The Nephilim...for many years, biblical historians and theologians alike have rendered theories on who these beings may have been. Even today, there is not one solid consensus on who the Nephilim were. As I have stated in both my podcasts and video teachings, we must not take this issue as one though for us to distrust Scripture or to hold it even on a level of importance as salvation. Sometimes as theologians and students of the Scriptures, we have a tendency to focus on certain subjects with so much fervor that they actually distract us and hinder us from spreading the gospel.
I'm going to be breaking down these lessons into 5 lessons. The first 4 lessons are going to focus on the most common and accepted arguments amongst Christian scholars and are the 4 most likely candidates of who the Nephilim were. In the fifth lesson, I'm going to go over the ridiculous assumption that the Nephilim were actually a reference to alien beings. This view has become mainstream due to secular teachers on channels of teaching such as the History Channel.
For the first four views, I will interject some of my teaching along with some information that has been gleaned from Bodie Hodge of Answers in Genesis. I hope these sessions will help as we dive into the subject.
First, let us look at the Scriptures in reference.
Genesis 6:1–6
Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God (bene Elohim) saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God (bene Elohim) came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.1
Number 13:30–33
Then Caleb quieted the people before Moses and said, “We should by all means go up and take possession of it, for we will surely overcome it.” But the men who had gone up with him said, “We are not able to go up against the people, for they are too strong for us.” So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”
With the Scriptures in reference. I would now like to discuss the first view. The Fallen Angels View.
The Fallen Angels View
- Sons of God: Fallen angels
- Nephilim: Mix of human and angel
Defenders of this view also find support in two key New Testament passages. In 2 Peter 2:1–11, the Apostle wrote:
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties, whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.Before commenting on this passage, we need to look at Jude 4–8.
For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.These verses do not specifically mention the Nephilim, nor do they clearly state that fallen angels had sexual relationships with women. However, they do place “the angels who sinned” (2 Peter 2:4), “who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode” (Jude 6), in the same context as Noah. Both passages seem to compare the sin of these angels with the sin of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah who had “in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh” (Jude 7). Genesis 19:5 reveals that the men of Sodom lusted after the two angels who had gone into Lot’s house. It is important to understand that while these verses seem to lend strong support to the fallen angel view, they do not make a watertight argument for it.
For example, expositor Dr John Gill clarifies with regards to Jude 6:3
Ver. 6. And the angels which kept not their first estate, &c.] Or “principality”; that holy, honourable, and happy condition, in which they were created; for they were created in perfect holiness and righteousness, stood in the relation of sons to God, and were, for the lustre of their nature, comparable to the morning stars; they were among the thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers; were a superior rank of creatures to men, and who beheld the face, and enjoyed the presence of God; but this estate they kept not, for being mutable creatures, one of them first sinning, the rest were drawn into it by him, and so were not what they were before, nor in the same estate, or place.
but left their own habitation; by attempting to rise higher; or by quitting their station and posts of honour, being unwilling to be subject to God, and especially to the Son of God, who was to assume human nature, and in it be above them, which they could not bear; and by gathering together in a body, in another place, with Satan at the head of them; though this may be considered as a part of their punishment, and they may be said to do what they were forced to; for they were drove out of their native habitation, heaven; they were turned out of it, and cast down to hell; see 2 Peter 2:4. And this their habitation, which they left, or fell from, or they were cast out of, is by the Jews frequently called the place of their holiness, or their holy place.
He hath reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness; by these “everlasting chains” may be meant the power and providence of God over them, which always abide upon them; or their sins, and the guilt of them upon their consciences, under which they are continually held; or the decrees and purposes of God concerning their final punishment and destruction, which are immutable and irreversible, and from which there is no freeing themselves, the phrase, under darkness, may refer to the chains, as in 2 Peter 2:4; where they are called “chains of darkness”; either because the power, providence, and purposes of God are invisible; so the Syriac version reads, “in unknown chains”; or because horror and black despair are the effects of sin, and its guilt, with which their consciences are continually filled: or it may denote the place and state where they are, either in the darkness of the air, or in the dark parts of the earth, or in hell, where is utter darkness, even blackness of darkness; or that they are under the power of sin, which is darkness, and without the light of God’s countenance, or any spiritual knowledge, or comfort: and they are “reserved” in these chains, and under this darkness; or “in prison,” as the Arabic version renders it; which denotes the custody of them, and their continuance in it, in which they are kept by Jesus Christ, who can bind and loose Satan at his pleasure; and it shows that they are not as yet in full torment, but are like malefactors that are kept in prison, until the assize comes: so these are laid in chains, and kept in custody.Gill continues in verse 7:
in like manner giving themselves over to fornication; not as the angels, who are not capable of sinning in such a manner; though the Jews make this to be a sin of theirs, and so interpret Genesis 6:2,4, but rather the Israelites, among whom this sin prevailed, 1 Corinthians 10:8; though it seems best of all to refer it to the false teachers that turned the grace of God into lasciviousness, and were very criminal this way; and then the sense is, that in like manner as they, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, gave themselves over to the sin of fornication; wherefore these men might expect the same judgments that fell upon them, since their sin was alike; which sin is a work of the flesh, contrary to the law of God, is against the body, and attended with many evils; exposes to judgment here and hereafter, and unfits for the communion of the saints, and for the kingdom of heaven.
and going after strange flesh; or “other flesh”; meaning not other women besides their own wives, but men; and designs that detestable and unnatural sin, which, from these people, is called sodomy to this day; and which is an exceeding great sin, contrary to the light of nature and law of God, dishonourable to human nature, and scandalous to a nation and people, and commonly prevails where idolatry and infidelity do, as among the Papists and Mahometans; and arose from idleness and fulness of bread in Sodom, and was committed in the sight of God, with great impudence: their punishment follows.The context is discussing ungodly people who have crept into the church and a warning about their future. Such sin and unrighteousness is nothing new:
- When the Israelites fell away from Him in the desert after Moses brought them out of Egypt, God destroyed them.
- When the angels rebelled, God bound them to eternal darkness.
- In a similar fashion to how the Israelites were adulterous to God and sought after other gods; Sodom and Gomorrah were seeking after inappropriate flesh.
The spiritual can produce physical offspring, as witnessed by the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary. However, the Holy Spirit is the Creator and has that power (Psalm 104:30). Do fallen angels? The Bible simply doesn’t reveal this.
While many commentaries, as well as the Alexandrinus manuscript of the Septuagint, refer to the sons of God in Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 as angels, this may not be the best argument for Genesis 6 for two reasons, and some commentaries leave open the possibility that these could be referring to godly men and/or magistrates on earth, who were human.4
The author of Job was aware of the term used for angel (Kalm mal’ak), as Eliphaz the Temanite used it in Job 4:18. So, if the sons of God were referring to angels, then why not say it? It may be too much to say for sure that these two verses early in Job are referring to angels, but even so, it wouldn’t be referring to fallen ones. There are no other instances in Scripture that refer to fallen angels or demons as sons of God to verify this in Job.
Sometimes we fall into the mistake of assuming one name or phrase in a portion of Scripture is the same thing/type as another portion of Scripture. Though this may be the case, one shouldn’t be dogmatic about it. For example, the Hebrew lbb (0894) for Babel or Babylon is referring to two distinct empires. If we find lbb referring to Nebuchadnezzar, we shouldn’t assume it is the Babel that followed soon after the Flood.
Regardless though, Job 38:7 is an excellent example of angels being termed sons of God. However, this is referring to angels during the Creation Week, before any of them fell (which would have to be after God’s declaration that everything was “very good” in Genesis 1:31). So this doesn’t give much support to fallen angels being called sons of God.
Another argument in opposition to this view is that godly men were sometimes called son(s) of God such as Adam in Luke 3.
Luke 3:38Other passages also confirm that Christians are called this:
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
Romans 8:14
because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
Romans 8:19
The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.
Galatians 3:26Although each of these is in Greek and the “sons of God” for Genesis 6 is in Hebrew, they are both rendered correctly as “sons of God.” Luke 6:35 renders the term “sons of the Most High.” Also, Psalms 82:6 has “sons of the most high” and renders correctly that godly humans can be called sons of God in another language. Hosea 1:10 points out that people will also be called “sons of the living God” (note the added descriptor living) in Hebrew:
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus
Hosea 1:10Again, this is not identical to the Hebrew in Genesis or Job but still renders that humans can be called sons of God in another format. So, we have instances where humans are called:
Yet the number of the sons of Israel will be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered; And in the place where it is said to them, “You are not My people,” It will be said to them, “You are the sons of the living God.”
- Sons of God (5 times in Greek)
- Sons of the Most High (1 time in Greek; 1 time in Hebrew)
- Sons of the Living God (1 time in Hebrew)
I’ve heard the response that the reason Adam and Christians were called son(s) of God was because they were made directly by God in one fashion or another—Adam from the dust by God’s hand and Christians will be made new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17). Along with this then, angels, who were directly created by God during creation week, could also hold to this title.
However, there are other direct creations by God, such as sea creatures, land animals, and so on. Are these also sons of God? Few would say they are. Also, godly men of the Old Testament would one day be new creations in Christ and, by the foreknowledge of God, could easily have been called “sons of God.” So, this argument really doesn’t make a case exclusively for the angelic view, but could also be used for godly men as well.
Also, in Hebrew, we find sons of Israel (bene Yisra’el) used of descendants of Israel who were not his direct sons (Exodus 6:6, 6:11, and so on.) Therefore, there is no reason to assume that sons of God couldn’t be referring to men, since they are descendants of Adam, who was a son of God. To clarify, this is not to be confused with the only begotten son of God, Jesus Christ, who was the unique and perfect Son of God.
Another theological problem presents itself for the fallen angels view if we take a closer look at the Anakites (descendants of Anak), descendants of the Nephilim according to Numbers 13:33. The Anakites were not completely wiped out by Joshua. Joshua says:
Joshua 11:22The Bible never records their line ending. Thus, there is no reason to assume the descendants of Anak are not still living today. In fact, they have probably interbred with many other people groups since then.
No Anakites were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod did any survive
This theological problem has been challenged, though, and rightly so because Numbers 13:33 is part of a bad/evil report spread among the Israelites. But was the information false about the Anakites being Nephilim? Let’s take a look:
Numbers 13:30–33So, was the report of the Anakites being Nephilim accurate or inaccurate, as even falsehoods often contain some aspects of truth. For example, we know that Anakites were indeed in the land, as Joshua went to war with them later. So, what aspects of this report were false and which were true? We get a clue when Caleb and Joshua answer the congregation who was grumbling about the bad report in Numbers 14:6–9.
Then Caleb quieted the people before Moses and said, “We should by all means go up and take possession of it, for we will surely overcome it.” But the men who had gone up with him said, “We are not able to go up against the people, for they are too strong for us.” So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”
Numbers 14:6–9
Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh, who were among those who had explored the land, tore their clothes and said to the entire Israelite assembly, “The land we passed through and explored is exceedingly good. If the Lord is pleased with us, he will lead us into that land, a land flowing with milk and honey, and will give it to us. Only do not rebel against the Lord. And do not be afraid of the people of the land, because we will swallow them up. Their protection is gone, but the Lord is with us. Do not be afraid of them.”
Interestingly, Moses, who penned Genesis, said that the Nephilim were on the earth pre-Flood and also afterwards:
Genesis 6:4aSome translations say “and after that,” and one could argue that this was still referring to a pre-Flood time. However, it makes much more sense that this phrase refers to this post-Flood event, especially since Genesis 6 was penned by Moses.
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterwards (emphasis added)
Acts 17:26 indicates all nations are of “one blood” or “one man.” If some nations are a combination of angelic blood and Adamic blood, as the Anakites would have been in this view as well as the Nephilim pre-Flood, then there is a major problem—Acts 17:26 would be wrong. The Anakites were still living and breeding with many other people groups during Paul’s time. Thus, it presents a problem to say angels bred with women. Another problem presents itself from the rest of Genesis 6:4:
Genesis 6:4In Genesis 6:4, the phrase “men of renown” uses the Hebrew word iysh. This term is used consistently as “man” or descendants of Adam—even Adam used it of himself in Genesis 2:23, yet it is never used of fallen angel, demons, or of Satan. It was used for some unfallen angels when they took the form of a man, though. If the Nephilim were crossbreeds between men and fallen angels, then why did the Bible use the term men (iysh) as opposed to something that would lead us to believe they were not fully men?
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men (vya ‘iysh) of renown.
If we follow the context of iysh into the following verses in Genesis 6, we find:
- Verse 4: Nephilim are men of renown
- Verse 5: wickedness of man great
- Verse 6: God sorry He made man on earth
- Verse 7: Blot out man from earth
- Verse 8/9: Noah found favor with God and was a righteous man
One early argument against this angelic view was that angels didn’t marry in heaven according to Jesus (Matthew 22:30). This has been responded to many times and it is rightly pointed out that this is referring to angels in heaven, not fallen angels. So, the option was left open that fallen angels may very well do this. However, a new problem now arises. Moses points out that the sons of God took wives (ishshah wife/women) (Genesis 6:2). Never once have I found a verse in the Bible where wife, wives, husband, husbands, or marriage was anything other than between a human male and female. If these were marriages between fallen angels and women, then it opens up the possibility of marriages that are not limited to man and woman, when the Bible is clear on this subject.
An argument in response is that ishshah could merely be used for women, not wives, and doesn’t necessarily mean they were married, but rather taken for sexual purposes outside of marriage, possibly forcibly. In light of some of these criticisms, this popular view may not be the best one, though many great scholars hold to it and it should be at least respected. I encourage deeper study in both the view and the responses as I am only touching the surface.
Perhaps the most devastating argument against this view came from Jesus Himself, though. We have no instance in Scripture where fallen angels ever materialized as previously stated. This is significant because Christ offered proof of His resurrection when the disciples questioned Him:
Luke 24:37–43If fallen angels or demons, which are spirit, could materialize, then this calls into question the entire resurrection of Christ. Christ says spirits do not have flesh and bones, so it would seem these entities can’t make physical bodies for themselves.
But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them. (emphasis added)
So, here we have the fallen angels view. Again, as I have stated, I will take a balance view at all 4 popular views and will give both the arguments for and against each view. I personally will reveal my view in the final teaching entry, so please do not assume that just because I give some of the arguments against, it does not mean that I personally don't hold that view. Again, there has not been a single consensus on who the Nephilim were. So there are pro and con arguments for all views.
No comments:
Post a Comment