An Answer to a YouTube Video About the Nephilim and the Sons of God

 The following is a response to a video on YouTube. If you wish to view the video, go here.  

*****

I fully agree that the Nephilim were not the product of the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men. However, I do not agree that the sons of God are angels and that for a specific reason: angels are spirits - non-physical beings - and non-physical beings cannot produce physical children. It is true that angels often appeared in the form of men, as even the LORD Himself did. But that was merely an accommodation to the needs of the men with whom they were communicating. There is only one occasion of a spiritual being conceiving a child within a human woman and that is when the Holy Spirit conceived our Lord Jesus in the womb of Mary. But He did not take on human form and engage in intercourse with Mary so as to produce the Lord Jesus.

 

No doubt when angels appeared in human form the appearance was quite convincing for the men of Sodom were convinced that the angels who visited Lot were mere men. But we do not have any record in Scripture that angels appearing as men actually possessed human bodies capable of all the functions of a human body complete with the DNA necessary to provide the necessary genetic information necessary for the formation of a human. Nor do we even read that they had the power to take on a fully human body or that God ever granted them that power for any time.

 

You refer to 2 Peter section containing only 2 examples. But there are three, and it is the word "and" that makes it obvious:  Peter's point is that God is able to deliver the godly out of temptation or trouble (v.9). He shows this by three examples: He "did not spare" three groups - the angels that sinned  AND the ancient world AND the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. While Peter does describe the groups contrasting to “the ancient world” (Noah and seven of his household) and “the cities of Sodom and Gommorah,” (Lot), he does not give a contrasting group to the angels that sinned. That is likely because by describing them as sinning angels it was obvious that "angels who did not sin" was the contrasting group. But he had to describe a contrasting group to "ancient world" for Noah was part of the ancient world, and he had to describe the contrasting group to "cities of Sodom and Gomorrah” for Lot was of the city of Sodom. If the sin of the sinning angels was to “leave their proper realm of authority and their own dwelling" (Jude 6) that has nothing to do with marrying and mating with humans.

 

Moreover, the sinning angels are described as having been locked up in chains of gloomy darkness in Tartarus. The people of Noah’s day were punished with the flood. The cities of Sodom and Gommorah were punished with fire and brimstone. The sinning angels were punished “gloomy chains of darkness in Tartarus,” not left free to roam the earth and marry and mate with human women.

 

Not much is said about angels in the Scriptures and in the absence of information much mythology has arisen about them. But one thing is clear about them: they are spirits. They cannot mate with humans.

 

There is another problem that arises when we accept the idea that the sons of God were fallen angels: The unions of the sons of God with the daughters of men produced offspring. I think it is safe to say that the alleged fallen angels must have been in complete human form or they could not have married human women and sired children with them. This would leave us with a population of human beings who did not have Adam as their father and were, thus, not participants in Adam's sin. "In Adam, all die," would not have applied to them for they would not have been "in Adam."

 

While it is true that we do not find any other OT reference to sons of God that does not refer to angelic beings, that does not require us to consider this occasion to refer to angelic beings. After all, this is the first reference to "sons of God," so is not dependent on what later uses of the phrase may have intended by the term. I believe that “sons of God” refers to those who professed to believe Jehovah to be God. My philosophy professor (James Grier, Cedarville College) spoke of the days of Enosh, son of Seth, son of Adam, when “men began to call on the name of the LORD” (Genesis 4.26) He commented that it could be translated (paraphrased?) as, “Then men began to call themselves by the name of the LORD.” I am not a Hebrew expert, but as a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary, he had studied Hebrew. I suppose he knew what he was talking about. Now, a group calling themselves by the name of the LORD would be similar to us calling ourselves “Christians”: we are calling ourselves by the name of Christ. It is my belief that “the sons of God” were the ones who “called themselves by the name of the LORD,” to wit, they professed to believe in Jehovah as God.

But in time, it became virtually impossible to distinguish between the “sons of God,” and “the sons of men,” and this was most evident in the fact that these “sons of God” chose for wives “the daughters of men.” Godliness was not their concern, only beauty and maybe the wealth and power that could be gained by a “good marriage.” It was likely then as it is now: wealth and power were mostly in the hands of those who did not believe God.

 

So, these sons of God were, at best, “Laodiceans” and at worst, like the Pharisees, Sadducees and so forth of the Lord’s day – and sadly, like many “Christians” of today. And this would explain the particularly violent and wicked times in which Noah lived – not even those who claimed to worship Jehovah did so from the heart. There was no essential difference between the sons of God and the sons of men. And it was then – when those who bore His name were no different than those who despised His name – it was then that God said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.”

 

Believers are the salt of the earth. But when the salt has lost its taste, what good is it? It is fit only to be thrown out.  

 

What a warning to the American church!

Glorious Messy Freedom!

 

Political and social freedom, as I understand it, is messy – really, really messy. I do not say that lightly. I like external order for I lack internal order. That is, I have an appreciation for neatly organized spaces for my mind is a horribly cluttered space of whirling ideas. I like quiet spaces because my mind is a cacophony of voices all expressing their ideas at once. I already have enough mess and conflict created in my own mind that I do not want any more of it coming from outside of my mind.

 

But I also realize that I am not important enough as an individual that I should expect the world around me to conform to what pleases me. I realize that, even though I like neat places, there should be no law imposing my desire for neatness on others. My neighbor is free to cut his grass or not. He is free to make his kids put away their toys or to leave them strewn about the yard. (In an interesting twist, I am more likely to have a messy yard than any of my neighbors. But the psychological reasons for that are for another article – an article that will likely never be written!) I have no right to expect my neighbor to walk tiptoe around his yard, never turn up his radio to the point I can hear it, or never use a chain saw. It is expected we will respect one another so as to limit our sound during those times when people would normally be trying to sleep. But, otherwise, noisemaking is permitted within broad parameters.

 

I also have some very strong moral positions. I admit that I am not all that good at following them. However, I do have these moral convictions and I believe others should have the same positions as I do. However, I also recognize that I am not important enough that my moral positions should be imposed on everyone else. I believe homosexual activity is perverse and I do not like to be confronted with it. But I also acknowledge that it is not within my rights to insist that my opinion concerning homosexual activity should become the law of the land. I do not like seeing two men walking down the street holding hands or otherwise expressing romantic attraction. But, quite frankly, in a free society, it is none of my business.

 

Now, the last paragraph might have surprised or even offended some of my friends who share a similar moral code as I do. Now I am going to offend nearly everyone. I think racism is morally wrong. More than that, I think it is monumentally stupid. I suppose that I should define what I think racism is. Racism is the belief that any particular race is innately superior to others or inferior to others. Within the world of political thought, racism is the belief that some races are worthy of greater rights and privileges than others. Even if studies were to prove that one race scored lower on IQ exams than did another race, that has nothing to do with their dignity as a human being, nor should any individual within that race be prevented from applying to Harvard on the basis of that statistic, nor should Harvard lay their application aside on the presumption they are unfit to study there. (Don’t assign any significance to my example. I am unaware of any such study and would be suspicious of the results of such a study. It is simply one of the metrics by which some racists justify their racism.)

 

But, as opposed to racism as I am, I do not have the right to impose my beliefs about it on others. My neighbor is free to be a racist. And I am equally free to decide to have little, if anything, to do with him because of his racism. He is free to use racial slurs, put up racist posters, and be a stupid jerk if that is his desire. And, if he is a grocery store owner, he is free to make it an whites-only grocery store or a blacks-only grocery store. And I am free to not shop at his store. I am free to peacefully and non-obstructively picket his store or write letters to the editor saying that no one should patronize his store. But I have no right to expect that the government would write a law prohibiting him from running his business in a racist way and, much as I hate racism, I would stand up to my government were it to impose such a law.  Of course, my government did impose such laws, and as much as those laws may conform to my moral code, they do not conform to my political code.

 

As much as I oppose racism, I believe that if a group of whites wanted to buy land and build a gated community in which no blacks were allowed entry, they have the right to do so. Of course, I would never go in such a community: I would not visit anyone there and would likely not do business with anyone there. Amazon would have the right to not make deliveries to such a community. If I were a contractor, I would have the right to refuse to build, remodel, or repair any house in there.

 

Someone may say that I am being inconsistent for I take a very firm stand on abortion. My moral view is that there should never be any elective abortion. The only abortions allowed should be those in which the life of the mother is put at grave risk. This is not a “health” exemption. This is not saying that the difficulties of gestation, giving birth, and raising a child should be sufficient grounds for abortion – not even the psychological stress that gestating and giving birth to a child conceived in rape. If there is any path to the child being born that would not lead necessarily to the death of the mother, that path should be taken. Period. And I believe that this view of abortion should be made a matter of law because it involves the life of a human being. The moment there is conception, there is a human being, and that human being must be granted all the rights and protection any already-born human being would have. Abortion is not a legally private act, Roe V Wade notwithstanding. The woman’s decision directly impacts the life of another human being; thus her choices are limited in what she is legally at liberty to do.

 

But at present, our laws are being written in a way that violates the rights of many. Some of the most fundamental rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association are being stripped away by those who presently do not hold the levers of political power. Their self-righteousness in their quest to control the private morality of others is as self-righteous as the most tyrannical religion. But our Constitution was written specifically to limit the authority of those who hold those levers so that the rights of the weak are not trampled on by the power of the strong.

 

“How is the government trampling on anyone’s rights?” you ask. The most obvious example is the civil rights legislation that forces people to perform activities that violate their conscience: activities that are contrary to their own moral opinion. Florists, bakers, and photographers are forced to service gay weddings or risk huge fines, civil settlements, and the loss of their businesses. Therapists are being forbidden to offer counsel to those who desire to address their same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. Doctors are being stripped of the right to participate in any government paid medical practice (like Medicare) unless they are willing to perform abortions and/or gender reassignment procedures. (That is part of the present “Equality Act” being promoted by the Biden administration.) Aside from the gross violation of the rights of these service-providers, there is a violation of the rights of others as well. Does not the same-sex attracted person have the right to seek help if that is what he /she wants? And imagine this: You are a retiree on Medicare and you have cancer. Right in your town is a surgeon renowned for his ability to remove cancerous growths in the body. But he refuses to perform gender-reassignment surgery. So you, a person who actually paid for your Medicare coverage by the money taken out of your paycheck over your entire working career do not have access to this doctor unless you are willing to pay out of your own pocket. Where is the freedom in that?

 

Right now, some are trying to address these violations of personal rights by lobbying for legislation that that allows exemptions for religious convictions. Tyrants are trying to get around those protections by severely limiting what religion means. And the organizations that are helping those who are being sued for supposedly violating someone’s civil rights are doing so only in the limited sense of protecting someone from having to engage in artistic expression that involves a violation of their morals.

 

But such a narrowly defined limitation of the government’s power to compel activity Is contrary to the Constitution and the concept of a free society. The answer to all of this is very simple: Set everyone free. Make it so that people can run their lives – which includes their businesses, churches, personal activities – yes, the entirety of their existence – however they want to. Let them be racist, “homophobic”, self-righteous, even hateful, so long as they do not violate the rights of another to pursue their lives as they see fit. And acknowledge that no one has the right to require another person to provide them with anything. No one has a right to force someone else to bake them a wedding cake, take their wedding pictures, or cater a reception for a gay wedding. Or a Muslim wedding. Or a Christian wedding. Or any particular wedding for any reason the service provider may have. All have the right to look for someone who is willing to provide those services, but no one has the right to force anyone to perform a service for them. 

 

No one has the right to tell a person they cannot fly a Confederate flag or even a Nazi flag in their front yard unless they bought said property with such restrictions already in place and as part of the purchase agreement.

 

Political liberty is not just about me being allowed to conduct my life as I please; it is about everyone being allowed to conduct their lives as they please whether or not it meets with my approval!

 

If you do not want the government to enforce someone else’s private moral system on you, do not try to make government enforce your private moral system on others. Freedom is grand, but there is no real freedom until everyone is free. And real freedom demands tolerance of those things you do not approve of. Not acceptance or approval, but tolerance. So if you want a politically and socially free society, you must be ready to tolerate a lot of things you do not approve of.

 

But that is a small price to pay for freedom.