The Son's of God & The Nephilim
Genesis 6
The portion of scripture that will be the center of attention is as follows:
"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 saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves,
whomever they chose. . . . The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons
of God 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." Genesis 6:1-4 (NASB)
"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 saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves,
whomever they chose. . . . The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons
of God 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." Genesis 6:1-4 (NASB)
The Controversey
At the heart of the disagreement is the interpretation of the phrase Sons of God (one could also include the identification of the daughters of men, and the Nephilim). There are two primary views, one states that the Sons of God were angles; the other is that they were the godly line of Seth. So from whom did the controversy arise? In setting the stage for understanding the controversy, Let Us Reason ministries (an apologetics ministry), offers this brief background of when the change of interpretation took place:
“It has been the opinion of the majority of Rabbis that this event had actually occurred, and that the sons of God were indeed angels. Ancient rabbinical sources, and the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ all upheld this view. Josephus believed them to be angels. As did the early church. They (Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athenagoras, Eusebius, Philo, Theodoret, Jerome and Judeaus) accepted this traditional view almost to the end of the fourth century. While we should not let tradition be the final say in doctrinal matters we can learn from their statements why they considered this view. What changed this view is only speculated but it very well could have been from an anti-supernatural outlook. Augustine in his book City of God denied that the sons of God were angels. Some of the reformers such as John Calvin, and Martin Luther stated that the sons of God were Sethites and not angels, this continues to be part of this view point today." (http://www.letusreason.org/Doct11.htm).
It should also be noted that Julius Africanus may have been the first to suggest a change of the interpretation in the third century CE, and his view was later advocated by Augustine. In fact some speculate that there was a growing concern over angel worship and this led to Julius Africanus and/or Augustine to embrace a change in the identity of the Sons of God.
Let us take a moment to look at the deep and theological reasoning as to why some these men, whom are considered to be giants of theological thought, took the positions they did. Below are some quotes with references of their positions:
“It has been the opinion of the majority of Rabbis that this event had actually occurred, and that the sons of God were indeed angels. Ancient rabbinical sources, and the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ all upheld this view. Josephus believed them to be angels. As did the early church. They (Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athenagoras, Eusebius, Philo, Theodoret, Jerome and Judeaus) accepted this traditional view almost to the end of the fourth century. While we should not let tradition be the final say in doctrinal matters we can learn from their statements why they considered this view. What changed this view is only speculated but it very well could have been from an anti-supernatural outlook. Augustine in his book City of God denied that the sons of God were angels. Some of the reformers such as John Calvin, and Martin Luther stated that the sons of God were Sethites and not angels, this continues to be part of this view point today." (http://www.letusreason.org/Doct11.htm).
It should also be noted that Julius Africanus may have been the first to suggest a change of the interpretation in the third century CE, and his view was later advocated by Augustine. In fact some speculate that there was a growing concern over angel worship and this led to Julius Africanus and/or Augustine to embrace a change in the identity of the Sons of God.
Let us take a moment to look at the deep and theological reasoning as to why some these men, whom are considered to be giants of theological thought, took the positions they did. Below are some quotes with references of their positions:
Augustine’s argument was, “I could by no means believe that God’s holy angels could at that time have so fallen” (Augustine, City of God 15:23. 10 Philip Schaff, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. II, Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997, p. 303).
Theodoret, a contemporary of Augustine, calls anyone who holds the angelic view “mad fools” (Theodoret, Questions on Genesis: XLVII).
Chrysostom “[We need to] confute the fanciful interpretations of those people whose every remark is made rashly … by demonstrating the absurdity of what is said by them … so that you will not lend your ears idly to people uttering those blasphemies and presuming to speak in a way that brings their own persons into jeopardy” (Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 6).
Calvin said, “That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, 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” (John Calvin, Genesis 6:1 - John Calvin and John King, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis - Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2010).
Martin Luther called the supernatural view, “The silly ideas of the Jews” (Martin Luther, Genesis 6:2 Martin Luther, vol. 2, Luther's Works, Vol. 2 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 6-14, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann, Luther's Works - Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999).
Luther similarly says, “That anything could be born from [the union of a devil and a human being], this I do not believe”
Theodoret, a contemporary of Augustine, calls anyone who holds the angelic view “mad fools” (Theodoret, Questions on Genesis: XLVII).
Chrysostom “[We need to] confute the fanciful interpretations of those people whose every remark is made rashly … by demonstrating the absurdity of what is said by them … so that you will not lend your ears idly to people uttering those blasphemies and presuming to speak in a way that brings their own persons into jeopardy” (Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 6).
Calvin said, “That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, 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” (John Calvin, Genesis 6:1 - John Calvin and John King, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis - Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2010).
Martin Luther called the supernatural view, “The silly ideas of the Jews” (Martin Luther, Genesis 6:2 Martin Luther, vol. 2, Luther's Works, Vol. 2 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 6-14, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann, Luther's Works - Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999).
Luther similarly says, “That anything could be born from [the union of a devil and a human being], this I do not believe”
Luther is most likely technically incorrect. The supernatural view is not that devils mated with women, but that the heavenly sons of God did. The early church saw a big difference between these two kinds of creatures.
One of the primary reasons for this controversy therefore, is found in the simple fact that a time came when the theologians of the day looked at Genesis 6:1-4 and idea of the Sons of God being spiritual beings was simply too hard to believe. "We don't believe it and that is the end of it!" Therefore in spite of all the self-presenting evidence provided by scripture and historians, they sought another explanation. Explanations I might add that require some of the most astounding exegetical exercises and hoop jumping ever seen in the church.
What makes this attitude and position so incredulous is that they didn't find God creating the earth in six days too hard to believe. They didn't find Abraham impregnating Sahara at the age of 99 too hard to believe. They didn't find Moses turning the water of the Nile into blood too hard to believe. They didn't find the story of the Passover too hard to believe, nor were any of the stories of the ten plagues too hard for them to believe. They didn't find Moses parting the Red Sea and the Israelites crossing on dry land too hard to believe. They didn't find the story of the pillar of smoke by day and fire by night guiding the children of Israel out of Egypt too hard to believe. They didn't find the story of Moses speaking to a rock and water flowing from it in order for the people to drink too hard to believe. They didn't find the story of the sun and the moon standing still for a full day while Joshua fought the Amorites too hard to believe, even though it defies a number of physical laws. The story of Joshua and the Israelites marching around Jericho and the walls simply falling down wasn't too hard for them to believe. They didn't find the story of an iron ax head floating to the surface of the water when the prophet Elisha threw a stick in the water too hard to believe. They didn't find the story of Daniel being thrown into the lion’s den and yet not touched by the hungry lions too hard to believe. Nor did they find the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego surviving the fiery furnace too hard to believe. They don't discredit the story of Jonah's experience in the belly of the fish as something too hard to believe, The story of Balaam having a conversation with his donkey wasn't too hard for them to believe. Finally, they didn't find the story of the Holy Spirit impregnating Mary, and Mary, being a virgin, giving birth to Jesus too hard to believe. But the Sons of God of Genesis 6 being spiritual beings, well that is just too hard to believe!
Let's get into the scripture and see what it has to say about these verses.
One of the primary reasons for this controversy therefore, is found in the simple fact that a time came when the theologians of the day looked at Genesis 6:1-4 and idea of the Sons of God being spiritual beings was simply too hard to believe. "We don't believe it and that is the end of it!" Therefore in spite of all the self-presenting evidence provided by scripture and historians, they sought another explanation. Explanations I might add that require some of the most astounding exegetical exercises and hoop jumping ever seen in the church.
What makes this attitude and position so incredulous is that they didn't find God creating the earth in six days too hard to believe. They didn't find Abraham impregnating Sahara at the age of 99 too hard to believe. They didn't find Moses turning the water of the Nile into blood too hard to believe. They didn't find the story of the Passover too hard to believe, nor were any of the stories of the ten plagues too hard for them to believe. They didn't find Moses parting the Red Sea and the Israelites crossing on dry land too hard to believe. They didn't find the story of the pillar of smoke by day and fire by night guiding the children of Israel out of Egypt too hard to believe. They didn't find the story of Moses speaking to a rock and water flowing from it in order for the people to drink too hard to believe. They didn't find the story of the sun and the moon standing still for a full day while Joshua fought the Amorites too hard to believe, even though it defies a number of physical laws. The story of Joshua and the Israelites marching around Jericho and the walls simply falling down wasn't too hard for them to believe. They didn't find the story of an iron ax head floating to the surface of the water when the prophet Elisha threw a stick in the water too hard to believe. They didn't find the story of Daniel being thrown into the lion’s den and yet not touched by the hungry lions too hard to believe. Nor did they find the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego surviving the fiery furnace too hard to believe. They don't discredit the story of Jonah's experience in the belly of the fish as something too hard to believe, The story of Balaam having a conversation with his donkey wasn't too hard for them to believe. Finally, they didn't find the story of the Holy Spirit impregnating Mary, and Mary, being a virgin, giving birth to Jesus too hard to believe. But the Sons of God of Genesis 6 being spiritual beings, well that is just too hard to believe!
Let's get into the scripture and see what it has to say about these verses.