Summary: A Rebuttal To The Doctrine Of Nephilim

A Rebuttal To The Doctrine Of Nephilim

Gen 4:25-26

25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

(KJV)

Luke 3:38

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

(KJV)

1121 ben (bane);

from 1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., [like 1, 251, etc.]):

KJV-- + afflicted, age, [Ahoh-] [Ammon-] [Hachmon-] [Lev-] ite, [anointed-] one, appointed to, (+)arrow, [Assyr-] [Babylon-] [Egypt-] [Grec-] ian, one born, bough, branch, breed, + (young) bullock, + (young) calf, X came up in, child, colt, X common, X corn, daughter, X of first, + firstborn, foal, + very fruitful, + postage, X in, + kid, + lamb, (+)man, meet, + mighty, + nephew, old, (+)people, + rebel, + robber, X servant born, X soldier, son, + spark, + steward, + stranger, X surely, them of, + tumultuous one, + valiant [-est], whelp, worthy, young (one), youth.

430 ’elohiym (el-o-heem’);

plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:

KJV-- angels, X exceeding, God (gods)- dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

1323 bath (bath);

from 1129 (as feminine of 1121); a daughter (used in the same wide sense as other terms of relationship, literally and figuratively):

KJV-- apple [of the eye], branch, company, daughter, X first, X old, + owl, town, village.

John 1:12-13

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

(KJV)

Rom 8:14

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

(KJV)

Phil 2:15

15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

(KJV)

I Jn 3:1

1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

(KJV)

sons of God (KJV)

I Jn 3:2

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (KJV)

John 1:12-13

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

(KJV)

Rom 8:14

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

(KJV)

Phil 2:15

15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

(KJV)

I Jn 3:1

1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

(KJV)

I Jn 3:2

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (KJV)

SONS OF GOD

(1) "Sons of God" is interpreted as referring to men, (a) to sons of the nobles, who married daughters of the common people. This is the view of many Jewish authorities, who hold that it is justified by the use of ’elohim in the sense of "judges" ( f, etc.). But this cannot be the meaning of ’elohim here, for when ’adham, "men," is used to denote the lower classes, it is contrasted with ’ish, as in (3 in Heb), not with ’elohim. When contrasted with ’elohim it signifies the human race.

(b) Some commentators hold that by "sons of God" is to be understood the pious race descended from Seth, and by "daughters of men" the daughters of worldly men.

These commentators connect the passage with f, where the race of Seth is characterized as the worshippers of Yahweh and is designated as a whole, a seed (compare (<2:1> in Heb)).

They consider the restricted meaning they put upon "men" as warranted by the contrast (compare ), and that as the term "daughters" expresses actual descent, it is natural to understand "sons" in a similar sense.

The phrase "took wives," they contend also, supports the ethical view, being always used to signify real and lasting marriages, and cannot, therefore, be applied to the higher spirits in their unholy desire after flesh.

On this view verses 1-4 are an introduction to the reason for the Flood, the great wickedness of man upon the earth (verse 5).

It is held that nothing is said in verse 4 of a race of giants springing from the union of angels with human wives (see paragraph 2, below), and that the violence which is mentioned along with the corruption of the world (verse 11) refers to the sin of the giants.

(from International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright (C) 1996 by Biblesoft)

*** In EVERY other passage where this word is used, sons strongs 1121 it is referring to biological children.

Genesis 6:1-2 PP2

2. Mixed marriages (v. 2): The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness.

The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done, both for the preservation of their own purity and in detestation of the apostasy.

They intermingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain: They took them wives of all that they chose. But what was amiss in these marriages?

(1.) they chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair, which was all they looked at.

(2.) they followed the choice which their own corrupt affections made: they took all that they chose, without advice and consideration. But,

(3.) That which proved of such bad consequence to them was that they married strange wives, were unequally yoked with unbelievers, <2 Cor. 6:14>. This was forbidden to Israel, . It was the unhappy occasion of Solomon’s apostasy <1 Kin. 11:1-4>, and was of bad consequence to the Jews after their return out of Babylon, . Note, Professors of religion, in marrying both themselves and their children, should make conscience of keeping within the bounds of profession. The bad will sooner debauch the good than the good reform the bad. Those that profess themselves the children of God must not marry without his consent, which they have not if they join in affinity with his enemies.

(from Matthew Henry’s Commentary)

Genesis 6:3

This comes in here as a token of God’s displeasure at those who married strange wives; he threatens to withdraw from them his Spirit, whom they had grieved by such marriages, contrary to their convictions: fleshly lusts are often punished with spiritual judgments, the sorest of all judgments. Or as another occasion of the great wickedness of the old world; the Spirit of the Lord, being provoked by their resistance of his motions, ceased to strive with them, and then all religion was soon lost among them. This he warns them of before, that they might not further vex his Holy Spirit, but by their prayers might stay him with them. Observe in this verse,

I. God’s resolution not always to strive with man by his Spirit. The Spirit then strove by Noah’s preaching <1 Pet. 3:19-20> and by inward checks, but it was in vain with the most of men; therefore, says God, He shall not always strive. Note,

1. The blessed Spirit strives with sinners, by the convictions and admonitions of conscience, to turn them from sin to God.

2. If the Spirit be resisted, quenched, and striven against, though he strive long, he will not strive always, .

3. Those are ripening apace for ruin whom the Spirit of grace has left off striving with.

II. The reason of this resolution: For that he also is flesh, that is, incurably corrupt, and carnal, and sensual, so that it is labour lost to strive with him. Can the Ethiopian change his skin? He also, that is, All, one as well as another, they have all sunk into the mire of flesh. Note,

1. It is the corrupt nature, and the inclination of the soul towards the flesh, that oppose the Spirit’s strivings and render them ineffectual.

(from Matthew Henry’s Commentary)

Genesis 5:32 PP7

[When men began to multiply] It was not at this time that men began to multiply, but the inspired penman speaks now of a fact which had taken place long before. As there is a distinction made here between men and those called the sons of God, it is generally supposed that the immediate posterity of Cain and that of Seth are intended.

The first were mere men, such as fallen nature may produce, degenerate sons of a degenerate father, governed by the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eye, and the pride of life.

The others were sons of God, not angels, as some have dreamed, but such as were, according to our Lord’s doctrine, born again, born from above, , etc., and made children of God by the influence of the Holy Spirit, .

Dr. Wall supposes the first verses of this chapter should be paraphrased thus: "When men began to multiply on the earth,

Genesis 6:4

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.

[There were giants in the earth] nªpiliym (heb 5303), from naaphal (heb 5307), "he fell."

Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion.

The Septuagint translate the original word by gigantes, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature.

But the word when properly understood makes a very just disinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim (heb 5303), the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind.

These were the sons of God, who were born from above, children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence, we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints, the former were termed gigantes (Greek), "earth-born", and the latter, hagioi (grk 40) i. e. saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth.

[The same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.] giboriym (heb 1368), which we render "mighty men", signifies properly conquerors, heroes, from gaabar (heb 1396), "he prevailed, was victorious." and ’ansheey (heb 376) hashem (heb 8034), "men of the name," anthroopoi (grk 444) onomastoi (grk 3686), Septuagint; the same as we render men of renown, renominati, twice named, as the word implies, having one name which they derived from their fathers, and another which they acquired by their daring exploits and enterprises.

It may be necessary to remark here that our translators have rendered seven different Hebrew words by the one term giants, viz., nephilim. gibborim, enachim, rephaim, emim, and zamzummim; by which appellatives are probably meant in general persons of great knowledge, piety, courage, wickedness, etc., and not men of enormous stature, as is generally conjectured.

(from Adam Clarke Commentary)

[The sons of God saw the daughters of men.] This is a difficult passage, and various modes of interpreting it have been proposed:

(1) An opinion extensively adopted is, that the "sons of God" denote angels, "daughters of men," women generally; and that the transaction referred to was, that the angels who had been appointed to guard Eden and perambulate the world, becoming enamoured with women, mingled familiarly in their society, and cohabited with them. This view is of great antiquity, having been entertained, according to Josephus, in the later ages of the Jewish Church, and eagerly adopted by Justin, Athenagoras, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and Lactantius, whose semi-pagan imaginations were dazzled by the rhapsodical legends of the Apocryphal book of Enoch. Being strenuously opposed at a subsequent period by Chrysostom, Augustine, and others, it was long exploded in the Christian Church as a wild and revolting fiction, until it was revived in modern times, and supported on various grounds by Rosenmuller, Gesenius, Kurtz, Tuch, Knobel, and Delitzsch, in Germany; and by Govett (`Isaiah Unfulfilled’), Maitland (`False Worship’), and others (Birks’ `Difficulties’) in England, not to speak of Milton, Byron, and Moore, all of whom enlisted it in the service of poetry.

The alleged application of the name "sons of God" to angels in the poetical book of Job (; and perhaps ), which is thought to have been written by Moses; the Septuagint version [which has hoi (grk 3588), angeloi (grk 32) tou (grk 5120) Theou (grk 2316), the anqels of God]; the supposed testimonies of Peter <1 Pet 3:19-20; 2 Pet. 2:4> and Jude in favour of this view, referring, as some imagine, to a class of fallen angels who, unlike Satan and his followers, are, because the enormity of their crimes, reserved in chains until the judgment-day; and the assumption that an extraordinary outrage must have been perpetrated before a judgment so awful as the flood would have been inflicted, are the grounds on which this opinion is rested by its supporters.

But Keil, Faber, and others, have successfully shown that angels are not designated "the sons of God" in any part of the Pentateuch; that there is no reference to angels in this passage; still less in Peter, where, by `the disobedient spirits in prison, ’ and the angels that kept not their first habitation, as also in Jude, where by the allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah, Balaam and Korah , it is proved that the apostles had in view only erring, sinful men.

Moveover, not to dwell on the impossibility of angels having such a carnal intercourse as is alluded to, and on the likelihood that Divine Providence would have immediately interposed rather than have deferred the judicial punishment of so enormous a violation of natural order for 120 years, the entire context of this passage refers to men as having corrupted their ways, and being, by the withdrawal of God’s Spirit, doomed to punishment.

For these and other reasons, this opinion as to the connection of angels with women is generally opposed by orthodox divines as contrary to all sound notions both of philosophy and religion.

(2) another interpretation of the passage, which has been suggested in our own day, proceeds on the hypothesis that there were other varieties of mankind in existence beside the descendants of Adam; and, in accordance with this view, the following translation is proposed:-- `And it came to pass, when the Adamites (literally, the Adam) began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, ’ `the sons of ’Elohiym (heb 430) ’-- the sons of the gods-- the other races, saw the daughters of the Adamites that they were goodly, and they took them wives of all which they chose (`Genesis of the Earth and of Man’). That ’Aadaam (heb 121), with the Hebrew article, is used as the name of an individual, see the note at . The term is, indeed, frequently used generically for mankind, but never to denote a distinct race of human beings; and accordingly it is not found in the plural, which it would have been if applied to a race. It might naturally have been expected, that in some ancient version this interpretation, if right, would have been found, but not one has been discovered to give the smallest countenance to such a view; and therefore, until some stronger evidence shall be adduced than what the world has yet seen, to prove that mankind are not all descended from one pair, the theory respecting the existence of a race called the Adamites, as separate from other human creatures, must be rejected.

(3) the most correct, and now the most prevalent, view of this passage-- the view supported by Chrysostom and Augustine in ancient, and by Luther, Calvin, Hengstenberg, Keil, Faber, etc., in modern times-- is that by "the sons of God," are meant the Sethites principally, but including also those other descendants of Adam who professed the same religious views and feelings:

`That sober race of men, whose lives

Religious titled them the sons of God. ’

And by "the daughters of men," women of Cainite descent, including such as might have joined their degenerate society from other branches of the Adamic family. Pious people, professors of the true religion, who truly reflected the divine image, were "the sons of God (’Elohiym (heb 430))," and were called by that name long before the theocracy had brought the Israelites into the special relationship of the Lord’s (Yahweh’s) children , or the idea attached to the name had received its full development in the Christian Church .

Moveover, that the Hebrew word ’Aadaam (heb 121), with or without the article, is often used to denote a particular class, in contradistinction to men in general-- men of worldly, irreligious character-- will appear from the following passages . The meaning of the clause under notice, then, is that the professedly religions class of the antediluvians, consisting principally of Sethites, with some others-- a class who, by their principles and practice, had long kept themselves separate from the world-- began gradually to relax their strictness, and to abandon their isolated position, by cultivating acquaintance, and then forming alliances, with "the daughters of men" in general, the Cainite and other women of similar character. This is what is referred to by Jude, when he says that they kept not [teen (grk 3588) heautoon (grk 1438) archeen (grk 746)] their primitive dignity as sons of God, and the original excellence in which they were created, but left [to idion oiketeerion] their own proper situation (Bloomfield). The interpretation of the phrase, "sons of God" now given connects the present passage with , from which it is divided by the insertion of , which seems a distinct document; and the two verses thus viewed throw light upon each other, as well as upon the course of the following narrative.

[They took wives of all which they chose.] The Hebrew verb, laaqach (heb 3947), to take, with ’ishaah (heb 802) , and sometimes without it , signifies to take in marriage. From this usual import of the term, therefore, the marriages which the Sethites formed with the Cainite women were legitimate connections; and as female beauty has always exercised a powerful influence over the minds of men in the choice of their wives, there was no impropriety in allowing that element of attraction to have weight in forming the matrimonial relation then, any more than now. But the Sethites seem, in their admiration of external charms, to have paid no regard to the will of God respecting religious principle and character; and as intermarriages with unbelievers and profane women have in all ages been productive of numerous evils , it must be concluded that the sacred historian had such consequences in view when he took such a prominent notice of the manners which formed a characteristic feature of the latest antediluvian age.

Mixed marriages between parties of opposite principles and practice must necessarily be sources of extensive corruption. The women, irreligious themselves, would, as wives and mothers, exert an influence fatal to the existence of religion in their household, and consequently the later antediluvians sank to the lowest depravity. But the phrase "took them wives of all which they chose evidently implies something very different from the simple exercise of a free choice; and it seems a conclusion perfectly warranted by the terms of this passage, that the practice of polygamy had widely spread. until it became the chief cause of that universal corruption and violence which ensued. In connection with this, it may be added that the Hebrew ’Elohiym (heb 430) sometimes signifies `the great, the mighty’ , and the Hebrew ’aadaam (heb 120), as distinguished from ’iysh (heb 376), denotes the poor, humble, and common people ; so that we may consider the passage still further as implying that the princes, or sons of the chief men, broke through the restraints of social and domestic order, by taking, in profligate and violent licentiousness, numbers of beautiful women from among the humbler classes to fill their harems.

(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)

Genesis 6:3

This comes in here as a token of God’s displeasure at those who married strange wives; he threatens to withdraw from them his Spirit, whom they had grieved by such marriages, contrary to their convictions: fleshly lusts are often punished with spiritual judgments, the sorest of all judgments. Or as another occasion of the great wickedness of the old world; the Spirit of the Lord, being provoked by their resistance of his motions, ceased to strive with them, and then all religion was soon lost among them. This he warns them of before, that they might not further vex his Holy Spirit, but by their prayers might stay him with them. Observe in this verse,

I. God’s resolution not always to strive with man by his Spirit. The Spirit then strove by Noah’s preaching <1 Pet. 3:19-20> and by inward checks, but it was in vain with the most of men; therefore, says God, He shall not always strive. Note,

1. The blessed Spirit strives with sinners, by the convictions and admonitions of conscience, to turn them from sin to God.

2. If the Spirit be resisted, quenched, and striven against, though he strive long, he will not strive always, .

3. Those are ripening apace for ruin whom the Spirit of grace has left off striving with.

II. The reason of this resolution: For that he also is flesh, that is, incurably corrupt, and carnal, and sensual, so that it is labour lost to strive with him. Can the Ethiopian change his skin? He also, that is, All, one as well as another, they have all sunk into the mire of flesh. Note,

1. It is the corrupt nature, and the inclination of the soul towards the flesh, that oppose the Spirit’s strivings and render them ineffectual.

(from Matthew Henry’s Commentary)

Genesis 5:32 PP7

[When men began to multiply] It was not at this time that men began to multiply, but the inspired penman speaks now of a fact which had taken place long before. As there is a distinction made here between men and those called the sons of God, it is generally supposed that the immediate posterity of Cain and that of Seth are intended. The first were mere men, such as fallen nature may produce, degenerate sons of a degenerate father, governed by the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eye, and the pride of life. The others were sons of God, not angels, as some have dreamed, but such as were, according to our Lord’s doctrine, born again, born from above, , etc., and made children of God by the influence of the Holy Spirit, . The former were apostates from the true religion, the latter were those among whom it was preserved and cultivated.

Dr. Wall supposes the first verses of this chapter should be paraphrased thus: "When men began to multiply on the earth, the chief men took wives of all the handsome poor women they chose. There were tyrants in the earth in those days and also after the antediluvian days powerful men had unlawful connections with the inferior women, and the children which sprang from this illicit commerce were the renowned heroes of antiquity, of whom the heathens made their gods."

(from Adam Clarke Commentary)

Genesis 6:4

Genesis 6:4

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.

[There were giants in the earth] nªpiliym (heb 5303), from naaphal (heb 5307), "he fell." Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion. The Septuagint translate the original word by gigantes, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature. But the word when properly understood makes a very just disinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim (heb 5303), the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. These were the sons of God, who were born from above, children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence, we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints, the former were termed gigantes (Greek), "earth-born", and the latter, hagioi (grk 40) i. e. saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth.

[The same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.] giboriym (heb 1368), which we render "mighty men", signifies properly conquerors, heroes, from gaabar (heb 1396), "he prevailed, was victorious." and ’ansheey (heb 376) hashem (heb 8034), "men of the name," anthroopoi (grk 444) onomastoi (grk 3686), Septuagint; the same as we render men of renown, renominati, twice named, as the word implies, having one name which they derived from their fathers, and another which they acquired by their daring exploits and enterprises.

It may be necessary to remark here that our translators have rendered seven different Hebrew words by the one term giants, viz., nephilim. gibborim, enachim, rephaim, emim, and zamzummim; by which appellatives are probably meant in general persons of great knowledge, piety, courage, wickedness, etc., and not men of enormous stature, as is generally conjectured.

(from Adam Clarke Commentary)

Matt 22:30

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

(KJV)

Mark 12:25

25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

(KJV)

Luke 20:35

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

(KJV)

Luke 20:36

36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

(KJV)

*** GOD DOES NOT REFER TO ANGELS AS SONS OF GOD!

Heb 1:4-14

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

(KJV)

Heb 1:3-5

3 God’s Son shines out with God’s glory, and all that God’s Son is and does marks him as God. He regulates the universe by the mighty power of his command. He is the one who died to cleanse us and clear our record of all sin, and then sat down in highest honor beside the great God of heaven.

4 Thus he became far greater than the angels, as proved by the fact that his name "Son of God," which was passed on to him from his Father, is far greater than the names and titles of the angels.

5 For God never said to any angel, "You are my Son, and today I have given you the honor that goes with that name." But God said it about Jesus. Another time he said, "I am his Father and he is my Son." And still another time-- when his firstborn Son came to earth-- God said, "Let all the angels of God worship him."

(TLB)

Heb 2:6-8

6 But one testified in a certain place, saying: "What is man that You are mindful of him, or the son of man that You take care of him?

7 You have made him a little lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, and set him over the works of Your hands.

8 You have put all things in subjection under his feet." For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him.

(NKJ)

Heb 2:16

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

(KJV)

*** This signifies the great difference between men and angels.

Compiled by pastor Scott Carroll