Q & A Series: Were the Sons of God and Nephilim Ancient Aliens?

The Ancient Alien hypothesis has exploded in popularity since the publication of von Daniken’s Chariots of the Gods. It has also spawned this popular television series on The History Channel.

[As of 11/5/11 my thesis is now available in print or for Amazon Kindle.] Since I began summarizing my thesis in a series of blog posts last month, several people have asked me what I thought of the ancient alien hypothesis. If you aren’t familiar with this idea, allow me to summarize it.

It has been proposed by some researchers that aliens visited this planet long ago. Many of those who promote this view believe these aliens seeded the first life forms on earth (panspermia) and may even be involved in guiding our alleged evolution. As evidence, adherents point to the amazing complexity of life and to many of the artifacts and incredible structures from ancient history that can be found all over the globe. The famous Nazca lines in Peru, the various pyramids and ziggurats, and other mysterious ancient constructions are some examples of the evidence used. Two of the most popular proponents of this view have been Erich von Daniken and the late Zecharia Sitchin. Both have sold millions of copies of their books on the subject, so there is obviously great interest in this concept.

A version of this hypothesis was promoted in the popular 1994 sci-fi movie Stargate (and the three subsequent television series). Some of the ideas out there seem more believable, while some are so outlandish that it is amazing anyone would even consider it.

Of particular interest to me is that many of these folks claim the Bible mentions this in the Book of 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)

Many ancient alien proponents believe aliens visited earth several thousand years ago to breed with humanity either in an effort to keep their own race going or to advance humankind. The passage cited above is sometimes used to support that notion. It is claimed that the “sons of God” were actually aliens who visited earth and mated with women. Zecharia Sitchin has argued that the term “Nephilim” is from the Hebrew verb naphal (to fall), which he changes to mean “to come down” as though they came down from space. For the record, Sitchin is not alone in connecting the word “Nephilim” to the verb naphal, many Christians have also tried to make this connection, but this is inaccurate because it would not fit any of the Hebrew morphologies (i.e., the way the Hebrew word construction changes, for a good explanation of this term see this article by biblical and ancient near eastern scholar Michael Heiser).

Having written my thesis on these particular verses I am quite familiar with what they do and do not teach. Although Christians disagree on the proper identification of the “sons of God” and the “Nephilim,” one thing is clear: the Bible does not promote the ancient alien hypothesis here or anywhere else (some proponents cite Ezekiel 1 for support as well). There are several problems with the ancient alien view from a biblical perspective.

First, the text reveals that the “sons of God” married the daughters of men and the Nephilim were very likely the offspring of these unions. I believe it is best to identify the “sons of God” as heavenly beings (in this case fallen angels) since heavenly beings are called this in Job 1, 2, 38. Numbers 13:33 indicates that a race of giants known as the Anakim were part of the Nephilim. This makes sense since the term “Nephilim” is likely from the Aramaic noun naphil, which means “giant.”

Second, the notion of extraterrestrial sentient beings (not including spiritual creatures) is foreign to the Bible and contradicts several biblical teachings. For example, the Bible reveals that God created the earth (Day One) before the other astronomical bodies (Day Four). So earth plays a unique role in God’s program. Also, Jesus Christ became a descendant of Adam and died “once for all” for the descendants of Adam (Romans 6:10; Hebrews 7:27; 9:12; 10:10). If there were sentient beings elsewhere in the universe and they sinned against their Creator, then they would be unable to be saved since the Son of God died once and it was on earth and for mankind.

Third, the whole notion of panspermia is flawed. This is the idea that life came to earth from another planet. The reason this view was originally developed is because many scientists (like Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) have realized the impossibility of life arising by chance processes here on earth. So instead of believing that God created life, they proposed that the first organisms came here from another place. However, this is simply passing the buck. Where did those life forms come from? Why, if life cannot evolve from non-living material on a planet perfectly suited for life (like earth), could it allegedly evolve somewhere else in the universe? This is an argument from silence.

The Ancient Aliens series has been popular enough for the History Channel to make at least seven seasons.

Although the Bible does not promote the ancient alien theory, there is a plausible connection that needs to be explored. The modern UFO/alien abduction phenomenon bears some resemblance to what I believe is described in Genesis 6. Although I think many of those who claimed to have been abducted are simply seeking attention, there seem to be some cases where something really did happen to the individual (although I don’t believe they were abducted by aliens since I don’t believe in aliens).

Could it be that demons are posing as aliens and either physically abducting people (if possible) or creating psychological encounters that seem real to the victim? Although many are probably hoaxes, consider that tens of thousands of abductees from all over the world share similar details about their encounter. They claim to have undergone some sort of sexual examination during their abduction or even to have been forced to have sex with another abductee or one of the aliens. Oftentimes, the victim is severely traumatized as a result of their abduction and some have even claimed to have become pregnant as a result.

As bizarre as this seems, it is not too different from Medieval stories of incubi and succubae. Numerous reports speak of the incubus as a male demon who would visit women in their sleep and have sex with them, sometimes impregnating them. The succubus is said to have been a demon manifesting as a female to have intercourse with men.

So are all of these strange encounters simply make believe? What do professing abductees have to gain from announcing their abductions? Sure, some may be publicity seekers, but many of them are embarrassed and ashamed of what has happened to them. There does seem to be something very strange going on.

There are two more ideas that lead me to believe that the modern alien abductions are part of a demonic deception. First, many abductees have told that the aliens have shared messages with them (often telepathically). They are told that Jesus was just a member of their race, which explains why He could work miracles. They are also told things that flatly deny biblical teachings. For example, these “aliens” claim that hell does not exist and that all religions are equally valid. If these were truly aliens, why in the world would they travel hundreds of billions of miles through space just to inform us that the Bible is wrong? Why would they care in the first place? This seems like an obvious indication that these encounters are demonic in nature. Furthermore, there are a handful of documented cases in which an abduction in process immediately stopped when the abductee cried out for Jesus to save them. Why would aliens stop their abduction when the name of Jesus is called upon? (See Gary Bates’ informative book on the subject entitled Alien Intrusion for more details on the ideas in this paragraph).

Finally, the timing of the modern UFO/alien abduction phenomenon is just too perfect to be coincidental. Although some UFO sightings have been reported throughout history the modern phenomena started in June of 1947 when Kenneth Arnold spotted nine Unidentified Flying Objects near Mt. Ranier in Washington state. Two weeks later the famous Roswell incident occurred and literally hundreds of thousands of sightings have been reported since then. What is so special about this timing? Well, many Christians, myself included, believe that the most obvious and important sign preceding the Second Coming of Christ was the return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel. Following the atrocities committed against the Jews during World War II, many of them moved back to the Promised Land and for the first few years after the war, support grew for the re-establishment of the Jewish nation. On May 14, 1948, after nearly 1,900 years of being without a homeland, Israel became a nation once again.

Is it just coincidence that an intensified demonic deception in the form of alien abductions sprang up as it became obvious that the nation of Israel would once again be on the face of the earth? I don’t think so. I think we are witnessing the fulfillment of biblical prophecies in our day and age. Not only did the Jewish people return to their homeland as prophesied (see Ezekiel 37-38), but many of the other signs discussed by Jesus in Matthew 24 are falling into place (the sign Jesus mentioned three times in that discourse was the increase of spiritual deception that would take place just before His return).

So maybe I’m wrong for believing these things are related, but they all fit together in an extremely intriguing fashion. Make no mistake. Jesus Christ will return to this earth someday, perhaps very soon. Many people have rejected Him, either by outright denial of Him, indifference toward Him, or by attempting to save themselves from sin thus denying His sacrifice for their sin. These people will face His wrath and be judged for eternity for failing to repent of their sins and trust in Christ alone for salvation. They will suffer the same fate as those fallen angels whose sin was described in Genesis 6, and of those demons who are involved in the modern alien deception. Those of us who have received Christ as Lord and Savior will dwell with Him in glory for all eternity.

Again, if these were actual aliens, why would they work so hard to deny the Person and work of Jesus Christ? The most important issue you will ever confront is to figure out what you will do with Jesus. Will you reject Him or receive Him?

Thanks for reading. For more information on the sons of God and the Nephilim, click the word “Nephilim” in the tag cloud on the right side of this page. If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it on facebook or twitter by clicking on the appropriate button below.

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.