Ask Dr. Couch #87

Dr. Couch, what is your view of Genesis 6:2? Do the "sons of God" refer to the fallen angels who cohabited with earthly women? And, can demons, fallen angels, take on human form?

ANSWER: In answering the first question, demons are spirits and can indwell but they do not materialize, though godly angels, the holy angels can.

All biblical scholarship and clear textual observation seems to go out the window on this issue of Genesis 6:2. People nearly take up pick axes to defend the fallen angel theory and cohabitation! But a look at all of the evidence is certainly called for. And the final verdict will not support the angel theory!

There are two prevailing arguments: (1) the sons of God are fallen angels who cohabit with humans, or (2) they are the more godly descendants from the line of Seth (Gen. 5:6-32) as opposed to the more ungodly line of Cain (4:16-24). In Genesis 6, the two lines come together, watering down the human race spiritually and morally. This is the biblical view.

Fallen Angel arguments:

1. The fallen angels "who did not keep their own domain but abandoned their proper abode" must mean the fallen angels crossed over from angelic form to cohabit with human women (Jude 6). They had to take on human sex form! The word "domain" is archen (arch) in Greek, meaning their "high position" and "proper abode" means in Greek there "own house-placement."


My answer: This passage supports the idea that the evil angels fell from their heavenly abode but it does not support the idea that they cohabited with earthly women. The Jude text does not say this!


2. "Sons of God, sons of daughters" (Gen. 6:2). "Sons of God" does indeed describe angels in Job 1:6. The term refers to the fact that God created the angels. They are His "sons" by creation but not in the sense of Christ who is THE SON of God by the sharing of the same attributes. In Job 1:6 they come before God "to present themselves." These must have been the good angels and not the fallen angels, though it is as if Satan came in "among them," though he was no longer of them!

My answer: The argument is strong that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 could be angels, though it would stand to reason by the title that they were good angels, if angels at all! Why would good angels be cohabiting with women? A more godly line of humans (the biblical view).

The Godly Line Of Seth arguments:

1. The sons of God "took wives" (Gen. 6:2) which has to do with long commitments, and not simply the act of having sex. Can you imagine their kids walking about saying, "Yes, my dad is a fallen angel!"


2. The next verse (v. 3) indicates that God is not angry because there was cohabitation between so called "fallen angels" and women but because the moral and spiritual goodness of the Seth line is broken and God’s "Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh," i.e., the whole race of human beings, not half breeds! The children being born would not simply be "flesh" if there is angelic cohabitation. They would be "spirit-flesh" or half/breeds!


3. The Cain line is described as more materialistic and evil, over the Seth line. (1) Cain fled the "presence of the Lord" and went to the land of Nod (place of wandering) (4:16). A grandson, Lemech, was the first polygamist (v. 19). This line produced those who were very technical and mechanical but not spiritual (vv. 20-22). Lamech was outspoken and very aggressive (vv. 23-24).


4. It was with the line of Seth that men began to call upon the Lord (v. 26). Enoch had Methuselah who lived the longest probably because of his godliness (5:27). Enoch was taken directly to the Lord without experiencing death (v. 24). Noah, meaning "comfort" comes from this line of Seth because God blessed the Seth line with rest from their work (v. 29). It would make better sense then that by CONTEXT, the Seth line (the sons of God) cohabited with the Cain line (the daughters of men) and the race was polluted.


5. The word "Nephilim" actually means from the verb "naphual" in Hebrew "to fall upon," meaning that this is an aggressive people. The word "giant" (as tall) was first used in 6:4 in the LXX and may not really reflect the meaning of the word. In 6:4, the word Nephilim does not refer to the sons of God and the daughters of men. The word Nephilim is used separately and apart from "when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men."


6. It must not be forgotten that Christ made it clear that angels could not be sexual; they are sexless (Matt. 22:30).


7. The next time the word Nephilim is used is in Numbers 13:33. The report from the spies said that in the land there "we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight." Notice that in no way does the passage say that these men were giants in actuality. To both parties, the sons of Anak, and to the Israelite spies, they BOTH FELT like the other was overwhelming. But you ask, what about verse 32 where it says that "all the people we saw in [the land] are men of (great) size"? Does this not sound like giants? Notice it says ALL THE PEOPLE. The point is that the folks in the land appeared daunting but not simply tall! Even the Israelite spies seemed "daunting" to the people who lived in the land! one cannot make the Nephilim here the same as in Genesis. And besides, the Nephilim here in Numbers 13:33 are the children of Anak. They are not the same ones as introduced in early Genesis. If so then the Nephilim must have skipped several generations (who were a combo of angels and men) and then popped up again.


8. Unger, who believes the Nephilim in Genesis 6 are giants and a mixture of angels and men, skips the issue in Numbers 13:32-33. He simply says "Unbelief not only occupies itself with the difficulties, but magnifies and exaggerates them, so that spiritual defeat (Rom. 7) rules out victory." (Unger, Commentary, p. 202)

Finally: The Scofield Reference Notes, written by some of the most respected scholars, agrees with me. They write:

"Angels are sexless (Matt. 22:30). The words ‘took wives for themselves’ (Gen. 6:2) signify a lasting marriage, the reference has to do with the breakdown of the separation of the godly line of Seth by intermarriage with the godless line of Cain. [This view] holds that the expression ‘sons of God’ refers to all the godly, and ‘daughters of men’ to all the ungodly, irrespective of their natural paternity."

Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.

Ask Dr. Couch #86

Dr. Couch, does the "all things in common" passage of Acts 2:44 support the Communist idea of community sharing of goods?

ANSWER: Of course not. The passage goes on and explains that they were selling their goods in order to give to those that "might have need" (v. 45). The believers were ostracized by the general society, and along with this, there were a lot of poor people who were coming to Christ who had little. This is further described in 4:32-37. They pooled their goods for the "needy" (v. 34), and sold property with the funds and then "distributed to each, as any had need" (v. 35). If someone did not have a need he did not receive help!

The story of Ananias and Sapphira is part of this same context (ch. 5). The couple was judged because they lied about what they received from the sale of "a piece of property," implying that they were not forced to sell all they had, but only sold a portion of what they owned. Their sin was pretending to give all! They kept back some of the price, lied about it, but brought it to the apostles as if they were giving the full amount.

In the Scriptures individual capitalism (if you like) was the norm. The ideal woman in Prov. 31 had her own business and generated profits. Paul tells the lazy in 2 Thess. 3:12 to "work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread," and "if anyone will not work, neither let him eat" (vv. 8-10).

The sharing in early Acts was for a specific moment in the early church and was not the norm.

Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.

Ask Dr. Couch

Dr. Couch, what does “abundant life” mean in John 10:10?

ANSWER: Christ is talking about the blessings He will bring to His sheep. He then says: “I came that [My sheep] might have life, and might have it abundantly.” The word “might” is a present subjunctive in Greek. It explains what Christ is doing with His own. It could read: “… that they might be having life and might be having it more abundantly.” The word “abundant” in Greek can be translated: “something further, somewhat more, superior, extraordinary, surpassing, uncommon, remarkable,” and “excellent.”

Jesus is not talking about physical life but about spiritual life. Even the unbeliever has physical life! He is discussing a depth of life that comes from the salvation experience with Him.

The old classical Greek scholar Alford says: “Christ is not merely a door to pass through, but actively, abundantly, to bestow abundance of life.” Or, “to have a surplus” of life, the quality of life.” – Nicoll

As one studies the Word of God, the person of Christ comes more into sharp focus. Who He is, and what He has done for us, impacts our hearts and minds. As the old song says, “What a Savior!”

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch

Ask Dr. Couch #85

Dr. Couch, does yom (day) in Genesis 1 really imply a day, a twenty-four hour day, as we now understand it?

ANSWER: Remember the two cardinal rules of Bible study that we drill into the heads of our students: Context, context, context, observation, observation, observation! As the author of Genesis, Moses used very clear language to tell us these days are what we see today. Oh yes, the revolution of the earth may have been a little different (say 23.6 hours per day) but the idea is basically a full revolution as we now know it.

How can we escape the obvious when it says in Genesis 1, for example, "And there was evening and there was morning, a second day" (v. 5, 8, etc.)?

We all have a thousand questions about the creation story that God did not wish to reveal to us. In one sense, the details are unimportant. This is why the creation story is compressed, abbreviated, with details left out. That the universe was created ex nihilo is what is most important. The Scriptures then get to the point quickly about the unique creation of man, and the story of the Fall.

Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.

Ask Dr. Couch #84

Dr. Couch, who are the two witnesses in Revelation 11:3-12? I have heard Elijah, Moses, Enoch, or simply two contemporaries at that time. What do you think?

ANSWER: Some have said they are Elijah and Moses because of the power they have to perform miracles. It is said in verse 4 that they are like two olive tress and two lampstands with this symbolism going back to Zechariah 4:3. In that context, the two olive tress represented, in the setting of Zechariah, the anointed ones: Zerubbabel and Joshua.

No one knows who the two witnesses are. We have to be content with the passage as is. We will find out in time their identity!

Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.

Ask Dr. Couch #81

Dr. Couch, what is the issue behind the King James Only controversy? I often use the NASB yet the KJO crowd says this is not good. What do you think?

ANSWER: What is behind this controversy is raw ignorance and fear. They do not have a clue as to how our NT comes together. The issue is really not complicated though it would take too long to try to explain it all here.

I was blessed to study in graduate schools under the best of Greek professors at some of the best Evangelical institutions in America at the time. We had to go through this entire issue textually and historically. Unfortunately, the KJ guys just keep propagating their ignorance and keep looking for liberals under every rock!

If it is still available check with the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute. Some years ago he was selling two VHSs with a panel and a debate on the subject. I knew almost all “the good and intelligent” guys. They were my personal friends. I also knew one of the KJ guys—while he is a nice fellow, he really lost badly in the discussions on the tapes. In fact the KJ guys had such bad arguments I really felt sorry for them!

Be prepared to fall out in the floor over the silly arguments the KJ guys come up with. Their fears and ignorance is so obvious, you will get sick laughing at what they have to say.

This is all I want to say except to some KJ folks: Get a life and get educated! (By the way, they will use what I just wrote against me. We who are “educated” are being fooled and are sucked in by liberal thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth!)

Thanks for asking.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.

Ask Dr. Couch #83

Dr. Couch, was Graham W. Scroggie a dispensationalist?

ANSWER: Scroggie (1877-1958) had been an English pastor; and was trained at Spurgeon’s Pastors’ College. He taught throughout the English-speaking world. He was well known at the well-attended Keswick Conferences. His best known work in America was The Unfolding Plan of Redemption.

Scroggie had a good grasp of Bible history past but did little in unfolding the plan for the future. Whether he was a dispensationalist—I am sure he was not—after I reviewed his published material. He did make some positive premillennial statements such as:

“Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones is the graveyard of the Jewish nation. They will be returned to the land and restored to favor with God and have a restored national unity as if resurrected from the dead.” He added that Ezekiel and the book of Revelation were working towards the same center. He said, “There are many references to the Messiah King who is yet to come, and who will establish a kingdom which shall be universal and abiding.”

Yet on the book of Revelation he seemed confused. He saw what he wrongly thought was truth “in the preterist, historicist, and future positions.” This is of course impossible and an intellectual compromise as to how Revelation goes together. He came down on a historicist position when he wrote: “It may be that prophecy being slowly unfolded in the long course of history will be, in all its essential features, rapidly fulfilled within a strictly limited period at the end of the age.”—whatever that means!

You can read more in my article on Scroggie in my award winning The Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (450 pages, hardback, Kregel). You can have it sent to you and signed by me by sending a $19 donation to Scofield Ministries. It contains hundreds of articles on key Bible teachers, premillennial/dispensation subjects, and historic analyses on issues of theology and prophecy. Some fifty-six outstanding prophecy scholars contributed to this volume. Do not order this book if you are an allegorist and make mushy all of the great passages of Scripture that point to a literal rapture of the church, worldwide tribulation, and 1,000 year earthly reign of Christ in Jerusalem. You will end up a premillennialist!

Thanks for asking.

Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.