The Write Place

I have written before on the subject, advocating the Sethite or Kingly view for the ones called “Sons of God” who produced the Nephilim. Both the practice of kings marrying multiple women and men abandoning the faith for foreign wives are attested. Unsexed angelic beings procreating with humanity is not.

This is described as

² the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.

Genesis 6:2

It would appear they are seizing women by force as well, sounding suspiciously like the abuse detailed by men in Genesis 3.

¹⁶ To the woman he said,

“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
    in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to^[f] your husband,
    but he shall rule over you.”

Genesis 3:16

Ah but the book of Jude you say…

⁶ And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— ⁷ just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,^[d] serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Jude v 6-7

Jude is citing the book of Enoch, presenting an intertestamental fanfiction of who the Nephilim were. It’s true that example is about angels committing sexual sin, but he is quoting a non-canonical work to people who are in the fandom. Jude is not saying it is real or true, he is citing a literary example that can inform them about what he speaks. We do the same in sermons today, and the pattern of scripture forbids this understanding from a non-canonical fanfiction. Likewise, the sin of Sodom referenced is homosexuality, and that directed at a theophany.

Genesis 1 ties the procreation of life to their kind. So, mixing of kinds and the opening of the womb (a practice only God does) are out of the question. Such would frankly be alchemy and what the Serpent declared when he said the laws of nature can be rewritten.

²⁴ And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. ²⁵ And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:24-25

We do not see this disappear after the fall, which would have required the devil’s promise to break down nature to be accurate. Instead, we see that the laws of nature continue to exist, they are merely aberrant not annihilated.

Take the command to Noah before the flood.

¹⁹ And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. ²⁰ Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive.

Genesis 6:19-20

The laws of nature are still in effect, with no prohibition to prevent interbreeding between kinds in the realm of possibility. The burden of proof would be on claiming my point is an argument from silence, as the pattern I argue is repeated ad nauseum. The deviation would need repeating as well, but we find no instances that can be argued for the angelic view outside of Genesis 6.

This is reflected in the Levitical sexual and livestock laws where there is prohibition against sexual relations between kinds. There is no command in the sexual laws against angelic beings, or anything concerning what to do with hybrid offspring.

It gets graphic because people are depraved.

²³ And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.
Leviticus 18:23

To livestock among livestock.

“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.

Leviticus 19:19

If Angels could breed with human women, why not animals? But we do not see that either between man and animals or different kinds of animal. There’s a reason cats and dogs stay separate and cannot produce offspring. The distinction remains that different kinds must persist, and that God is a God of order whose order is preserved.

You can see the practical issue here. Not only does something immoral become more arguable as kinds are not rigid, but the imago dei becomes an issue. If a man breeds with an angel or an animal, is that offspring imago dei? Is it not central to the nature of man himself? If it is not, it can be lost and though they are human they would not be in the line of Adam but would be sinful with demons as their federal heads. Can that being be imago dei?

If new kinds can be so created, what is wrong with evolution? Evolution after all believes that species are not fixed but new kinds can develop, the biological boundaries of nature are not permanent in Darwinism.

The whole counsel of scripture strikes against the angelic view of the Nephilim’s origins. What we appear to have here is eugenics of the might makes right variety. The strong men did what they pleased, much as they do today.

Those who claim the Nephilim were crossbreeds are guilty of reading an unclear passage into the rest of scripture. The whole testimony of scripture properly considered demands a different reading.