A very strange doctrine has seen a recent rise in popularity, and some good people have been opened up to bizarre beliefs, misinterpretation of scripture and attacks against the King James Bible.
This is the belief that there exists/existed half-demon/half-human beings, that most claim were giant in stature, and went on to have a negative influence on humanity. This was the supposed result of demons thinking that women were attractive, having carnal relations with them and getting them pregnant.
It is all based on Genesis 6:1-4, and an itching-ears desire to produce some mysterious doctrine that people feel empowered about knowing. The kind of people that promote this strange belief are normally those who don’t give their time to soul-winning, but who prefer to spend time in conspiracy theories, theological and secular, and that thrive on their being some sort of deeper meaning to much of scripture that God hasn’t openly revealed, that the world might be saved.
Let’s look at the text: 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 to them, the same mighty men which of old, men of renown.
The first thing to note, and really what should close the argument while revealing the lengths to which some will go to try and create weird and wonderful doctrines that they can espouse to their followers (probably on (anti-)social media), is the fact that there is no connection between the ‘giants’ (Hebrew Nephilim) mentioned and the case of an interaction between the ‘sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men’.
It says that there were giants, and, in verse 4, that AFTER this (‘also’, i.e. in addition to that fact) the sons of God had children with the daughters of men. So there is no way that these giants or Nephilim could be a product of that union, seeing as they came before – there is no connection at all between these statements, other than what has been imagined to create this strange doctrine.
It is like saying ‘Shaquille O’Neal was tall, and after him came Lebron James’ – you would simply be stating the fact of Shaq’s height and then mentioning a notable and dominant player who came after him – any relation between the two players, or believing that Shaq being tall somehow made Lebron tall is only an assumption. The union is first mentioned in verse 2, but all students of scripture know that biblical chronology is not always linear in nature – verse 4 is elaborating.
If that isn’t enough, we can deconstruct the belief that ‘the sons of God’ refers to demons, and that therefore this text describes fallen angels having their way with human women and producing offspring. Firstly, and so obviously that I have no idea how it is missed, since when were demons called sons of God? Angels are called this in Job 38:7, there is prophecy concerning the righteous being called this in Hosea 1:10, and it was also said of a righteous king and nation (2 Samuel 7:14, Exodus 4:22) – we ultimately know its fulfillment from John 1:12 (mentioned five more times in the NT).
They were sons of God in the angelic sense BEFORE their fall, but not after, and so would not be addressed so – in fact any more than an unrepentant sinner is. The idea that these angels weren’t fallen, but did so when they procreated with humans is ludicrous and makes a mockery of the ministry of angels on this earth (Heb 1:14), and belittles the fact that it took the possible fall of an Archangel (possible that Lucifer stood with Gabriel and Michael) to draw any into rebellion.
The objection is that if Job mentions angels as ‘sons of God’ in chapter 38, which is the only place in the Bible where this context is clear as it is dealing with creation, that anywhere else we want it to it must also apply to angels, in the face of logic and sound doctrine. It is clear that in the majority of places it is referring to the godly, and that the mention in Job 38 is the exception not the rule. But what of Job 1:6/2:1 I hear you cry? Isn’t this clearly talking about demons? Sorry, but it isn’t – any single verse must be set in context against the chapter, book and indeed the whole counsel of the Word of God.
In verse 5 of chapter 1, we see righteous Job, a son of God in his righteousness through faith (see Easton’s Bible Dictionary for reference to the godly descendants of Seth being known as ‘sons of God’), rising up early and presenting sacrifices before the LORD for his sons. The next verse says that there was a certain day when the sons of God gathered together before the LORD – in the context of Job’s piety, doesn’t it stand to reason that what is being described is a fore-shadowing of a church congregation, i.e. a gathering of the godly on a certain day in worship?
It then says that Satan then came among them (think of what a bizarre idea it is that demons habitually gather before God, and that their prince, Satan, has no leading role? He rather skulks among them like an unwanted gate-crasher), in both chapters. Firstly, if this refers to angels, Satan cannot be there as he was thrown out of Heaven, and why would angels gather on Earth when they are already in God’s presence? If they have a work on Earth to accomplish, they can easily ascend as in Jacob’s vision. Secondly, we know that the enemy seeks to infiltrate God’s people on a regular basis as part of spiritual warfare (Matthew 13:25), and that includes a special strategy against congregational gatherings. Anybody who has been in Pastoral ministry for any length of time can attest to this.
But Satan presented himself just like the sons of God? Doesn’t this imply relation? No – the Hebrew words means to place oneself, and if the devil had the audacity to think that he could ascend above God then he sure has the audacity to stand before Him, even in church.
If this is not enough, and it must be insisted that ‘sons of God’ has to refer to angels (even though angels being spirits, have no inherent sexual attraction peculiar to flesh and blood beings), verse 1 and 2 of Genesis 6 set a clear context:
Knowing that the giants have no relation this, other than a passing statement, it is clear that the context is that of talking about the actions of MEN. Men were multiplying, and that another group of human beings, albeit with a special designation due to their piety, were tempted by their offspring and took them for WIVES; this is a similar context to Samson and his failings with the Philistine woman.
Angels don’t need wives – they are spirit beings that are the messengers and servants of God, occupying a lower place than the crown of His creation, man. Yes they can manifest physically, but they do not suddenly become human in doing so – the only time a spiritual being has accomplished union with the created flesh is Christ Himself in the hypostatic union (in fact, also the only time a spiritual power has been able to impregnate a woman).
Yes, they could appear to eat, yes they could appear to be human, but they are not and can never be. There is no scriptural support for angels being able to take on a physical body at will – do they create it themselves? Demons don’t need wives either, but guess what? Men do!
The sons of God were the godly, and the daughers of men were the children of the ungodly – the failing of the pre-flood world was that the godly intermingled with the ungodly and left only Noah and his family to be saved on the ark. It was clear that the flood was to deal with sin, and not with half-angel giants running amok.
I don’t think I need to elaborate further, other than to re-issue the Apostle Paul’s warning:
2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;