What were the Nephilim?
WHAT WERE THE NEPHILIM?
When a scientist comes across an unknown, one tactic he may take is to make a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Sometimes, as readers of Scripture, we come across a passage that is clear as mud. It is appropriate to use the same method in order to find a solution. One such passage is Genesis 6:1-4.
HYPOTHESIS #1 THE FALLEN ANGEL EXPLANATION
This view equates ‘sons of God’ with ‘angels’, and ‘nephilim’ as the fruit of their union with human females. In this scenario, some angels in heaven began to lust after women on earth and came to earth to marry & mate with them. The women became pregnant and gave birth to a new race of angel-men who were, apparently, giant in stature.
Those advocating this view support it with the Scripture & ancient tradition. First, in defense of equating the phrase ‘sons of God’ with ‘angels’, it should be noted that this is the standard meaning of the phrase in the Old Testament. In the KJV, the phrase only occurs 3 other times in the Old Testament and in all three (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7) it seems to refers to angels. Second, advocates of this view draw from Jude’s usage of the apocalyptic Book of Enoch in which the term ‘sons of God’ is clarified ‘the angels, the children of the heaven’ (Enoch 6:2), leaving little doubt in the minds of those who accept the legitimacy of the Book of Enoch. Jude also refers to angels ‘who did not keep their positions of authority’ and this is said to speak of the same event. Third, it is true that most ancient Jewish and early Christian commentators interpreted the passage in this sense. Thus, the greater importance one places on Jewish and earliest Christian tradition, the more prone one will be to this view.
Those opposing this view attempt to minimize all three of the above mentioned arguments and proceed to argue with additional complaints against this view. First, though it is true that the phrase ‘sons of God’ only refers to angels in the Old Testament, it is not true that only angels are spoken of as God’s children. The phrase ‘sons of the living God’ is used to describe the people of God in Hosea 1:10. Additionally, the New Testament exclusively uses the phrase ‘sons of God’ for humans (John 1:12, Romans 8:14+19, Philippians 2:15, 1 John 3:1+2). Second, while Jude does quote from Enoch, this should not be seen as a complete endorsement of that work. It was common practice to quote non-canonical material in the early church (see Acts 17:28). It should be remembered that the Book of Enoch is almost certainly a pseudopigraphal (not actually written by Enoch) work created less than a few hundred years before the time of Christ. Third, opponents (dismissing the supposed biblical evidence for this view) would point out that arguments based primarily on popular tradition must bow to biblical arguments. The fourth line of argument against the fallen angel view is an argument of worldview. Opponents would question the very possibility of angels acting in this manner in light of Matthew 22:30. One must also question why God would have blamed mankind (Genesis 6:5+13) for a predominately angelic predicament. A Fifth complaint against this view would wonder how the ‘nephilim’ survived the flood as shown by Numbers 13:33. Did the angel-men survive the flood? Did other fallen angels reproduce the wickedness of the Genesis 6 angels at a later date (yet had their act go unrecorded)?
HYPOTHESIS #2 THE SETHITE EXPLANATION
This view equates ‘sons of God’ with ‘Seth’s line’, ‘daughters of men’ with ‘worldly women’. The ‘nephilim’ are understand in at least 2 ways under this theory. Some view them as the ‘wicked offspring’. In this scenario, supposedly godly men lusted after pagan women and married them. The offspring of these unholy unions was a line of people who were monstrous in terms of morality (and/or, perhaps, giant in stature). Other adherents of the Sethite view, however, consider the 'nephilim' a seperate group entirely since the passage seems to indicate that they were present both before and after the unholy unions. In this case, they were mentioned simply because they were noteworthy due to the combination of their wickedness and stature.
Those advocating this view support it with the Scripture & more recent tradition. First, the context surrounding Genesis 6:1-4 is one of the expansion and corruption of mankind. Genesis 5 shows the expansion of God’s holy line from Adam to Noah’s sons (it may even be noteworthy that this genealogy starts with God creating Adam- in a sense, ‘fathering’ the ‘sons of God’). Genesis 6 shows the corruption of men. It was man’s ‘wickedness’ that provoked God’s grief (Genesis 6:5-6, 13). It was man that God determined to annihilate (Genesis 6:7). Second, Scripture consistently speaks of God’s people as His ‘sons’ in both the Old (Hosea 1:10) and New (John 1:12) Testaments. Third, this scenario is not uncommon to the Old Testament narrative. God’s people were warned not to enter into mixed marriages from that time forward with disobedience producing devastating results in those times as well. Fourth, JFB points out that the term nephilim/giant ‘in Hebrew implies not so much the idea of great stature as of reckless ferocity, impious and daring characters’. Fifth, perhaps the majority of scholars since Augustine have chosen this explanation as the most reasonable. Thus, the Sethite view carries with it the argument of tradition as well.
Those opposing this view tend to do so on the grounds of Old Testament phraseology and ancient interpretation. First, as noted above, every time the exact phrase ‘sons of God’ is used in the Old Testament, it seems to refer to angels. Second, if the Book of Enoch is a reliable source, then the fallen angel explanation is almost certainly preferable. Third, since an inspired Jude quoted the Book of Enoch (and seemingly the very section discussing these issues), it can be argued that Jude, at least, supported its view of Genesis 6:1-4. Fourth, if ancient tradition is favorable to more recent tradition and tradition itself is emphasized as having close to the same authority as Scripture, then the fallen angel view is certainly preferable. Fifth, the Sethite explanation must also account for why Nephilim were around after the flood (Numbers 13:33) and, perhaps, why they were large in stature (if that is indeed the meaning of the Hebrew word).
HYPOTHESIS #3 THE DINOSAUR EXPLANATION
This view equates ‘sons of God’ with ‘Seth’s line’, ‘daughters of men’ with ‘worldly women’, and ‘nephilim’ as ‘giant-beasts/dinosaurs’. This scenario follows hypothesis #2, but argues that the ‘nephilim’ weren’t the offspring of the marriages, but are mentioned as an independent group living at that time.
Those advocating this view use the same reasoning as the Sethite view in regards to the ‘sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men’, but they separate from that explanation in regards to the ‘nephilim’. In defense of their view that the nephilim were beasts/dinosaurs the following arguments are utilized. First, the passage does not directly equate the nephilim with the children of the mixed marriages. It simply states that the nephilim were ‘on the earth in those days’ (Genesis 6:4). Second, this view alone gives adequate explanation as to why nephilim were seen in Numbers 13:33. If the nephilim were giant animals (perhaps dinosaurs) they would have been included on the ark and, therefore, would have survived the flood. The description given in Numbers fits with this explanation in that the Jews were comparable to ‘grasshoppers’ in the eyes of the Nephilim. Third, this view may be bolstered by Job’s description of the post-flood creatures Behemoth & Leviathan which are thought by many to be dinosaurs.
Those opposing this view would point out possibly wrongful uses of the Hebrew language. First, one may argue that the ‘nephilim’ is used synonymously with the ‘children’ of the mixed marriages and were, therefore humans. Second, it seems that the nephilim are equated with ‘men of renown’ in Genesis 6:4. Third, in Numbers 13, the men were sent to discover ‘whether the people who live there are strong or weak, few or many’. They are not told to scout the animal kingdom. Additionally, Numbers 13:32 directly states ‘All the people we saw there are of great size’ just prior to mentioning the descendants of the nephilim.
CONCLUSION
I don’t claim to have a concrete position on this issue, but I tend to side with the Sethite view for the following reasons. First, in my opinion it fits the context of the passage best. Second, in my opinion it creates the fewest problems with corresponding Scriptures. Third, I tend not to place as high a value on Jewish Tradition as some Christians do since, by Jesus’ day, they showed themselves to be poor interpreters of the Old Testament. Fourth, tradition has far less influence over me than Scripture. Fifth, even if all views seemed equally valid, I’d error on the side of the view that sounds less mystical. Sixth, most Bible teachers I respect take the Sethite view and most Bible teachers I don’t respect take the fallen angel view. Seventh, I don’t think much of the Book of Enoch since, of course, it almost certainly wasn't written by Enoch.
When a scientist comes across an unknown, one tactic he may take is to make a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Sometimes, as readers of Scripture, we come across a passage that is clear as mud. It is appropriate to use the same method in order to find a solution. One such passage is Genesis 6:1-4.
1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his 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 men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.This passage has created many questions for interpreters throughout history. What is meant by ‘sons of God’? What is meant by ‘daughters of men’? What is meant by ‘Nephilim’? Theories abound, but concrete solutions are seemingly impossible. Perhaps the best we can do is make a few hypothesis and see which explanation has the most going for it (or the least going against it).
HYPOTHESIS #1 THE FALLEN ANGEL EXPLANATION
This view equates ‘sons of God’ with ‘angels’, and ‘nephilim’ as the fruit of their union with human females. In this scenario, some angels in heaven began to lust after women on earth and came to earth to marry & mate with them. The women became pregnant and gave birth to a new race of angel-men who were, apparently, giant in stature.
Those advocating this view support it with the Scripture & ancient tradition. First, in defense of equating the phrase ‘sons of God’ with ‘angels’, it should be noted that this is the standard meaning of the phrase in the Old Testament. In the KJV, the phrase only occurs 3 other times in the Old Testament and in all three (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7) it seems to refers to angels. Second, advocates of this view draw from Jude’s usage of the apocalyptic Book of Enoch in which the term ‘sons of God’ is clarified ‘the angels, the children of the heaven’ (Enoch 6:2), leaving little doubt in the minds of those who accept the legitimacy of the Book of Enoch. Jude also refers to angels ‘who did not keep their positions of authority’ and this is said to speak of the same event. Third, it is true that most ancient Jewish and early Christian commentators interpreted the passage in this sense. Thus, the greater importance one places on Jewish and earliest Christian tradition, the more prone one will be to this view.
Those opposing this view attempt to minimize all three of the above mentioned arguments and proceed to argue with additional complaints against this view. First, though it is true that the phrase ‘sons of God’ only refers to angels in the Old Testament, it is not true that only angels are spoken of as God’s children. The phrase ‘sons of the living God’ is used to describe the people of God in Hosea 1:10. Additionally, the New Testament exclusively uses the phrase ‘sons of God’ for humans (John 1:12, Romans 8:14+19, Philippians 2:15, 1 John 3:1+2). Second, while Jude does quote from Enoch, this should not be seen as a complete endorsement of that work. It was common practice to quote non-canonical material in the early church (see Acts 17:28). It should be remembered that the Book of Enoch is almost certainly a pseudopigraphal (not actually written by Enoch) work created less than a few hundred years before the time of Christ. Third, opponents (dismissing the supposed biblical evidence for this view) would point out that arguments based primarily on popular tradition must bow to biblical arguments. The fourth line of argument against the fallen angel view is an argument of worldview. Opponents would question the very possibility of angels acting in this manner in light of Matthew 22:30. One must also question why God would have blamed mankind (Genesis 6:5+13) for a predominately angelic predicament. A Fifth complaint against this view would wonder how the ‘nephilim’ survived the flood as shown by Numbers 13:33. Did the angel-men survive the flood? Did other fallen angels reproduce the wickedness of the Genesis 6 angels at a later date (yet had their act go unrecorded)?
HYPOTHESIS #2 THE SETHITE EXPLANATION
This view equates ‘sons of God’ with ‘Seth’s line’, ‘daughters of men’ with ‘worldly women’. The ‘nephilim’ are understand in at least 2 ways under this theory. Some view them as the ‘wicked offspring’. In this scenario, supposedly godly men lusted after pagan women and married them. The offspring of these unholy unions was a line of people who were monstrous in terms of morality (and/or, perhaps, giant in stature). Other adherents of the Sethite view, however, consider the 'nephilim' a seperate group entirely since the passage seems to indicate that they were present both before and after the unholy unions. In this case, they were mentioned simply because they were noteworthy due to the combination of their wickedness and stature.
Those advocating this view support it with the Scripture & more recent tradition. First, the context surrounding Genesis 6:1-4 is one of the expansion and corruption of mankind. Genesis 5 shows the expansion of God’s holy line from Adam to Noah’s sons (it may even be noteworthy that this genealogy starts with God creating Adam- in a sense, ‘fathering’ the ‘sons of God’). Genesis 6 shows the corruption of men. It was man’s ‘wickedness’ that provoked God’s grief (Genesis 6:5-6, 13). It was man that God determined to annihilate (Genesis 6:7). Second, Scripture consistently speaks of God’s people as His ‘sons’ in both the Old (Hosea 1:10) and New (John 1:12) Testaments. Third, this scenario is not uncommon to the Old Testament narrative. God’s people were warned not to enter into mixed marriages from that time forward with disobedience producing devastating results in those times as well. Fourth, JFB points out that the term nephilim/giant ‘in Hebrew implies not so much the idea of great stature as of reckless ferocity, impious and daring characters’. Fifth, perhaps the majority of scholars since Augustine have chosen this explanation as the most reasonable. Thus, the Sethite view carries with it the argument of tradition as well.
Those opposing this view tend to do so on the grounds of Old Testament phraseology and ancient interpretation. First, as noted above, every time the exact phrase ‘sons of God’ is used in the Old Testament, it seems to refer to angels. Second, if the Book of Enoch is a reliable source, then the fallen angel explanation is almost certainly preferable. Third, since an inspired Jude quoted the Book of Enoch (and seemingly the very section discussing these issues), it can be argued that Jude, at least, supported its view of Genesis 6:1-4. Fourth, if ancient tradition is favorable to more recent tradition and tradition itself is emphasized as having close to the same authority as Scripture, then the fallen angel view is certainly preferable. Fifth, the Sethite explanation must also account for why Nephilim were around after the flood (Numbers 13:33) and, perhaps, why they were large in stature (if that is indeed the meaning of the Hebrew word).
HYPOTHESIS #3 THE DINOSAUR EXPLANATION
This view equates ‘sons of God’ with ‘Seth’s line’, ‘daughters of men’ with ‘worldly women’, and ‘nephilim’ as ‘giant-beasts/dinosaurs’. This scenario follows hypothesis #2, but argues that the ‘nephilim’ weren’t the offspring of the marriages, but are mentioned as an independent group living at that time.
Those advocating this view use the same reasoning as the Sethite view in regards to the ‘sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men’, but they separate from that explanation in regards to the ‘nephilim’. In defense of their view that the nephilim were beasts/dinosaurs the following arguments are utilized. First, the passage does not directly equate the nephilim with the children of the mixed marriages. It simply states that the nephilim were ‘on the earth in those days’ (Genesis 6:4). Second, this view alone gives adequate explanation as to why nephilim were seen in Numbers 13:33. If the nephilim were giant animals (perhaps dinosaurs) they would have been included on the ark and, therefore, would have survived the flood. The description given in Numbers fits with this explanation in that the Jews were comparable to ‘grasshoppers’ in the eyes of the Nephilim. Third, this view may be bolstered by Job’s description of the post-flood creatures Behemoth & Leviathan which are thought by many to be dinosaurs.
Those opposing this view would point out possibly wrongful uses of the Hebrew language. First, one may argue that the ‘nephilim’ is used synonymously with the ‘children’ of the mixed marriages and were, therefore humans. Second, it seems that the nephilim are equated with ‘men of renown’ in Genesis 6:4. Third, in Numbers 13, the men were sent to discover ‘whether the people who live there are strong or weak, few or many’. They are not told to scout the animal kingdom. Additionally, Numbers 13:32 directly states ‘All the people we saw there are of great size’ just prior to mentioning the descendants of the nephilim.
CONCLUSION
I don’t claim to have a concrete position on this issue, but I tend to side with the Sethite view for the following reasons. First, in my opinion it fits the context of the passage best. Second, in my opinion it creates the fewest problems with corresponding Scriptures. Third, I tend not to place as high a value on Jewish Tradition as some Christians do since, by Jesus’ day, they showed themselves to be poor interpreters of the Old Testament. Fourth, tradition has far less influence over me than Scripture. Fifth, even if all views seemed equally valid, I’d error on the side of the view that sounds less mystical. Sixth, most Bible teachers I respect take the Sethite view and most Bible teachers I don’t respect take the fallen angel view. Seventh, I don’t think much of the Book of Enoch since, of course, it almost certainly wasn't written by Enoch.
posted by matthew at 1:31 PM
1 Comments:
Hmmm. Interesting. Have you ever read 'The Facade', by Michael Heiser? His background is in Biblical Hebrew and his book really causes one to think a bit more on this subject. Give it a try, I think you might enjoy it.
Post a Comment
<< Home