Strange Sex
Strange Sex
As we later draw this writing to a close, we will come back to Lot’s actions and cover the rest of what happened that fateful night. Yet, we will first discuss the Scriptural and historical evidence supporting our position that angel and human reproduction was/is possible and had happened in the past. You will soon discover that a mountain of evidence supports our position.
First, one of the most hotly debated topics of all time in Biblical discussions centers on whether Gen. 6:1-4 is talking about human/human sexual unions or angelic/human copulation. The vast majority of doubting teachers and preachers quickly seize on the passage at Matt. 22:30 with language clearly indicating the angels in Heaven are not given to marriage. This is their evidence against angelic/human copulation. Yet, we would quickly retort that the angels in Gen. 6 are not angels in good standing with God in Heaven, but rather fallen beings that had left Heaven. Thus, Matt. 22:30 would not apply to them. These angels sinned and followed Satan when he left Heaven coming to this world where they were subject to the same physical laws that apply to all created beings in this physical environment. These created beings (the fallen angels) are subject to the same laws as we physical humans are in many respects; nonetheless, there is very likely a differing amount of physical strength and power when comparing one angelic being to another. For instance, Satan would be stronger than any other fallen angel and be able to do more law bending than other fallen angels. Finally, God can bend His own laws of creating physics for purposes He chooses to accomplish anytime He desires. As a consequence, Matt. 22:30 does not sufficiently disprove angelic/human copulation.
The idea that Gen. 6 refers specifically to human to human contact for reproductive purposes is a more modern thinking. The famous early New Testament church fathers and later historians Josephus, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Philo of Alexandria, Julian, Tertullian, Gesenius, and others collectively thought Gen. 6 spoke directly about the fallen agels having sexual unions with the daughters of mankind and, thus, producing supernatural humanoid giants for offspring. All known pre-Christian scholars of record claim this passage refers to angel/human reproduction. Moreover, numerous historical fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran clearly support angel/human unions producing live offspring. Also, the famous pseudepigraphal work known as the Book of Enoch from circa 200 B.C., which extensively covers the topic in great detail, lends support to the angel/human unions. Utlimately, many ancient sources refer to angel/human copulation producing offspring.
Contained within another well known intertestamental writing, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is, The Testament of Naphtali (c. 500-200 B.C.) which overwhelmingly supports our angelic/human interpretation of events in Sodom and before the Flood as well. Specifically, it states, “…become not as Sodom, which changed the order of its nature, in like manner also the Watchers changed the order of their nature, who also the Lord cursed at the Flood, and for their sakes made desolate the earth, that it should be uninhabited and fruitless.” (Used also in the Book of Enoch, and numerous other ancient writings, the term Watchers exclusively means fallen angels; virtually all scholars concur.) The author of the above passage supports our position that fallen angels had sex with human women before the Flood, and again at Sodom during the time of Lot. Clearly, that author comments on the sin of the Watchers/fallen angels’ change and states that the same type of sin was committed at Sodom. The Watchers sinned in changing their natural order by leaving their spiritual state and entering into the physical realm. The people of Sodom were willing to offer their daughters/wives in an attempt to change their natural order from normal flesh to a supernatural order. If the author had thought that Sodom’s sin was homosexual, then logic dictates they would have thought that the Watchers committed some sexual act on each other. If this had been the case, then how could angel to angel sex have ever caused God’s condemnation of mankind at the Flood? Ultimately, numerous historians and Bible commentators, long before us, understood the sin of Sodom to be something other than homosexuality.
The preeminent Septuagint also supports the fallen angel/human copulation interpretation. The Septuagint is a Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament. The Septuagint was began to be translated around 300 years before the birth of Jesus Christ, when the Greek empire had just taken control of all Judea along with northern Africa including Egypt. In a short period of time, the Grecial empire required its subjugates to deal with the governmental and business affairs through the Greek language. As a consequence, the many Jews of the day would have been forced to learn Greek and speak it fluently. History shows several million Greek speaking Jews (living outside of Judea mainly) needed a Greek translation of their Holy Bible. That translation is called the Septuagint. The Septuagint is universally accepted by all scholars and clearly indicates that “the sons of God” at Gen. 6 were fallen angels from Heaven, not human/human marriages.
An ancient belief in the practice of humans and supernatural beings copulating is as well established as the great Flood of Noah’s time. Nearly all teachers and preachers of the Holy Bible promote their belief of a catastrophic flood during Noah’s time with a variety of evidence. Worldwide historical evidence from many differing cultures indicates such an event actually happened. In virtually all cultures and their histories, it is well known and documented how long ago a world-ending period flood prevailed with few souls being saved. While many of these accounts differ in the details, nearly every culture known to man has in its ancient history a worldwide flood epoch. The same is true for heavenly beings copulating with mortal women and producing giant supernatural offsrping. Historically, a large variety of diverse ancient cultures believe heavenly beings came to reproduce with mortal women: Sumer, Assyria, Egyptian, Greco-Roman, Polynesia, India, Inca/Mayan, Native American, etc. This is not some recent space age belief system that has emerged. Many ancient cultures claim that giant superhuman offspring were introduced into our world through sex between supernatural beings and human women. As history and archaeology have proven, truth often resides in myth.
It is difficult to document a single source in the early New Testament church that taught Gen. 6:1-4 was something other than an extremely odd, supernatural event. With such complete agreement, one wonders why Jesus Christ never straightened anyone out in the matter if they were wrong. There is no record of any such attempt by Jesus. If the entire world was wrong in believing the angel/human sexual unions produced offspring, He would have likely addressed the situation, and afterwards, Paul would have as well. The fact that there is no mention anywhere of Him attempting to correct this belief supports the truth and legitimacy of angelic and human copulation.
The exact date when Jewish teachers began to alter their original teachings surrounding Sodom’s sin from that fallen angel/human sex to some form of human/human homosexuality between men is somewhat obscure. The political climate in Palestine during the 1st century B.C. provides a clear motivation for the change. The Greco-Roman empire, which had already dominated Israel for a couple of centuries, was greatly despised in all Judea. Homosexuality was a known and commonly accepted part of their culture that would not have been easily accepted as a legitimate lifestyle by the Jews. A change in dogma probably came about through some errant teachers’ attempts to use whatever means possible to demonize their oppressors. Certainly this wasn’t the first time in history that a preacher knowingly and incorrectly perpetuated a false teaching merely to please his audience. The simple answer is that Jewish teachers used homosexuals as easy targets for political reasons. Once this change and wrong interpreptation of Lots’ story was promoted, it merely became the popular understanding. Yet, popularity does not determine correctness.
Those who scoff at our understanding generally argue that the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis 6 refers to a line of men from Seth’s lineage whom they consider to be godly men. They continue their falsehood by offering the “daughters of men” as applying to a lineage from Cain’s posterity, being considered rebellious non-believers.
There are only four passages of Scripture where the exact phrase sons of God occurs in the Old Testament. Obviously, the phrase is used twice in Gen. 6:2, 4. The other three are in the book of Job (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). In the Job passages, all Biblical scholars universally accept the phrase as referring to angelic beings only. Logically, the two times sons of God is offered at Genesis 6 should be considered angelic as well. Many scholars concur.
If sons of God was supposed to mean sons of Seth, then why aren’t they plainly called by Seth’s name in Scripture? Essentially, numerous errant teachers say that Seth means God. Seth’s name does not mean God. Seth is not God. (Seth’s name means, appointed, substituted, put, etc.)
In Hebrew, “daughters of men” means daughters of Adam. The same word used for Adam throughout the Old Testament means mankind in general and is most often translated men or man but is never used as Cain or any possible connection to that name. Cain’s name means, acquisition or a possession. It does not mean men.
If some unstated Sethite line was intended for sons of God and intended to represent some supposedly godly men, then wouldn’t these same men taking by force some supposed ungodly women for wives make their character as godly men highly suspect? Godly men don’t take wives of all they choose amongst a group of women who are supposedly evil themselves. Calling them godly doesn’t make sense, and, thus, calls into question that whole interpretation of the phrase.
Numerous major flaws exist in the line of reasoning that argues Genesis 6 is speaking of two separate groups of humans. Instead, we assert that the passage is referring to two separate groups of distinct beings. Scripture declares that the union of fallen angels and humans reproducing giant offspring corrupted the entire Earth, except for Noah and his immediate named family. Very likely some of Noah’s unnamed offspring would have fallen prey to this corruption; however, according to Gen. 6:9, he alone preserved his bloodline from these strange flesh unions. His three named sons of Japheth, Ham, and Shem along with their four wives collectively remained untainted by this strange flesh defilement. The entire world had grown so corrupt by this practice that God demanded the entire population be destroyed in the Flood. Noah and the other seven were all that survived according to Scripture. Unequivocally, Gen. 6:1-4 refers to two distinct, separate groups. Had there not been any differentiation intended, then logically the passage would have merely spoken of them collectively as sons and daughters of man. In Gen. 6:5, all of mankind is condemned short of Noah and his immediate family (Gen. 6:9-13). This was a direct result of the whole of mankind following after the practice performed by these two distinct groups of beings. Some have tried to show the language of Gen. 6:5 as proof that all of mankind is the subject in the previous passage of Gen. 6:1-4, not a class of fallen angels and human women. This claim ignores the fact that the subject at hand in Gen. 6 is focused on man’s role and subsequent punishment, and not specifically on the bahavior of the fallen angelic beings in the same story. God saved direct comment of these fallen angels for other passages in the Holy Bible. (See–E.W. Bullinger’s, The Companion Bible: Appendix 23 & Appendix 25.
Apparently, Satan’s aim was to destroy any chance that Jesus Christ could later be born of a virgin through an exceptable bloodline. The Father and the Son had long ago agreed to create man and offer him salvation and eternal life through that Messiah and Savior to be born into the womb of a virgin. If Satan had accomplished physically perverting the blood of all people, then Christ’s saving sacrifice couldn’t have ever been accomplished. Many people struggle with accepting a God that would allow one such as Satan to do such horrific things. Yet, man gave himself over to Satan and fornication. God didn’t make anyone do it. God has allowed mankind to prove how much we need a loving God by our following in the fallen state of our enemy. Until we realize there is help from the Almighty to strengthen us, we will continue to fall prey. God currently works behind the scenes primarily with individuals. He will soon be working in the forefront with many, as at the end He will plead His case and offer help to all that will hear.
While Noah and his family were saved, this type of perverted fornicating activity between angels and humans didn’t end at the Flood. Only the defiled humans and their tainted offspring were destroyed, not the fallen angels. They continue to exist right here in our world. At Sodom, God allowed another opportunity to corrupt all of mankind. This occurred at the time leading up to our discussion of Lot in Genesis 19. If this is the correct understanding from Scripture, then logic would dictate that additional passages must exist which support such bizarre events happening, even after the Flood. One clear statement for us to consider is back at Gen. 6:4. Notice, “…There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God…” The time called “after that” was just prior to what was happening at Sodom!
Bullinger and many others believe Satan targeted specific tribes in Canaan. The names of numerous of the targeted tribes are as follows: Canaanites, Philistines, Kenites, Kenizites, Anakim, Emim, Horim, Zanzummim, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perrizites, Rapha, Rephaims, Amorites, Girgashites, and Jebusites. In the case of the Anakim (Nu. 13:22, 28, 32-33; Deut. 9:2), their name meant of long necks which probably describes a physical deformity resulting from the genetics of humans and angels mixing. In addition, the infamous enemy of Israel, Goliath, was a giant most likely descended from these unions. Another giant, evidently a blood brother to Goliath, had a most unusual deformity exhibiting one extra finger on each hand and an extra toe on each foot (2Sam. 21:20-22; 1Chron. 20:6-8).
Interestingly, at Judges 1:6 the armies of Israel punished the Canaanites after encountering them in their land. Their punishment after being conquered was to have a finger on each hand and a toe on each foot removed. There were many accounts of the giants in Canaan according to the Holy Bible (Deut. 2:11, 20; 3:11-13; Jos. 12:4; 13:12; 15:8; 17:15; 18:16; etc.). Satan’s efforts to destroy the bloodline through angelic and human copulation is the best explanation for the deformities and giants present in the area of Canaan.
Mutants in nature often exhibit deformities; it is no surprise that these giants did as well. Nature, through the laws of physics that God put in place at creation, makes it difficult for mutant creatures to survive. Ultimately, these giants perished. Common sense indicates that once a giant was born, man would have tried to keep the bloodline of these creatures pure in order to enable them to produce more giant-like supernatural beings. To what length mankind went in attempting to keep these gigantic bloodlines productive is not known. In time though, the blood of these mutants became watered down. Does any proof exist that these giants ran amok within man’s genetic past? The genetic markers providing this point may exist within modern technological advances.
Scripture from the New Testament further speaks directly to a corruption happening again at Sodom. In Jude 6-7, Scripture proclaims, “…And the angels that sinned which kept not their first estate, but left their habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengenace of eternal fire…” These fallen ones had left their original estate, meaning their original home in the spiritual realm. Additionally, the word habitation means their bodies. Yes, they left their spiritual bodies and took on a new form here in our physical world. In fact, the only other place in the New Testament where this same word habitation is used above at Jude 6, is rendered house at 2Cor. 5:2. Universally, everyone agrees that the house in 2Cor. 5:2 refers to the spiritual body which the saints will acquire at the resurrection.
There is another New Testament passage we want to examine before going back to Lot and Genesis 19. This one, as with Jude, clearly and directly connects the sin which occurred before the Flood to that which happened later at Sodom. Notice, “…And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly. And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly…”–2Pet. 2:5-6; KJV. These statements about Noah’s flood and Sodom & Gomorrah are prefaced by, “For if God spared not the angels that sinned.” Scripture draws a direct connection between the sin of Sodom being the same as that which brought about the Flood, which was the result of fallen angel and human copulation.
Bullinger concurs with our position that fornication between angels and humans continued after the Flood. In The Companion Bible, he offers sound reasoning regarding the repeated occurence of angel and human copulation after the Flood. Specifically, in Appendix 25, he says, “So that ‘after that’, i.e. after the Flood, there was a second irruption of these fallen angels evidently smaller in number, and more limited in area, for they were for the most part confined to Canaan, and were infact known as ‘the nations of Canaan’. It was for the destruction of these, that the sword of Israel was necessary, as the Flood had been before. As to the date of this second irruption, it is evidently soon after it became known that the seed was to come through Abraham.” Once God chose Abraham as the direct seedline through which Jesus Christ would later be born, our adversary the Devil targeted his bloodline for destruction.
One final point for now demands attention and an answer before we return to Lot. According to the scholars that deny our claims, they state that sons of God means sons of Seth; supposedly Godly men. Admittedly, a direct lineage from Seth can be traced to Noah and his family. As a result, all of Noah’s line would be considered of Sethite stock. However, one essential factor these scholars must have totally confused in their formula is if all of the daughters of men supposedly died off during the Flood, then how could Gen. 6:1-4 ever make sense? Obviously, if only Sethites survived the Flood then there is absolutely no possibility of any sons of God coming into any non-existant daughters of men at some other later date. In other words, after the Flood virtually all of mankind to this day would be considered sons of Seth (i.e.-sons of God) according to their theory. None of the daughters of men were to have survived! Consequently, it would be impossible for the same sin to have occurred ever again. Are we to believe that the sons of God came into the sons of God after the Flood? Certainly not!
Many people will continue to deny any possibility that angels from Heaven could ever come down and physically impregnate human women. They argue that the two cannot mix, because angels are from the spirit world and humans from the physical. We refute this by first giving consideration to a law in nature, created by God, which says life comes from pre-existing life of the same kind. With that in mind, consider that Heb. 2:7 states that mankind was created just a little less than angelic beings, meaning temporarily in power and strength. Furthermore, add to this fact that men have entertained visiting angels unknowingly (Heb. 13:2). The evidence weighs heavily in favor of our position that men and angels are much more similar and closer in nature than different; especially when both are in this dimension.
Lastly, if one is to believe that spirit beings cannot possibly mix with humankind and produce offspring, then they may be denying the physical existence of Jesus Christ. Indeed, if their position is true, then the mother Mary could not have truly been the actual mother of our Savior. For He, Messiah, certainly came from the spirit realm and was somehow impregnated into the womb of His physical and human mother through the activity of God (John 4:24). Please think long on this point. Denial regarding the possibility of spirit and physical ever having the ability to naturally procreate, even under extreme circumstances, may be construed as a (neo-gnostic?) position that forbids Christ having come in the flesh!
Righteous Lot: Forgotten Hero
