1. MEN ARE JUDGED WHO ARE NOT PART OF THE SIN.

If the sin is in the union of angels with women of the earth, then why are men judged when they could not possibly be a part? Are the men judged because they approved: how could they do otherwise? How can they be guilty also? The only way men could be guilty, in the circumstance, would be to also participate, in a homosexual relationship, such as that which was desired by the men of Sodom in Genesis 19:4-5, yet this activity is not mentioned in the narrative. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is mentioned in II Peter 2:6, and possibly it could be linked to the mention of angels and the ancient world of Noah in II Peter 2:5-5. Yet, that does not seem to be the purpose of Peter as he is speaking of apostasy rather than linking together specific sexual sins of different ages. A defense may be made by reference to Jude 6-7. Angels did not keep to their own domain but went after strange flesh just as did the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. But the analogy is somewhat strained because the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was male with male, while the theory states the sin of the angels was male angels with female women. However, the concept of "strange flesh" seems to be the purpose of the comparison, not necessarily the context of the union. A possible explanation of "strange flesh" would be that these angels possessed the bodies of human men and cohabitated with women in that manner, however, the narrative does not state that to be the case. What becomes so puzzling with regards to the references, in Jude 6-7 and II Peter 2:4-5, is the fact that they are so cryptic in the mentioning of the sins of the angels; the content and activity of the sin is never detailed or explained. It becomes very difficult to assign specific sins to these verses and then refer them back to the Genesis narrative. Circumstantial evidence may make a good case in some instances, but it requires a very delicate balance of documentation, and a dogmatic belief based on such uncertain proof regarding such an extreme claim should be noted with care.

2. WOMEN ARE JUDGED WHO ARE NOT PART OF THE SIN.

Those women who are not as fair or who are simply not chosen are not participants in the sin. Why are they judged also? Their guilt is more inexplicable than that of the men. Their only possible guilt would be to approve of the activity or desire to participate.

3. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE "SONS OF GOD" AND "DAUGHTERS OF MEN" IS LESS THAN CLAIMED.

It is claimed that the verse in Genesis portrays a contrast between the elements that could only pertain to a contrast of heaven to earth, in other words, only to heavenly angels and earthly women.

"This would appear from considering verse one of chapter six where the word men is seen which speaks of the entire human family. Since it is difficult to conceive that men in verse one is to be taken in a different sense from men in verse two, the daughters of men are women in general and in antithesis with the sons of God. It is the daughters of men and not just those of Cain that the sons of God are seen to admire. The distinction between the sons of God and daughters of men is thus more fundamental than between the pious and the wicked."
---- Clayton W. Durbin

This distinction only becomes directed toward heaven if one wishes to read that into the narrative. The narrative makes no such mysterious comparison or distinction. The narrative does, in fact, include all women in the context; those of the line of Seth and those of the Cainite line. It is the inclusion of all women in the context that makes the distinction, comparison and seriousness of the action so profound. The "sons of God" saw all women in the same light because they were apostate and could make no spiritual distinction themselves. The "sons of God" choose from both lines of women because both lines were identical in context; the Cainite line was totally ungodly from the start and the godly line had become apostate and ungodly by the abandonment of their relationship to God. This is the significant application to the example of the comparison. The "sons of God" choose from both lines and the women of both lines responded. It may very well be that the "sons of God" also choose a beautiful woman who happened to be godly in character, but it was only the beauty that was of distinction, her godly character being of no consequence.

The antithesis seen in the verse is not between angels and men, but between the godly and the ungodly. The tragedy is the outcome, the godly becoming apostate and the two lines merging into one. There is no greater contrast to be found in the universe than that between the godly and the ungodly.

4. THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE SIN OF MANKIND IS NOT UNDERSTOOD BY THE PROPONENTS OF THE THEORY.

"Kurtz calls attention to the fact that it seemed necessary to destroy all mankind, and to commence as it were a new race -- a circumstance that can only be accounted for by the angel view. He then notes that when a new development of grace commenced with Abraham, mankind was allowed to continue, while in this case it was destroyed. He cannot comprehend, however, how the espousal of some pious Sethites with fair women for the sake of their beauty could have caused so terrible a disturbance in the development of the human race."
---- Clayton W. Durbin

Kurtz is mistaken in his assessment of the extent of the participation and the reason behind the action. The participation was by all of the "sons of God" and the reason was apostasy, the abandonment of the precepts and belief in God. Kurtz apparently had not read of the conduct of Samson, David, Solomon and the immorality of Israel in their apostasy. It was the apostasy that led to the conduct and therein is the evil. The conduct was only the symptom of the sin. To abandon God is to become apostate and that is the ungodliness.

(cf. Exodus 32:1, Deuteronomy 13:13, Judges 2:17, Judges 16, II Samuel 11:1-17, Nehemiah 9:26, Nehemiah 13:1-29, Acts 7:39, Hebrews 6:4-6.)

It was the smallest of actions imaginable that caused the fall of humanity, simply the eating of two small pieces of fruit. Yet, it was not the action of the eating that was the real sin, it was the abandonment of God, the apostasy of unbelief and the trust in human judgment that brought about the action of the fall. The same elements are seen regarding the "sons of God". They abandoned judgment regarding the spirituality of the women they would marry. They saw only physical beauty as being good. They took only of the beautiful. It was not the beauty that was the sin, it was the abandonment of the spiritual and the taking only of the sensual because in their apostasy the "sons of God" had no other standard of conduct to follow. To misjudge the activity is to misunderstand the sin behind the action and that will result in misinterpretation of the corruption and violence to follow and the judgment of God in response.

THE THEORY IN RELATION TO ANGELS

The theory has as its basis the placing of angels in the Genesis narrative. If that be the case, then the effect of the theory on the nature and conduct of angels must be discussed.

1. THE SIN OF THE ANGELS WAS GREATER THAN THE SIN OF MAN IN CAUSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE FLOOD, IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO SCRIPTURE.

By definition and reason, the theory states that the civilization had to be destroyed because the union of angels and human women produced a hybrid angel-man, who was a giant in physical stature and could not be spiritually redeemed. The only way this situation could be brought to a conclusion was for God to bring the flood in order to destroy the creatures so they could not multiply. This union will occur again as history draws closer to the coming again of Jesus Christ, verses in Matthew 24:37-39 and Luke 17:26-29 being used as the confirmation of the claim. However, none of the verses make a claim or reference to the union of angels with human women, the theory being used as the basis in relation to the verses. The time frame involved in the supposed incident also invalidates the claim of the occurrence, if I Peter 3:20 is used as a reference to the angels in this episode. I Peter 3:20 states, "... who were once disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark ..," (NAS). The verse is very precise in the identification of when this event took place:

a. During the days of Noah.
b. Specifically, during the building of the ark.

One might infer from the "days of Noah" that the sin might have occurred after his birth but before judgment had been pronounced, however, the specific time is also noted as "during the construction of the ark." It is apparent that the sin of these particular spirits did not occur until after the ark was being built and after judgment had already been pronounced on humanity. If these spirits are considered to be angels, then their sin could not have been a factor in any way in the cause of the judgment against humanity, and their children could not have been the reason for the destruction of all flesh on earth. If these spirits are angels, then their sin is unique and unknown, according to scripture, because of its occurrence during the building of the ark, after judgment had already been pronounced against humanity. If these spirits are men, what unique sin could have been committed by them during the building of the ark that would have caused God to place the spirits of those people in a special prison as an additional punishment to the judgment of the flood already pronounced?

If hybrid angel-men were the Nephilim and men of renown mentioned in Genesis 6:4, what type of desolate and forsaken creatures would those hybrid beings have been if they were born to be unredeemable? It is one thing to be a human being, born a sinful creature, needing a Redeemer. However, to be born as a demon-seed, with no hope of redemption would be agony and torment beyond belief. It is very difficult to accept the premise that God would have allowed such a creature to ever exist, much less allow two of his created beings the ability to produce such monstrosities. By the time of these events, God was already in the process of redeeming His creation and bringing a Redeemer. If this union actually occurred, and children were born out of the union, then Satan was successful in defeating part of God's plan of redemption. Satan had created a being that could not be redeemed by God, within the confines of the plan that He had made. Satan was victorious in preventing the Seed from redeeming those hybrid beings. Even in their destruction, Satan was still the victor, because those hybrid beings were a part of his kingdom and God could do nothing. The destruction of those beings may have prevented them from continuing on, but there were already many of them, perhaps millions, who had become the leaders of society. Was it their number or the fact that they could generate offspring that caused God to bring about their destruction? The fact that only one of them could be born and confuse God's plan of redemption is enough to question why this could possibly occur. God had promised a Redeemer for humanity, but not for angels and not for angel-men. The angels have no redemption, because they are judged and condemned by God already. In order to redeem those hybrid angel-men, the human side would have to be redeemed along with the angelic side, in order for the whole being to be redeemed. The result would have been an opening, or a method, whereby all of the fallen angels could have been redeemed. God could not and would not allow Satan the opportunity and method whereby he might confound and change the already appointed plans of God. The introduction of an angel-man hybrid would require a change in plans and a second and different kind of redeemer for those beings. Perhaps, an excuse could be that God knew the hearts of those beings and He knew they would never repent, therefore He could ignore the condition of those beings and simply pronounce them unredeemable. However, that goes against what God had already planned for man. God was already in the process of providing a Redeemer for man, even for those who would not accept the provision. Part of those beings was human to which He had promised to provide a means of redemption. It is God's nature to redeem and He must, out of the necessity inherent in His character, provide a redeemer. He must be a redeemer of the same type as the beings themselves; one fathered by God and born of them just as was Jesus Christ in regards to humanity. The only One capable of doing that was Jesus Christ Himself. He must twice have been a Redeemer, twice born and twice killed; once for the angel- men and once for humanity. Since He was born and crucified only once, for humanity, the belief in a union of angels and human women in untenable.

I Peter 3:18 (NAS)
"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit."

2. ANGELS ARE NOT PUNISHED FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE UNION.

There is no mention, in the Genesis narrative, of the punishment of the angels for their deeds. In another example, the sin of Satan, with regards to Adam and Eve, Satan is punished first for his actions and then Adam and Eve are punished for theirs. But, in the narrative, only man is said to be guilty and is punished. It is not even stated that the actions of the "sons of God" were wrong or evil. Only a statement regarding their conduct is mentioned. The defense to the omission of judgment is that the sins of the angels and their judgment catches up with them in II Peter and Jude. However, this does not explain the problem in relation to everyone who preceded those announcements in the New Testament. This must have strained the faith of some in the interim period as they would struggle with a situation in which, apparently, God allowed the perpetrators of a sin to go unpunished. A claim of favoritism could also be seen because these were angels of heaven. Perhaps prohibitions did not apply to them?

There is a serious consideration regarding this situation that must be discussed. It is an unusual situation that an event such as is asserted to have occurred would not receive another comment until it is mentioned cryptically in the New Testament. However, the real cause for concern is that there is no mention of the situation in any scripture until the New Testament verses. If there is absolutely no mention in scripture, then the New Testament verses must take on their own character in order to confirm the truth of what they are said to claim. The New Testament verses must be seen as, and can only be the revelation, and at the same time, the historical confirmation of the consequences of the actions by the angels regarding the event in question. However, if that is so, then Jude 5 states a fallacy.

JUDE 5 (NAS)
"Now I desire to remind you, though, you know all things once for all, that the Lord ..."

It is stated by Jude that he is reminding his readers of things that they already know. The question to be answered is: How could they know about the punishment of the angels prior to reading Jude's revelation if it was not mentioned anywhere in the scriptures? The same situation occurs in II Peter.

II PETER 1:12 (NAS)
"Therefore, I will always be ready to remind you of these things, even though you already know them, and have been established in the truth which is present with you."

It may be claimed that the people were taught verbally or by the other letters or communications that are not a part of scripture or not mentioned. This may be a possibility, but there is a dilemma in the situation and it is one area that causes further confusion regarding an already puzzling teory.

3. THE ACTIONS OF THE ANGELS DO NOT FIT THE CHARACTER OF THE SIN.

One aspect of the theory is in the type of action taken by the angels. They took women of whomever they chose and married them. They established permanent relationships, although there is an implication of multiple relationships and many divorces with the women that they took. They established families and produced children who were extremely intelligent and gifted individuals. This seems to be a very unusual activity for sinful, evil angels who were so consumed by their lust that they only wanted the most beautiful women that could be found. Did they find family life to be lustful also? The establishment of permanent relationships with women does not appear to be in context with the type of depravity inherent in the sin. It is in the reference to marriage that it becomes evident who the "sons of God" may be. It is not angels looking for fast times on earth with human women. The angels would not be looking for domestic bliss and family contentment. It may be seen, in the marriages, the last vestiges of a moral system left behind by the apostate godly line and the Cainite line. Even in the abandonment of standards and precepts, there is always a tendency to reach back to those values, even if not realizing why. In this time there were still marriages, corrupt, multiple and polygamous to be sure, but they still had a form that seemed to be important to follow. It seemed to be the right way to go, for man, but God said otherwise. What God saw was evil, continually, totally and in every part of the earth.

4. THE SCRIPTURE IS SILENT REGARDING THE EXTENT OF THE SIN

There is a problem regarding the extent of the sin. How many were involved? If the sin was so great that it brought about the destruction of the entire society, in fact the entire earth, then it must have been practiced by all of society, or so near to all of society, that God could not allow it to continue. If that particular sin was so great as to cause the destruction of the entire earth, why has God been strangely silent regarding its existence and the serious consequences to man if the sin is again allowed to enter his life? Why is there no instruction noted in the entire scripture regarding the nature of an earth destroying sin?

5. THERE IS NO MENTION THAT ANGELS WERE EVIL.

There is no mention, in the narrative, that angels were evil, only mankind. In fact, there is no statement to the fact that the union of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" was in any way sinful. The scripture simply makes an observation and a comment. The "sons of God" saw that the "daughters of men" were fair, beautiful, good or desirable and they took of whomever they chose. They may not have chosen well, but there is no confirmation that the choosing and the union was an evil act in itself. It is also postulated that the angels came to earth as teachers in order to instruct human women in the ways of sin. The angels supposedly taught women special incantations and the use of various herbs and roots in rituals. This is certainly a great flight of fancy, because surely it would have been the other way around. Humanity certainly did not need any instruction in the ways of sin, the reality being that if anyone were to be taught, it would have been the angels.

6. THE DESIRE OF THE ANGELS IS NOT EXPLAINED.

It is hard to understand how angels, even fallen angels, could develop a desire for human women and also have the capability to procreate unless they had been given those attributes by God. If angels do not marry, or procreate, in heaven, Matthew 22:30, then why would God have created them with that ability? A being, created to exist in an environment where there is no procreation, is a very strange creature if also given procreative ability that is never to be used unless in a sinful manner. An answer to that dilemma is by stating that angels do not procreate themselves but they can take on a human form that does have the ability. However, this begs the question; if they do not have the ability to procreate themselves, why should any form that they take have that ability? It they have the ability to take on a form, why did not some of them take on the form of a female and cohabit with men?

One element that must be assumed in the theory, is that the angels are of neccessity created with a sexual nature and that nature must be exclusively male. It is the "sons of God" who marry the "daughters of men" and not the reverse. If it is not assumed that angels are specifically male, then it would be possible for angels to assume the female role and marry the "sons of men" as well. This is not the statement of Genesis 6, noting that only the "sons of God" and "daughters of men" are involved. By adopting a theology, in regards to angels, that they have a sexual nature and identification as male, an assumption is made in an attempt to validate the theory, which is not supported in the Scripture.

It is one thing to appear in, or take on a form, it is quite another to create a real and functioning body; a capacity reserved only to God. By what mechanism could angels take on a form and at the same time impart themselves into that form so that their genetic makeup, if indeed angels possess a genetic substance, would be compatible with humanity? It is difficult to comprehend why God would allow the introduction of such a union of angels with women or men.

7. NO ADEQUATE EXPLANATION IS GIVEN AS TO WHY THE SIN DOES NOT OCCUR TODAY.

It is not explained as to why this union does not occur today. I Peter 3:18-20 is used as an explanation, because in the passage, the angels are in prison for deeds committed during the days of Noah. However, the deeds are not specified, but the fact that the spirits have been imprisoned by God would explain the absence of the particular sin in subsequent human history. If the sinning angels are chained by God, then there must be two classes of fallen angels; angels that can cohabit with humanity and those who cannot and are in the world today. In theory all of those fallen angels who could cohabit, did in fact do so, and are now chained or else Satan could continue a very successful plan throughout history by commanding his other angels to engage in the same sin. Each successful new birth would be a new victory over the Seed, even though Christ has already died for the sins of man. If there are, in fact two classes of angels, then those who have the ability to unite with women must be truly male while the others, who do not have the ability, must not be truly male, yet those who are not truly male are referred to as male even though they are something other.

8. NO SPECIFIC TIME FRAME ASCRIBED TO THE SIN

There is no specific time frame when this could have occurred. The phrase "when men began to multiply" could be at the beginning or at any time after the beginning of human relations. It does not refer specifically to a culminating event. If there had been a union resulting in a hybrid angel- man, God would have known from the very first birth, and certainly from eternity past, would that not have been sufficient evidence for Him to terminate the further spread of such a corrosive activity? The verses in II Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 also do not refer to a specific time when the sin occurred.

9. IT IS DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE THE SIN OF THE ANGELS WITH THE GUILT OF MAN.

One way to reconcile this theory, with the guilt of man, in relation to sin, is to assume that the sin of mankind, when looked at apart from the union with angels, was so great that it alone condemned the civilization to the flood and the union with the angels was not counted as a sin against humanity but only as a sin by the angels for which they alone are punished. If there was a union of angels and women, that was not the sin that condemned the world and the purpose of the flood was to not only eliminate the hybrid beings that were a product of the union, but also to punish man for his sins. It was still the sin of humanity that brought about the flood. The angels are judged, by God, and were chained in the pits of darkness. Still, the children of the union are the troubling problem. Their guilt, innocence or accountability cannot be understood.

10. THE STATE OF MARRIAGE IS USED IN RELATION TO ANGELS.

The term marriage is used in relation to the union of the angels with human women. It is not adequately explained as to why this is so. It has been proposed that this term is used because the angels are fallen instead of ministering, or unfallen, angels. Presumably, the reasoning for this is that ministering angels do not marry since they are still part of heaven, Matthew 22:30, and fallen angels can and do marry since they are no longer part of heaven. However, this does not answer the question of why do they marry?

In another explanation, it is claimed that the union could not be considered so "wicked or unnatural as to be considered fornication." So, by that reasoning, since the union was not fornication, it must be considered a marriage. Yet, it is claimed to be sin and to have caused the destruction of the human race. If the sin was not even as great as the serious nature of fornication, and if the sin was legitimized in marriage, how could it have brought about the destruction of the world?

It is in the marriages that the most damage is done to the theory. These were relationships involving domestic duties and the procreation and raising of children. Is it presumed that the angels also performed the duties of provider and father? All of the progeny of the relationships had to be housed, fed and clothed. This could only be accomplished if the households had an income that could be used to buy the necessities of life. Are angels presumed to have found and worked regular jobs to provide for their families? Apparently, they did well, because their children became mighty and renowned men.

THE THEORY IN RELATION TO GOD

Any activity in which the heavenly realm touches the reality of the earthly realm involves the direct oversight of God. If there was a union of angels with human women, then there would have been an effect that would have been noted by God.

1. GOD DOES NOT REGRET MAKING THE ANGELS.

In the narrative, God regrets that He made man, Genesis 6:6, because of his sin. However, God expresses no similar regret regarding the angels. Who could bear the greater guilt, men or angels? It is angels, by their position, higher than men, Psalm 8:5, that have a greater accountability. Yet, all humanity was judged when only part could have participated in the sin. The angels possessed the power to control, to choose and take of whomever they wished. Yet, it was humanity that was guilty and perished in the flood. The fate of angels was not revealed, it is claimed, until the revelations of Peter and Jude. There is much missing from the narrative, in that the angels are not judged and God does not regret creating the angels as He did man.

2. GOD DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE SIN.

An argument from silence does not carry great weight, but it is very strange that a sin, causing the destruction of the world, and which will be repeated again, does not merit even one word from God. In the narrative, God speaks extensively regarding the sin and accountability of man but not one word regarding angels or the possibility of their sin.

|TOP of page|
|HOME PAGE| |GUEST BOOK| |SITE INFO| |SERVICES| |NEWS| |FAMILIES| |GALLERY of the ARTS| |HAND HISTORY| |GENEALOGY| |CONTACT| |LINKS TO SITES|

PAGE GRAPHICS CREDIT

GG VAULT