[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Bible Study Title: Who Were the Nephilim? Genesis 6:1–6 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God (bene Elohim) saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God (bene Elohim) came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.1 Number 13:30–33 Then Caleb quieted the people before Moses and said, “We should by all means go up and take possession of it, for we will surely overcome it.” But the men who had gone up with him said, “We are not able to go up against the people, for they are too strong for us.” So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.” Genesis 6 and Numbers 13 (pre-Flood and post-Flood) list the term “Nephilim” that has been the center of discussion for many years. At this point, the identity of the Nephilim and the sons of God is still being debated in Christian circles.2 There is a popular unbiblical view that the Nephilim are space aliens. Of course, most creationists rightly reject this particular view for multiple reasons, but that is not for the discussion in this chapter. Of the views with some biblical support, some believe that fallen angels bred with women and resulted in giants called Nephilim. Some believe the sons of God were the result of fallen angels who overtook ungodly men to breed with women. THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF CONFUSION OVER THE WORD NEPHILIM. NO ONE TODAY REALLY KNOWS WHAT IT MEANS. Some believe they were the Sethites (descendants of Adam’s son Seth). There are some minor views as well, such as kings, rulers, or heads of leading family groups as being godly from Psalm 82. This view has many similarities to the Sethite view but eliminates many of Seth’s descendants and merely keeps with the leaders/kings (as well as some other leaders of other tribes) as godly. So, I will now leave this minor view out and discuss the Sethite view, which should encompass it for the most part. Another variation of the Sethite view is that these godly men had relations with ungodly women, and the offspring followed after other “gods” as opposed to God—and “fell away” in tremendous ways. This is called the “fallen men” view. There are other minor views as well as other minor non-biblical views but these are the primary ones I will discuss. There is a great deal of confusion over the word Nephilim. No one today really knows what it means. It is related to the verb series “to fall” (naphal) in Hebrew, which is why some direct this to fallen angels or more appropriately, the offspring thereof. However, this also gives strong support to the view that men had fallen away from God. It was these two concepts that helped give rise to the various views mentioned above. Many have associated the Nephilim with giants. Giant traits may not have been limited to Nephilim alone: Goliath, a giant, was not considered Nephilim. As mentioned, the term Nephilim is unclear in definition. It is related to the verb “to fall” and the King James Version translates it as giants from the influence of the Latin Vulgate’s (early Latin translation by Jerome) term gigantes as well as the context from Numbers 13. The context of Genesis 6 does not reveal they were giants. There may have been some influence on the Latin Vulgate by the Septuagint’s (Greek translation of the Old Testament about 200–300 years before Christ) use of Greek word gigentes. Here is a table with a brief summary of the four popular views discussed: Many respected Christians have commented on this topic over the years, and their work is to be highly regarded. This discussion is not to impugn their work in any way, but to build on it in iron-sharpening-iron fashion. In fact, in writing this, their research has provided great insights into what I now personally believe about the sons of God and the Nephilim, and I commend them for their work. As a ministry, Answers in Genesis does not officially take a specific stand regarding these four major views. It is not crucial to biblical authority, since each side in this debate, for the most part, is using the Bible as authoritative to make their case. The Fallen Angels View Sons of God: Fallen angels Nephilim: Mix of human and angel This is one of the most popular views. It stems from angels being called “sons of God” or interpreted as such in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7. In fact, if the Nephilim were indeed half human/half fallen angel then it would give great understanding to the many ancient religious views after Babel and demi-gods. As pointed out, Nephilim is related to the verb series “to fall” in Hebrew, giving support to the view that this is related to fallen angels. So, it does hold some status among biblical scholars. Defenders of this view also find support in two key New Testament passages. In 2 Peter 2:1–11, the Apostle wrote: But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties, whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord. Before commenting on this passage, we need to look at Jude 4–8. For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties. These verses do not specifically mention the Nephilim, nor do they clearly state that fallen angels had sexual relationships with women. However, they do place “the angels who sinned” (2 Peter 2:4), “who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode” (Jude 6), in the same context as Noah. Both passages seem to compare the sin of these angels with the sin of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah who had “in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh” (Jude 7). Genesis 19:5 reveals that the men of Sodom lusted after the two angels who had gone into Lot’s house. It is important to understand that while these verses seem to lend strong support to the fallen angel view, they do not make a watertight argument for it. For example, expositor Dr John Gill clarifies with regards to Jude 6:3 Ver. 6. And the angels which kept not their first estate, &c.] Or “principality”; that holy, honourable, and happy condition, in which they were created; for they were created in perfect holiness and righteousness, stood in the relation of sons to God, and were, for the lustre of their nature, comparable to the morning stars; they were among the thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers; were a superior rank of creatures to men, and who beheld the face, and enjoyed the presence of God; but this estate they kept not, for being mutable creatures, one of them first sinning, the rest were drawn into it by him, and so were not what they were before, nor in the same estate, or place. but left their own habitation; by attempting to rise higher; or by quitting their station and posts of honour, being unwilling to be subject to God, and especially to the Son of God, who was to assume human nature, and in it be above them, which they could not bear; and by gathering together in a body, in another place, with Satan at the head of them; though this may be considered as a part of their punishment, and they may be said to do what they were forced to; for they were drove out of their native habitation, heaven; they were turned out of it, and cast down to hell; see 2 Peter 2:4. And this their habitation, which they left, or fell from, or they were cast out of, is by the Jews frequently called the place of their holiness, or their holy place. He hath reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness; by these “everlasting chains” may be meant the power and providence of God over them, which always abide upon them; or their sins, and the guilt of them upon their consciences, under which they are continually held; or the decrees and purposes of God concerning their final punishment and destruction, which are immutable and irreversible, and from which there is no freeing themselves, the phrase, under darkness, may refer to the chains, as in 2 Peter 2:4; where they are called “chains of darkness”; either because the power, providence, and purposes of God are invisible; so the Syriac version reads, “in unknown chains”; or because horror and black despair are the effects of sin, and its guilt, with which their consciences are continually filled: or it may denote the place and state where they are, either in the darkness of the air, or in the dark parts of the earth, or in hell, where is utter darkness, even blackness of darkness; or that they are under the power of sin, which is darkness, and without the light of God’s countenance, or any spiritual knowledge, or comfort: and they are “reserved” in these chains, and under this darkness; or “in prison,” as the Arabic version renders it; which denotes the custody of them, and their continuance in it, in which they are kept by Jesus Christ, who can bind and loose Satan at his pleasure; and it shows that they are not as yet in full torment, but are like malefactors that are kept in prison, until the assize comes: so these are laid in chains, and kept in custody. Gill continues in verse 7: in like manner giving themselves over to fornication; not as the angels, who are not capable of sinning in such a manner; though the Jews make this to be a sin of theirs, and so interpret Genesis 6:2,4, but rather the Israelites, among whom this sin prevailed, 1 Corinthians 10:8; though it seems best of all to refer it to the false teachers that turned the grace of God into lasciviousness, and were very criminal this way; and then the sense is, that in like manner as they, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, gave themselves over to the sin of fornication; wherefore these men might expect the same judgments that fell upon them, since their sin was alike; which sin is a work of the flesh, contrary to the law of God, is against the body, and attended with many evils; exposes to judgment here and hereafter, and unfits for the communion of the saints, and for the kingdom of heaven. and going after strange flesh; or “other flesh”; meaning not other women besides their own wives, but men; and designs that detestable and unnatural sin, which, from these people, is called sodomy to this day; and which is an exceeding great sin, contrary to the light of nature and law of God, dishonourable to human nature, and scandalous to a nation and people, and commonly prevails where idolatry and infidelity do, as among the Papists and Mahometans; and arose from idleness and fulness of bread in Sodom, and was committed in the sight of God, with great impudence: their punishment follows. The context is discussing ungodly people who have crept into the church and a warning about their future. Such sin and unrighteousness is nothing new: When the Israelites fell away from Him in the desert after Moses brought them out of Egypt, God destroyed them. When the angels rebelled, God bound them to eternal darkness. In a similar fashion to how the Israelites were adulterous to God and sought after other gods; Sodom and Gomorrah were seeking after inappropriate flesh. God will destroy those who are ungodly and creep into the Church, just as He did the other ungodly people and angels mentioned. Their condemnation will be the same. This type of logical thinking would also apply to 2 Peter 2. Gill discusses this in his commentary in a similar fashion. Of course, being one of the more popular views, it also comes with more criticisms. One of the prime arguments against this view is that angels are spiritual and don’t have DNA to combine with a woman’s DNA. Poster Comment: More at source Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 18.
#4. To: A K A Stone (#0)
(Edited)
The word is so unknown that it is merely directly transliterated from the Hebrew. We can little more about it. This is not unique in scripture; there are other words whose meaning has been entirely lost to us. Then what use are they, huh? They demonstrate the same mealymouthed courage as Catholic.com. : ) Gill is still a treasure. It took him 50 years to write that commentary. During his time, Calvin's own commentary was highly praised with some noted figures claiming it was the most valuable thing ever written, next to the Bible itself. But I always like Gill's later commentary better. Gill really researched and knew a very wide variety of ancient sources like no one else of his era. Peshitta, Persian, Syriac, Egyptian, various ancient Jewish and Christian sources both canonical and apocryphal and heretical, the church fathers, he really tried to explain them all or use them to clarify certain passages. He didn't always succeed as later scholarship showed that he simply could not know what was not known at the time. Yet his approach of learning from ancient Jewish sources was sound. Some of his language sounds too stiff to us, and some of his terms are dated. Like when he refers to Jarchi so often as an authority. Jarchi is now known as Shlomo Yitzchaki or just as Rashi. He lived in the twelfth century and had an influence on Jewish scholarship almost beyond compare. Only Maimonides (Moses ben Maimon) could be said to be more influential as he was a physician/astronomer famous in the Jewish circles and to Islam as well as being the foremost rabbi of all time, even more than the ancient rabbi Akiba. At any rate, Gill did a good (but not perfect) job in handling these ancient sources and his work still generally holds up pretty well. He was a workman in scholarship but he had pronounced biases on theology and reading scripture. Gill was the direct predecessor of the greatest Baptist preacher of all time, Charles Spurgeon. Spurgeon was the better preacher (brilliant at brief and sweet but punchy doctrinal sermons) but Gill was by far the better scholar. As for Jude, I don't blame Luther (much) for demoting its position in the canon. Jerome didn't like it. Neither did Eusebius or Origen. So Luther was not in bad company. A book of the New Testament (Jude) should not quote approvingly from a book (Enoch) explicitly rejected from both the Christian bible and the Jewish scriptures. Jude just doesn't belong but those darned Eastern Orthodox had had it in their possession for decades and once they set their teeth on something, it's like a Rottweiler has locked its jaws on something. You can't talk them out of it.
We can read it as the letter-picture-phrase that it was written as, and gain insights therefrom.
Are you a descendant of the Nephilim?
Who knows? The Basque legend about themselves is that they are - that they are descended from the giants who lived in the hills and who all disappeared (except for Olentzaro) at the coming of Christ. That would fit with the odd blood type (Basque country appears to be the source of Rh negative blood), and the very weird Basque language, which is completely unrelated to any other on earth, and the difficulty in interbreeding with non-Basques (an artifact of the blood type). I'm partly Basque, so if the Basque are descendants of the Nephilim, like the Anakim were, or Og of Bashan, and maybe Goliath of Gath - all of whom were killed off by the Israelites - then maybe I would be, as would all of the Basques. It would explain our existence apparently out of nowhere, forever ago, and strange physiology and language. But proximity to Neanderthaler man might explain that too. Who knows? Theologically, it's not interesting. We're all descended from Adam and Eve, and Noah and Naamah, which means we're all also descended from Cain's line as far as Naamah's parents...assuming those people existed at all, of course. We're all men. We're all accountable for our own moral actions, and not held peronally accountable for the sins of our ancestors (though those sins and their aftermath do continue to work their poison through society and human lives for generations afterwards). It's an interesting thought, that the Basque are descended from Nephilim. What do I personally think about it? Shoulder shrug. I don't know. I don't think it's important. It's fun to think about. It has zero spiritual relevancy. Just an interesting little sidebar. Were the Nephilim the children of angels and men? When it read the English of Genesis, it would seem so. When I read the Hebrew, it would seem so. I can't see any basis other than gratuitous assertion to say that angels COULD NOT, or are made a certain way. None of that has been revealed, so how would anybody know either way?
Incorrect my friend.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#18)
What is incorrect? Og was killed off by the Israelites. Goliath was killed in a later period by David, an Israelite. They are described as huge men. What is incorrect? None of us knows where these men came from, but we do know that Canaan had Nephilim, or at least their descendants, when the Israelites entered it. Pronouncing "incorrect" is a positive assertion of fact. You don't have the basis to do that any more than I do either way.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|