Nephilim, Demons, Supernatural Stuff

[Ryan&Amber2013]

So I was talking to a brother today, and he has an interesting theory about ghosts and aliens, and demons. Let me know if you think he's on to something good.

He basically thinks the fallen angels are currently bound, and upon death human spirits are either sent to heaven or hell. So that leaves the question of what ghosts actually are, and aliens, and demonic activity, etc.

According to his stance, he believes the nephilim were a mixture of spiritual beings and flesh, and when their flesh died they remained spiritual beings in this world. So for example, when Jesus cast the demons into pigs, he would say they were technically nephilim spirits. So like the weird ghost sightings, mediums, creature sightings, and all the supernatural things, he would basically sum it up by saying those are the spirits of nephilim that have remained on earth while the fallen angels are currently chained. Any thoughts?

 

[Polanus1561]

sounds like he has been hearing too much of those weird podcasts out there today

 

[NaphtaliPress]

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Lol, I think he's into Michael Heiser in this area.

 

[RamistThomist]

Here is how I approach these questions. I more or less hold to some of Heiser's views, although I disagree with his construction in a few places. (I think his appeal to Mt Hermon is unnecessary.) If someone is truly interested in the truth, then they will read (not podcasts, not youtube, but books. Good ones. With footnotes) the best sources. ).

The late Jewish and early Christian writers were fairly clear that the Watchers mated with humans and created the Nephilim. We don't have to agree with them, but that is what they thought. Heiser didn't make any of this stuff up. It was common knowledge in academic sources.

If you are interested in working through the hard questions and avoiding easy, cliched answers, then this is the place to start.

A working ANE bibliography

This is largely drawn from Heiser’s More Unseen Realm site. I tried to delete multiples of the same copy, but I probably missed a few. Cecelia Grave, “The Etymology of Northwest Semitic sapan…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Bibliography from Veneration

This is a condensed bibliography from Derek Gilbert’s Veneration Conrad l’Heureux, “The yelide harapa—A Cultic Association of Warriors.” Bulletin of the AmericanSchools of Oriental Research N…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Second Coming of Saturn Bibliography

Lord willing, I plan to read Derek Gilbert’s Second Coming of Saturn. While Gilbert does not claim to be a scholar on the level of Michael Heiser, Gilbert is second to none when it comes to p…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

If someone says "That's impossible!" (cue Luke Skywalker), then we know they really haven't worked through the literature and are just operating on Cartesian assumptions of spirit and matter (and probably Roman Catholic angelology).

And I've actually modified my views. I don't think they were necessarily mating with angels/beney ha-elohim, but I reject the Sethite thesis for obvious textual reasons. My own view is that Great Kings mated with human women in demonic ceremonies (which actually matches some archeological evidence).

I know Joel Webbon and Sauve have podcasted on this. I think they set the view back about 30 years. I mean, he literally started promoting fairies.

 

[83r17h]

And I've actually modified my views. I don't think they were necessarily mating with angels/beney ha-elohim, but I reject the Sethite thesis for obvious textual reasons. My own view is that Great Kings mated with human women in demonic ceremonies (which actually matches some archeological evidence).

The Great Kings being humans? Or who are they in this context?

 

[RamistThomist]

The Great Kings being humans? Or who are they in this context?

Babylonian kings, etc. Kings who thought they were gods, etc.

 

[MW]

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (1Tim. 4:1).

Matthew Henry: One of the great instances of the apostasy, namely, giving heed to doctrines of demons, or concerning demons; that is, those doctrines which teach the worship of saints and angels, as a middle sort of deities, between the immortal God and mortal men, such as the heathen called demons, and worshipped under that notion. Now this plainly agrees to the church of Rome, and it was one of the first steps towards that great apostasy, the enshrining of the relics of martyrs, paying divine honours to them, erecting altars, burning incense, consecrating images and temples, and making prayers and praises to the honour of saints departed. This demon-worship is paganism revived, the image of the first beast.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the nephilim idea is that devils – spirits – are capable of procreating with humans; immaterial spirits have not that power or ability. They cannot create matter, only lying delusions. A recent book, Pagan America: The Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come, by John Davidson, was ruined by indulging just such fantasies. Apart from that it had some merit – but those reading it were able to discern that Davidson lacked spiritual discernment.

 

[davejonescue]

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the nephilim idea is that devils – spirits – are capable of procreating with humans; immaterial spirits have not that power or ability. They cannot create matter, only lying delusions. A recent book, Pagan America: The Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come, by John Davidson, was ruined by indulging just such fantasies. Apart from that it had some merit – but those reading it were able to discern that Davidson lacked spiritual discernment.

How would this correlate with the episode of Lot and the Angels, who had actual bodies, even to the point the deranged Sodomites wanted to rape them? Wouldnt this point to Angels being able to take on material form? And if they can, would they not then be able to procreate? I dont think the Bible points to Fallen Angels being stripped of their innate abilities, (just like men who rebel against God can still do those things that are innate to the Imago Dei,) which materialization may be one of them. But I dont know, I have never done a thorough study on Angels.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello David,

A good and pertinent question!

It is written, God "maketh his angels spirits . . . Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" (Heb 1:7KJV; Heb 1:14KJV). He did not make them spirits as well as of humankind, as though they could take on human nature at will – although they were able to materialize physically when needed to rescue or help God's human children.

To enter into physical union with humans sexually and produce offspring would require them to have human nature. Human nature is not given to them. True, devils – spirits – can enter into humans, as in possess them, or "demonize" them in varying degrees, but not as fellow humans. This is nowhere said of them.

It is true that, in Gen 6:2KJV it is said the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair and took them to wife, yet in the next verse, Gen 6:3KJV, God says, "My Spirit shall not always strive with man", not that His Spirit would strive with demon-human monstrosities. Exegetically sober understanding has always maintained that the "sons of God" were those of the godly line – yet unregenerate – seduced by the outward beauty those of the line of Cain.

Before the flood the godly line was mostly decimated by either murderous persecution or by apostasy from the faithful remnant.

Re Goliath the giant, it is nowhere intimated that he was anything other than a human.

We do not make the Bible into the fantasy genre where the occult is mixed with the divine truth. It is bad enough that in our times sorcery and witchcraft are inundating humankind so that we are indeed becoming monstrous creatures in our souls, yet it is not in our power to be other than humans, for that is the way God has irrevocably created us.

 

[No Other Name]

Upfront, I need to say that I have no dog in the "did they procreate-not procreate" camp at all. But part of why is because posts like yours make some rather large assumptions that rarely get specified.

Allow me to illustrate by engaging with your post genuinely as an objective 3rd party:

1) You allow that angels do take material form:

they were able to materialize physically when needed to rescue or help God's human children.

but you insist that they could not procreate:

To enter into physical union with humans sexually and produce offspring would require them to have human nature. Human nature is not given to them.

But how is this assertion true? How can you know that male-like sexual gametes cannot be artificially constructed? Certainly not simply because it is outside God's created design and order? I am not arguing the contrary here, just asking on what basis this is claimed?

It is true that, in Gen 6:2KJV it is said the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair and took them to wife, yet in the next verse, Gen 6:3KJV, God says, "My Spirit shall not always strive with man", not that His Spirit would strive with demon-human monstrosities

Ok but certainly you have read into the other view to know that this does not address the issue at all. If the "sons of God" are interpreted by some as fallen angels, this does not mean God is addressing them in any way in verse 3. If this horrific genetic experiment happened, there would exist two types of creatures: man and demon-human monstrosities, and God only has a Gen 3:15 covenant with man and not with demon-human monstrosities so that a hypothetical exegete persuaded of the opposing view would be mystified at what point you are even making here.

Exegetically sober understanding has always maintained that the "sons of God" were those of the godly line – yet unregenerate – seduced by the outward beauty those of the line of Cain.

Ok, (I even tend to think you may be right) but how so? How does your traditional view count as "exegetically sober" and the other view of literal procreation with the fallen less so? Wouldn't another poster that disagreed say the same thing about his set apart against yours?

We do not make the Bible into the fantasy genre where the occult is mixed with the divine truth.

sad. This seems to be a strawman or poisoning the well or some type of fallacy like unto it.

The ministers I have known in my life that interpret "sons of God" as fallen angels/demons are not mixing fantasy (let alone the occult!) with divine truth. They may be exegetically unsound here or there, but this inserts an a priori intent in that particular Gen. 6 view that is uncharitable at best.

Again, I am dubious myself of fallen angels procreating with human females, but it feels like every time someone here takes up the other position, the argument against it is not as solid as they initially seem to have imagined.

One poster here even acted as if Christ teaching in the Gospels that angels do not have bodies like ours and do not engage in sexual congress in the courts of heaven was somehow evidence that the Gen. 6 "sons of God" then could not be angels .... when everyone also agrees that angels can and have taken material physical form in history.

Again, I have no dog in this fight, and I doubt whether it can be argued to a certain conclusion one way or the other.

The italicized portion of my last sentence is why I find the subject so fascinating. Methods and modes of argumentation and reasoning take center stage more clearly in my mind on subjects like this.

God bless you and all you do!

 

[RamistThomist]

Robert Newman, Grace Theological Journal, has a helpful article on this. He documents the very earliest Christian readers held to the supernatural reading. That is simply beyond dispute. That does not make them correct, but it is worth noting.

Some of the sites that host the article have 2CV, so I won't post it here. Just google Robert Newman, The Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6: 2, 4.

Again, I am dubious myself of fallen angels procreating with human females, but it feels like every time someone here takes up the other position, the argument against it is not as solid as they initially seem to have imagined.

Neither argument is solid, which is why I have modified my position. I actually think it was two humans mating, but they did so in the context of a demonically charged ceremony (sort of like some Satanic rituals by top secret elites today; Hitler's Lebensborn, for example). The best evidence is the nature of Babylonian kingship and the rituals at the Ziggurats.

The main problem with my argument is that is not what the text says. Beney ha-elohim almost always has a specific, supernatural reading. But I don't push the issue anymore, save to point out that claims like "angels can't do x because they are immaterial" are almost certainly false.

 

[iainduguid]

Here are my thoughts on the topic, from my forthcoming Genesis commentary in the ESVEC series:

6:1-4 The timing of this episode is introduced in rather vague terms: “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them… (Gen. 6:1). However, from what follows, it appears that these events occurred during the lifetime of Noah. At this time “the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were attractive (lit. “good”). And they took as their wives any they chose” (6:2). The language of seeing and taking something perceived to be good echoes the first temptation in Genesis 3:6, so it is clear that this action represents a significant sin on the part of the “sons of God”. But who were “the sons of God” and the “daughters of men” and why was their intermarriage sinful?

Three views of the identity of these groups have been argued, with the first two explanations both finding support since the earliest interpreters.[1] The first view suggests that the “sons of God” were the descendants of the line of Seth, with the “daughters of men” being the descendants of Cain.[2] The second view interprets the “sons of God” as (demonic) spirit beings, who engaged in sexual intercourse with human women (“the daughters of men”). Justin Martyr (100-160 A.D.) writes, “God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, . . . committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons.”[3] Meanwhile, a third view identifies the “sons of God” as kings, who in many ancient Near Eastern societies claimed divine status for themselves as “sons of the gods”. These kings had the power of life and death over their subjects., and on this interpretation, the stress lies on the rulers taking on “any [of the daughters of men] they chose” in Genesis 6:2. These kings seized whatever women they wished for their harems – not just marrying one woman, as God had intended for them (2:24), but as many as they chose. Where Lamech first broke God’s pattern for marriage by having two wives (4:19), these kings multiplied that sin many times over by multiplying for themselves wives.[4]

Each of these views has able exponents and is defensible, though each has its own problems.

The greatest challenge for the first view is that nowhere else in the Old Testament are human beings described as “the sons of God”; on the contrary, the term consistently designates angelic beings (see Job 1:6; Job 38:7; and [probably] Deut. 32:8).[5] In addition, “the daughters of men” in verse 2 seems obviously related to the daughters born to men in verse 1, which doesn’t seem to limit them to a particular sub-group (i.e. the daughters of the line of Cain).[6] Moreover, some New Testament passages seem to reference the involvement of spiritual beings in these events. For example, Jude 6-7 speaks of angels leaving their proper home and sinning in a way that was similar to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah in pursuing “strange flesh”.[7] Similarly, 1 Peter 3:19-20 references the proclamation of the gospel to spirits who were disobedient in the time of Noah.

The main challenge for the second view is the question whether angels are capable of producing offspring through intercourse with humans (see Matt. 22:30). John Calvin says the angelic view “is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious,” [8] though it must be said that ancient audiences did not find the idea as obviously absurd as Calvin did. Moreover, Genesis says remarkably little about the world of angelic beings, good or bad; on the contrary, it is much more closely focused on human sin and its consequences.[9] Indeed, the transgression in Genesis 6 (whatever it may have been) seems to result in a specific judgment coming upon humanity, not on angelic beings.

The third view offers a potential explanation for the use of the language of “the sons of God” to describe humans but doesn’t necessarily provide a much better alternative overall. In general, ancient Near Eastern kings as individuals may have styled themselves as “the son of the gods” but there is little evidence for “the sons of the gods” being used as a collective term for kings or rulers. There seems little interest in the political organization of the ancient city-states in Genesis 4, which references farming, music and technology as advances belonging to the line of Cain but says nothing at all explicitly about kingship.

It is hard to establish which of these interpretations is to be preferred with any certainty. However, a significant contextual consideration is the fact that the contrast between the lines of Cain and Seth forms the larger backdrop against which this episode occurs. Indeed, Genesis 6:1-8 is itself incorporated into the larger genealogy of Seth that starts in Genesis 5 and concludes in Genesis 9:29.[10] On this view, the passage provides an explanation of why the two families do not result in large numbers of people in the category of “righteous” and “wicked.” Because so many of the sons of the line of Seth intermarried indiscriminately, the result was an almost complete loss of the righteous line.

What is more, it is also true that even though the Old Testament does not elsewhere use “sons of God” to describe God’s people, the idea is not entirely foreign to the passage. In Genesis 5:1-3, image and sonship are intimately connected: Adam is made in God’s image and he passes that image on to his children through Seth. If Adam is thus, by virtue of bearing his image, God’s son (Luke 3:38), and Seth is explicitly made in the image of Adam (5:3), could not Seth and his line rightly be called “sons of God”?[11]

Finally, elsewhere in the Bible, Satan’s three primary modes of attack on God’s people take the form of deception, persecution and seduction,[12] and it could be argued that the same modus operandi is evident already in the opening chapters of Genesis, deceiving Eve (Gen. 3), martyring Abel (Gen. 4), and now seducing the line of promise (Gen. 6:1-4). These considerations, taken together, persuade me that the interpretation which understands the sin as being the wrongful mixing of the lines of Seth and the line of Cain is correct, though the alternative views each have their strengths.

Whichever interpretation is adopted, what is abundantly clear is that as humanity multiplied and filled the earth – evidence itself of God’s blessing (see Gen. 1:27) – sin multiplied also. The sin of these verses formed an evil parody of the creation mandate: these beings, who aspired to be in the image of God, sought to fill the earth with their offspring as God had commanded, but they went about it in the wrong way, abusing the marriage relationship to serve their corrupt desires and seeking to make a name for themselves, following the pattern of Cain (6:4; 4:17; “men of renown” is literally “men of name”).

In this pursuit, they were unsuccessful, as is the case for every act of human rebellion in Genesis. God judged the “sons of God” and their sin resulted in curse and destruction rather than the blessing and prosperity that was sought. Just as indiscriminate eating in Genesis 3 resulted in death, so too indiscriminate marriage that transgressed the boundaries set by God, also resulted in death. In contrast to the lengthy lives of the antediluvian patriarchs in Genesis 5, human life will be limited to a mere 120 years.[13] The reason given, “for he is flesh” (6:3) could describe human mortality or corruption; in fact, both are in view: human mortality is the result of human corruption, and the expansion in corruption in these verses will be matched by a decrease in human lifespan. The divine breath/spirit gives life to humanity and when it is withdrawn, the result is death (see Gen. 2:7; Ezek. 37:10; Ps. 104:29; 146:4).

The judgment of verse 3 logically separates verses 1-2 from verses 4-5, though they are linked by the renewed mention of the sons of God and daughters of men in verse 4. The result is a chiastic structure that focuses our attention on the judgment curse that falls on humanity:



A: Humanity multiplies on the face of the earth (6:1)

B: Sin increases: the sons of God and daughters of men transgress (6:2)

C: Judgment declared upon humanity (6:3)

B’: Sin increases: the Nephilim and mighty men transgress (6:4)

A’: Human wickedness grows great in the earth (6:5)



The significance of this observation is to note that the sin in verse 4, while contemporaneous with that in verse 2 (“when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and had children by them”),[14] is not necessarily the same as it. In other words, the Nephilim and the mighty men are not necessarily the offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men, as is often assumed by the interpretation that sees the sons of God as angelic beings.[15] Genesis 6:4, however, simply asserts that the Nephilim (“fallen ones”) were also present during these corrupt days, as well as later on. It does not tell us anything about the Nephilim, assuming that readers are already familiar with these people.

The only other explicit reference in the Bible to the Nephilim is Numbers 13:33, where the scouts claimed that the fearsomely large Anakim that they encountered were “of” (min) the Nephilim. This Hebrew construction could mean that the Anakim were “descended from” the Nephilim, though that raises questions about how the Nephilim could have survived the flood.[16] More likely, the point of the comparison is that the Anakites shared the characteristics of the Nephilim of old, not that they were actually related to them. In that case, Numbers 13 gives us a window into what the original audience of Genesis thought the Nephilim were like: tall and strong, fearsome and invincible in battle.

Given this, it makes sense to identify the Nephilim as the antecedent of pronoun in the last part of Genesis 6:4: “they” would then refer to the Nephilim rather than to the children of the illicit unions who immediately precede it, so the Nephilim would be the “mighty men” (“warriors”; gibborim) and the “men of renown” (literally, “men of name”). In that capacity, the Nephilim represent a different manifestation of the growth of sin, namely self-promoting violence rather than sexuality. Their sin lay in seeking to make a name for themselves through their military conquests, rather than humbly calling on the name of the Lord, as the line of Seth did earlier (see 4:26). Not coincidentally, Lamech celebrated his deviancy in both his sexuality and fame-seeking violence in Genesis 4:19-24; so too, the universal spread of sin in Genesis 6 is demonstrated in both these areas. Yet, as the concentric structure emphasizes, what counts ultimately is not human striving but God’s action – here in judgment (and later, in making a name for his chosen one, Abraham; see Gen. 12:2).

---

[1] On the early interpretation of this passage, see Robert C. Newman, “The Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6:2, 4”, Grace Theological Journal 5 (1984): 13-36.
[2] This view is held by, among others, Augustine, City of God, 15.22-23; John Calvin, Genesis (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1554, reprint 1992), 238; Robert S. Candlish, Studies in Genesis (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1979 reprint), 123-24; Mathews, Genesis 1:1-11:26, 324-31.
[3] Justin Martyr, Apology 2.5 (cited by Newman, “Genesis 6:2, 4”, 21-22). Although popular among ancient interpreters, it has not been widely adopted by modern readers.
[4] For this view, see Meredith G. Kline, “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4,” Westminster Theological Journal 24 (1962): 187-204; so also Waltke, Genesis, 116-17.
[5] Deuteronomy 32:8 has text critical difficulties, but the reading “sons of God” rather than “sons of Israel” seems probable. See Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God”, Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (2001): 52-74.
[6] It is possible to adapt the first view to take “the daughters of men” globally as covering all women, not just the daughters of the line of Cain. On this understanding, the sons of Seth were not deliberately marrying outside the line of promise but were carelessly marrying whichever women they chose, without reference to their origins. See Mathews, Genesis 1:1-11:26, 330.
[7] It is worth noting that Jude also cites elsewhere from 1 Enoch, which clearly adopts the supernatural being view. See Newman, “Genesis 6:2, 4”, 16, 28-29.
[8] Genesis, 238.
[9] See Vos, Biblical Theology, 48.
[10] See Mathews, Genesis 1:1-11:26, 329.
[11] It is striking that in Genesis 5, it is explicitly Seth who bears Adam’s image, not Cain. Moreover, all the other uses of bene-’elohim occur outside the Pentateuch (with the possible exception of Deuteronomy 32:8).
[12] Deception (2 Cor. 11:14; Rev. 12:9); persecution (1 Pet. 3:8; Rev. 2:10); seduction (2 Cor. 11:2-3; Rev. 19:2).
[13] On the translation issues of Genesis 6:3, see Mathews, Genesis 1:1-11:26, 332-5. This is obviously not an absolute limitation of age, since Abraham lived to be 175 (Gen. 25:7), but after this point very few people exceed this number.
[14] We may note the similarity to the temporal clause in verse 1 (“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them”) as supporting the interpretation of this phrase in verse 4 as temporal rather than causal.
[15] A connection that is likely behind the Septuagint translation, gigantes (“giants”), which was then followed by the KJV.
[16] The Talmud suggests the unlikely possibility of one of them clinging to the outside of the ark!

 

[No Other Name]

Here are my thoughts on the topic, from my forthcoming Genesis commentary in the ESVEC series:

6:1-4 The timing of this episode is introduced in rather vague terms: “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them… (Gen. 6:1). However, from what follows, it appears that these events occurred during the lifetime of Noah. At this time “the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were attractive (lit. “good”). And they took as their wives any they chose” (6:2). The language of seeing and taking something perceived to be good echoes the first temptation in Genesis 3:6, so it is clear that this action represents a significant sin on the part of the “sons of God”. But who were “the sons of God” and the “daughters of men” and why was their intermarriage sinful?

Three views of the identity of these groups have been argued, with the first two explanations both finding support since the earliest interpreters.[1] The first view suggests that the “sons of God” were the descendants of the line of Seth, with the “daughters of men” being the descendants of Cain.[2] The second view interprets the “sons of God” as (demonic) spirit beings, who engaged in sexual intercourse with human women (“the daughters of men”). Justin Martyr (100-160 A.D.) writes, “God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, . . . committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons.”[3] Meanwhile, a third view identifies the “sons of God” as kings, who in many ancient Near Eastern societies claimed divine status for themselves as “sons of the gods”. These kings had the power of life and death over their subjects., and on this interpretation, the stress lies on the rulers taking on “any [of the daughters of men] they chose” in Genesis 6:2. These kings seized whatever women they wished for their harems – not just marrying one woman, as God had intended for them (2:24), but as many as they chose. Where Lamech first broke God’s pattern for marriage by having two wives (4:19), these kings multiplied that sin many times over by multiplying for themselves wives.[4]

Each of these views has able exponents and is defensible, though each has its own problems.

The greatest challenge for the first view is that nowhere else in the Old Testament are human beings described as “the sons of God”; on the contrary, the term consistently designates angelic beings (see Job 1:6; Job 38:7; and [probably] Deut. 32:8).[5] In addition, “the daughters of men” in verse 2 seems obviously related to the daughters born to men in verse 1, which doesn’t seem to limit them to a particular sub-group (i.e. the daughters of the line of Cain).[6] Moreover, some New Testament passages seem to reference the involvement of spiritual beings in these events. For example, Jude 6-7 speaks of angels leaving their proper home and sinning in a way that was similar to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah in pursuing “strange flesh”.[7] Similarly, 1 Peter 3:19-20 references the proclamation of the gospel to spirits who were disobedient in the time of Noah.

The main challenge for the second view is the question whether angels are capable of producing offspring through intercourse with humans (see Matt. 22:30). John Calvin says the angelic view “is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious,” [8] though it must be said that ancient audiences did not find the idea as obviously absurd as Calvin did. Moreover, Genesis says remarkably little about the world of angelic beings, good or bad; on the contrary, it is much more closely focused on human sin and its consequences.[9] Indeed, the transgression in Genesis 6 (whatever it may have been) seems to result in a specific judgment coming upon humanity, not on angelic beings.

The third view offers a potential explanation for the use of the language of “the sons of God” to describe humans but doesn’t necessarily provide a much better alternative overall. In general, ancient Near Eastern kings as individuals may have styled themselves as “the son of the gods” but there is little evidence for “the sons of the gods” being used as a collective term for kings or rulers. There seems little interest in the political organization of the ancient city-states in Genesis 4, which references farming, music and technology as advances belonging to the line of Cain but says nothing at all explicitly about kingship.

It is hard to establish which of these interpretations is to be preferred with any certainty. However, a significant contextual consideration is the fact that the contrast between the lines of Cain and Seth forms the larger backdrop against which this episode occurs. Indeed, Genesis 6:1-8 is itself incorporated into the larger genealogy of Seth that starts in Genesis 5 and concludes in Genesis 9:29.[10] On this view, the passage provides an explanation of why the two families do not result in large numbers of people in the category of “righteous” and “wicked.” Because so many of the sons of the line of Seth intermarried indiscriminately, the result was an almost complete loss of the righteous line.

What is more, it is also true that even though the Old Testament does not elsewhere use “sons of God” to describe God’s people, the idea is not entirely foreign to the passage. In Genesis 5:1-3, image and sonship are intimately connected: Adam is made in God’s image and he passes that image on to his children through Seth. If Adam is thus, by virtue of bearing his image, God’s son (Luke 3:38), and Seth is explicitly made in the image of Adam (5:3), could not Seth and his line rightly be called “sons of God”?[11]

Finally, elsewhere in the Bible, Satan’s three primary modes of attack on God’s people take the form of deception, persecution and seduction,[12] and it could be argued that the same modus operandi is evident already in the opening chapters of Genesis, deceiving Eve (Gen. 3), martyring Abel (Gen. 4), and now seducing the line of promise (Gen. 6:1-4). These considerations, taken together, persuade me that the interpretation which understands the sin as being the wrongful mixing of the lines of Seth and the line of Cain is correct, though the alternative views each have their strengths.

Whichever interpretation is adopted, what is abundantly clear is that as humanity multiplied and filled the earth – evidence itself of God’s blessing (see Gen. 1:27) – sin multiplied also. The sin of these verses formed an evil parody of the creation mandate: these beings, who aspired to be in the image of God, sought to fill the earth with their offspring as God had commanded, but they went about it in the wrong way, abusing the marriage relationship to serve their corrupt desires and seeking to make a name for themselves, following the pattern of Cain (6:4; 4:17; “men of renown” is literally “men of name”).

In this pursuit, they were unsuccessful, as is the case for every act of human rebellion in Genesis. God judged the “sons of God” and their sin resulted in curse and destruction rather than the blessing and prosperity that was sought. Just as indiscriminate eating in Genesis 3 resulted in death, so too indiscriminate marriage that transgressed the boundaries set by God, also resulted in death. In contrast to the lengthy lives of the antediluvian patriarchs in Genesis 5, human life will be limited to a mere 120 years.[13] The reason given, “for he is flesh” (6:3) could describe human mortality or corruption; in fact, both are in view: human mortality is the result of human corruption, and the expansion in corruption in these verses will be matched by a decrease in human lifespan. The divine breath/spirit gives life to humanity and when it is withdrawn, the result is death (see Gen. 2:7; Ezek. 37:10; Ps. 104:29; 146:4).

The judgment of verse 3 logically separates verses 1-2 from verses 4-5, though they are linked by the renewed mention of the sons of God and daughters of men in verse 4. The result is a chiastic structure that focuses our attention on the judgment curse that falls on humanity:



A: Humanity multiplies on the face of the earth (6:1)

B: Sin increases: the sons of God and daughters of men transgress (6:2)

C: Judgment declared upon humanity (6:3)

B’: Sin increases: the Nephilim and mighty men transgress (6:4)

A’: Human wickedness grows great in the earth (6:5)



The significance of this observation is to note that the sin in verse 4, while contemporaneous with that in verse 2 (“when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and had children by them”),[14] is not necessarily the same as it. In other words, the Nephilim and the mighty men are not necessarily the offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men, as is often assumed by the interpretation that sees the sons of God as angelic beings.[15] Genesis 6:4, however, simply asserts that the Nephilim (“fallen ones”) were also present during these corrupt days, as well as later on. It does not tell us anything about the Nephilim, assuming that readers are already familiar with these people.

The only other explicit reference in the Bible to the Nephilim is Numbers 13:33, where the scouts claimed that the fearsomely large Anakim that they encountered were “of” (min) the Nephilim. This Hebrew construction could mean that the Anakim were “descended from” the Nephilim, though that raises questions about how the Nephilim could have survived the flood.[16] More likely, the point of the comparison is that the Anakites shared the characteristics of the Nephilim of old, not that they were actually related to them. In that case, Numbers 13 gives us a window into what the original audience of Genesis thought the Nephilim were like: tall and strong, fearsome and invincible in battle.

Given this, it makes sense to identify the Nephilim as the antecedent of pronoun in the last part of Genesis 6:4: “they” would then refer to the Nephilim rather than to the children of the illicit unions who immediately precede it, so the Nephilim would be the “mighty men” (“warriors”; gibborim) and the “men of renown” (literally, “men of name”). In that capacity, the Nephilim represent a different manifestation of the growth of sin, namely self-promoting violence rather than sexuality. Their sin lay in seeking to make a name for themselves through their military conquests, rather than humbly calling on the name of the Lord, as the line of Seth did earlier (see 4:26). Not coincidentally, Lamech celebrated his deviancy in both his sexuality and fame-seeking violence in Genesis 4:19-24; so too, the universal spread of sin in Genesis 6 is demonstrated in both these areas. Yet, as the concentric structure emphasizes, what counts ultimately is not human striving but God’s action – here in judgment (and later, in making a name for his chosen one, Abraham; see Gen. 12:2).

---

[1] On the early interpretation of this passage, see Robert C. Newman, “The Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6:2, 4”, Grace Theological Journal 5 (1984): 13-36.
[2] This view is held by, among others, Augustine, City of God, 15.22-23; John Calvin, Genesis (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1554, reprint 1992), 238; Robert S. Candlish, Studies in Genesis (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1979 reprint), 123-24; Mathews, Genesis 1:1-11:26, 324-31.
[3] Justin Martyr, Apology 2.5 (cited by Newman, “Genesis 6:2, 4”, 21-22). Although popular among ancient interpreters, it has not been widely adopted by modern readers.
[4] For this view, see Meredith G. Kline, “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4,” Westminster Theological Journal 24 (1962): 187-204; so also Waltke, Genesis, 116-17.
[5] Deuteronomy 32:8 has text critical difficulties, but the reading “sons of God” rather than “sons of Israel” seems probable. See Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God”, Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (2001): 52-74.
[6] It is possible to adapt the first view to take “the daughters of men” globally as covering all women, not just the daughters of the line of Cain. On this understanding, the sons of Seth were not deliberately marrying outside the line of promise but were carelessly marrying whichever women they chose, without reference to their origins. See Mathews, Genesis 1:1-11:26, 330.
[7] It is worth noting that Jude also cites elsewhere from 1 Enoch, which clearly adopts the supernatural being view. See Newman, “Genesis 6:2, 4”, 16, 28-29.
[8] Genesis, 238.
[9] See Vos, Biblical Theology, 48.
[10] See Mathews, Genesis 1:1-11:26, 329.
[11] It is striking that in Genesis 5, it is explicitly Seth who bears Adam’s image, not Cain. Moreover, all the other uses of bene-’elohim occur outside the Pentateuch (with the possible exception of Deuteronomy 32:8).
[12] Deception (2 Cor. 11:14; Rev. 12:9); persecution (1 Pet. 3:8; Rev. 2:10); seduction (2 Cor. 11:2-3; Rev. 19:2).
[13] On the translation issues of Genesis 6:3, see Mathews, Genesis 1:1-11:26, 332-5. This is obviously not an absolute limitation of age, since Abraham lived to be 175 (Gen. 25:7), but after this point very few people exceed this number.
[14] We may note the similarity to the temporal clause in verse 1 (“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them”) as supporting the interpretation of this phrase in verse 4 as temporal rather than causal.
[15] A connection that is likely behind the Septuagint translation, gigantes (“giants”), which was then followed by the KJV.
[16] The Talmud suggests the unlikely possibility of one of them clinging to the outside of the ark!

I will take my time to read this, but thank you so much for your generosity in sharing with us. The ESV commentary series has been heavily featured in my personal post-Christmas purchases during Crossway's New Year blockbuster sale.

 

[No Other Name]

I actually think it was two humans mating, but they did so in the context of a demonically charged ceremony (sort of like some Satanic rituals by top secret elites today; Hitler's Lebensborn, for example). The best evidence is the nature of Babylonian kingship and the rituals at the Ziggurats.

The main problem with my argument is that is not what the text says. Beney ha-elohim almost always has a specific, supernatural reading. But I don't push the issue anymore, save to point out that claims like "angels can't do x because they are immaterial" are almost certainly false.

Interesting. I cannot read Newman for a while, but your post is almost suggestive to my imagination that the ceremonies could be both literally physical and literally supernatural in the sense that demon possession may occur during - or before - the ceremony. This would not necessarily undermine the specific supernatural reading?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is His reward." (Psa 127:3KJV)

Further, He has His hand in our very formation in the womb. (Psalm 139:13, 14, 15, 16.) We humans are the glory of God, now that His Son has indwelt our nature and we are united with Him. The devil wants the glory that is only God's – the creation and giving of life.

1 John 3:1,2,3:

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.​

 

[MyCrows]

How would this correlate with the episode of Lot and the Angels, who had actual bodies, even to the point the deranged Sodomites wanted to rape them? Wouldnt this point to Angels being able to take on material form? And if they can, would they not then be able to procreate? I dont think the Bible points to Fallen Angels being stripped of their innate abilities, (just like men who rebel against God can still do those things that are innate to the Imago Dei,) which materialization may be one of them. But I dont know, I have never done a thorough study on Angels.

The stated fact that the angels took on human appearance says nothing about the potential of the Sodomites to accomplish their goal. Lot's understanding of the situation was that he was obligated to protect his guests from the mob. It doesn't mean he understood everything about their physiology.

Are we supposed to think that our Lord is able to summon legions of angels to protect him from his enemies (Matt 26:53), yet these benevolent ministers of God are so helpless that they can't help being raped by mere men?

The narrative in Sodom really doesn't provide extensive information on what kind of interaction is, or isn't, possible between angels and men.

 

[RamistThomist]

Are we supposed to think that our Lord is able to summon legions of angels to protect him from his enemies (Matt 26:53), yet these benevolent ministers of God are so helpless that they can't help being raped by mere men?

Duly noted, but the larger point is that these beings were capable of touching (they grabbed Lot's hand) and presumably being touched (by all accounts they ate in the previous chapter).

 

[davejonescue]

The stated fact that the angels took on human appearance says nothing about the potential of the Sodomites to accomplish their goal. Lot's understanding of the situation was that he was obligated to protect his guests from the mob. It doesn't mean he understood everything about their physiology.

Are we supposed to think that our Lord is able to summon legions of angels to protect him from his enemies (Matt 26:53), yet these benevolent ministers of God are so helpless that they can't help being raped by mere men?

The narrative in Sodom really doesn't provide extensive information on what kind of interaction is, or isn't, possible between angels and men.

None of that was really my point. My point was that they were able to take on human form. The question is, is being able to do so part of their created nature, or only by transformation specifically commissioned by God? If it is the former, then there is nothing to say that fallen angels could not do so to lay with human women. Also we see in the Bible that sometimes believers will entertain angels unawares. The only way to do this, is if they were in bodily form.

 

[MyCrows]

None of that was really my point. My point was that they were able to take on human form. The question is, is being able to do so part of their created nature, or only by transformation specifically commissioned by God? If it is the former, then there is nothing to say that fallen angels could not do so to lay with human women.

I see the point you were making now.

Then what would prevent them from doing that in this day and age, if it is part of their created nature to have this ability?

 

[davejonescue]

I see the point you were making now.

Then what would prevent them from doing that in this day and age, if it is part of their created nature to have this ability?

I dont know, but I dont think that proves they never could.

 

[MyCrows]

I dont know, but I dont think that proves they never could.

Well God would have to alter their created nature, would he not? What would be the point of a global flood, if he could just render the angels sexually impotent, and be done with it?

Full disclosure there are some weird implications of this understanding of the early population on Earth, one of which being the "Serpent Seed" teaching, which has Satan being the actual father of human beings. Pretty distorted stuff, which has bred a lot of confusion.

 

[RamistThomist]

Well God would have to alter their created nature, would he not? What would be the point of a global flood, if he could just render the angels sexually impotent, and be done with it?

The Flood was to kill the Nephilim. It seems Jude says that the angels who left their state were imprisoned in utter darkness, which seems to be how God dealt with the problem.

Full disclosure there are some weird implications of this understanding of the early population on Earth, one of which being the "Serpent Seed" teaching, which has Satan being the actual father of human beings. Pretty distorted stuff, which has bred a lot of confusion.

True, but the more scholarly accounts reject Serpent Seed.

I see the point you were making now.

Then what would prevent them from doing that in this day and age, if it is part of their created nature to have this ability?

What we call "angels" qua angels cannot. It seems only the beney ha-elohim could do it. And the ones who fell God imprisoned in Tartarus.

 

[No Other Name]

one of which being the "Serpent Seed" teaching, which has Satan being the actual father of human beings. Pretty distorted stuff, which has bred a lot of confusion.

No minister I have ever known who has believed in the angel-human procreation theory of the Nephilim has ever gone down that dark path. I am only aware of it because of an old book my grandfather had in his library that I inherited upon his death. He was a minister of a small country church for the Church of the Nazarene for many years. It did not take me long into reading into it to see what the real underlying hypothesis is beneath that teaching..

 

[RamistThomist]

It did not take me long into reading into it to see what the real underlying hypothesis is beneath that teaching..

 

[Yzzy]

And I've actually modified my views. I don't think they were necessarily mating with angels/beney ha-elohim, but I reject the Sethite thesis for obvious textual reasons. My own view is that Great Kings mated with human women in demonic ceremonies (which actually matches some archeological evidence).

That's an interesting thought. It reminds me of Hitler encouraging SS members to impregnate their wives literally on the graves of Teutonic Knights in the hope that ancient spirits would be reborn in the offspring.

 

[No Other Name]

Wow, yeah imagine that but far more academic in tone with appeals to "the original Hebrew" but no actual Hebrew included, and that sums up the first couple chapters of that book. I can't even remember the author but apparently he was one of the "pre-eminent scholars" of that "academic tradition".

 

[MyCrows]

I've literally had this lecture in person, minus the cowboy hat and nazi flag. I thought I was going to be buried in the backyard.

 

[RamistThomist]

That's an interesting thought. It reminds me of Hitler encouraging SS members to impregnate their wives literally on the graves of Teutonic Knights in the hope that ancient spirits would be reborn in the offspring.

Not to mention Himmler's interest in Wewelsburg Castle.