The Sons of God and the Nephilim—Part 3

Posted on by March 5, 2014
3

Because the figure on the right on the Tablet of Shamash is so much larger than the other people, some have claimed this tablet to be evidence of giants (Nephilim), but this is highly unlikely given the translation of the tablet.

[As of 11/5/11 my thesis is now available in print or for Amazon Kindle.] In the last two posts on this subject, I briefly summarized my thesis and then went on to explain why the liberal view and the Sethite view fail to make sense of Genesis 6:1–4. In today’s post, I want to examine the Royalty view to see how well it handles the text.

I must confess that at the outset of my paper I had very little respect for this position. I didn’t think it should even be considered as a plausible position. But as a result of my research, I believe this theory makes far more sense than the Sethite view, but still falls short.

I’ll explain the Royalty view shortly but it is important to read the text of Genesis 6:1–4 again.

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 Royalty position proposes that the “sons of God” were kings or noblemen who viewed themselves as gods. These kings took wives from among the commoners and brought them into their harems. Their offspring were the Nephilim, “mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” A spin-off of this view states that the “sons of God” were polygamous tyrants from the line of Cain who took women and forced them into marriages (note that the last descendant of Cain listed in Genesis 4 is Lamech, who is described as a bigamist). Proponents of this view often believe Genesis 6 should be understood primarily as a polemic against the pagan nations surrounding Israel who viewed their kings as divine.

Let’s first look at the strengths of this position. First, the term “sons of God” in Hebrew is bene ha ‘elohim. The word ‘elohim is often translated as God, but it can also be translated as gods, judges, or sometimes rulers. So there is some basis for viewing the sons of God as rulers, or at least, the sons of rulers.

Second, several individuals in Scripture are referred to as “mighty men” (gibborim), such as Gideon and Nimrod. Nimrod is often cited in support of this view because he is described as a king in Genesis 10:8–10, so there is support for kings and their offspring being considered “mighty men.”

Finally, there are some examples in the Ancient Near East in which certain kings viewed themselves as divine. Also, Isaiah 14 (written 700 years after Moses) speaks of the king of Babylon and mentions his desire to be higher than God (many Christians believe portions of this chapter also refer to the fall of Satan). Psalm 45:6 states, “Your throne O God [‘elohim] is forever and ever.” While this psalm has Messianic overtones, the context makes it clear that king of Israel is described as ‘elohim. So even within Scripture there are statements in which the king views himself or is described as ‘elohim.

Despite these few strengths, the Royalty view has numerous problems. First and foremost, the only other places the specific term bene ha ‘elohim (“sons of God”) appears, it clearly refers to heavenly beings (see Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7). So although identifying the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 as sons of nobles is linguistically plausible, it is highly unlikely when we use Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Second, those who hold the Royalty view believe Genesis 6 was written primarily as a polemic against the pagan nations surrounding Israel. That is, these nations viewed their kings as gods, but Moses wrote this passage to show that they were merely men, possibly inspired by demons. The problem is that Genesis 6 can serve as a polemic, but only because it records real history. If Genesis 6 is myth, as some proponents of the Royalty view argue, then it cannot be an effective polemic because it simply puts one myth against another.

The idea that Genesis 6 is a polemic against the pagan nations must be read into the text. Many modern scholars have a penchant for reading Ancient Near Eastern concepts into Scripture. Although there is validity in understanding what was going on in the world when the various books of the Bible were written, there is a tendency among these scholars to automatically assume the biblical author(s) borrowed their ideas from these ancient peoples. This notion has been refuted time and time again. There is a possibility that Genesis was not originally written by Moses, but was instead compiled and edited by him based on earlier eyewitness records. This is known as the toledot theory. If accurate, this would mean that Genesis 6 may have been written by Noah or Seth, who certainly would not have been writing a polemic against pagan nations that would exist nearly a millennium later.

Third, this position does not truly account for the existence of the Nephilim. Yes, it’s possible to see how the sons of rulers could view themselves as “mighty men,” but the word Nephilim means “giants.” This word is not based on the Hebrew verb naphal, as so many think. Instead, it is an Aramaic word that means giants (more on this in a later article). So why would the sons of rulers be giants and why were they around again in Numbers 13:33?

Fourth, this position fails to explain the severity of the Flood judgment. While all sin must be dealt with harshly, the Bible specifies that this period of time involved severe wickedness and yet there is nothing inherently evil with a noble person marrying a commoner. In fact, this has gone on throughout history and just occurred in England a couple of months ago.

Fifth, although the phrase “they took wives for themselves” looks bad in English, as if the sons of God forced the women into marriages, that is not the case. Later in Genesis we read about Abram taking Sarai as his wife (10:29) and that Isaac took Rebekah as his wife (24:67). We know for certain that Isaac did not force Rebekah to marry him. She came to him willingly. After Sarai (Sarah) died, Abraham took Keturah as his wife. The wording used in these passages for taking a wife is the same. So there is no reason to assume the women involved in these marriages were forced into them.

Several commentators have written against the Royalty position. Based on some of the reasons above, Keil and Delitzsch stated that the Royalty view “may be dismissed at once as not warranted by the usages of the language, and as altogether unscriptural.” (Keil and Delitzsch, The Pentateuch: Three Volumes in One, p. 131.

Allen Ross also rejected this position.

The view that interprets the “sons of God” solely as powerful rulers does not, in my opinion, make enough use of the literary connections with pagan literature. The expression “sons of god,” when taken in context of these verses and when viewed against the background of the ancient Near East, suggests that more than powerful rulers are involved. Moreover, the expression in the Bible refers to angels (see, e.g., Job 1:6). Allen Ross, Genesis: Creation and Blessing, 182.

The Royalty position does a much better job with explaining certain features of the text than the Sethite position, which has very little textual support, but it has its problems. It relies heavily on Ancient Near Eastern writings, and yet there is a strong possibility that this portion of Genesis was written long before those writings ever existed. And even if Moses was the original author, there are still many other problems with the Royalty view, such as the fact that many of the surrounding cultures had stories about “gods” (or angels) mating with women whose offspring were demigods. So why wouldn’t those who depend the Ancient Near Eastern writings hold to the Fallen Angel view? I think the reason is that they are much like those who came up with the Royalty view in the first place. The position was developed by Jewish allegorists in the 2nd century AD in an effort to explain away the implications of the most obvious interpretation: the “sons of God” were heavenly beings and the Nephilim were their offspring.

This idea will be examined over the course of several posts. While it is disturbing and there are many objections to it, the Fallen Angel position has by far the most textual support and was the dominant view until the time of Augustine.

Thanks for reading.

(Click here for Part 4 in the Sons of God and the Nephilim series)

Should Christians Believe in the Existence of Unicorns?

Posted on by June 18, 2011
9

Critics and skeptics love to mock Christians because some older translations of the Bible, such as the King James Version, mention unicorns in nine different verses. My employer, Answers in Genesis, has frequently been ridiculed on this point. Someone has developed a unicorn museum website to spoof the Creation Museum site. Many atheists and other skeptics have derided the Ark Encounter project by asking if there will be unicorns on the Ark. The video linked to in this article shows a few examples of skeptics mocking biblical creationists on this issue. So what is this all about?

The word translated as “unicorn” in the KJV, is often rendered as “wild ox” in modern translations (the Hebrew word is re’em). For example, see Psalm 22:21 and Job 39:9–12 in the KJV and then compare to a modern version like the NKJV or NASB.

Is this mystical creature what the King James Version refers to as a unicorn?
(Image courtesy of www.scenicreflections.com)

Those who mock the Bible at this point are guilty of some pretty shoddy scholarship. Rather than spending their time mocking, they should try to understand why the King James translators used the word unicorn or its plural form nine times. Luther’s German Bible, translated nearly a century earlier than the KJV, also renders the Hebrew word re’em as Einhorn (lit. “one horn” or unicorn).

So all of these translators were guilty of believing in some make-believe animal, right? Not at all! The main problem is that several centuries ago, when people mentioned a creature called a unicorn they often had in mind something very different than the mystical horse-like creature pictured above.

Here’s an excellent video that explains why biblical translators used the word unicorn.

As explained in the video, the 1828 edition of Webster’s Dictionary cites two different possible identifications for the unicorn:

  1. An animal with one horn; the monoceros. The name is often applied to the rhinoceros.
  2. The sea unicorn is a fish of the whale kind, called narwal, remarkable for a horn growing out at his nose.

Modern versions of Webster’s Dictionary describe the unicorn as a mythical animal. Are we just that much smarter than people 200 years ago who believed in mythical creatures? Of course not. The difference is now when most people hear the term “unicorn” they automatically think of the horse-like fantasy creature because our society has been so inundated with that imagery. However, Noah Webster recognized that the term unicorn simply referred to an animal with one horn, such as the one-horned rhinoceros (as shown in the video) and the narwhal.

Webster was not alone. Consider the following descriptions from some very old sources. During his vast travels, Marco Polo kept detailed records. He mentioned seeing unicorns while visiting what is now known as Sumatra. Here is what he wrote:

They have wild elephants and plenty of unicorns, which are scarcely smaller than elephants. They have the hair of a buffalo and feet like an elephant’s. They have a single large black horn in the middle of the forehead . . . They are very ugly brutes to look at. They are not at all such as we describe them when we relate that they let themselves be captured by virgins, but clean contrary to our notions. (Ronald Latham, translator, Marco Polo: The Travels (New York: Penguin, 1958), p. 253.)

Marco Polo specifically refuted the mystical notion of a unicorn by dismissing the creature of legends that could supposedly be captured only by virgins. This idea still persists in unicorn lore.

Illustration of an elasmotherium. Is this what Marco Polo saw?

So what did Marco Polo see? It certainly wasn’t the horse-like creature. He said it was very ugly to look at and was barely smaller than an elephant. The rhinoceros would be an excellent candidate for this, especially the extinct version known as elasmotherium (pictured here). Some argue that what Polo saw was the Javan Rhinoceros (a one-horned variety of the rhino). While this is possible, the Javan Rhinoceros does not have hair like a buffalo as the elasmotherium likely had.

In the twelfth century, a popular book on animals (a bestiary) was written. Known as The Book of Beasts, it offered descriptions of numerous animals, including the unicorn. Although this ancient book included an illustration of the mythical horse-like unicorn, the English translation by T. H. White includes the following information in a footnote:

To put it briefly, the idea of the unicorn probably originated in travellers’ tales about the rhinoceros whose horn was so much valued in Asia as an aphrodisiac. These tales about the scarce horn were given an impetus by the teeth of narwhal found on beaches. The famous medieval ones at Paris, Venice, Antwerp and in England, and those belonging to the King of Poland and the Duke of Mantua, with what Sir Thomas Browne calls their ‘anfractuous spires and chocleary turnings’, were narwhal horns. They were supposed also to have great virtue against poisons, particularly arsenic.” (T. H. White, translator, The Book of Beasts: Being a Translation from a Latin Bestiary of the Twelfth Century (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1954; 1984), p. 44.

“Chocleary” may be a misprint for “cochlear,” a term which describes a coiled shape like a snail shell. The description of the narwhal’s horn, which is actually a tooth, perfectly matches the horns on the popular drawings of the mythical horse-like unicorns. It is easy to see how legends were built upon the supposed magical or medicinal properties of these rare horns.

So let’s take a quick look at how the Bible describes the unicorn. The descriptions of this creature sometimes appear in the midst of discussions of other well-known animals and are treated as real creatures. As you read the descriptions here, notice how a real and extremely powerful animal like a rhinoceros is being described rather than the mythical horse-like creature.

Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? Or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? Or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn? (Job 39:9–12)

His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh. (Deuteronomy 33:17)

The narrator of the video was not entirely correct that the King James translators made a mistake here; however, I think they could have been just a little bit more precise. The Hebrew term re’em almost certainly refers to the rhinoceros—both the single horn (rhinoceros unicornis) and two-horned (diceros bicornis) varieties. In this particular verse, it probably would have been more accurate to refer to the two-horned creature here, especially since the plural term “horns” appears twice in this passage while referring to a single creature.

This verse likens Joseph’s descendants to the horns of a rhinoceros. The larger horn represents Joseph’s son Ephraim, who had far more descendants than his brother Manasseh, represented by the smaller horn.

So should Christians believe in unicorns? Absolutely! They were very likely of the rhinoceros kind (perhaps including the elasmotherium). Many of them are still alive today. They were definitely not the mythical horse-like creature, nor did the Bible writers portray such a creature. Their descriptions match that of the rhinoceros. Some Christians propose that this refers to the “wild ox” or the extinct aurochs, whose symmetrical horns may appear as one in profile drawings.

All those critics who enjoy mocking the Bible on this point should perform a bit of research to see how foolish they sound for mocking Christians who believe in the existence of the rhinoceros and/or elasmotherium. But like I’ve said before, many of these scoffers are not interested in studying the Bible, they simply want to mock it and suppress what they know to be true because they do not like the idea of God being their judge when they die. Rather than willfully suppressing the truth and remaining in ignorance, I pray these critics will bury their pride, repent of their sin, and trust in their Creator, whose name is Jesus Christ.

Answers in Genesis has offered several responses to the critics on this subject, including a chapter in their popular New Answers Book series and web articles like this one.

What are your thoughts on this subject? If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it with your friends on facebook and/or twitter by clicking the appropriate buttons below. Thanks for reading.