John Lawrence: Demonology Part 4 of 5

DEMONOLOGY
Part 4
4. Demons are the offspring of a union between angels and women in Genesis 6.
This involves two things:
(1) that the sons of God of Genesis 6 are fallen angels who cohabited with mortal women and produced offspring, rather than the sons of God being righteous Sethites who married unbelieving daughters of Cain; and
(2) that the offspring of this unnatural union are the demons who are evil spirits today that roam the earth.
One may hold to the first position while not holding to the second. Examples of this are Pember and Larkin who defend the angel theory in Genesis, but hold that demons originated from a race that existed before Adam. Ryrie holds to the angel theory, but believes that demons are fallen angels. There are others who agree with Ryrie, such as Unger. These two doctrinal positions encompass the majority of Christendom.
We are not helped here by two errors in the notes of the Schofield Bible on Genesis 6. He says (italics mine), "Some hold that these ‘sons of God’ were the angels which kept not their first estate of Jude 6. It is asserted that the title is in the O.T. exclusively used of angels. But this is an error (Isa. 43:6). Angels are spoken of in a sexless way. No female angels are mentioned in Scripture, and we are expressly told that marriage is unknown among angels (Mt. 22:30). The uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that verse 2 marks the breaking down of the separation between the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain, and so the failure of testimony to Jehovah committed to the line of Seth (Gen 4:26). For apostasy there is no remedy but judgment (Isa. 1:2-7, 24, 25; Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26-31). Noah, ‘a preacher of righteousness’, is given 120 years, but he won no convert, and the judgment predicted by his great-grandfather fell (Jude 14,15; Gen. 7:11)".
First, the reference to Isaiah 43:6 is incorrect and without value. It speaks only of ‘sons’, and does not use the Hebrew for sons of God. All five references as ‘sons of God’ must be angels, as will be shown. Second, the ‘uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that verse 2 marks the breaking down of the separation between the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain’ is incorrect as will be shown. For the most part, many if not most of the Hebrew writers contradict Schofield, and many early church fathers deny his claim until about the 4th century. He also misses the point in Matt. 22, for it expressly says, ". . . as the angels in heaven". No marriage in heaven. Nothing is said about conditions and situations on earth.
Consequently, it will be necessary to show two things if it is to be shown that demons are the result of the union of angels and women in Genesis 6:
that the sons of God did cohabit with women and produced offspring; and
that the offspring of this union are now demons.
a. The Union of Angels and Women in Genesis 6.
(1) The History of the View favors it.
The view of angels uniting with women is of great antiquity. In fact it is impossible to trace back to its absolute origin. It appears to have existed from the time of the flood itself and was the basis for the countless legends of the loves of the gods in mythology. Those who were there at the flood and immediately following, would certainly be the best informed as to tell us the facts as they were. To claim that their accounts are totally false now in the 20th or 21st Century is to let reason and other things overrule the evidence.
(a) Greek mythology has many accounts of the gods cohabiting with women and producing offspring that is half human and half divine. Unger writes, "...one thing is certain, ancient classic writers obtained their conceptions of the gods and demigods, whose amorous propensities for members of the human race led to births half human and half ‘divine’, from some source originally pure and uncorrupted. It is not impossible that this might explain the origin". Biblical Demonology, p. 49.
The word in the Septuagint of Genesis 6 translated "giants" comes from the word meaning "earth-born" and this word was employed of the Titans in Greek mythology, who were partly of celestial and partly of terrestrial origin. These monstrous beings of mixed birth rebelled against their father Uranus (Heaven), and after a prolonged contest were defeated by Zeus and thrown into Tartarus. Ibid. p. 48.
This view explains the numerous passages in the Greek classics and also the ancient literature of other languages in which human families are traced to a half divine origin. Pember, p. 212.
(Ref. John Fleming, "The Fallen Angels and the Heroes of Mythology").
(b) The Septuagint Translation definitely carries this
concept, thus establishing that it was the view of the translators in the 3rd Century, B.C. "In regard to the Septuagint," Pember writes, "all MSS render the Hebrew 'sons of God' by 'angels of God' in Job 1.6, and 2:1, and by 'My angels' in Job 38.7--passages in which there was no dogmatic reason for tampering with the text. In Gen. 6:2,4, the Codex Alexandrius and three later MSS exhibit the same rendering, while others have 'sons of God,' Augustine, however, admits that in his time the greater number of copies read 'angels of God' in the later passage also (De Civit, Dei, 15.23). It seems, therefore, extremely probable that this was the original reading", Pember, p. 207.
(c) The Jewish Concept was universally this view.
It was held by the ancient Jewish Synagogue (Larkin, p. 26) and by Josephus who writes in "Antiquities)" I.3.1., "for many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength, for the tradition is that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants."
It is very decidedly the view presented in the apocryphal Book of Enoch and in the so-called "Minor Genesis" showing that it represented the Jewish thinking of the day. It was held by Philo and most of the rabbinical writers and was also generally accepted by learned Jews in the early centuries of the Christian era.
(d) Many Church Fathers universally held this view also. It was the view of Justin, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Lactantius.
Larkin writes: "That the 'Sons of God' of Gen. 6:1-4 were ANGELS was maintained ... by the Christian Church up until the Fourth Century, when the interpretation was changed to 'sons of Seth' for two reasons. First, because the worship of angels had been set up, and if the 'Sons of God’ of Gen. 6:1-4 were angels and fell, then angels might fall again, and that possibility would affect the worship of angels. The second reason was, that Celibacy had become an institution of the universal Church, and if it was taught that the angels in heaven did not marry, and yet that some of them were seduced by the beauty of womanhood came down from heaven to gratify their amorous propensities, a weakness of a similar kind in one of the 'earthly angels' (Celibates) might be the more readily excused." The Spirit World, p. 26-7.
(e) The Restoration of the View.
Luther is said by Unger to have held this view, as well as a great number of modern exegetes as Koppen, Alford, Hofmann, Delitzsch,
W. Kelly, A.C. Gabelein, and others.
Certainly any unbiased student would have to state that this view has the weight of history on its side even if it has nothing else.
(2) The Scriptures favor this view.
(a) Direct Statements of Genesis 6:1-4.
Genesis 6 reads: "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..."
By "men" in both places in the text it is clear that all mankind is signified. The entire human race began to multiply on the face of this globe. It involves both the descendants through Cain and also through Seth, and also through other sons of Adam (Gen. 5:4).
There is absolutely no proof that the "daughters of men" were confined to the descendants of the Cainites. The text expresses the natural increase of the whole human family, not just the increase of a special
branch of it. For what reason should daughters just be born to the sons of Cain?
The Scriptures do not divide either the lines of Seth or Cain and say all the Sethites were godly and all the Cainites were ungodly.
Moreover, the assumption that the "sons of God" must mean the godly line of Seth is at variance with the uniform use of that term in the OT where it appears restricted to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). Every place in the OT where the term "sons of God" is used, it without exception refers to angels. Now when there is a uniform usage of a term, the burden of proof is on the man who makes an exception to the usage to prove why it cannot be correct in a specific passage. In Genesis 6 it fits very well to take sons of God as referring to angels. We have previously seen that the Septuagint translation originally translated sons of God by "angels of God."
The passage in Genesis 6:4 states that the result of this union was "giants," mighty men who were of old, "men of renown". If the sons of God were only men who traced their ancestry back to Seth, and they married Cainite women, why should their progeny have been of such a special nature?
The text not only favors the view that the sons of God are angels, but nearly demands it. Further, let us consider the doctrine of the Total Depravity of man. Both Seth and Cain were under sentence of death due to the sin of their father, for the wages of sin is death. There are no exceptions. We understand that so were their children – all of them.
(b) The Context Preceding Genesis 6.
The context preceding Genesis 6 enforces the view that the sons of God are angels.
Those who hold that the daughters of men were ungodly Cainites and the sons of God were pious Sethites, say that Genesis 4:26 is to be connected with Genesis 6:1. They say that Genesis 5 is the genealogy book of Adam and is a unit by itself. By connecting 4:26 with 6:1 they say you can clearly see the connection and that no angels are involved.
There are some important things, however, that have been overlooked by all who do this. First, it certainly is true that Cain was godless and went out from the presence of the Lord to build a godless civilization where they would not retain the knowledge of God in their hearts. But God was going to have a godly seed on the earth through which eventually His own Son of promise (Gen. 3:15) would come. With the death of Abel, God selected another Son of Adam and Eve. And Scripture notes that it was in the days of the birth of Seth's son, Enos, that "men began to call upon the name of the Lord," or as the Revised Version reads, "to call themselves by the name of the Lord."
All this indicates is that there was a remnant who were believers. They were saved by grace through faith. This in no way indicates that all of Seth's children were godly. Adam had two boys and one was ungodly, and one was godly. The ungodly one murdered the godly one making himself the majority. The godly have always been in the minority. All Genesis 4:26 indicates is that there was a remnant who did believe in God and called upon Him, or themselves by Him. From this remnant came Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah and Noah’s sons.
Enoch was translated.
Methuselah and Lamech died before the flood.
Noah and his sons were believers and saved by building an ark.
Scripture indicates that no one in the Cainite civilization called upon the name of the Lord, but some did in the line of Seth, and this remnant was perpetuated down through the years, probably never being very large. Another thing that has been missed by all who consider the sons of God in Genesis 6 as only pious Sethites is that the world of mankind did not just consist of Cainites and Sethites. Adam had sons and daughters according to Genesis 5:4. There may have been some of Adam’s other sons and daughters who worshipped God also and some who did not. The point is that there would have been continual inter-marriage of all the sons and daughters of Adam and their immediate relatives. No clear cut line could possibly be maintained of Sethites and Cainites from the Scripture.
Lastly, the time element between Genesis 4:26 and 6:1 is never brought out by any who try to connect the two passages together, but it needs to be. There is about l300 years between Enos and Noah according to Ussher, when Noah was called to build the ark. This 1300 years is according to the chronology of the present Hebrew text, but it is nearly 1700 years according to the chronology given in the Septuagint!
Thus it will be seen chronologically that the two passages are not meant to be connected or identified together at all. There was a godly remnant on the earth even at the time of the flood and it was Noah
and his three sons, but they are never called "sons of God" .
The context preceding Genesis 6 enforces the view that the sons of God who cohabited with men are angelic beings and this took place when men--all mankind--began to multiply on the face of the earth. It was a population explosion!
(c) Subsequent Context
When we look at the verses following Genesis 6:1-4, we find that they also reinforce the view that angels are referred to by the expression "sons of God."
Gen. 6:9, "Noah was a just man and perfect (upright) in
his generations"
There are two Hebrew words often translated as "generation": The first used here is ‘toledoth’ (also in Gen. 5:1 for Adam), meaning genealogies from ‘yalad’, to beget. Hence, it implies (1) generations, families, races, or (2) history, origin.
The second is used in Gen. 9:12, ‘dor’, from ‘dur’, meaning period, or to dwell. Hence, it can be translated as age or generation.
In Noah’s generation it speaks of a specific ancestral line. Noah was perfect in his age. This statement implies that no one else was--all other lines were given over to lustful and fleshly desires. What verse 9 implies, verses 10-13 then state specifically. Notice carefully the expressions:
"corrupt before God"
"filled with violence"
"corrupt''
"all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth"
"the end of all flesh is come before me"
"filled with violence through them"
"I will destroy them"
While there is no mention of angels, there does not need to be. The angels who sinned could have been already judged by God (we will look at Jude 6) and only the wicked, vile, corrupt offspring were present on earth perpetuating that corruption and wickedness still further among the human race. If the angels that sinned from this union were bound by God, then the wicked offspring, half human and half angelic, could and would continue to intermarry with part angelic and part human offspring, or with humans – all wicked and evil. The human part would increase, while the angelic part would gradually decrease. This continued until the whole world was completely corrupt, except for Noah and his children and their wives. We have no evidence from Scripture that they did not, too, live long lives.
The Nephilim in Gen. 6:4 could also be translated "fallen ones". The progeny of this union was "fallen ones". These fallen ones continued to corrupt the earth through marriage and their subsequent progeny would not be quite as wicked as their fathers.
If this interpretation is correct, we should find that demons vary in degree of wickedness. Is there any Scripture that bears this out? The answer is yes there is, and there is no other way of accounting for the degree of wickedness in demons. Fallen angels vary in rank, but not in
wickedness; the same would have been true of a pre-Adamic race.
Matt. 12:43-45. "more wicked then himself."
Genesis 6:17 reads: "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die"
It is noted that everything here in this part of Chapter 6 is referred to as "flesh." While this includes the animal world, this would also be the logical designation of a corrupted world of humanity--part angel and part man.
(d) The References in Job
There are three and only three places in the OT other than Genesis where the term "sons of God" are used. These three are all found in the book of Job: Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7.
The term is used in Job 1:6 and 2:1 to speak of all angelic beings regardless of whether good of evil. Since Satan is one of the angelic beings, "Satan came also among them". He did not come by himself but with "them". The same is true in 2:1.
Angels, whether holy or fallen, are the direct creation of God and are ultimately subject to their Creator directly. This is evidently the meaning of the term sons of God, and clearly fits all the NT references. Adam is called a "son of God" (Luke 3:38) and believers who
are individually born again as a direct creation of God are "sons of God" (John 1:12).
The important point concerning the references found in Job is that Job is probably the oldest book of Scripture and may have been written before the five books of Moses. The designation of "sons of God" therefore in Genesis 6 would automatically denote in the minds of all of those who heard these words the concept of angels. If they were not angels, but only the pious sons of Seth, then God deceived all of those peoples for nearly two Millenniums. This is unthinkable. W. F. Albright says: "The Israelites who heard this section recited unquestionably thought of intercourse between angels and women (like later Jews and Christians)." From the Stone Age to Christianity, p. 226.
But there is still something else that needs to be said. While the authorship of Job is not certain, the most logical person to have written the book would have been Moses himself.
Halley says: "Jewish tradition was that Moses wrote this book while he was in the wilderness of Midian, where he could easily have learned of Job and his great affliction." God did the rest.
A Guide for Bible Study writes: "Most of the arguments set forth for the Mosaic authorship of Genesis can likewise be used for Job. No one can study the book of Deuteronomy, especially the poetic portions, without coming to the conclusion that this eminent Hebrew scholar had both the information and the qualifications for the task. Besides early training in Egypt, Moses' forty years experience as a shepherd in Midian would explain the presence of so much natural theology and the many references to rural life with which the book of Job abounds."
Although authorship of Job cannot be firmly established, Jewish tradition indeed suggests a Moses author. Who wrote the last few verses of Deuteronomy? Maybe Joshua. Maybe Samuel. Maybe God did.
(e) References in the New Testament
There are several references in the NT that add great Scriptural support to the position that angels are referred to in Genesis 6. These passages are 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6.
2 Peter 2:4, "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Tartarus), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment."
Jude 6, "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitations, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
What angels are these that are bound and not free as Satan's angels are (Cf. Rev. 12:9)?
The only possible conclusion that we can draw is that there are two groups of fallen angels identified in Scripture. One group is free and serve Satan in the forces of unrighteousness. Another group is not free but are reserved in everlasting chains in Tartarus awaiting a final judgment. Scripture says that what caused this is that they "kept not their first estate, but left their own (proper) habitations". What does this mean? The context of both 2 Peter and Jude give us solid if not definite direction that it refers to the sons of God in Genesis 6.
The loose living of the Apostate teachers is linked to the kind of sin which angels engaged in and also Sodom and Gomorrah — an unspeakable, perverted sex sin. This is also connected with the time of the flood in 2 Peter 2:5.
These angels left their own sphere and entered the human sphere, and because they were "sons of Elohim" and responsible to Him, God directly judged them for this action by confining them so that they were no longer permitted to operate on earth. However, the result of their evil actions would continue to be perpetuated in humanity through their progeny.
If this is not the reason why some angels are free and some are confined, then there is no other reason found in any passage of Scripture. Since there is not other explanation, and some Scriptural explanation must be behind the statements of 2 Peter and Jude, the interpretation of Genesis 6 as angels is both logical, and also Scriptural. (See Unger page 53 for further discussion).
We state categorically that Larkin is incorrect when he considers that these angels that sinned were angels that did not rebel with Satan against God originally, but were additional "late" sinners to reinforce Satan. The entire doctrine of Angelology stands against this. The angels made one choice (one event) to serve God or to rebel and follow Satan. Those who did not rebel are confirmed in holiness, and are holy angels for all eternity. Those who rebelled against God are confirmed in wickedness and will be wicked for all eternity. Those angels who further apostatized had to come from those angels who originally sinned with Satan. Some of them were engaged in this further degradation which cost them their ‘freedom’, but, which was a very ingenious plan to corrupt all humanity and thus try to make it impossible for the promise of Genesis 3:15 of ever being fulfilled. (We must consider 3:15 further.) K. Wuest, The Practical Use of the Greek New Testament, pp 31-35 was consulted here.
(3) The Nature of Angels favors this view
The entire doctrine of angels favors the view that the Sons of
God of Genesis 6 refers to angels. We have seen that the use of the term "sons of God" in both the 0T and the NT are loose to serve Satan while others are confined to Tartarus. There are two other factors concerning the nature of angels that may be added as supporting this position: (1) the fact that angels are always seen as young men, and (2) the fact of what Christ stated concerning angels in the NT. Let us look at each of these separately.
(a) The fact that angels are always seen as young men.
Why is it that angels are always seen as being of the masculine sex and usually young men? Gender indicatives are used in both the Hebrew and the Greek, as opposed to the English language. It can only be that they are of that particular ‘sex’.
Mark 16:5, "a young man"
Luke 24:4, "two men"
Act. l:l0, "two men"
These last two references are the notes of Doctor Luke.
Angels are always spoken of in the masculine gender.
Genesis 18 and 19:
18:1 The Lord
:2 three men
:16 the men
:22 the men
19:1 two angels
:10 the men
:12 the men
:13 and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it
:15 the angels
:16 the men
:21 I will not overthrow this city
:22 I cannot do anything till thou be come thither
These angels were men. They appeared in every way as men unto the men of the city of Sodom, Gen. 19:5.
Angels seem to have a body (just like men do – maybe not?), but not existing on a blood and bones principle for life like ours. They eat food however, for manna was used as angels’ food in Ps. 78:25. They seem to have a body that is based on a spiritual principle even as Christ's was. Just as Christ's body after the resurrection was solid and visible at times, yet invisible at other times, so with the angels. Note that Christ did not cease to be a man even though he had a g1orified body.