Dave wrote on 28 November
> WARNING: Extreme tangent.
>
> Synopsis: Dave attempts to convince Russ that Dave is over the edge.
>
> I wrote:
> > > P.S. Conception in women by spirits is not unique with Christ, but
> > > the other recorded instances all produced monsters (the Anakim, e.g.
> > > Goliath). I find it interesting that Jesus was not a monster. Perhaps
> > > this is a consequence of humans being in the image of God, not of angels?
> > >
> > > So, what did Goliath's Y chromosome look like? Anybody ever dig up
> > > any 9 foot skeletons in the hills of Palestine and find any residual DNA?
>
> Russ wrote:
> > Dave--surely you do not actually believe that, besides Christ and our
> > first parents, there were actually human births involving spirits?
> > Of course, we've all heard of some pretty weird postulations in this
> > matter. But I didn't expect to hear this from you!
>
> Well thanks, Russ. I am glad you thought better of me, but yes, indeed
> I find this conclusion inescapable based on the Scriptures.
>
> I will sketch the central elements for your edification (or at least
> your amusement).
>
> One might want to squirm about the term 'sons of God' to avoid believing
> that Genesis 6 means what it says:
>
> the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and
> they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. ...
> The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward,
> when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore
> {children} to them. Those were the mighty men who {were} of old, men
> of renown. [Genesis 6:2,4]
>
> but the 'sons of God' most often refers to angels (e.g. Job 1:6) and
> Jude 6-7 makes it pretty clear that angels are capable of such things:
>
> And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their
> proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the
> judgment of the great day. Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities
> around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross
> immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example,
> in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. [Jude 1:6-7]
>
> To add emphasis:
>
> Jude says that ANGELS WHO abandoned their proper abode and
> indulged in GROSS IMMORALITY and WENT AFTER STRANGE FLESH, EVEN AS
> the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah...
>
> (Peter also writes on this topic in a parallel passage [2 Peter 2:4-8],
> juxtaposing angels who sinned, the flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah).
>
>
> The Nephilim are not normal human beings, and being `mighty men ... of
> renown likely speaks more of infamy than fame:
>
> There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the
> Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and
> so we were in their sight. [Numbers 13:33]
>
> (Joshua 11:22, 1 Sam 17:4, and 1 Chron 20:6-7 link Goliath to the Nephilim.
> He is described as being 9.5 ft tall and having 24 fingers and toes.
>
> Perhaps the men of Sodom recognized the two visitors as angels?
> Maybe God sending them was a final examination of Sodom's evil rather
> than a failure of His omniscience [Gen 18:20-21]?)
>
> The later existence of the Nephilim (e.g. the Anakim) may have been
> the result of the same abominable practices among the nations that
> Israel was to dispossess [Deu 7:1-4], purging the land even of
> the women and children [Deu 20:10-18]. One of the outcomes was
>
> There were no Anakim left in the land of the sons of Israel; only
> in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod some remained. [Joshua 11:22]
>
> The inhabitant's worship of demons went further than just idolatry (as
> is the usual process of such things [Rom 1:22-26]).
>
> Consider Deu 20:10-18. For cities that were not part of the Hittites,
> Amorites, etc...
>
> the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the
> city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself;
> Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which
> are not of the cities of these nations nearby.
>
> but for the nations that Israel was to dispossess:
>
> Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving
> you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that
> breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the
> Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite,
> as the Lord your God has commanded you,
>
> Why?
>
> in order that they may not teach you to do according to all their
> detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you
> would sin against the Lord your God.
>
> Most nations are full of idolaters. What was special about these
> nations was: their detestable things which they have done for their gods.
>
> The congress of angels with humans is such an exceedingly great evil,
> that three occurrences (Genesis 6, Sodom/Gomorrah, and the Amorites)
> were met with incredible judgment (the flood, the fire, and the sword)
> and the angels who participated are kept in `eternal bonds'.
>
> Why do you dismiss such a view as `pretty weird postulations'? Before
> I accepted the text as written, I had to do some `pretty weird gyrations'
> to avoid these conclusions.
>
> There is far more direct testimony in the Scripture about this topic
> than on how man was created.
>
> I think this topic is by itself is pretty unimportant, but the approach to
> the Scripture that automatically rejects such an interpretation might
> be interesting to discuss.
> --
> Dave
> P.S. Want to hear about the fire breathing monster, covered with double
> mail? [Job 41:12-34].
Dave, you go into quite a few verses, and I do indeed agree that this
is a tangent. Only a few remarks:
1. After Adam and Eve sinned, the Bible records two kinds of people:
God's children, his covenant people, and his enemies. In some cases,
the Bible shows how these two lines were actually hereditary. Of course,
there was plenty of crossing over: the faith is not hereditary. But
in numerous places the Lord instructed his people, the Israelites,
not to marry the heathen. Mixed marriages have always been off limits.
So when the Bible says that the sons of God married the daughters of
men, and that these were sinful marriages, it was saying once again
that mixed marriages were wrong. Do you hang your argument on the use
of "sons" and "daughters"? It was then *men* among God's people who
sinned: they either took their wives from among the heathen, or they
gave their daughters to the heathen. The women had nothing to say about
the matter. And remember, those who are among God's people (even though
many eventually rejected God) *are* "sons of God," even as God refers
to all Israel as his child.
2. Concerning the II Peter and Jude passages you cite, I looked up
those passages in Calvin's commentary. In both places he mentions that
the Bible (including the Gospels) the horrible example of Sodom
is used to warn others. The angels? They indeed fell--else there would
be no devils--and they, too, were punished. Calvin says that these
two passages tell us what will happen when men sin: they will be punished
as the people of Sodom were punished and as the fallen angels are punished.
There is no reason to say that the angels committed the sins of Sodom.
We could say much more! But that is all I have time for now.
In Christ,
Russ
e-mail: rmaatman@dordt.edu Home address:
Russell Maatman 401 Fifth Ave. SE
Dordt College Sioux Center, Iowa 51250
Sioux Center, Iowa 51250 Home phone: (712) 722-0421