"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown." (Genesis 6:4)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...This sole passage has caused more conjecture than most of the Holy scriptures combined... it is the taking of a verse here and there out of context, that can illumine the wildest imagination, to produce one of the greatest stories the Bible has NEVER TOLD!
I have chosen the New International Version of the Bible to be the source text, because it is the one most commonly quoted in reference to Nephilim, the supposed offspring of a supposed union, of "fallen Angels" and daughters of men. However we will see that the scriptures will trump mythology and folklore, in this expose of early origins of man.
"When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years." 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. 5 The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD." (Genesis 6:1-8)
There is a lot of controversy about the "sons of God" mentioned in chapter six of Genesis. We will cover three basic interpretations. The identity of the "sons of God" is said to be uncertain, however as we will see it is more a matter of diligence to dig up the facts, than follow the crowd be it past or present. I will present in part a couple of theories and then consider what I believe to be the biblical prospective and the focus of this study. Please be diligent to consider all details before conclusion...
[I may have to use UPDATE space to finish this post]
#1) The first, and oldest, belief is that "the sons of God" were fallen Angels who consorted with human women, producing giant offspring called nephilim. This view was widely held in the world of the first century, and was supported by Flavius Josephus, Philo, Eusebius and many of the "Ante-Nicene Fathers," including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras and Commodianus.
Argument: The "sons of God" are said to be fallen angels and the "daughters of men" are said to be mortals. The wickedness for which they are condemned is the unlawful marriage between those who are supernatural and those who are mortal. This ancient view point hinges in part on the assumption that Jude 1:6-7 refer to these angels. However…
a.The parallel in Jude 1:6-7 is of the disobedience to God and suffering as example of eternal judgment [and not the "going after strange flesh" being homosexuality. For not only they at Sodom and Gomorrah go strangely after the same flesh, but after same species and also same sex].
b.And if this sin is primarily the fault of the "fallen angels" why is man punished by the flood? Also, why are the "fallen angels" called sons of God, a term reserved only for the faithful followers of God?
c.To say that two different species or types of flesh [1Corinthians 15:39-40 angelic and human] made a super human giant teaches macroevolution or mythology. As students of the Bible and logic we agree with special creation and reject mythology and the theory of macro-evolution [major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species]; micro-evolution we believe [evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species]
d.If this isn't enough in Mark 12:25 "Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven."
i.Some would argue that Jesus didn't say they couldn't He only said "they neither marry, nor are given in marriage" the same that argue that point neither know the scriptures nor English language or the Greek that it was translated from. When Jesus talks about the angels the tense affirm that the angels have neither married to this point nor have been given [allowed] marriage.
ii.Some would further argue that these so-called "fallen angels" only had sexual relations with the daughters of men and never married those that they took. Yet Genesis clearly states that "they took them wives" and Jesus' words confirm they "married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all."
iii.If one further argues that some half human half demon giant survived the flood to be the parent of Anak, the above verse says "the flood came, and destroyed them all." But the best evidence to refute this nonsense is that the bible says "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown." (Genesis 6:4) You see that the giants had nothing to do with the marriages of the sons of God because the giants were in the earth in those days; and also after that." Not because of it!
e.The first viewpoint being more mythological than Biblical as I have also pointed out throws in the face of Acts 17:26 "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;" and even more devilishly making God out to be a copycat procreating a human child with a spirit as his father diminishing the miracle of the virgin birth: Matthew 1:20c for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." For all good reasons we reject viewpoint #1 regardless of whom it's proponents are.
#2) The second view is one first suggested by Julius Africanus and later advocated by Saint Augustine, the Catholic Bishop of Hippo. Augustine rejected the concept of the fallen host having committed fornication with women. In his early fifth century book The City of God, he promoted the theory that "the sons of God" simply referred to the genealogical line of Seth, who were committed to preserving the true worship of God. He interpreted Genesis 6 to mean that the male offspring of Adam through Seth were "the sons of God," and the female offspring of Adam through Cain were "the daughters of men." He wrote that the problem was that the family of Seth had interbred with the family of Cain, thus intermingling the bloodlines and corrupting the pure religion. This view has become dominant among most modern scholars... (see update for argument)
UPDATE - 8 months ago
Argument: This second theory has mankind charged with a sin that is common to the whole of scripture especially of the Pentateuch: the intermarriage of the chosen people of God (believers) and with those who are unholy, but it becomes spurious when referring to the genealogical line of Seth, who were committed to preserving the true worship of God. He interpreted Genesis 6 to mean that the male offspring of Adam through Seth were "the sons of God." Exodus 34:16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods. 2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
a.It is true that the Bible has a common thread about being holy [separate] unto the Lord, but how could these supposedly line of Seth, certain "sons of God" be holy when the Bible teaches that only Noah was righteous. Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 ¶ And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 ¶ But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
b.Now if the link between the "sons of God" is only the "Seth's godly line" then why don't we see this theme throughout the Bible? We see only Adam as in the genealogy of Christ and those believers in Christ [as sons of God]; with Jesus Christ as the focal point of godliness not Seth. Romans 10:4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
c.Furthermore why aren't daughters counted in this "godly line" when throughout Genesis 5 the term "sons and daughters" are listed only in the line of Seth, BUT in the line of Cain any "daughters" aren't mentioned at all? Yet in Genesis 6:2 the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
i.To this point the first, only, and any "daughters" mentioned were of Seth not Cain.
ii.Also, the term "sons of God" was referred to in the line of Seth.
#3) The third view [and I believe correct view] is that "the sons of God" were the sons of pre-Flood rulers or magistrates. This belief became the standard explanation of rabbinical Judaism after Rabbi Simeon ben Yochai pronounced a curse in the second century C.E. upon those Jews who believed the common teaching that the angels were responsible for the nephilim. This interpretation was advocated by two of the most respected Jewish rabbis of the Middle Ages, Rashi and Nachmanides, and became the standard explanation of rabbinical Judaism. However, it is not widely accepted by modern scholars.
Whether or not a theory is accepted is not the deciding factor when determining a biblical truth; only biblical content and context determines a viable doctrine or teaching on any particular issue. This third theory that "the sons of God" were the sons of pre-flood rulers or magistrates is the most viable accurate assessment of Genesis chapter 6 and has the most scriptural reference substantiating its claim... (continued in update)
1)Yet it would seem only one reference to the "sons of God" appearing angelic or not human is allowed to cast doubt on the majority of scripture in its context because of its popular acceptance and mythological overtones. But with this biblical study we will go one step further and affirm that there is no biblical reference to the "sons of God" ever being angelic.
a.Righteous rulers, judges or magistrates. Exodus 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges [gods]; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. Exodus 22:8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges [gods], to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. 9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ****, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges [gods]; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.
i.Here God calls rulers gods and "children of the most High" [literally sons of God]. Psalms 82:6 ¶ I have said, Ye are gods [gods]; and all of you are children [transelated son about 3000 times] of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
ii.If the original words were just translated there would be no confusion over any passage in the bible: "Exodus 22:28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people."
iii.This key passage Psalms 82:6-7 literally solidifies this teaching by saying these "gods" are the "sons of God"…"I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High."
iv.David called kings or fellow rulers gods: "Ps 138:1 ¶ [A Psalm] of David. I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee… 4 All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O LORD, when they hear the words of thy mouth." Or evil kings… "Isaiah 41:23 Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. 24 Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you."
v.Here Samuel the last of the judges is even called gods: "1 Samuel 28:13 And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. 14 And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself."
1.Jesus said God called them gods: John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
2.Paul said: "there be gods many" "1 Corinthians 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (part b. continued in Update)
a.Some argue that the reference to "sons of God" in the book of Job could refer to angels where Satan comes among them in heaven. "Job 1:6 ¶ Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them."
i.But Satan was on the earth already cast out of heaven : Job 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
ii.Some argue that Satan would have to be in heaven with angels because Satan goes from the "presence of the Lord" [Job 1:12, and Job 2:7]. But there are references that the "presence of the Lord" was on earth too: "Genesis 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.", "Genesis 4:16 ¶ And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.", "1Chronicles 16:33 Then shall the trees of the wood sing out at the presence of the LORD, because he cometh to judge the earth.", "Jonah 1:3 But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD, and went down to Joppa; and he found a ship going to Tarshish: so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD.", "Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;"
iii.Some argue that Job 38:7 must refer to angels: Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? First let's look at the reference carefully through the writers eyes and we will find the context meaning from its correct translation by letting the words speak for themselves;
1.In one place, the book of Job translates a common word for "son" as "sparks"; no other place in the Bible is this found; however once it is translated as a flying arrow in Lamentations because of the context of the word quiver. Yet this English word [sparks] could have been very accurately used later in Job 38:7 as describing the flying, burning spheres of gas that they are. "Job 5:7 Yet man is born (8795) unto trouble , as the sparks fly (8800) upward (8686)." [Strong's word for "sparks" 01121*Note sparks fly!]
2.Obviously the translators used "sparks" in Job 5:7 because of the context of the passage, and if the translators were alive today knowing want we know now about the stars being fire they would have done the same in this passage; not to mention the radio wave frequency received from stars as music. "Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang (8800) together , and all the sons of God shouted (8686) for joy?" [Strong's word "sparks" is now translated "sons" 01121 **Note: Stars are like big sparks that fly and sing! WOW! What a scientific breakthrough!!!]
(final points in following Update)
1.One word can mean many different things in any language it is written; but the rules of contextual interpretation remain the same. Context and grammatical notation determine all accurate biblical understanding. "Lamentations 3:13 He hath caused the arrows of his quiver to enter (8689) into my reins ." [Strong's word 01121 now translated arrows of a quiver ***Note: Stars are like big sparks that fly… now like arrows? Implying shooting stars?] Just kidding, but it makes a cool discovery about the accuracy of God's word and its hidden mysteries.
2.Saying all this, the Old Testament conclusion of the issue is that IF the writer of Job wanted to say ANGELS [as sons of God] he would have just used the word as he did in Chapter 4 vs18: "Job 4:18 Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly:" [I think some people will be charged with folly too; over this same subject and lack of diligence!]
3.Furthermore the New Testament conclusion is found in the book of Hebrews coming from an individual that is astute in his grasp of all the scriptures on this very issue: "Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." The answer to this rhetorical question of which angel at any time was called "my son" or even "a son" is a resounding "NONE" ever; not all, not one or any!
b.Yet others will argue that offspring from the cohabitation were "the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men" were the "giants" AND "men of renown." "Ge 6:4 ¶ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown."
i.They are correct that the offspring "[became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of reno
wn BUT the "giants" were "in the earth in those days; and also after that" [in the days of the flood, and after the days of the flood].
ii.IF the offspring of this union were "giants" that's no big deal seeing that there were already giants in those days and after that. Also IF the union brought forth 'giants" the writer could have use that word [instead of "mighty men" or "men of renown"] seeing as he already did in the first part of the verse. The words "men of old" denote those living before God destroyed them by a flood.
iii.Some even go as far as to say the offspring of this union were fierce "demonic giants" surviving the flood and ancestors of Goliath and such. This teaching would call Jesus Christ a liar because He said: "Luke 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." Note: Jesus mentioned that these were "given in marriage" something Jesus said never happened to angelic beings. (continued in next Update)
UPDATE - 8 months ago
iv.Others ask the question [already addressed]: What about Jude referring to Angels going after strange flesh? He didn't! He said… "Jude 1:6 Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh"…and they take "in like manner" and say the angels in that manner went after strange flesh, but rather the manner of the angels leaving "their first estate, but left their own habitation" left their place, position and design as servants and ministers; so inhabitants of Sodom and others left God's design for them.
1.The "example suffering the vengeance of eternal fire Jude 1:7" not the example of sexual immorality.
2.These demons also suffer as the example of judgment: "Revelation 12: 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And nowhere is there any inference of immorality in angelic beings, rather their rebellion "1Samuel 15:23 For rebellion [is as] the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness [is as] iniquity and idolatry."; "Isaiah 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:"
3.IF it were possible that demons could cohabitate with humans then we would see this as common and surely the "Anti-Christ" would be born in such fashion, however this is not the case regardless of the many books and films alluding to a 666 spawn child. "Revelation 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. And such has been the demonic mode of operation as possession, just like in Revelation receiving powers: "Acts 16:16 And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:" BUT there is absolutely no evidence of spiritually conceived children other than Jesus Christ.
Conclusion to the matter would have Angels (fallen or not) desiring to look into the affairs of God with mankind. A special relationship between Creator and His Creation ...in His own image. Angels will never bear the name "child of God" however we will to their "rejoicing"...
Jesus said... "Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance." (Luke 15:7)
"...It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which Angels long to look." (1 Peter 1:12)