The Reformed Arsenal site is actually named after Tony Arsenal and is described as, “a theological blog dedicated to providing Reformed content for the edification of the Church” and Tony as, “a seminary-trained layperson with Master of Arts degrees in Church History and Theology…member of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church.”
Tony authored an article titled When Giants Walked the Earth: The Sons of God and the Daughters of Man (Gen. 6:1–8) the titled of which alerts me to keep an eye out for whether he answers these key questions: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s his usage? Do those two usages agree?
Within the first paragraph he wrote of, “the dreaded ‘Nephilim’—giants and mighty men of renown” so we will have to attempt to discern what that means.
He noted, “For centuries, imaginations have run wild here. Ancient Jewish apocryphal books and many modern sensationalists have interpreted this” about which I wrote a paper titled How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.
An utterly on point statement he made is, “we must resist the urge to read the Bible as mythology. We must read it as theology” and since fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper, we will have to seen what happens in this case.
Right off the bat he jumps millennia away from the Bible, right past Ancient Jewish apocryphal books so as to land on and thus begin in 1859 AD with A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens—for whatever reason.
Based on that book, chaps 4-5, “we discover that the tragedy of Genesis 6 is not about angels acting like men, but about the people of God acting like the world” which certainly seems to mean that he is rejecting the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, which was the Angel view as I proved in my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.
And right on schedule, he asserts that the Gen 6 affair, as I term it, “details the catastrophic moral decline of humanity resulting from the intermarriage of the godly line of Seth and the worldly line of Cain, demonstrating that spiritual compromise inevitably leads to total depravity and necessitates the severe mercy of divine judgment.”
As you just got a taste of, that late-comer of a view is based on myth and prejudice: we will have to see if he provides any reason whatsoever to, at this stage at least, merely assert any such things.
He quotes the affair thusly:
6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
He admits, “‘sons of God’…the book of Job uses this phrase to refer to angels” yet, “the immediate context…just spent two chapters tracing two distinct lineages: the line of Cain (the ‘daughters of man,’ defined by worldly beauty, polygamy, and violence) and the line of Seth (the ‘sons of God,’ defined by calling on the name of the Lord).”
He artificially inserted sons of God and daughters of men since the previous two chapters don’t specify any such thing of those two lineages—nothing anywhere does.
Note how ungracefully prejudice it is to condemn an entire lineage as “defined by,” mind you, “worldly beauty, polygamy, and violence.” I’m unaware of any text that says anything about Cainites and worldly beauty.
We only have one example of one Cainite who engaged in polygamy, Lamech.
As for violence, we have two examples: Cain, who murdered Able, and Lamech who appears to have killed one or two men in self-defense, “I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me.”
Thus, based on 2 or perhaps 3 maybe sins, Tony condemns an entire lineage: that’s ungracefully worldly, that’s prejudice.
As for Sethites, “defined by calling on the name of the Lord” well, he coopted that and applied it only exclusively to Sethies based on a text which actually generically states, “To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord.”
Also, note that he is actually teaching that that entire lineage who was, “defined by,” mind you, “calling on the name of the Lord” didn’t call on the name of the Lord since what Tony is teaching is that Sethites were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood: so, that’s rather odd.
Tony asserts, “Here, the principle of context is your greatest hermeneutical tool. Moses, the author, is not introducing a new cast of supernatural characters out of nowhere.” Yet, there’s no hermeneutical principal that thou shalt not introduceth a new casteth of characters out of nowhereth. It’s not even common sensical since, by definition, any new character that is newly introduced into a text out of nowhere was merely introduced into the text out of nowhere.
Thus, we can make the same impotent complaint any time any text does that: Adam/male and Eve/female are mentioned in Gen 1 and Gen 2 yet the mention of the serpent is introducing a new supernatural character out of nowhere (“the great dragon…that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan” Rev chaps 12 and 20). The Bible is peppered with instances such as this.
Tony Arsenal then asserts:
The Nephilim: Tyrants, Not Demigods
This union produced the “Nephilim.” The word comes from the Hebrew verb naphal, meaning “to fall” or “to fall upon.” These were not half-angelic monsters; they were “fallen ones,” or perhaps more accurately, “those who fall upon others”—tyrants, bullies, and warriors. They were “mighty men… men of renown.”
Taken as is, that was merely a false dichotomy: Nephilim could just be said to have been both, “Demigods…half-angelic…tyrants, bullies, and warriors…mighty men… men of renown.”
Since Tony is basing his views on a novel from 1859 AD, he assures us, “the values of the Cainite city: power, weaponry, and the ‘Song of the Sword’…famous warriors like Lamech. They sought ‘renown’ (literally ‘a name’) for themselves” which is pure fantasy.
He then has a section on, “The Depth of Human Depravity” based on, “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…” but his views are based on a novel so that taints his subjective views about who the key players were.
I wonder why it’s only strictly exclusively male Sethies and only strictly exclusively female Cainites.
Why weren’t there any attractive female Sethies nor any attractive male Cainites.
The Angel view actually elucidates why there was such a gender binary: Angels are always described as looking like human males so, by definition, they needed to marry females—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
His conclusion concludes with a mini-sermon about, “a sober warning to the church in every age,” etc.
After concluding, he provided, “Key Terms & Concepts” such as the mythical prejudice, “that identifies the ‘sons of God’ as the godly lineage of Seth” who were terrible sinners, “and the ‘daughters of man’ as the ungodly lineage of Cain” since we have 2-3 possible sins of record for them.
Recall that we were also left with a lot of unanswered questions. Yet, Tony Arsenal also posted Excursus: Angels or Men? A Defense of the Sethite View of Genesis 6 so let’s see if we get more specificity therein.
He poisons the well by referring to, “the sensational idea that these were fallen angels cohabiting with human women” and claims for himself, “that they were, in fact, the godly line of Seth intermarrying with the worldly line of Cain” based on myth and prejudice.
Yet, he also claims for himself that, “This is not merely a matter of personal preference or avoiding the supernatural. It is a matter of sound hermeneutics. It is about letting Scripture interpret Scripture rather than letting mythology dictate our theology” so he gives it another go.
He makes a vague passing reference to, “the New Testament’s teaching on the nature of angels, and rightfully places the blame for the flood on human, not angelic, rebellion.”
Well, that’s myopic since there were some three causes for the flood: fallen Angels’ actions, Nephilim’s actions, human actions.
We can know that blame was placed on humans since that’s Gen 6’s focus, after laying out the premise.
We can know that blame was placed on Nephilim since they didn’t make it past the flood.
We can know that blame was placed on Angels since Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible. So, if they’re not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we’ve no idea to what sin they’re referring.
Fascinatingly, Tony notes, “The Argument from Immediate Context” which pertains to, “The primary rule of biblical interpretation is context. A text cannot mean what it never meant. Before we run to the book of Job or the New Testament, we must ask: What has the author of Genesis been doing for the last two chapters?” but then, pray tell, again, why run off to 1859 AD as a starting point?
Again, what, “the author of Genesis” was, “doing for the last two chapters” was the same thing he did in Gen 1-2 just before mentioning the serpent.
This time, he accuses, “the line of Cain,” mind you (a whole line), as, “a civilization defined by worldly power, technological advancement, polygamy, and violence.”
And, of course, “the line of Seth,” including the terrible sinners, as, “a lineage,” mind you, “defined by the image of God and calling upon the name of the Lord. They are the ‘sons of God’—humanity centered on the Creator” whose since premised the flood.
He then hyperbolically asserts, “When you turn the page to Genesis 6, the text does not suddenly introduce a new cast of Sci-Fi characters” and claims, “To import angels into this narrative destroys the literary flow of the book” so will he say that to import the serpent—Satan, the fallen Cherub—into that narrative destroys the literary flow of the book?
He notes:
Proponents of the Angelic View often point to the book of Job, where the phrase “sons of God” clearly refers to angels (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7). They argue that because it means angels there, it must mean angels here. This is a word-study fallacy. It ignores how the term is used elsewhere in the Pentateuch and the Prophets.
I’m unaware that any holder of the Angel view is that generic about it. It’s more like that appealing to texts in Job (as well as texts such as Psalm 82), considering the gender binary issue, taking Jude and Peter into consideration, consulting the views of Jews and Christians starting in BC days makes for a combo of biblical interpretation and application.
He then makes an, “Argument from the Nature of Angels”:
Perhaps the strongest argument against the Angelic View comes from the lips of our Lord Jesus Christ. In Matthew 22:30, Jesus addresses the Sadducees regarding the resurrection, stating, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”
If that’s, “the strongest” then it’s an instant KO!
Tony seems to imply that his misreading of Jesus words are that it’s an all-encompassing statement about all Angels, in all places, at all times and, in fact, it’s ontological, it’s about, “the Nature of Angels.”
Yet, note how Jesus’ statement was very detailed, very nuanced, He employed qualifying term, “angels in heaven”—with some 40 English versions adding a second qualifier, “the [1] Angels of God [2] in heaven.”
So, not all Angels at all times in all places but the loyal ones, “of God” and, “in heaven” (not on Earth) which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.
Tony Arsenal asserts, “argument against the Angelic View comes from the lips of our Lord Jesus Christ” but that’s because he misread, misunderstood, misinterpreted and misapplied.
Furthermore, he asserts, “Angels are spiritual beings; they do not possess reproductive organs, nor do they engage in marriage or sexual relations.”
“Angels are spiritual beings; they do not possess reproductive organs” that’s a non-sequitur since humans can be spiritual but we do possess such organs.
Angels are described as looking just like human males so why would they only be missing THE key features of the male anatomy?
I have a feeling that Tony just confused spiritual and spirit. Yet, there’s no indication that Angels are spirits (and one poorly translated modern English word in Heb 1 doesn’t change that) since Tony asserted, “To argue that Genesis 6 teaches otherwise requires us to assume that rebellious angels somehow gained the biological ability to procreate” yet, that isn’t the case. Rather, Angels are described as looking just like human males and performing physical actions and without any indication that such isn’t their ontology.
He can only conclude of Angels, “nor do they engage in marriage or sexual relations” after rejecting the original, traditional, and majority view on the Gen 6 affair, not incorporating Jude and Peter, etc.
He further argues:
Finally, we must look at the judgment that follows. In Genesis 6:3, immediately after this intermarriage begins, God says, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh.” Then, in verse 7, God declares, “I will blot out man whom I have created.”
If the primary culprits were fallen angels, why is the judgment directed exclusively at humanity? If this was a case of demonic invasion where humans were the victims or passive participants, the punishment of a global flood wiping out mankind seems disproportionate and misdirected.
However, if the sin was human rebellion—the godly line willfully compromising with the wicked line—then the judgment fits the crime perfectly. God judges man because the sin was man’s.
That’s myopic: humans, Angels, and Nephilim are all referred to as man/men.
Yet, the Bible is primarily an anthropological text, not a theological one, it’s focus is humanity’s origins, fall, history, and redemption. Thus, any and every text which references anything that’s not human, inevitably and quickly focuses back on humanity: how does any given non-human reference affect humanity.
So, of course after providing the premise for the flood, which includes human corruption, it details the effect upon humanity—leaving it to Jude and Peter to succinctly tell us about the punishment of Angels.
His conclusion emotively includes, “The Angelic View may be sensational and dramatic,” he adds, “monsters from the sky,” “but it fails the test of Scripture” but accords to a late-comer of a view and a novel from the 1800 AD, “It breaks the narrative flow,” just like any and every text that introduces a new character, “contradicts Jesus’ teaching on angelic nature,” which is a misguided assertion, “and confuses the justice of God” which it does not, it just gives a more encompassing view of it so as to not be myopic.
His, “Key Terms & Concepts” this time are much like last time: ungracefully worldly mythical prejudice, “godly descendants of Seth…ungodly descendants of Cain.”
And, he included, “angels who materialized or possessed bodies” for which there’s no indication nor indication that they would need to since they’re already ontologically physical.
Thus, overall, with as many warnings/admonitions to, “read the Bible…as theology” assisted by hermeneutics, we ended up with unanswered questions, misrepresentations and mythical prejudice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply