idea, Cain was the offspring of Eve and Satan. This “line of the serpent” can then be traced through all the wicked people of history. Hitler? Clearly “serpent seed.”
I have no doubt that Wilson would reject this fringe and heretical doctrine, but this is where the Fallen Angel View can lead if allowed to follow the logical progression.
Appealing to Josephus is no surprise either. Josephus was well trained in Jewish lore and traditions. But just because there is a Jewish tradition regarding something, doesn’t mean that it's true. The Jews also believed that the angels gave Moses the law. We are actually warned against giving credence to Jewish myths:
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. - Tit 1:14
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. - 1Ti 1:4
I consider Josephus a reliable historian, (for the most part) and I have no doubt his account of this was accurate regarding what the common belief was at the time.
The appeal to the Book of Enoch is also very common among the FAV proponents. Unfortunately, I don't think I’ll have time to completely delve into this subject, but I will make a couple points: The Book of Enoch is an extra-biblical book that is fraught with problems. It’s ironic to me that Wilson insinuates later in his blog post, that if you reject the FAV you are on par with a flat-earther. Yet here he appeals to Enoch...a book beloved by flat-earthers for its passages that seem to support the position.
Also there is minimal evidence that Enoch was the author of the book. In fact, he almost certainly was not. Some try to give credence to the Book of Enoch by claiming Jude quoted from it.
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, - Jde 1:14
By linking the book of Enoch with Jude, a sense of legitimacy is given to it. However, I like to point out that Enoch himself is quoted, not the book of Enoch. I have no doubt that Enoch prophesied the things, and Jude under the influence of the Holy Spirit, writes them down. This quote can be found within the pages of the Book of Enoch, however, it requires some piecing together. In any case, even if the quote is from the Book of Enoch, it is not impossible for a biblical author to quote non-scripture to prove a point. Peter quoted and parodied the inscription on Roman coinage (Acts 4:12). Paul quotes Greek poetry (Acts 17:28). Joshua referenced the book of Jasher (Josh 10:13), which was not divinely preserved for us. The “Book of the wars of the Lord” (Numbers 21:14) is another that is not extant. Simply quoting or referencing non-inspired sources is not enough to lend credence to the entirety of the source.
One final thing in the Book of Enoch; it records the height of the giants as “three thousand ells.” An ell is about 18 inches, and so these giants would have been around 4,500 feet tall! That would be a problem. People nearly a mile tall would certainly cause damage. Imagine feeding someone like that! This, among many other examples, is why we simply cannot trust the book of Enoch as a reliable source about anything.
The reason this demon-man hybrid view is so easily found in ancient literature, is because mankind loves the idea of a superhuman. We love to fantasize about what it would be like to be super strong, super fast, or super smart. The popularity of our modern versions of this...comic book superheroes...is evidence of how timeless the human fascination with the idea really is. The Demi-gods of Greek and Roman lore is another example. The Egyptians have half god, half man legends. So did the Assyrians. So do the Chinese. Quetzalcoatl is the deity from which almost all meso-american people claim descent. Having ancient lore regarding a race of half-god half-man hybrids is nothing unique. Which is why I believe the FAV is so prevalent and long lasting. Quite simply, it sounds cool!
“The line of Seth argument doesn’t really come into its own until the modern era—which is precisely when some of these ancient tales began to be a tad embarrassing for us big kids.”
Again, Wilson is insinuating that because I (and all Sethite proponents) don’t hold to his view of a particular passage of scripture, I must “be embarrassed” by it. He also claims that since the Sethite view is not as ancient a perspective, it must therefore be wrong. However, even Wilson himself would admit that we must be constantly working to refine the Christian understanding of scripture. Semper Reformanda (always reforming) is one of the glorious things about Christianity; we are not afraid to look back on our forebears and point out ways we can improve our doctrine and traditions. We are all products of our era, and many things have changed over time. Obviously there are foundational truths which never change, but the debate over Fallen Angels vs. Sethites is not one of salvific importance. This does not mean we shouldn’t always be striving to refine and narrow our understanding of scriptural truths. I warrant that in another 500 years, there will be huge debates regarding portions of scripture, which we never even considered worth fighting over today.
As a former proponent of the FAV, I did not abandon the position because I was “embarrassed” by it, I abandoned it because it was imposed upon the text instead of naturally working out of it.
I think I will end this here. I feel like I have amply summarized my position. In closing, I will address what Wilson continues to do in his blog post. He again goes back to Jude and tries to work it into the account of Genesis 6. Imposing a symbolic text upon a historical account. However, instead of breaking it down, I will let a different theologian answer Wilsons claim.
“An argument in favor of the angelic theory is taken from Jude’s epistle verse 7; Here, after the description of the fall of the angels in verse 6, the writer proceeds: ‘Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, having in like manner as these given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh, etc’ It is urged that the words ‘in like manner as these’ must link together the angels of verse 6 and the cities of the plain, so that the sin of the former would have also been of a sexual kind, intercourse of angels with human beings. It cannot be denied that this argument from Jude has some force. Closely looked at, however, it is not conclusive, and open to certain objections.”
-Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, Page 49
In closing, I believe that if Genesis is read with none of the presuppositions in mind regard demons (somehow) having sexual relations with humans, then the Sethite view is the best answer. With that, I will leave some further thoughts regarding this issue.
The genealogy involving both the line of Cain and the line of Seth immediately precede Genesis chapter 6. The line of Seth is started with the phrase; “To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.” (Gen 4:26)
The genealogy continues all the way through Genesis 5, showing the righteous line maintaining a relationship with the True God, and all the way down to Noah. If these chapters are read organically, it becomes clear that two groups of people are being discussed. Chapters 4 and 5 are purposely built so show a wicked group on one hand, and a righteous one on the other. When we arrive at Genesis 6, we see that a godly group (sons of God) mingles with a worldly group (daughters of men), and apostasy and evil becomes rampant. If the biblical narrative is followed, the two peoples of Genesis 6 is not a mystery.
Another thing to consider is the accounts that occur during the occultic practice of astral projection. Often there are accounts of people having out-of-body experiences that involve being sexually assaulted and raped by demons in the astral realm. Now, you may not believe that such a thing is possible, but Steven Bancarz, former New Age expert and authority, now turned bible believing Christian, says astral projection is a common practice. One he himself engaged in before submitting to Christ.
So, consider this, if people are molested by spirits even today, why does this not result in demon-man hybrids? We are dealing with the same ingredients. Demonic spirits, engaging in what appears to be sexual activity with willing and submissive humans. Yet, giant super men are not produced. Now, I fully admit that this is speculative evidence, and that a FAV proponent would disregard it quickly. However, I feel it warrants consideration for those who are undecided on the issue.
I do not believe these astral encounters can ever produce anything in the physical realm, which is also why I do not believe spirits in the pre-flood world engaged in sexual intercourse with physical humans.
One last thing to consider. If God destroyed the entire earth for the creation of these half-demon hybrids, then did mankind suffer for the sin of angels? The text indicates that the sons of God “took for them wives.” If these were demonic forces, then consent was not likely part of the equation. Human women being forced to breed with fallen angels, resulting in offspring, would be a result of forced sin. Biblically, a woman who is raped in a field is not condemned by God's law, the rapist is executed for his sin, but the woman is not. Thus, these women who were forced by angelic beings were not in sin themselves for this act. The offspring of this sin were also not at fault, just as a child from a human rapist is not at fault for the sin of his father.
Thus, if God destroyed the world with a flood because of the sins of these angels, we must conclude that all those people died for sins that were not their own. Yet, the biblical account makes it abundantly clear who’s sin they were at fault for. The intense and continuous sin of these people was unbearable. So much so that God said “it repenteth me that I made them.” God did not create these supposed Demon-men hybrids. The FAV does damage to the just judgment of a Holy God by directing His wrath towards people who couldn’t have avoided this particular sin. It also distorts the gospel, for nobody has ever been judged for the sins of others except one man; Jesus Christ.
The Sethite view is the only perspective that places the wrath of God and the destruction of the earth by flood, squarely upon the shoulders of wicked and depraved men.
If you have read this far, I hope that maybe the Sethite view does not seem so ridiculous after all. In fact, it takes the biblical account seriously. It is not “embarrassed” by the accounts of scripture, and does not seek to sensationalize portions of scripture to feed our fantasies about superman hybrids. Sadly, most will continue to believe the Fallen Angel view because the Sethite view is...well...just boring.
