The Sons of God and the Nephilim—Part 5

Building on Genesis 6, the apocryphal Book of Enoch discusses the popular belief that fallen angels married women.

[As of 11/5/11 my thesis is now available in print or for Amazon Kindle.] The first four posts in this series have covered the following topics: a summary of my thesis on the sons of God and the Nephilim, a critique of the Sethite view, a critique of the Royalty view, and a summary of some of the biblical arguments for the Fallen Angel view. This post will continue with some of the strengths of the Fallen Angel view.

In addition to the passages that support the Fallen Angel view, there are some theological and historical arguments which favor this interpretation as well. We’ll consider three theological arguments in this post and then look briefly at the historical evidence for this view.

Theological Arguments

First, think about why these beings, who obviously did something wrong in Genesis 6, could be called the “sons of God.” The Sethite position makes some sense here. If the “sons of God” were godly descendents of Seth, then it is conceivable they could be given this title. However, we already saw in an earlier post many of the problems with this position, including the fact that if they were godly, they wouldn’t have continually married ungodly women. The Royalty position is quite weak on this point. The Fallen Angel position makes perfect sense here. Not only are heavenly beings called “sons of God” three times in Job, but there are some other reasons why they can be identified as such. Consider who else is given this term in Scripture: Adam, Jesus, and Christians. Christians are sons of God by adoption and we are given a new nature upon conversion (Romans 8:14), but both Adam and Jesus’ humanity were direct creations of God. The angels were also directly created by God, so maybe that is why both holy and fallen angels could be called this.

However, a far better explanation as to why fallen angels can be called “sons of God” has to do with the meaning of the term “elohim.” While it is most frequently used as a title (“God” in about 90% of occurrences), it can refer to other beings whose plane of existence is the spiritual realm. The term is also used of “angels” (Psalm 8:5), “demons” (the “gods” of Deuteronomy 32:17), the “spirit” of Samuel (1 Samuel 28:13), and the “gods” of the divine council (Psalm 82:1). So a “son” of elohim would refer to someone from the spiritual realm—it does not necessarily refer to one who is obediently following God.

Second, think about the various positions here and then ask which one provides the best rationale for the cataclysmic judgment of the Flood. Genesis 6:5 states, “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Verse 11 adds, “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.” God judged the earth with a worldwide Flood because of the extreme wickedness. While all three views agree on this point, only the Fallen Angel view truly makes sense, since the other two have occurred countless times throughout history and God has not judged it in such a severe manner. In other words, believers have married unbelievers, and noble men have married commoners throughout history. Why hasn’t God brought such a harsh judgment for these actions. However, what took place in Genesis 6 seems to have been quite unique so the Fallen Angel view makes better sense of this issue as well.

There are some who believe Luke 17:26–30 teach that these circumstances will be repeated just before Christ’s Second Coming. Jesus stated, “And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.” Some people use this passage to claim that fallen angels will once again breed with humanity in the end times, and they point to the alien abduction phenomena as evidence of this. This connection is very intriguing and plausible, and I plan to write some more about the alien abduction phenomena and the possible parallels here. However, I think this claim misses the point of Christ’s words in this passage. Jesus was simply indicating the suddenness and severity of the judgment. He went on to compare His coming judgment to the suddenness of the judgment that fell on Sodom.

Finally, one’s view must be able to explain the existence of the Nephilim. There is no consensus in any of the views whether or not the Nephilim were the offspring of the sons of God and women, although most people believe they were. If they were not, then there is little hope of identifying the Nephilim. If they were the offspring, then the Fallen Angel view makes the most sense.

Contrary to popular belief, the word “Nephilim” is not derived from the Hebrew verb “naphal” which can have the meaning “to fall.” It does not fit any of the proper forms (morphologies). So this is not primarily speaking about people who “fall on” others in the sense of being violent or about those who have “fallen” far from God, even though they were clearly in rebellion against God. Many use this line of argumentation to claim that the Nephilim were the “fallen ones.” Besides the fact that “Nephilim” does not mean “fallen ones,” it would not make a whole lot of sense to call the offspring “fallen ones” when in fact it would be their fathers (the “sons of God”) who were fallen.

The term “Nephilim” is in all likelihood not a Hebrew term at all. Instead, it is a plural form of the Aramaic noun (naphil) that means “giant.” (For a fairly easy-to-understand explanation of the origins of this term, please read Michael Heiser’s paper on the subject.) This is stated in the major Hebrew and Aramaic lexicons (Brown, Driver, Briggs / HALOT / NIDOTTE). This is why it is translated as giants in several translations and why the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) uses the term gigantes (giants). This also makes sense of Number 13:33 which tells us that the a race of giants known as the Anakim were part of the Nephilim. So why would the offspring of one group of humans marrying another group of humans result in giant offspring? Of course, it is genetically possible for a giant to be born if the parents had the appropriate genetics, but it seems highly unlikely that all of the offspring of these two groups would have been giants unless something more sinister was going on.

Historical Overview

Take a look at the following charts that show the history of the various positions on this subject. The first chart shows the earliest writings and commentators. The second shows views since the time of the Reformation. Notice that all of the early commentators and extant writings promote the Fallen Angel view. It wasn’t until the rise of the allegorical interpretation that other views began to be pushed. (If both “Angel” and “Human” are checked it signifies the offshoot of the Fallen Angel view, which posits that the sons of God were fallen angels who possessed men.)

Date Writer Angel Human Reference
c. 250 BC Various X Septuagint, Gen. 6:3
c. 165 BC Unknown X 1 Enoch 6-19
c. 150 BC Unknown X Jubilees 4:15, 22
c. 100 BC Unknown X Damascus Document 2:16–19
c. AD 50 Philo of Alexandria X Giants 6–7
AD 37–100 Josephus X Antiquities, Book 1.3.1 (73)
c. 70 Pseudo-Philo X Biblical Antiquities 3:1–2
Late 1st cen. Unknown X Genesis Apocryphon 2:1
Late 1st cen. Unknown X 2 Baruch 56:10–14
c.100–165 Justin Martyr X 1 Apology 5
c.115–202 Irenaeus of Lyons X Dem. 18; Heresies 16.2
c.130 Rabbi Akiba X Greek Translation of OT
130–160 Rabbi Yohai X Genesis Rabbah 26:5–7
130–160 Rabbi Jose X Babylonian Talmud, San. 108a
2nd century Athenagoras X A Plea for the Christians, 24
Late 2nd cen. Symmachus X Greek Translation of OT
c.150–215 Clement of Alex. X Miscellanies 5.1.10
c.160–225 Tertullian X Idolatry 9; Veiling 7
c.160–240 Julius Africanus X Chronology, Fragment 2
c.210–230? Pseudo-Clementine X Recognitions, I.29
c.200–250 Unknown X Acts of Holy Apostle Thomas
c.250 Commodianus X Instructions, §3
c.240–320 Lactantius X Divine Institutes 2.15
c.263–339 Eusebius of Caesarea X Preparation, 5.5
c.306–373 Ephrem the Syrian X Commentary on Genesis 6.3.1
c.340–397 Ambrose of Milan X Noah and the Ark 4.8
c.345–420 Jerome X Hebrew, 6.4
c.374–407 John Chrysostom X Homily on Genesis, 22.6–8
c.363–420 Sulpicius Severus X History, 1.2
c.360-435 John Cassian X Conferences, 8.21
c.354–430 Augustine of Hippo X City of God, 15:22–23
Date Writer Angel Human Reference
1483–1546 Martin Luther X Commentary on Genesis
1509–1564 John Calvin X Calvin’s Commentaries
1697–1771 John Gill X Exposition of Old Testament
1762–1832 Adam Clarke X Commentary on the Bible
1798–1870 Albert Barnes X Notes on the Old Testament
1807–18881813–1890 Karl Keil /         Franz Delitzsch X Commentary: Genesis
1892–1972 H. C. Leupold X Exposition of Genesis
1918–2006 Henry M. Morris X X Genesis Record
1922–2007 Meredith Kline X Divine Kingship
1913–2008 Derek Kidner X Genesis
1930– Bruce Waltke X X Genesis
1932– Millard Erickson X Christian Theology
1937– Paul Enns X Moody Handbook of Theology
1939– John MacArthur X X MacArthur Study Bible
1948– Wayne Grudem X Systematic Theology
????– Robert Culver X Systematic Theology
????– Kenneth Mathews X Genesis 1–11:32
????– Allen Ross X X Creation & Blessing
????– Willem VanGemeren X Westminster TJ 43:2
????– Duane Garrett X Angels & New Spirituality
????– R. Kent Hughes X X Genesis: Beginning & Blessing
????– Robert Lightner X “Excursus: Sons of God”

From the time of Augustine until the early 20th century, the Sethite view was the dominant position. This was largely due to Augustine’s tremendous influence, but as I have already shown, this view has virtually no biblical support and is the least popular today. Many of those who objected to the Fallen Angel view, such as Calvin, did so because they found it repulsive rather than for any textual reasons. The last century has seen a strong trending back to a supernatural position, and I think this is a move in the right direction.

The next post will address the objections to the Fallen Angel position and then I’ll move on to discussing the identity of the Nephilim. Thanks for reading.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it on twitter and/or facebook by clicking one or both of the buttons below.

The Sons of God and the Nephilim—Part 4

The cover of the first book in L.A. Marzulli's fiction trilogy centered around the Nephilim. See www.lamarzulli.net for more details.

[As of 11/5/11 my thesis is now available in print or for Amazon Kindle.] The first post in this series briefly summarized the various positions on the Sons of God and the Nephilim and I shared my thesis statement on this topic. The second post critiqued the Sethite position while the third post offered a critique of the Royalty view. In this fourth post, I will lay out some of the strengths of the Fallen Angel view. In fact, the next few posts on this topic will cover the Fallen Angel position. It has the greatest textual support, but it also has the most objections to address. So if I don’t cover a particular issue in this post, please be patient. I will probably get to it in a future post.

The Fallen Angel position is the most popular theory concerning the identity of the sons of God. This is clearly the earliest position that we know of. It was promoted in apocryphal works written before the time of Christ and by every church father who commented on it until the 3rd century. Here again is the key passage from Genesis:

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 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 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. (Genesis 6:1–4, NASB)

The Fallen Angel view proposes that the “sons of God” (verses 2, 4) were fallen angels who materialized (probably as humans), married women, and sired children by them. The offspring of these unions were “the mighty men who were of old, men of renown” (v. 4). Most intepreters believe that the Nephilim were the offspring, but some argue that they were already on the earth when these marriages took place. A derivative of this view is that these fallen angels possessed men who then had children. Many modern scholars hold to this derivative view, and I believe it is a possibility. However, the text does not say that they possessed men to do this, so before accepting this position, I think it is wise to see if the ancient view can stand up to the various objections.

Although the Fallen Angel view is repulsive to most, it is important to understand what the text actually states. The term “sons of God” is from the Hebrew bene ha ‘elohim. This particular term is only used three other times in Scripture and in each case, it clearly refers to heavenly beings. Here are the three passages—all from the Book of Job.

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. (Job 1:6)

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD. (Job 2:1)

[Job, where were you] when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7)

In each of these verses, the term “sons of God” definitely refers to heavenly beings of some sort. Why should we interpret this term any differently in Genesis 6? While there are a handful of similar Hebrew phrases used in Scripture, these are the only four passages that mention this specific term. The closest any other passage comes is from a Dead Sea Scroll manuscript of Deuteronomy which uses bene ‘elohim in Deuteronomy 32:8, which I believe should also be translated as “sons of God” as the ESV has it. Most other translations were completed before this document was well-known and so they translated this verse with “sons of Israel.” While this is what the more recent manuscripts state, this wording makes little sense of the context.

Three New Testament passages also seem to support this position. 1 Peter 3:19–20 speaks of a particular group of “spirits in prison” (probably angels) who sinned during the days of Noah. 2 Peter 2:4 mentions angels who sinned and are currently held in “chains of darkness” and reserved for judgment. The surrounding context of this verse speaks of the wickedness that existed before the Flood and at Sodom and Gomorrah. Jude 6 refers to “angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, [God] has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day.” The surrounding context of this passage also discusses the wickedness and sexual immorality of Sodom and Gomorrah.

So these three New Testament passages refer to angels who sinned during the days of Noah and are now being held in chains (prison) until the day of judgment. If Genesis 6 speaks of fallen angels, then these three verses make perfect sense. However, if the “sons of God” of Genesis 6 refer to certain groups of men, then we really have no idea what these passages in the New Testament are about. While these verses should not be seen as a watertight argument for the Fallen Angel position, they do give strong support to it.

The short book of Jude offers another interesting tidbit in relation to this subject. Verses 14–15 states, “Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them…” This quotation does not appear in the Old Testament, but is from the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Jude’s quote of this book does not mean we should view Enoch as part of the canon. However, it does mean that this particular statement from Enoch is inspired, and it also shows that Jude was quite familiar with the Book of Enoch. Why is this important? Because the Book of Enoch also promotes the Fallen Angel position (this will be examined in a future post). Since Jude was familiar with Enoch, and he also wrote about angels who sinned and are being held in chains until the day of judgment, then it is extremely likely that he had the Fallen Angel view in mind when he wrote.

There is much more to discuss on this issue. There are other arguments that will be raised to support this position and, there are many objections that need to be addressed. In the next post, I plan to provide some more of the strengths. The objections will also be addressed in a future post.