8 Comments
User's avatar
Jon's avatar

Does it give you any pause that the descendants of the sons of god and the daughters of men seem to abnormal? Bigger, stronger, faster, so to speak?

Expand full comment
Michael Foster's avatar

It's noteworthy because it's in the text. It makes sense that such a culture would, in time, produce a violent warrior class of people.

Expand full comment
Jon's avatar

Do the error in the “angel view” is thinking that all or too high of a percentage of the offspring are the “mighty men of old”

Expand full comment
Michael Foster's avatar

I'd say that there error is confusing the Nephilim with the mighty men.

"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown."

People tend to conclude that there are two groups in this passage but there are three groups:

Group 1 is the Nephilim, who are giants of some sort. They were in the land before and after the advent of the second group. Moses is using the Nephilim as a time-marker—more on that in a second.

Group 2 consists of the sons of God and the daughters of men, who intermarry and produce the third group.

Group 3 is the children of these marriages, who become mighty men of renown.

The main point to realize here is that Group 1 is not Group 3. They are clearly distinct in a plain reading of the passage.

Expand full comment
Gordon R. Vaughan's avatar

Thank you, that's helpful. Makes sense and makes me think of a chart I saw once of the ages of the patriarchs. The Godly line lived much longer for many generations.

Methusaleh was the longest-living mentioned in the Bible, but the interesting thing about the chart was how there was a gradual decline after the flood. But even when Jacob appears before Pharaoh, Pharaoh marveled at Jacob's old age, but Jacob notes how he hasn't really lived all that long, compared to his ancestors.

Expand full comment
Jon's avatar

*so

Expand full comment
Lydia Slaughter's avatar

It seems that on both sides of this issue there is an assumption made about angels having sex (or something akin to that). The angelic interpretation assumes they can/did and the Sethite interpretation assumes they can't/don't. I'd be interested to know what passages, texts, traditions, etc. you look to when considering this aspect of the discussion. I figure Matthew 22:30/Mark 12:25 would be pertinent. Thanks!

Expand full comment
Michael Foster's avatar

The Sethite position doesn't hinge on whether or not angels can reproduce. I'm sure I've read 60-70 different church fathers, reformers, or scholars on these passages.

Expand full comment