So no, I haven’t seen the movie, and no, this is not a review of it. Aside from that resulting in a couple of hours that I couldn’t get back, there would be the problems caused by the possibility of me writing a review of an Aronofsky film that might run counter to the analysis of soi disant hipster film dude critics. And, as everyone knows, one of my top priorities is to keep those guys from looking at me in scorn and contumely. So a review is really something I cannot risk — risk emotionally, I mean.
Me, avoiding the theater.
But one good thing about the movie is that — as a number of people have pointed out — everybody is talking about a Bible story. That’s something, right? Well, maybe. The possibility exists that we might talk about it all wrong, with our latter case being worse than the beginning.
And that brings me to the focus of my labors this morning. One person on Twitter has been having a little bit of fun with my view that the setup for the Noah story was the fact that “angels get it on with our wimmin,” and so, thought I, why not? As the spelling of wimmin might indicate, this view of mine can easily be represented as being worthy only of those who go up to the high mountain meadows of Tennessee in order to chase the powers of the air with butterfly nets. So let’s talk about it, shall we?
The basic debate concerns the identity of the “sons of God” in Gen. 6:1. The phrase is bene elohim, and the question is whether or not that refers to celestial beings or to the godly line of Seth.
One of my fundamental rules for Bible study is that we must allow the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament for us, and to do so authoritatively. Related to the Noah story, for example, the apostle Peter tells us that the ark was a type of Christian baptism (1 Pet. 3:18-21). You find that kind of thing in 1 Peter, but you don’t usually find it in commentaries on Genesis, evangelical or otherwise. We have a deep resistance to letting the New Testament do this for us.
So if you are following my set-up, you will have guessed that I am going to argue that I take Genesis 6 as talking about angelic beings because the New Testament interprets it that way. And that would be correct. Let us start there.
Jude, the Lord’s brother, says this:
“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 Gomorrha, 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” (Jude 6–7).
Here we have angels who did not stay put in their appointed habitation, and as a result have been imprisoned in “everlasting chains under darkness.” Peter, in his treatment of this, refers to the “spirits in prison,” and identifies them as creatures who had been disobedient in the time of Noah.
Back to Jude. He moves on to discuss the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities around them. He says that they were guilty of fornication and “going after strange flesh.” But the key is that he says the cities of the plain did what they did “in like manner.” They went after strange flesh “likewise,” in the “same manner,” or “in the same way.” In the same way as what? Grammatically, the cities of the plain sinned in the same way that the angels who left their own habitation did. They too “went after strange flesh.”
Jude doesn’t mention Noah by name in this close connection, but Peter, in a passage parallel to Jude’s, does.
“For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly . . .” (2 Peter 2:4–5).
The revolt of man that precipitated the Flood (ha) was a big deal. It was an important event in God’s history of the world, even though He doesn’t tell us a great deal about it. We can tell this by the fact that when Christ died and went down to Hades, He singled out the disobedient spirits of Noah’s time to preach to. That preaching is not gospel preaching — the word refers to the work of a herald, not an evangelist. Out of all sinners available from Old Testament history, He makes a point to announce to this group their final defeat. Immortality for man was to be achieved by Christ’s resurrection, and not by rebellious man’s early experiments in genetic engineering and crossbreeding.
“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:18–21).
See? Inerrancy is more fun that it sounds!
So, with that as the backdrop, we at least know that there might be motives for interpreting things this way other than a cornpone’s unwashed desire to “protect our wimminfolk.” And we are freed up to go to look at the text from Genesis.
“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 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” (Genesis 6:1–4).
The first verse says that Adam began to multiply on the earth — mankind. It says that daughters were born to Adam — mankind. Then it says that the sons of God saw that they were beautiful. The phrase bene elohim is used elsewhere, and it is used of celestial beings.
“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).
“When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:7).
They married any of the women they chose, and God’s response to this was a judicial declaration that man is emphatically mortal. This rebellion was apparently an attempt at by-passing the need for the tree of life. Men were living a long time in those days, but they still were dying, and so this was their immortality project. God responds to this with a promise of death. It can be taken as a new limit on the life span of individual men, or perhaps that the Flood was going to come in 120 years, and put an end to their quest. In either case, God answers their aspiration with a promise of death.
Now if the sons of God here were sons of Seth, then questions immediately crowd around. Why are all the women on one side of the intermarriages, and the males on the other? Why does it say daughters of Adam, instead of daughters of Cain? Why were the offspring of such unions so remarkable — Nephilim, giants, men of renown? And why would God address this kind of sin with a global cataclysm? And most importantly, why would the New Testament identify the sin as one of sexual perversion instead of covenantal degradation?
One penultimate thing — not worthy to be used as an argument in its own right, but worth mentioning at the tail end like this. Pagan myths and stories are not to be relied upon in the details, because there were so many distortions and accretions that crept in. But we can recognize that there are nuggets of truth in the pagan stories — as we do when recognizing the Flood accounts that the tribes of earth have all remembered. These details have to be fit into the scriptural account, and if they are confirmed there, then fine. If they do not, then we are free to set them aside. But at least such things are suggestive.
For example, the pagans have a long history of explaining their great kings as being the offspring of gods and human women. What the pagans would identify as gods, biblical writers would describe as celestials. And an account of a primordial union between Heaven and earth produced the Titans. These Titans were defeated in a war with other gods, and were thrown down to Tartarus, a deep pit in Hades. The word Tartarus is the same word Peter uses in describing where the Noahic angels were imprisoned (2 Pet. 2:4). And it is curious (at least to me) that one of the Titans was named Iapetus — Japheth, one of Noah’s sons.
Okay, last thing and you are rid of me this morning. There are objections to all this, of course. But I think the objections can be addressed fairly simply. Jesus says that angels do not marry (Matt. 22:30), not that they cannot. The angels that did so left their proper habitation, which the angels in Heaven do not do. Another objection rightly asks about the Nephilim that show up in postdiluvian histories. What about that? Three possibilities, and I am off to work. One is that the same sin happened again, after the Flood, but not on so large a scale as to require massive judgment. That is possible, and in some cases, likely. Another is that the bloodline of the eight who were saved was compromised, and carried that corrupt genetic information through the Flood. But why would God do that, if the point was to wipe it all out? The last option, and the one I prefer, is that postdiluvian giants were fully human, NBA scale, and, towering over everybody else, were (naturally enough) named after the earlier giants.
So now you know!
Matthew 22:30 pretty much explains why I think the angels theory is wrong. And, God doesn’t tell us much about an angels theory, so I think it is best to go with the descendants of Seth and descendants of Cain idea.
A hilarious review, full of spoilers, by Erick Erickson at Redstate: http://www.redstate.com/2014/03/27/darren-aronofskys-noah/ I think–have not checked–EE calls himself an evangelical Christian.
Clicking the link from my previous post gives me–may give you–“page not found,” BUT it does find enough so you can click on “Erick Erickson” and scroll down a few articles. “Daniel Arinofsky’s Noah” is below “More thoughts on Noah.”
“Don’t” doesn’t have to mean “can’t,” and the main objection to the angels theory becomes non-definitive. And the theory seems to fit fairly smoothly with other texts. If true, how, is speculation (better left alone?). If it stopped, MAYbe the devil didn’t want any more of his servants locked up unable to do much for him?
David, with all respect and charity, it seems that Doug explicitly addressed that. I mean, he did explicitly address that. Did his argument fail in any particular fashion? What is your counterargument?
Doug,
Doesn’t this scenario assign all the fallen angels into everlasting chains, thus rendering all demonic forces useless until the final judgement? This would seem to create a world where there would have been no more demonic activity post the flood. Or at the very least a large enough portion was taken into jail therefore eliminating the sexual predator angels.
thoughts?
D
I’m glad to see this issue addressed in such a direct manner. The sons of Seth bit has always struck me as a cop out. And on another note, never trust anyone who wants to shame you for defending your wimmin.
Darren, that need not follow. To say that these fallen angels were guilty in this way and locked up does not mean that all fallen angels were guilty in the same way and locked up.
Doug,
So you are making the distinction that this group was locked up and are still locked up?
D
Aren’t angels, though by God’s decree they can appear in human form, nonetheless spirit beings? Therefore, by nature, they do not have corporeal bodies. Therefore, angels being spirit beings are not equipped to have sex or sire offspring. Angels/demons can do all sorts of shocking and even frightening things….but…sex and procreation is not one of them. And they can’t sire giants because they simply can’t sire!
I general I am inclined to agree with you Pastor Wilson. The crossbreeding may have also been an attempt to pollute the bloodline of Adam in order to prevent the seed of the woman from coming (Gen 3:15).
One question though about your take on the Anakim being just NBA scale dudes. Why does Numbers 13:33 indicate that the sons of Anak come from the Nephilim not that they are merely like the Nephilim? Deut 2:10 and Deut 2:21 refer to people “tall as the Anakim”, but there is no such connection made between these tall dudes and the Nephilim.
Good post, Doug. A few disconnected points: We’re told angels can eat with man, and man can even entertain angels without knowing they’re angels. Some passages may refer to the Sons of God (i.e., the angels manifesting in the flesh to interact with man) or to the Nephilim (i.e, Angel and man offspring begat not after their kind), or to demons, or to some combination group. Those drowned and killed may have become demons until placed in special chains later (e.g., after Jesus died). Jesus may be punning off Noah’s name and the flood in Matthew 12:43: “When the unclean… Read more »
Darren, correct.
Psalm 82: God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment […] “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.”
Michael S. Heiser’s response regarding the Hebrew and Aramaic forms of nephilim in Numbers 13:33: <a href=”http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2013/03/thoughts-nephilim-answering-criticism/”>My Thoughts on Nephilim: Answering a Criticism</a>.
The thought occurred to me the other day that while the story of Man’s fall and redemption is what we focus on, we may just be a minor sub-plot in the story God is writing. This Nephilim stuff being an evidence for that conjecture.
my 2 cents.
“One of my fundamental rules for Bible study is that we must allow the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament for us, and to do so authoritatively. Related to the Noah story, for example, the apostle Peter tells us that the ark was a type of Christian baptism (1 Pet. 3:18-21). You find that kind of thing in 1 Peter, but you don’t usually find it in commentaries on Genesis, evangelical or otherwise. We have a deep resistance to letting the New Testament do this for us.” – – – – That is one of the… Read more »
Great post, Doug.
Well that was fun to read!
Just finished “A House for My Name” by Leithart and he goes with the descendants of Seth approach but doesn’t take time to defend it. Perhaps your post will encourage him to respond over at First Things. I’d enjoy a back and forth between you two on this subject!
Thanks as always for the insight!
Michael
“The thought occurred to me the other day that while the story of Man’s fall and redemption is what we focus on, we may just be a minor sub-plot in the story God is writing.”
I would say that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ would indicate otherwise.
Now Doug, please let’s slow down here, and not jump to apparently justified exegetical conclusions that we could only hold to after closing our eyes to the already obvious!
Is there really anyone among us who hasn’t noticed that when believers disobediently end up having relations with unbelievers unto multiplication/conception, then often enough these kids of such unequally yoked couples also end up freakishly tall against what is normal according to human nature?
A good post. The sons of Seth theory is ridiculous. Women have been marrying wrong ‘uns since time immemorial, God would be kept very busy if He flooded the earth every time it happened. Some comments here seem to be equating fallen angels with demons. I would say they are wholly different. The beings we encounter in the gospels seem to lack the gravitas of a a dignitary like Satan. Doubtless some kind of hierarchy needs to be envisaged. I have to keep up to speed on this issue, since it is the only question I am ever asked by… Read more »
“Is there really anyone among us who hasn’t noticed that when believers disobediently end up having relations with unbelievers unto multiplication/conception, then often enough these kids of such unequally yoked couples also end up freakishly tall against what is normal according to human nature?” Indeed! I think this is also how those fiery, demonic red-heads are conceived (also known as “gingers” amongst today’s youth). “Or at the very least a large enough portion was taken into jail therefore eliminating the sexual predator angels.” They say one in four women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. That seems awfully high to me. I’m betting that the majority… Read more »
Thanks Doug. This is how I’ve always read Genesis 6, in light of Peter and Jude. Also, I used to take the 120 year indictment as a limit placed on the life of individual men (evidenced by the tapering down of the ages of the Patriarchs, and sort of drawn to an end with Moses), however I sort of abandoned that when I came across a man in Scripture who exceeded Moses in age and at a much later date, namely Jehoiada the priest (2 Chronicles 24:15). Of course, I don’t think the text forces us into a literal “man… Read more »
The difficulty does not seem to be in the coitus, angelic beings can take on human form, can eat, can possess men. Any difficulty is in the idea that such relations results in conception. One could speculate than the sons of God possessed men and took up with the daughters of men which would resolve the conception problem but gives us no reason to suspect such offspring would be giants. The postdiluvian nephilim may not have been such, possibly this was the report of the spies who were familiar with the antediluvian story? Note that the Septuagint does not have… Read more »
@James,
1 in 4 doesn’t seem high to me. When I was dating in the ’70s, it was more like 3 of 4 that dated me who had been sexually molested (depends, maybe, on what your definition of molested vs. assaulted is). Maybe I was a magnet for the wounded (perceived as “safe”).
By the way, here’s a take on the Noah movie that goes a long way toward explaining why it is so bizarre in spots:
http://drbrianmattson.com/journal/2014/3/31/sympathy-for-the-devil
jay, Doug has mentioned overlaying the OT with the NT and nailing through all the passages where the NT interprets the old. It may have been on this blog or in one of his books. NASB uses small caps which I think over emphasises the NT passage and misses allusions. The NET uses bold and bold italics for references and allusions which is better but over emphasises. I think using underline and dotted underline for the 2 would be helpful. This should remind us to read the OT passage when we come across this. I suspect that highlighting the… Read more »
The seemingly more ancient rival to the angel interpretation was not the line of Seth theory but rather that bene elohim here refers to rulers. It is translated in Targum Onkelos, for example, “sons of the great ones”. On this view, the sin is understood to be the building of polygamous harems and the forcible taking of men’s daughters. This view, when carefully examined, has some interesting things going for it if looking only at the Torah, but seems to struggle when held up to the NT evidence, as well as lacking any major attest action in church history that… Read more »
I find it interesting that in order to mock Doug’s exegesis, James feels the need to make fun of stuff that Doug didn’t say and that isn’t implied by what he did say. Whatever laughing at something purely because it doesn’t fit your preconceived notions of how the world works is, it isn’t argument and it doesn’t make you sound smart.
The “sons of God” and “daughters of men” is Covenantal language. It refers to their source of authority (hence the regenerate are called the sons of God by John). We see exactly the same godless intermarriage in Solomon, and later in Ezra-Nehemiah. It’s about marrying someone who does not submit to God. Structurally, the narrative from Adam to Noah is Adam’s story retold at a corporate level. The Nephilim are “godlike,” not because they are the offspring of angels, but because they are the “filling up” of Adam’s sin, believing the serpent’s lie about godhood. The structure is actually “Tabernacle-shaped.”… Read more »
I don’t pretend to offer an answer, but I find it odd that this subject generates some of the defenses that it does. We can roll with a 7 day, God breathed creation. But hey, let’s not go nuts with it. Is it too close to mythology? Is there a need to draw a line?
I did not see thus link above and was curious pastor to know your thoughts on the reasons given in the link. Hope you have a chance to read it. thanks
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-1-who-were-the-angels-of-jude-6/
Thanks Doug for addressing this. I am of the same view as you and you have added to my understanding. I have always thought that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah had no problem realizing they could have physical relations with angels. Fortunately they were good angels a did what should have been done the first time. If angels can take on physical form, why do we find it so hard for Genesis 6 to be in line with the rest of scripture.
1. This would violate the principle of kinds. 2. Angels are not known to have creative (ex nihilo) ability, say, to create sperm. 3. If they could, why would they? 4. If they could, and could create dna etc., and WANTED to, why not simply create human clones, or creatures directly? What does coitus have to do with it? 5. As pure spirits, what pleasure would they obtain from this act? 6. It is simply naive mythology to think that the dna “from an angel” would produce giants, instead of, say, monsters, or dwarves, or deformed still-borns. (Ignoring, for the… Read more »
Post a comment
Tim H., 1. Scripture says that angels can take the form of man, even calling them man. This obviously doesn’t violate a biblical principle of ‘kinds’. Also, the kinds language such as in Genesis 1 is speaking of the limitations of reproduction according to kinds for man and animals, but the text does not relevantly put such a kind limitation on angels, and thus you ought not to either as you attempt to remove the ability for God to reveal to what extent angels may take on a form or even likeness (e.g., man or serpent) according to His decretive (vs. prescriptive) will. 2. There is… Read more »
It seems why wish has been granted and PL has posted an article by James Jordan on this very topic over at Trinity House. http://trinityhouseinstitute.com/the-angels-of-jude/
I’d love to hear your response Doug!?
I enjoyed both your post and the one over at Trinity House and find both arguments extremely fascinating.
I must admit. I think I would prefer that you be right because it’s honestly more fun but Jordan makes some solid arguments in his article.
Looking forward to a response!
It said those angels have been roasting in hell since leaving their habitiation. Did some traitorous jailer let them out to dally with our lady folk?
Sons of God = your covenant church folk = Abel’s kids = you’d expect them to keep the faith. But NO! They abandoned the faith to join themselves with the Daughters of Men = Cain’s kids = wordly-we-don’t-need-your-stinkin’-God type folks. Strange in OT = ungodly; not from area 54.
I’ve heard a similar teaching from, of all place, Chuck Missler, with the intention of the flood being a way of maintaining the purity of the human race (Noah and family being purely human) by wiping out the generations of human/angel hybrids.
Name one daughter of faith / Israel who was ever accused of uniting with an outsider. It’s always the guys who leave the fold for those gypsy gals. And they always get busted for it later.
I found this such an interesting read and argument. What I think is a problem in it is that Doug suggests that this is the initiative of man; it was “rebellious man’s early experiments in genetic engineering and crossbreeding”, it was man’s “immortality project”. My question is, was this not the initiative of the “sons of God”?
Brian, “kind” does not refer to mere appearance, but reproduction. It is a firm principle of creation. You glib, breezy dismissal of my questions as “speculation” is a judo argument. In fact your view is speculation; mine are simply the questions that any child with a little familiarity of the biblical worldview would ask when hearing your and Douglas’ “narrative.” Your narrative must be able to give an account for those glaring incongruities, EVEN IF only in speculation. Said differently, if you can’t find a version of your story that does not violate all the many objectionable features, then it… Read more »
Having a really hard time with this. Context doesn’t matter?
Tim H, You said: “mine are simply the questions that any child with a little familiarity of the biblical worldview would ask when hearing your and Douglas’ “narrative.” What children have you been hanging around? I always imagined growing up that this passage meant angels had babies with women and produced all sorts of giants, heroes, monsters, etc. Now, your position may be correct, but it is certainly not the obvious or “face-value” position. And your questions are not the sort of questions that children would probably have (i.e. about generative abilities, dna, and whether angels could pleasurably copulate… Read more »
Rick — admittedly, I mean a well-catechized child, that knows what “each after its kind” means, that angels are spiritual beings that do not marry or give in marriage and are thus genderless, etc. But yes, I know lots of children that would have these kinds of questions, even if not expressed in terms of dna. I did hold Douglas’ view when I was young (20’s) but that doesn’t change the fact that it IS laughable. I see now that I latched on to it not for any good hermeneutical reason, but simply because it was kinda cool, seemed to… Read more »
I’m wondering why no one has referenced question 44 from the Heidelberg Catechism regarding the question of Christ’s descent into hell? Consideration of Jesus’ promise to the thief on the cross in Luke 23:43 along with His cry documenting His experience of the Father’s utter rejection of Him in Matt. 27:46 make a descent into hell after the crucifixion less likely.
Tim, Yes, indeed those questions you asked are speculative in nature. And you are confusing ‘inconsistency’ for ‘mystery’ when you say that questions or their unknown answers are “incongruities.” And no, it’s not the case that I must speculate about precise mechanisms that God used to trust, believe, and know from the Bible’s text that in history women have given birth to giants as aberrational mankind after the angelic sons of God came in to them. And sometimes for such so-called childish questions like the ones you posed, it’s good to remind the childish of Dt 29:29 — especially when they childishly demand that some set of mysteries (vs. actual/genuine contradictions) be… Read more »
John HC, The parable in Luke 16:19-31 indicates that there is a divide between Abraham’s side of Sheol and the Hades side of Sheol. Between the two sides conversations are apparently quite possible, although travel is not. Jesus did not necessarily have to be on the torment side to preach his sermon to the spirits of Noah’s generation and he could have still been with the theif-on-the-cross in paradise. This would be consistent with the OT. The righteous are brought up from Sheol (Ps 30:3). Samuel was disturbed by being brought up from below (1 Sam 28:15). It is only… Read more »
Tim,
I meant to write, “… that I implied ‘kind’ merely refers to appearance; but rather as I intimated….”
Brian, Not true at all. “Kind” is a positive, not negative concept. It doesn’t mean, “x does not mate with {A,B,C}, but who knows about lions and tigers and bears? oh my,” but rather, “x mates with x only.” That is the force of the concept.
Also, you haven’t come to terms with the fact that the Nephilim were present both before and after the incident. Hebrew we-gar “and also.”
I don’t know why it’s so difficult for people to believe in Doug’s position regarding angels. It is not a contradiction to believe that angels don’t marry and yet there was this really weird period of celestial-terrestial sin. It’s also amazing to me that at least in my life, the same people who are against the angel’s theory in Gen 6 are also very strict cessationists…kind of makes me wonder if a little enlightenment/scientistic/rationalism crept in the church somewhere (especially among TR’s).