Genesis 6:1-2 - Why were angels able to procreate?

Here's a breakdown of three of the most common views





Scholars debate and disagree over the meaning of the obscure reference to "the sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4. Some people read into these verses the idea that it refers to angelic beings marrying women and producing a race of giants. Christ explained that is impossible, teaching that angels are neither male nor female (Luke 20:34-36)—that is, they are incapable of reproduction.

Humans are clearly the subject in Genesis 6—not angels. God said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh" (verse 3, emphasis added throughout) and, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth" (verse 7). If angels were capable of reproducing as mankind does, their offspring would be spirit, according to the principle of "according to its kind" portrayed in Genesis 1.

The Bible labels the offspring of these marriages "giants" (Genesis 6:4), meaning simply people of giant stature. Similar people are spoken of in later times, most notably Goliath and his family.

How, then, can we understand Genesis 6:1-4? Human beings are also sons of God. We're not referring to becoming spiritual sons of God through conversion, but to the fact that all people are sons of God by creation (Luke 3:38). The attitudes and actions of these "sons of God" were so wrong that they provoked God to send the Flood

Same here, but it's cool that we can discuss a topic like this in a civilized manner. 

genez

I can only speak for myself and I'm not resisting learning anything that's why I posted in this thread. Please feel free to defend your position stated in your OP And I'll be glad to study it out. I don't believe civic or myself Took your position on this topic in a blasé light manner. We were both happy that were able to talk about it in a civilized manner.

You stated as your goal in the OP:

My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love,
so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding,
in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ,
in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

Let's get back to doing that.

A New Testament perspective on homosexuality is anchored in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition. The indispensable framework for interpreting the NT teaching on homosexuality is Genesis 1–2, the creation narrative. We read in Genesis 1:26–27 that God made man in his own image, but the image of God is reflected in two distinct genders, male and female. The distinction between man and woman is underlined in the fuller account of their creation in Genesis 2:18–25. The physical differentiation of the man and the woman, and yet the amazing complementarity of such for bearing children indicates that marriage consists of the union of one woman and one man. The creation narrative, then, functions as the paradigm for males and females, and how they are to relate to one another sexually. The two different genders signify that marriage and sexual relations are restricted to the opposite sex, and that same sex relations are contrary to the created order.

As we read the rest of the OT, we see that the OT consistently proscribes homosexual behaviour. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 same sex relations are banned in general. The severity of the sin is such that the death penalty is mandated for homosexual activity. Some claim that the text only speaks against cult prostitution here, but in these two verses in Leviticus there is no reference to cultic activity, and homosexual relations are banned in broad terms. We see no hint that only certain kinds of homosexual activity are prohibited. The OT, of course, also indicts cultic prostitution that is homosexual in nature, but such commands do not suggest that there are same sex relationships that are permissible or even laudable. Rather, the negative view of homosexuality relative to cultic prostitution fits with the claim that homosexuality in general is contrary to God’s created order.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah blends nicely into this same pattern. It will not do to say that the sin in view is not homosexuality since the visitors were angels, for the angels appeared on earth as men. Others claim that the sin is not homosexuality per se, but homosexual rape, and hence the text does not speak to loving monogamous homosexual relationships. It is probably the case that on its own this text cannot be pressed to yield a comprehensive indictment of homosexuality. Given the fabric of OT revelation as a whole, however, the homosexual dimension of the sin, and not exclusively the attempted homosexual rape, testifies to the egregiousness of the evil in view. Indeed, Jude 7 confirms this interpretation, for Sodom and Gomorrah are described as ‘departing after other flesh’. Jude does not concentrate on the attempted homosexual rape but the desire to engage in sexual relations with those of the same sex, and the letter identifies such as an evil deserving God’s judgement.

We should also note that second temple Jewish literature consistently and unanimously speaks against homosexual practices. We read in the Testament of Naphtali, ‘But you, my children, shall not be like that discern the Lord who made all things, so that you do not become like Sodom, which departed from the order of nature’ (T. Naph. 3.4). We read in Psuedo-Phocylides, ‘Do not transgress with unlawful sex the limits set by nature. For even animals are not pleased by intercourse of male with male. And let women not imitate the sexual role of men’ (Psuedo-Phocylides 190–92; cf. 3, 210–14). Both Josephus and Philo condemned homosexuality, and they contended that it was contrary to nature.

Thomas R. Schreiner

Okay that post I can definitely get ahold of. The Angels you're talking about went against God's plan and instigated their own plan. Sounds like idolatry to me.


The most important text regarding homosexuality in the NT is Romans 1:26–27. We learn from this text and the surrounding context that all sin, including homosexuality, is a consequence of idolatry. The fundamental and root sin, therefore, is not homosexuality or any other erroneous behaviour. The sin that provokes God’s wrath and leads to all other sin is the worship of the creature rather than the creator (Rom. 1:25). It is the failure to give thanks and praise to the one true and living God (Rom. 1:21). It is important to emphasize here that homosexual sin is not singled out because homosexuals are particularly egregious sinners. Sin is an equal opportunity and democratic employer! All human beings have failed to glorify and thank God the way they should. Paul probably focuses on homosexuality at this point because it mirrors idolatry. In other words, both idolatry and same sex relations distort what human beings were made to do. That is, all human beings turn the world upside down by worshipping self rather than God. And same sex relations invert what God has intended, so that human beings opt for same sex intercourse instead of engaging in sexual intercourse with the opposite sex.


The reason homosexuality is proscribed here is that it is contrary to nature (para physin). The reference to ‘nature’ indicates that Paul refers back to the creation account, to what God intended when he created men and women. Paul’s use of the relatively unusual words thelys for females and arsen for males suggests that he draws on the creation account of Genesis (Gen. 1:27, LXX) where the same two words are used. The terms call attention to the sexual distinctiveness of males and females, suggesting that same sex relations violate God’s creational intent. Further, the phrase ‘contrary to nature’ echoes Stoic and Hellenistic Jewish traditions, which saw homosexual relations as a violation of the created order.

Thomas R. Schreiner