ow it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and they bare children to them. The same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6: 1-2, 4) KJV |
 |
WHO ARE THE NEPHILIM? The "Sons of Seth" Theory The early rabbis and church fathers never considered that Genesis 6:4 refers to a failure to keep the "faithful" lines of the godly Seth from mingling with the worldly line of Cain. The "bene ha Elohim" (sons of God) also never refer to men in the Old Testament, only angels. In the 5th century A.D., such great church men as Augustine embraced the so-called "Sethite theory" and thus it prevailed through the Middle Ages into today. Unfortunately, there are many otherwise outstanding Bible teachers who still hold it. There are many problems with this view: 1. The ancient rabbinical sources and the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century B.C. went with a clear understanding of the Hebrew text. Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, clearly establishes a contrast between the "nephilim" (fallen ones, i.e. angels) and the "benoth ha Adam"(daughters of men, i.e. earth women). This is further confirmed in Luke's genealogical line of Jesus where only Adam is called a "son of God." And we church-agers know that Christ uniquely gives them that receive Him the power to become these "sons of God" as entirely new creations (1John3:1). The term "oiketerion" in 2 Corinthians 5:2 and Jude 1:6 literally alludes to the heavenly body with which the believer will be clothed and it is the precise term for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed. 2. The "daughters of Adam" phrase also does not limit itself to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race. These were daughters born to the men who "began to multiply on the face of the earth (Genesis 6:1). It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family line. 3. The notion of separate "lines" itself flies in the face of Scriptural revelation. National distinctions were planned by God as outlined in Genesis 11. There is no theological reason for the lines of Seth and Cain to keep themselves separate nor were they commanded thus at that point in human history. 4. Only eight unblemished (without "tamiym") individuals were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah's ("perfect in his generation") family was accounted worthy to be saved. The son of Seth himself was Enosh, meaning "frail mortal." The KJV says that in his time men began to "call on the Name of the Lord." A more literal rendering of the Hebrew implies men "profaning" the Name. So much for the godly line trying to remain pure and blemish-free. And, after all, they, too, were wiped out in the Flood. 5. The most fatal flaw in the "Sethite" view is the Nephilim themselves whose unnatural offspring seem to be a primary cause for God's rather drastic judgment. Procreation by parents of different religious views do not produce unnatural offspring of this caliber. We must assume that the abnormal creatures that were designated "mighty" and "men of reknown" had a great deal to do with the fact that God "repenteth" of His creation! The New Testament confirms this: "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly (2 Peter 2:4-5). Here Peter even establishes the time of the fall of these angels to the days of the Flood. Even the term Tartarus for "hell" gives a clue. This is the only place that this Greek term appears in the Bible. Tartarus is a Greek term which was used in Homer's Iliad to signify a region "as far beneath Hades as the earth is below heaven." Jude 6 and 7 further comments: "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." The allusions match those of Genesis 6 and are disruptive to the "Sethite" theory. Final thought - if the implied physical sexual intercourse between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were merely a mixed marriage between earthlings, why are certain fallen angels imprisoned forever while others remain free to roam the universe? |
