This content has been archived. It may no longer be relevant
So last week we essentially laid the foundation for the subsequent analysis and discussion. True to form, anytime it really matters, there is bound to be dissension – and this topic is no different… precisely because it does matter.
There has been significant debate over the years, among theologians and believers, regarding much of what I put forth last week, but there are also logical flaws within such arguments. I intend to point a few of these out as we proceed. I do this not to berate those of a different viewpoint, but to explain my view and my studied and thoughtful reasons for holding them and putting them forth.
So, let’s start with a discussion that underpins the entire debate:
בני האלהים
The phrase above is pronounced ben-ay hah El-oh-heem and is most frequently translated as “sons of God”. The first and most fundamental issue which arises when approaching the entire topic of giants and / or nephilim is, what does this mean?
There are 3 prominent views:
- “Sons of God” is a reference to the sons of Seth. This view holds that the women they took for wives were the daughters of Cain and further insists that these unions were outside of the will of God.
- “Sons of God” is a reference to Royalty. Throughout scripture, we find no shortage of examples wherein the Kings of different lands consider themselves – and even call themselves “Sons of”, or in the most arrogant examples, “Gods”.
- “Sons of God” is a reference to Angelic/ heavenly beings. This infers that the offspring they sired constitute unnatural hybrid beings, or mongrels.
Now let’s look at these individually.
There are numerous adherents to the “Sons of Seth” view, however this introduces some fairly serious theological issues, notably among them being hyperbole.
What I mean is this, “good boys” marry “bad girls” all-the-time. It’s stupid, but it happens. If we boil down the crux of the “Sethite” view, one would be forced to draw one of two possible conclusions; that either the mating of good-boys and bad-girls produces evil giants, or the Bible engages in hyperbole without clarifying this.
Now the first supposition is easily disregarded. You know anyone who made a bad selection in terms of a spouse? Me too. Did they produce evil giants as a result of their union? I don’t know about your friends, but as for mine – unruly children mayber, but no evil giants.
The second is far more sinister. As I stated, it would infer that the Bible engages in hyperbole (hy-per-bo-lee) without differentiating between gross exaggeration and actual fact.
Can you see the issue here? If this is the case, then we have a very serious problem in terms of ascertaining what we can accept as factual information and what constitutes a flight-of-fancy as regards the author. I’ve stated numerous times that I am well aware that the Bible does use parable, symbolism and even hyperbole to a lesser extent – but I find it abundantly clear when it does so… I mean, you don’t think Paul really wanted the Pharisees to castrate themselves do you?
Furthermore, I’ve also stated numerous times that Moses isn’t technically the author of Genesis, YHVH was – and for people of faith that should change everything. If we accept that this book was written at the hand of Moses, writing down what came form the mouth of God himself, then we must also bear in mind what scripture has to say about this author:
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a human being, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it happen?
Numbers 23:19
So we have no indication anywhere in Genesis 6 that we’re seeing symbolism, parable or exaggeration… in a text that claims to be authoritative… from a God who does not lie and does not change.
Still with me?
The second view we’re discussing is what I refer to as the “Arrogant Kings” view. Let’s have a look what what I mean here:
Adoni-Zedek, king of Jerusalem, heard how Joshua captured Ai and annihilated it and its king as he did Jericho and its king.
Joshua 10:1
This is but one of many scriptural examples of an arrogant king. For those not familiar with Hebrew, this Canaanite has essentially dubbed himself the Lord of Righteousness: Adonai: Lord – Zedek (Tzedek): Righteous. That’s pretty arrogant. It doesn’t work out to well for him in the end either.
Consider also the Pharoah’s of old who deemed themselves to be gods or avatars on Earth – or how about the Caesars… heck, we could probably make our way through all the cultures of the world in antiquity and find similar claims. Arrogant, arrogant, arrogant… but I digress. So now you get what I mean by “Arrogant Kings” right… the second view holds that that the “Sons of God” were these who claim to be gods. This, like the “Sethite” view has a number of problems, inculding the hyperbole issue stated above.
Personally, when examining difficult issues like this, I prefer to allow the ancients to speak for themselves. Writers today may use cultural references and expressions that are unique to our day and age – someone from far in the past or future may not understand because they lack the proper frame of reference to understand what’s being written. Guess what – ancient writers did this too.
With that in mind, and standing on the principle of allowing scripture to interpret scripture, we need to ask ourselves if we can find a corroborating text anywhere in the Bible – and as it happens… we can!
Now the day came when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord—and Satan also arrived among them. The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” And Satan answered the Lord, “From roving about on the earth, and from walking back and forth across it.”
Job 1:6 – 7
Full Stop. I need to re-address the debate regarding Job.
There are some who posit that Job is a dramatization – a morality play if you will. They do not accept this text as being a factual record of the life of Job… but guess what? It doesn’t matter for the purposes of this discussion. Personally, I believe that Job is both… a record of actual events written in the form of a morality play… but that’s not at issue presently.
The issue here lies within the text “sons of God”. Can you guess what the Hebrew says here? Did you guess “bene ha Elohim”? If you did, you’re close! It says “ben Elohim”… which means precisely the same thing is a direct reference to Angels or Heavenly beings.
What we have here is evidence that ben Elohim and/ or bene ha Elohim would have been understood by ancient peoples as a reference to Angles – not men. To deviate form this understanding would have required the author to clarify the issue and essentially make it plain that his reference was not to be taken in terms of general cultural understanding.
Is this getting through? It’s kind of a big deal!
And then we have the Book of Enoch. Don’t be fooled by claims that this was written in the second century, or that it quotes from Jude – there is ample evidence to the contrary. Jude quoted from Enoch, requiring that the text is older than the writing of James – not the other way around.
Now Enoch, the seventh in descent beginning with Adam, even prophesied of them, saying, “Look! The Lord is coming with thousands and thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict every person of all their thoroughly ungodly deeds that they have committed, and of all the harsh words that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
Jude 1:14 – 15
And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of ⌈His⌉ holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy ⌈all⌉ the ungodly
Enoch 1:9
Now we could get into a deep analysis of the Book of Enoch, but this again is not my purpose. It is clear to most biblical scholars and ardent students of scripture that Jesus and the apostles were well aware of the Book of Enoch in their day at a minimum and actually made loose, or direct references to the material therein – they did so because at least among the Judeans, Enoch was common-knowledge.
So, why does Enoch matter? Because it clarifies the issue of exactly who the ‘bene ha Elohim’ were and are – Angels. It clarifies a great deal of meaning throughout scripture.
You also know that the angels who did not keep within their proper domain but abandoned their own place of residence, he has kept in eternal chains in utter darkness, locked up for the judgment of the great Day.
Jude 1:6
Now, the resultant conclusions one draws from such information is far beyond disturbing, it’s horrific. Like, The Island of Doctor Moreau horrific.
Some would decry what I’ve put forth, once again citing the “absence of evidence” to refute such a seemingly outlandish claim – but then again; paradigm, paradigm, paradigm.
Others may quote scripture in order to dismiss the issue:
For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Matthew 22:30
So what about this right?
Nowhere in Genesis does it state that these angles were allowed to do what they did – in fact the text makes it clear that this sin was so egregious that God was going to wipe out everything.
For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment, and if he did not spare the ancient world, but did protect Noah, a herald of righteousness, along with seven others, when God brought a flood on an ungodly world, …
2 Peter 2:4 – 5
Thank God for righteous Noah. Moreover, nothing in Matthew tells you that angels are incapable of producing mongrel offspring – it tells you that this was not within God’s design… therefore, it would constitute sin for them to do so.
In the future, we’ll touch more on the “absence of evidence”, but for now, I think we’ll stop. There’s a lot to digest here.
Until next time,
שלום עליכם – Shalom Aleichem – Peace Be Upon You