|
|
Robert E. Best
VBDRS, Virginia
INTRODUCTION. Demonology, in its broadest sense, is the study of demons or fallen angels. Traditionally, it is the study of Satan's angels (cf. Matt. 25:41; Rev. 12:9) as they are titled "demons" due to their demonic nature. Lewis S. Chafer, as do many other theologians, treat these demonic entities broadly in the sense that the terms "demon" and "fallen angel" are interchangeably used. There appears, however, to be a distinction between fallen angels and demons, but who both share an angelic ancestry and the furtherance of the objectives found within the monarchy to which they belong.
Dr. Thiessen states, "The term "demon" never occurs in the Authorized Version: but in the American Standard Version it occurs twice in the Old Testament (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37).1 "Demon", in its classical usage, demi-gods or lesser gods whether good or bad. In the New Testament "daimon" and "daimonion" refer to evil spirits. These evil spirits, however, neither operate independently nor outside of a structure.
Not only is Satan the ruler of the cosmos, he is ruler of all fallen spirits (Mark 5:9,15; Luke 8:30). This is evidenced by Matthew 12:22-30 as it reads, Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except the first bind the strong man? And then he will spoil his house. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."
My distinction between demons and fallen angels is predicated upon the fact that some of these entities appear to be disembodied in that they seek re-embodiment in either humans or beasts. Interestingly, all New Testament accounts of demonic encounters show these entities in a re-embodied state. There are no scriptural teachings as to fallen angels seeking re-embodiment.2 Angels are said to have embodiment although they are said to be incorporeal. Spirits have a definite form of organization which is adapted to the law of their being. The are both finite and spacial. As to their embodiment in light that they are angels, God is a Spirit, yet, when addressing the Jews, Christ said of the Father, Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape" (John 5:37; cf. Ex. 33:23; Ezek. 1:1-28; Ps. 104:1-2). It must be understood that no such materiality such as "flesh and blood" can enter heaven. These angels doubtless retain their ethereal bodies.
THE IDENTITY OF DEMONS. Who or what are these demons? There are various theories relative to both the origin and identification of these beings. There are historical records of many having believed these demons were and are the souls of evil men. There are those who hold that demons are the disembodied spirits of a pre-adamic race. Others hold that demons are exiled entities of the Luciferian rebellion, and, lastly, there are those to hold to these entities as the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim.
A. SOULS OF EVIL MEN. Proponents of this theory hold that demons are the souls of bad or evil men. Although this theory has a heathenistic underpinning, some early Christian writers were advocates of this theory. Josephus held this theory to be the orthodox Jewish opinion that demons were the spirits of the wicked dead. Philo also espoused this view.
Alexander Campbell teaches that Hesiod held demons to be "the spirits of mortals when separated from their earthly bodies." Zoroaster, Thales, Pythagoras, Plato generally viewed demons as spiritual beings, intermediate between supreme Deity and mortals, and mostly the souls of heroes and distinguished persons who had departed this life. Campbell goes on further to say that Christian fathers were of like opinion. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tetullian, Origen, and Augustine regarded demons as the souls or spirits of the unsanctified dead. Not only true in the classics, Scripture acknowledge that the "imortals" who the heathen adored, were once men. Paul, however, assures his readers that the sacrifices of the Gentiles made to these "immortals," were sacrifices to demons, and that their sacred feasts were in honor of demons (I Cor. 10: 20-21). Apparently both Jews and early Christians believed that demons are invisible spiritual beings belonging to the kingdom of evil. The Greeks often applied the name of demons to what they considered to be good spirits; Scripture, however uses the world with reference to unclean and wicked spirits only.3
In Augustine's reading of Plotinus, in City of God (ch. 11), however, it is ambiguous as to whether demons had become 'demonized' by the early 5th century: "He (Plotinus) also states that the blessed are called in Greek eudaimones, because they are good souls, that is to say, good demons, confirming his opinion that the souls of men are demons." (City of God, ch. 11.—Of the Opinion of the Platonists, that the Souls of Men Become Demons When Disembodied). Proponents of this theory, no doubt, acknowledged the reality of a spirit worldand a distinction between good and evil spirits. This theory, however, is void of all Scriptural foundation.
B. DISEMBODIED SPIRITS OF A PRE-ADAMIC RACE. The alleged pre-adamic race is a source of controversy among scholars. The disembodied spirits of this race is the antecedent of the consequent (demonic entities). The GAP theory is predicated upon an indeterminable period of time filling in the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This period of time gives way to the teachings of a "pre-adamic race or creation." Proponents of this theory seem to be divided into those who believe that the pre-existent race were composed of human beings and those who believe that the pre-existent race were the angels under the rule of Lucifer.
There appears to be more to the creation story than what is presented in the conservative's position of the creation account. Not withstanding scientific data, the earth is evidently older that what is presented in the traditional creation account as evidence by the earth's geological features and properties. A careful reading of Genesis 1:1-2:7 reveals two important concepts: (1) three stages of earth's creation (original, chaotic and present earth), and (2) a certain of generally accepted creation acts are, in reality, "dividing" or "separating" acts.
The original or pre-adamite earth, says Larkin, was created in the dateless past, and is not the beginning of the first day as described in Genesis 1:3-5. The six days work was the restoration of the earth to its original condition before it was made "formless and void." The earth, "formless and void," was submerged in water and darkness. Larkin connects this condition or state to the words of Peter: "World that then was, that being overflowed with water, perished" (II Pet. 3:5-7). The declaration "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" does not reveal the manner in which the Pre-Adamite earth was created.4
The word "created" bara (Gen.1:1) is used exclusively with God as the subject. The word created as used here to inform man that the physical universe was spoken into existence. Bara, used twice in the first chapter of Genesis gives it a more specific meaning "to create from nothing." Theologians call this creatio ex nihilo in the context that only God can create. As God spoke the universe into existence, we can only conclude that God alone is infinite, eternal, and omnipotent.
Support for the GAP theory can be made from a single word in Psalm 104:30 in relation to Genesis 1:2. The Psalmist writes, "Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth." The English word "renewest" translated from the Hebrew word "chadash" means "to be new, to rebuild, renew or repair." "Without form" implies that things were in a condition or state of chaos, and "void" implies that the earth was empty. The creation account speaks of God creating "neloham" creating out of nothing. The impression one is left with after reading the creation account is everything was created Neloham with the exception of the earth.
C.I. Scofield notes in his study Bible that Earth made was and empty by judgement (Jer. 4:23-26). Jer. 4:23-26, Isa. 24:1 and 45:18, clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of a divine judgement. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe. There are not wanting intimations which connect it with a previous testing and fall of angels. See Ezk. 28:12-15 and Isa. 14:9-14, which certainly go beyond the kings of Tyre and Babylon.
Jeremiah the Prophet said, "I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of heaven were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger" (Jer. 4:23-26).
The question to be asked here is who or what event could precipitate such judgement and destruction by the Creator. GAP theorists connect this judgement to the primal rebellion of Satan and support this connection with the following passage: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit" (Isaiah 14:12-15).
The prophet Isaiah also writes, "For thus says the LORD, who created [bara—from nothing] the heavens (He is the God who formed [yatsar] the earth and made it [restored it from existing material], He established it and did not create [bara] it a waste place [tohu], But formed [yatsar] it to be inhabited), 'I am the LORD, and there is none else.'" Dr. Hayes, President of Andersonville Theological Seminary, links the phrase "without form, and void" to Isaiah 45:18. He states: This verse speaks of the original creation, and it plainly says that God did not create it in vain, but to be lived upon.........Surely one can see that God had a purpose for His creation and that purpose was for beings to live upon the earth: his creation was not in vain; it had a purpose."5
Admittedly, at first glance, one would associate this verse with the Genesis creation narrative in the traditional sense; however, upon closer examination, this passage refers to the "original" creation instead. The Hebrew word for "earth" found in Genesis 1:1 is erets meaning field, ground, land, the earth at large or partitively a land. Note, however, that earth, as referred to in Isaiah is the Hebrew word bohuw depicting an undistinguishable ruin, emptiness or void.
Another argument used both to support the GAP and pre-adamic race theories is that God instructed Adam to replenish the earth with special emphasis given to the translated word "replenish." Over and against this argument is the proper definition of the word "replenish." Without question, "replenish" means to refill, but it was and remains an unfortunate translation in the King James Version of the Bible. The English word "replenish" derives from the Latin re (again) and plenus (full), and thus can mean "to fill again." Replenish can also mean to "re-people." The Hebrew word for replenish, however, is "male" simply meaning to accomplish, confirm, to furnish, to gather, or to fill." Subsequent English translations to the Bible (ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, et al.) have properly rendered the verb as "fill." Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful, multiply and to fill the earth.
The last textual issue to be examined in Genesis 1:1-2 is the translated word "And" as found at the beginning of verse 2. The passage reads: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." R. B. Thieme, an expert in the ancient Hebrew language, states: "Most English versions wrongly translate verse two as sequential, 'and the earth was,' instead of as a contrast to verse one."6 Morris, however, states that "it is significant that every verse in the first chapter of Genesis (except Genesis 1:1) begins with the conjunction 'And' (Hebrew waw)." Morris further states that, "this structure clearly means that each statement is sequentially and chronologically connected to the verses before and after. Each action follows directly upon the action described in the verse preceding it."7 I find Thieme's position on this textual issue to be sound.
Dr. Emery H. Bancroft implicates a pre-adamite race by postulating the propensity of demons seeking re-embodiment: "But the unclean spirit, when he is gone out of the man, passeth through waterless places, seeking rest, and findeth it not. Then he saith, I will return into my house whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth empty, swept and garnished (Matt. 12:43,44 ASV - cf. Mark 5:10-13). Bancroft states:
"The origin of demons is not revealed in the Scriptures. But it has been conjectured that they are disembodied spirits, perhaps of a pre-Adamic race or order of beings; or it may be, of the Adamic race, as some think. If they are disembodied spirits, this would explain the fact that they seek embodiment without which apparently they are unable to work their full measure of evil. May not these demons be the spirits of those who trod this dearth in the flesh before the ruin described in the second verse of Genesis, and who, at the time of that great destruction, were disembodied by God, and left still under the power, and ultimately to share the fate of the leader in whose sin they acquiesced? Certainly one oft-recorded fact seems to confirm such a theory: for we read that the demons are continually seizing upon the bodies of men, and endeavoring to use them as their own. And may not this propensity indicate a wearisome lack of ease, a wandering unrest, arising from a sense of incompleteness; and longing to escape the intolerable condition of being unclothed; for which they were not created – so intense that, if they can satisfy its craving in not other way, they will even enter into the filthy bodies of swine." 8
Bancroft acknowledges the distinction between fallen angels and demons by the latter's apparent disembodied state of existence. Bancroft continues:
"We find no such propensity on the part of Satan and his angels. They doubtless, still retain their ethereal bodies, for otherwise how could they carry on their conflict with the angels of God? They would be likely to regard with high disdain the gross and unwieldy tabernacles of men. Angels may, indeed, possibly enter human frames; not, however, from inclination, but only because such a course is absolutely necessary for the furtherance of some great conspiracy of evil. That the angels are not mere disembodied spirits seems clear from our Lord's words in Luke 20:34-36: 'And Jesus said unto them, The sons of this world [age] marry, and are given in marriage; but they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world [age] and the resurrection from [Greek ek, 'out of'] the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; neither can they die any more; for they are given in marriage; neither can they die any more; for they are equal unto the angels; and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.' Demons are, therefore, an order of spirit-beings apparently distinct and separate from angels, and which from the intimations of certain passages, seem to be in a disembodied state, having existed in some previous period and place in bodily form."9
This theory validates the doctrine of creation, chaos, and restoration which is of secondary importance in this study. The theory that demons are the disembodied spirits of a pre-adamic race poses two difficulties: (1) the Scriptures nowhere speaks of such a human or humanoid race, and (2) if the Luciferian rebellion took place between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, the fallen angels in question retain their ethereal bodies therefore precluding a disembodied existence. Apparently, however, demons are, in fact, distinguished from exiled angels which is of primary importance to this study.
C. EXILED ENTITIES OF THE LUCIFERIAN REBELLION. Satan, in his primal rebellion, may have drawn a multitude of lesser celestial beings (cf. Matt. 25:41; Rev. 12:4) distinguishable by the propensity to possess in contrasting the spiritual embodiment enjoyed by angels. These beings like angels were autonomous meaning they had the ability to sin or not to sin. This theory provides a great deal of latitude for speculation outside the realm of revelation. It has in its favor, however, simplicity.
D. DISEMBODIED SPIRITS OF THE NEPHILIM. As both the identity and origin of demons, this theory advances the ancient doctrine that demons are the disembodied spirits of the progeny of angels and antediluvian women. This theory has in its favor (1) a Scriptural foundation, and (2) an explanation pertaining to the propensity of these entities to seek re-embodiment. This theory extends beyond that of plausibility to the realm of probability based upon its contextual, grammatical and historical foundations.
"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 [angels] saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, fir that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also that, when the sons of God [angels] came in unto the daughters of men, and thy bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old men of renown. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth" (Gen. 6:1-7, 11-13).
As previously presented, the title "sons of God" is restricted in Old Testament usage to that of angels thus the justification of this angelic identity to provide the very foundation upon which this theory is built. That the "sons of God" are angels has had its difficulties and therefore denied by scholarship from the time of the Church Fathers. This scholarship includes the works of Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Chrysostom, and in modern times by Matthew Henry, Scofield, Keil and Brown. These scholars hold the view that the "sons of God" are godly Sethites, and the "daughters of men" ungodly Cainites who inter-married.
To be sure, C.I. Scofield notes in his study Bible that "Some hold that these "sons of God" were the "angels which kept not their first estate" (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 the testimony to Jehovah committed to the line of Seth (Gen. 4:26). For apostasy there is no remedy but judgment (Isa. 1:27, 24, 25; Heb. 6:4-9; 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 [Enoch] fell (Jude 14,15;Gen.7:11)." Italics mine.
The unseemly possible events recorded in Genesis 6 were understood by both the Septuagint translators and ancient rabbinical sources to be the procreation between fallen angels and human women, in turn, producing a hybrid offspring known as the Nephilim. Similarly it was also understood by the [early] church fathers - emphasis mine. These anomalistic events are reflective of legends and myths of numerous ancient cultures, particularly of the ancient Greeks.
Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.) Wrote a commentary of Genesis 6 entitled Concerning the Giants in he emphasizes that the passage is not a myth. Philo writes:
"And when the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful, they took unto themselves wives of all them who they chose." {ge 6:2.} Those beings, whom other philosophers call demons, Moses usually calls angels; and they are souls hovering in the air. And let no one suppose, that what is here stated is a fable, for it is necessarily true that the universe mut be filled with living things in all its parts, since every one of its primary and elementary portions contains its appropriate animals and such as are consistent with its nature; - the earth containing terrestrial animals, the sea and the rivers containing aquatic animals, and the fire such as are born in the fire (but it is said, that such as these last are found chiefly in Macedonia), and the heaven containing the stars: for these also are entire souls pervading the universe, being unadulterated and divine, inasmuch as they move in a circle, which is the kind of motion most akin to the mind, for every one of them is the parent mind. It is therefore necessary that the air also should be full of living beings. And these beings are invisible to us, inasmuch as the air itself is not visible to mortal sight. (But it does not follow, because our sight is incapable of perceiving the forms of souls, that for the reason there are no souls in the air; but it follows of necessity that they must be comprehended by the mind, in order that like may be contemplated by like. Philo, On the Giants II: 6-9.
Those scholars who oppose the view of this unnatural procreation, hold to the idea that the cause of the Noahic Flood was the result of the faithful lines of Seth failing their position of separation from the line of Cain. The "sons of God" are from the line of Seth and the "daughters of men" were from the line of Cain. The progeny from the unequally yoked unions are called the "Nephilim". There is no clear explanation as to why this position is sanctioned as orthodox.
(1) THE SONS OF SETH AND THE DAUGHTERS OF CAIN. In contrarian to the above orthodox view, Unger states: "There is no proof that the 'daughters of men' were confined to the descendants of the Cainites. On the contrary, the text evidently indicates that the expression means the natural increase of the whole human family, and not a special class. Moreover, the assumption that the 'sons of God' must mean the godly line of Seth seems at variance with the uniform use of that term in the Old Testament where it appears restricted to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).10 To be sure, Gaebelein says, "The designation is never applied in the Old Testament to believers,"........distinctly a New Testament revelation."11
Larkin holds that the "sons of God" were angels as maintained by the ancient Jewish Synagogue and by the Hellenistic Jews both at and before the time of Christ. He further states that this interpretation was not only held by the Christian church prior to the fifth century, but was changed to the "sons of Seth" for two reasons: (1) the worship of angles within the church had been set up, and if the "Sons of God" of Gen. 6:14 were angels and fell, then angels might fall again affecting the worship of angels, and (2) that Celibacy had become an institution within the church, and if it was taught that the angels in heaven did not marry, and yet they were seduced by the beauty of womanhood and descended to fulfill their desires, a weakness of a similar kind (Celibates) might be the more readily excused.12
Larkin continues by pointing out the obvious. The primary objection to the "Angelic Interpretation" is that the angels in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35-36). The conclusion he reaches is that these beings are not sexless, but are always referred to in the masculine gender. This being the case, logic dictates they would not seek such a relationship from each other. The foregoing passages teach that angels do not multiply by procreation.13 There is no need for procreation as angels were created, as far as we know, all at once, and as deathless beings, there are no concerns of extinction - they neither increase or decrease in number. The human institution of marriage, on the other hand, is necessary to prevent the extinction of the human race.
(2) ORIGIN OF THE SETHITE VIEW. During the 5th Century, the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 had become a source of embarrassment to the Church as the church was being met with opposition from the critics of this interpretation. During this time, as mentioned by Larkin, angel worship had become a practice within the church. In addition, Celibacy was an institution of the church, and preservation of the same was necessary even if the Scriptures had to be compromised. Roman Emperor, Julian "the Apostate, (A.D. 361-636) was a devotee of Paganism who, according to tradition, possessed a great intellect. Known for attacking the Doctrine of Christ, produced a work of three volumes "Adversus Christiano." Julian also used the orthodox belief of "angels" to attack Christianity and restored to the Sethite interpretation. Cyril of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria from 412 A.D. to 444 A.D. replaced his orthodox position with that of the Sethite interpretation.
Dr. Wilmington writes, "It was not until the fourth century that another view opposed to the angels of God theory was offered." Past President of Moody Bible Institute, Dr. James M. Gray, writes, 'There is reason to believe that this view would not have changed . . . . had it not been for certain erroneous opinions and practices of Christendom' (Spirits and the Fallen Angels)." Wilmington goes on further to say, that Gray suggests two reasons:14
1. Angel Worship. The Church sometime after the fourth century began worshiping angels, so the natural thing to do would be to deny any angel could do such vile things with humans.
2. Celibacy. If indeed these sons of God were human men, the monks would have scriptural justification for indulging in sexual acts in spite of their official vows of celibacy.
(3) DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED WITH SETHITE VIEW. According to some scholars, there is an intended grammatical antithesis in the text itself. This antithesis establishes a contrast between angelic beings and earthly women and was the understanding among both early church and rabbinical scholarship. This being the case, if God intended to contrast the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain, the text itself would reflect that.
Problematic is the omission of a nuanced phrase or indication of restriction limiting the daughters of men "Adam" to those of the line of Cain. "Men" or "Adam" is not implicative of the human race but rather is explicator of the entire human race. It appears that during the 5th century the church, in departure of sound Hebrew scholarship, imposed a dichotomy of their creation between the daughters of man and the daughters of Cain. Moses wrote: "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 that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose (Gen. 6:1-2). The language used is clearly inclusive to all women even the women of Seth.
According to the rules of logic, inference is the process by which a conclusion is reached by assumed premises though the conclusion is not logically derivable from the premise or premises. The inferences made by those who hold to the lines of Seth and Cain interpretation are (1) that the line of Seth was Godly, and (2) man was referred to as "sons of God" in the Old Testament. These inferences pose such questions as "If the line of Seth was, indeed, Godly, why was not anyone outside of Noah's family spared from the flood? What evidence is there that Noah's sons' wives were from the line of Seth? Were the daughters of Seth unattractive? Does the reading of Genesis 6:2 indicate the manner in which wives where taken? If so, would this be the Godly manner in which the men of Seth would have ensued? There is only one man in the Old Testament to be referred to as a son of God - Adam. Could this be because he was a direct creation of God as opposed to all of his descendants?15
(A) THE ISSUE OF THE JUDGMENT: CATACLYSMIC FLOOD. In contemplating the Noahic Flood, could the actions of the human offspring from the unequally yoked marriages between the lines of Seth and Cain be the backdrop of such a judgement that spare only eight people? It is an unlikely proposition as Jesus' prophetical statement has further reaching implications extending to the second Advent than would that provided by a mere historical event. Jesus said, "As the days of Noah were, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be," These implications will be treated in a subsequent writing.
There is an undeniable connection between the progeny of these immoral relationships and Peter's description of "the crime of certain of these spiritual beings, which seems to refer to a second and deeper apostasy than their complicity in Satan's primeval insurrection."16 This sin deprived these angels of freedom and positions under Satan as principalities, powers, ruler of darkness...(Eph. 6:12). This resulted in the offending angels (bene ha' Elohim), translated "sons of God," being cast by God down to Tartarus, "into the pits of darkness to be reserved unto the judgment." This sin was that of leaving their estate and breaking the bounds of the God-ordained laws to the two worlds.17
These immoral relations have connection with the times of Noah (II Pet. 2:4-5), the crime of Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Gen. 19:5) and the abnormal character of going after "strange flesh" (Jude vv.6-7).18 Wuest gives an explanation concerning the case of Sodom and Gomorrah and "going after strange flesh" (Jude 7): "These angels transgressed the limits of their own natures to invade a realm of created beings of another nature."19
I. D. E. Thomas, who has done extensive research on fallen angels, states: "Not only did these angels leave Heaven, they left it once-for-all. The Greek verb "apoleipo" is in the aorist tense, thus indicating a once-for-all act. By taking the action they did, these angels made a final and irretrievable decision. They crossed the Rubicon. Their action, says Kenneth Wuest, [was apostasy with a vengeance]."20
According to the writer of Genesis, this offspring continued after the flood. "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days and also [after that.]" (Gen.6:4). It has been established that, less eight souls, not only was the line of Cain destroyed in the flood, the line of Seth was as well. There was the subsequent presence of the giants in the land of Canaan of which the Sethite view offers no explanation. Without the insight of a "gene pool issue," from the remaining Nephilim, we cannot understand why God gave the instructions to wipe out every man, woman, and child of certain tribes upon entering the land of Canaan.
According to the account as recorded in Numbers 13:1-33, God instructed Moses to send spies into Canaan. Moses sent Shammua, Shaphat, Caleb, Igal, Oshea, Palti, Gaddiel, Gaddi, Ammiel, Sethur, Nahbi and Geuel to "spy out the land of Canaan. These men returned to Moses "after forty days." It was reported to Moses: "And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" (v. 33). This is a post-flood account whereby the flood destroyed the contamination of the race. Where did these giants come from? Larkin suggests that there were some sporadic cases of angelic intercourse with the daughters of men, and thus the reason for God calling for the extermination of the Canaanites. "This interpretation," Larkins says, "is confirmed by the words of Gen. 6:4—'There were giants (Nephilim) in the earth in those days (thedays before the Flood), and also AFTER THAT.'"21
(B). DEMON SEED. A.W. Pink says, "The Serpent's Seed will be the Antichrist. . . the literal Seed of that old Serpent, the Devil. . . Satan's seed refers to a specific individual, just as [her seed] refers to a specific individual."22 Jesus prophesied: "As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the Days of the Son of Man" (Luke 17:26-27). Pink's statement and Jesus' prophesy is connected by the protoevangelium: "I will put enmity between thee [Satan] and the woman [Eve], and between thy seed [Antichrist] and her seed [Christ]: It [Christ] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel" (Gen. 3:15). According to Larkin, the foregoing passage is goes beyond any implicative idea that Satan can procreate within the physical realm. "From this," says Larkin, "it seems clear that Satan has the power of procreation, and that he will beget a son—THE ANTI-CHRIST," called in 2 Thess. 2:3, the "SON OF PERDITION." While "Perdition" is a PLACE (Rev. 17:8,11), and also a "condition" into which men may fall (1 Tim. 6:9; Heb. 10:39), the author of it is SATAN, and the "Antichrist" in the above passage is called the "SON OF PERDITION" because he is the son of the author of "Perdition," or SATAN."
Larkin goes on to say that Christ was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit without the instrumentality of a human father. Apparently the Antichrist will be born of a woman in imitation of the birth of Christ with Satan as his father. 23
The unholy union of angles and earthly women was Satan's attempt to corrupt the human race. The diabolical mastermind of Satan wanted to hinder the coming of the Son of God, the promised [seed of the woman] who would not only defeat Satan but restore man's dominion as well. God's judgement upon man had to be executed in order to bring an end to the hybrid mix of Satan's seed - the Nephilim.
(C) CHARACTER OF OFFSPRING. Larkin believes that the monstrous character of the "offspring" of the "Sons of God" and the "daughters of men" is proof that the "Sons of God" were not human as their offspring were "Giants"—"Mighty Men." They were so wicked the writer of Genesis writes that "every imagination of the thoughts of their heart was only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5). Again, Larkin points out the obvious: Godly men have married ungodly women, but their offspring have never been such "monstrosities" as was this offspring. Interestingly, the word translated "giant" means the "Fallen Ones," which gives credibility to the fact that the giants of those days were sons of fallen angels.24
Most damaging to the Sethite view is the emergence of the Nephilim as a result of these unholy unions producing such an unnatural offspring. The unnatural offspring and the unnatural procreation are designated as a principle reason for the judgement of the Flood. Notable is the absence of this adulteration of the human genealogy in Noah's case as documented in Genesis 6:9. Noah's family tree is characterized as being "unblemished" as evidenced by the use of the term "tamiym" meaning physical blemishes.
Dr. Dickason admits that there are difficulties in the lines of Seth and Cain position and presents six points of consideration.25
1. He concedes that outside of Genesis 6 the exact term "the sons of God" (bene elohim) is used only of angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). He goes to to say that references in support of the other view do not use bene elohim as angels are termed as elohim, bene elohim, or bene elim because they belong to a class of mighty beings.
2. Dickason further concedes that the context presents the cohabitation as usual and probably one of the causes of the Noahic flood. In reference to Matthew 22:30, the passage to refute the angle view, does not preclude such cohabitation, he says, the point being that they do not procreate among themselves. Scripture reveals that angels have taken on the form of man and performed other human functions and some were mistaken for men sought for sexual use by the men of Sodom (Gen. 18:1-19:5).
3. The justification for confining "daughters of men" to ungodly women is questionable although the term could be a class designation for "womankind," in contradistinction to the class of sons of God or angelic beings.
4. The Hebrew term nephilim means "fallen ones" and designates the unusual offspring of the unholy union. The nephilim translated by the Greek Septuagint as gigantes, rendered "giants" in the King James Version gives the idea that the nephilim were not of monestrous size but rather that of "earth-born" (gegenes). This term of was used of Titans, who were partly of celestial and partly of terrestrial origin.26
5. If Genesis 6 did not refer to angelic beings, it would be impossible to find the judgement of God upon the angels who sinned and are bound (II Pet. 2:4-5; Jude 6-7). The peculiar sin of the angels is compared in Peter and Jude with sexual perversions as in Sodom and Gomorrah. In addition, the time and sequence of mention connects this angelic sin closely with the flood, and if the sin were only the sin of the original fall with Satan, all evil angels would be bound. Adding to this, this sin was of such a nature that God deprived these angels of freedom and positions under Satan as principalities, powers, and rulers of darkness (Eph. 6:12).
6. Lastly, Dickason writes that the very type of unusual sexual sin was involved is predicated by the language of both II Peter and Jude. The angelic sin was gross immorality further defined as going after "strange flesh." These angles (Jude 6) did not keep their own domain [archen-place of assigned authority and activity] but abandoned their proper abode. No other angelic sin or human sin can begin to described in this amazing and unparalleled fashion.27 Dickason goes on to say that "if we would postulate on the satanic purpose in such a crime, we might say that he designed to corrupt the line of the Redeemer (Genesis 3:15) to keep Him from becoming truly human to represent us on the cross. If the whole race were to eventually become hybrid angelic-human, then Christ could not have become a genuine and complete representative. God's judgment in the flood punished human folly and destroyed the monstrous offspring of the ungodly union."
Implicative of this age is further prophetical considerations given by our Lord: "But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matt. 24:37, 39). Mankind will, again, experience gene pool contamination from angelic beings as recorded in antediluvian history. In all probability, this event will coincide with Satan and his angels being cast out of the heavenlies (Rev. 12:7-12) three and a half years into the Tribulation Period. The understanding of the events that led to the judgement of the Flood, is essential to: (1) predictions regarding the second Advent, understanding and anticipating Satan's devices, and (2) contemplation of delusions to come upon the whole earth as a major feature of end-time prophecy. G.H. Pember is of the opinion that their return is to be one of the signs of the end. At this point, it would be mere speculation to entertain the possibility of this breeding taking place now as many of the end time signs are taking place in a twofold fulfillment.
CONCLUSION. It is advanced and established that the scriptural contrasting of disembodied demonic spirits with those of angelic celestial bodies reveals two separate classes of evil entities. Angels are a direct creation of God and are in direct relationship to Him. Angels were created "en mass" (Col. 1:16-17) and whose existence antedates that of both humanity and demons by countless ages. They are neither subject to death nor extinction and were created holy and with autonomy. Many of these beings are associated with powers and rulings (Eph. 6:11-12). These offices are executed from the heavenlies. Scripture reveals that these beings can move or fly swiftly.
Demons are not a creation of God (Gen. 6:4) . The are disembodied sprits of the progeny from the unholy union of fallen angels and antediluvian women. As a matter of divine revelation, these entities, when not embodied, walk - not fly (Matt 12:43). They have the propensity to possess due to their disembodied state. The scriptural contrasting of demonic disembodied spirits with that of angelic celestial bodies reveal two separate classes of evil entities with the former having the propensity to possess.
Endnotes
1. Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, MI, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977, p. 200.
2. There are two Biblical accounts of possession by a fallen angel. Each account the angel in question is identified as the chief of fallen angels - Lucifer. Accounts in question: Judas and the Antichrist.
3. J.A. Seiss, The Apocalypse: A Series of Special Lectures, Vol. II, 8th ed., New York, NY, Charles C. Cook, 1901, pp. 97-99.
4. Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth, Philadelphia, PA, Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate, 1918, p. 21.
5. Jimmy L. Hayes, Are Demons For Real?, Camilla, GA, Andersonville Theological Seminary, 1996, p. 22. I concur with Dr. Hayes in that there was not a human pre-adamic race.
6. R.B. Thieme, Creation, Chaos & Restoration, Houston, TX, R.B. Thieme Bible Ministries, 1995, p. 11. On this note, see Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1990, pp. 650-51. Waltke writes that in Hebrew syntax a sequential construction is expressed by a (waw) + verb + noun word order. A disjunctive or contrastive construction is expressed by a waw + noun + verb order as in Genesis 1:2.
7. Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record, San Diego, CA, Creation-Life Publishers, 1976, p. 48. This book is a scientific and devotional commentary on the Book of Beginnings. I highly recommend it to any serious student of the Bible in spite of its scientific underpinning. The late Dr. Morris was a highly gifted and respected scientist. Both his academic background and his professional experience were in the areas of hydrology and geology. Dr. Morris taught adult and collect Bible classes for over thirty years. This said, however, Morris did not receive any formal theological training which inherently includes the study of the original languages.
8. Emery H. Bancroft, Elemental Theology, 4th ed., Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan Publishing House, 1997, pp. 339-40.
9. Ibid., p. 340.
10. Merrill Unger, Biblical Demonology, Grand Rapids, MI, Kregal Publications, 1994, p. 47.
11. A.C. Gaebelelein, The Angels of God, New Hope, NY, 1924, p. 12.
12. Clarence Larkin, The Spirit World, Glennside, PA, Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate, 1921, pp. 26-27.
13. Ibid., p. 27.
14. Harold L. Wilmington, Wilmington's Guide to the Bible, Tyndale House Publishers, Carol Stream, IL, 1981, p. 783. See also James M. Gray, Spirits and the Fallen Angels in Light of the Old and New Testaments, New York, 1906, p. 94.
15. "Sons of Eloim" is confined to the direction creation of the Creator Himself and not to those born after their own order. See Luke 3:38. In Luke's record of Jesus' genealogy, only Adam (the only human) is called a "son of God."
16. Unger, Ibid., p. 49.
17. See R.B. Thieme, Satan and Demonism, Houston, TX, R.B. Thieme Bible Ministries, p. 11. Thieme says that the procreation was deliberate. He also states: "The union produced half-human, half-angelic creatures, the (Nephilim), in an attempt to contaminate the purity of the human race. Their insidious goal was to corrupt human genetics and thereby foil the virgin birth of the Savior who had to be true and pure humanity. This genetic attack on the human race necessitated the worldwide judgment of the Noahic Flood (Gen. 6:12-13) to annihilate the mixed-breed offspring. The angels involved were incarcerated in darkness, chained with eternal bonds to prevent further attempts to destroy the line of Christ (2 Pet. 2:4)."
18. According to some scholars, this unholy union provided the basis for the pantheons of mythology with accounts of gods descending to earth to take the beautiful women of that day. The mutant half-human and half-angel progeny from these union were the demigods and the heros. Within many cultures, these recollections of the true events of Genesis 6 are recalled by the legends of Orpheus, Minos, Perseus and Hercules.
19. Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Vol. IV, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1973, p. 241.
20. I.D.E. Thomas, The Omega Conspiracy, Oklahoma City, OK, Hearthstone Publishing, 1990, p. 90. Cf. pp. 31-33, 83-110, 136-172; Kenneth Wuest Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 240. Thomas comes from a longline of Welsh preachers and has served as commentator for B.B.C. (British Broadcasting Corporation), and as college president.
21. Larkin, Ibid., p. 34.
22. Arthur W. Pink, The Antichrist, Grand Rapids, MI, Kregel Publications, 2001, p. 46.
23. Larkin, Ibid.
24. Ibid., p. 36.
25. C. Fred Dickason, Angels Elect & Evil, Chicago, IL, Moody Press, 1995, pp. 241-46. I highly recommend this book to any serious student of angelology. Dr. Dickason is a highly respected authority on the subject of angels. He holds a Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, professor and chairman of the Theology Department of Moody Bible Institute until his retirement in 1995. He continues to be a lecturer on angelology and the spirit world.
26. Unger, Ibid., p. 48.
27. See John Flemming, The Fallen Angels and the Heroes of Mythology, pp. 175-76. |
