Were the sons of God in Genesis 6 fallen angels? Who were the Nephilim?
Summary
TLDRThe video script discusses the interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4, focusing on the identity of 'sons of God' and the Nephilim. It presents three interpretations: descendants of Seth marrying the daughters of Cain, angels intermarrying with humans, and ancient heroes or tyrant kings. The script argues for the angelic interpretation based on biblical references and New Testament corroboration. It also clarifies the Nephilim were not products of angel-human unions but pre-existing figures, debunking the myth of their origin from such unions.
Takeaways
- 😇 Genesis 6:1-4 is a complex biblical text with various interpretations, and it's important to approach it with humility and without causing division among Christians.
- 👥 The 'sons of God' in Genesis 6 could refer to the godly line of Seth, angels, or heroes from the mythical past like Gilgamesh.
- 👼 The term 'sons of God' is used sparingly in the Hebrew Bible and typically refers to angelic beings, not human beings.
- 📖 The New Testament, specifically 2 Peter and Jude, supports the interpretation that the 'sons of God' are angels who sinned by intermarrying with humans.
- 🔍 Jesus' statement about angels not marrying in heaven does not contradict the idea that angels left their proper dwelling to engage in immorality with humans, as described in Genesis 6.
- 🌏 The Nephilim, mentioned in Genesis 6:4, are a subject of debate. Some believe they were the offspring of the unions between angels and humans, while others think they were ancient heroes unrelated to these unions.
- 📚 The expression 'in those days and afterward' suggests that the Nephilim existed both before and after the cohabitation of angels and humans, implying they were not a product of these unions.
- ✍️ Moses may have been 'demythologizing' the Nephilim by stating they were ancient heroes, distancing them from the story of angel-human cohabitation.
- 📖 The first readers of Genesis were assumed to be familiar with who the Nephilim were, indicating their fame in ancient mythologies.
- ❌ Misinterpretations of Genesis 6 in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC led to the Enochic traditions, which were later criticized in the New Testament for promoting foolish myths.
Q & A
What is the main difficulty in interpreting Genesis 6:1-4?
-The main difficulty lies in the ambiguity of the text, which has led to different interpretations, and the importance of remaining humble and non-divisive among Christians when discussing these interpretations.
What are the three interpretations of who the 'sons of God' are in Genesis 6:1-4?
-The three interpretations are: 1) The sons of God refers to the godly line of Seth marrying the ungodly line of Cain. 2) The sons of God are angelic beings intermarrying with humans. 3) The sons of God are heroes from the mythical past, like tyrant kings.
How does the speaker suggest we find the correct interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4?
-The speaker suggests examining the few occurrences of the term 'sons of God' in the Hebrew Bible and considering the New Testament references to the story, particularly in 2 Peter and Jude.
Why does the speaker believe the 'sons of God' refers to angelic beings?
-The speaker points out that the term 'sons of God' is used exclusively to refer to angelic beings in the few instances it appears in the Bible, including in the book of Job and the book of Daniel.
What do the New Testament references in 2 Peter and Jude suggest about the interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4?
-The references in 2 Peter and Jude suggest that the 'sons of God' in Genesis 6:1-4 are indeed angelic beings who sinned by intermarrying with human women.
What is the significance of the phrase 'and also afterward' in Genesis 6:4?
-The phrase 'and also afterward' in Genesis 6:4 is significant because it could imply that the Nephilim were present both before and after the angels had relations with human women, suggesting they were not a product of those unions.
What are the two possible interpretations of the Nephilim mentioned in the script?
-The two interpretations of the Nephilim are: 1) They were the children resulting from the unions of angels and human women, or 2) They were ancient heroes or men of renown who existed before and after the天使s cohabited with humans.
Why does the speaker argue that the Nephilim were not a product of the unions between angels and humans?
-The speaker argues that the Nephilim were not a product of the unions because the Hebrew phrase 'and also afterward' typically indicates a continuation of a previous state, and because the sentence structure in Genesis 6:4 suggests that the Nephilim were known figures to the original readers and were not being newly introduced as a result of the angel-human unions.
What does the speaker mean by 'demythologizing the Nephilim'?
-The speaker means that Moses is clarifying that the Nephilim, who were likely figures from ancient mythology known to the original readers, were not part of the story of angelic beings cohabiting with humans.
How does the speaker address the argument that Jesus' words in the Gospels contradict the idea of angels marrying humans?
-The speaker clarifies that Jesus' words refer to angels in heaven, not those who left their proper dwelling place to commit immorality, thus there is no contradiction between Jesus' words and the story in Genesis 6.
What warning does the speaker give about the interpretation of Genesis 6 found in the book of Enoch?
-The speaker warns against the interpretation found in the book of Enoch, which incorrectly suggests that the Nephilim were giants produced by angelic cohabitation with humans, an idea that Paul also cautions against in his letters to Timothy.
Outlines
🤔 Interpreting Genesis 6:1-4
This paragraph discusses the complexity of interpreting Genesis 6:1-4 and emphasizes humility in interpretation. It mentions that there are different interpretations and warns against divisiveness among Christians. The text describes how 'sons of God' took 'daughters of men' as wives, leading to the question of who these 'sons of God' might be. Three interpretations are presented: descendants of Seth marrying the ungodly line of Cain, angels intermarrying with humans, or heroes from the mythical past like Gilgamesh. The paragraph also explores how the term 'sons of God' is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, suggesting it refers to angelic beings, and how the New Testament supports this interpretation.
📜 Biblical References to 'Sons of God'
The paragraph delves into the biblical usage of the term 'sons of God,' noting its occurrence in Genesis 6, the book of Job, and the book of Daniel, where it consistently refers to angelic beings. It contrasts this with other biblical references that depict a father-son relationship between God and humans, such as with Adam and David, without using the term 'son of God.' The New Testament references in 2 Peter and Jude are highlighted, showing how they reinforce the Old Testament's depiction of angels who sinned. The paragraph also addresses the argument that angels do not marry, as mentioned in the Gospels, by clarifying that this refers to angels in heaven, not those who left their dwelling to commit immoral acts.
🧝♂️ The Nephilim: Mythical Heroes or Angelic Offspring?
This section examines the identity of the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6:4. It discusses two interpretations: one suggesting the Nephilim were the offspring of the unions between angels and human women, supported by Enochic traditions, and another proposing that the Nephilim were already present before and after these unions, thus unrelated to them. The paragraph argues for the latter view, based on the examination of the Hebrew phrase 'and also afterward' and the sentence structure in Genesis 6. It suggests that Moses was demystifying the Nephilim, indicating they were well-known ancient heroes and not a product of angel-human relations.
📖 The Consequences of Misinterpretation
The final paragraph addresses the historical misinterpretation of Genesis 6, particularly during the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C., which led to the Enochic traditions that incorrectly identified the Nephilim as giants born from angel-human unions. It contrasts this with the biblical view that attributes the world's chaos, death, and evil to human sin, not angelic sin. The paragraph emphasizes that the Bible places the blame for sin on human rebellion against God, as depicted in Genesis 3, rather than on angelic beings.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Interpretation
💡Sons of God
💡Angelic Beings
💡Nephilim
💡Divisive
💡Hebrew Bible
💡New Testament
💡Mythological Past
💡Demythologizing
💡Human Rebellion
Highlights
Genesis 6:1-4 is a text with various interpretations and should not divide Christians.
The term 'sons of God' could refer to the godly line of Seth, the ungodly line of Cain, or angelic beings.
The expression 'sons of God' is used very sparingly in the Hebrew Bible and typically refers to angelic beings.
In the book of Job, the 'sons of God' are clearly depicted as angels in God's heavenly court.
The New Testament, particularly 2 Peter and Jude, supports the interpretation of 'sons of God' as angels.
2 Peter chapter 2 uses the story of Genesis 6 to illustrate God's deliverance of His people in the past and future.
Jude refers to angels who abandoned their proper dwelling place, aligning with the Genesis 6 narrative.
The story of Genesis 6 shares a common theme of abnormal sexuality with Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jesus' statement about angels not marrying in heaven does not contradict the Genesis 6 narrative.
The Nephilim are mentioned in Genesis 6:4, with two possible interpretations regarding their origin.
The Nephilim were likely well-known ancient heroes to the original readers of Genesis, not the product of angel-human unions.
The expression 'and also afterward' suggests the Nephilim existed before and after the angels cohabited with humans.
Moses may have been demythologizing the Nephilim by distinguishing them from the story of angel-human cohabitation.
The interpretation of the Nephilim as giants originated from the Enochic traditions and was later criticized by Paul.
The Bible places the blame for chaos, death, and evil on human sin, not angelic sin.
Genesis 3 explains the origin of sin as a result of human disobedience to God's covenant.
Transcripts
- Well, Genesis 6:1-4
is a difficult text.
And as we attempt to
interpret it, we should be humble
because there are different interpretations
that have been taken of this text
and I don't think that
whatever interpretation we take,
I don't think we should be divisive
with other Christians in the church
or among the people of God.
There are three,
Genesis 6 says that the sons of God
saw the daughters of men
and that they chose
the daughters of men for themselves as wives
and they married them.
So the question is,
who are the sons of God
that are marrying the daughters of men?
Well, there are three different interpretations.
One is that the sons of God is a reference
to the godly line of Seth.
Cain killed Abel so after Abel died,
Adam and Eve had relations
and Seth was born and Seth carried on
the godly faith of Abel.
So one idea is that the sons of God
are the descendants of Seth marrying the daughters of men,
the ungodly line of Cain.
Second interpretation is that the sons of God
refers to angels, angelic beings
intermarrying with humans.
The third idea is that the sons of God
are heroes from the mythical past, tyrant kings.
We have stories from the ancient Near East.
For example, we have stories of a person
by the name of Gilgamesh
and he was part god and part human
and accomplished many mighty feats.
So, how do we,
how do we find the right interpretation?
The exact expression, sons of God,
only occurs four or five times in the Hebrew Bible.
We have one occurrence here in Genesis 6.
We have two occurrences in the introduction
to the book of Job.
In the introduction to the book of Job,
we see God gathering in His heavenly court,
His heavenly assembly with the angels.
The angels are called sons of God there.
There's another occurrence in the book of Job,
Job chapter 38
where God is challenging Job and He says,
Where were you when I created the world?
When He created the world,
the sons of God sang for joy.
So it seems to,
there it also seems to be a very clear
reference to angelic beings.
The last occurrence is in Aramaic
in the book of Daniel.
When the king looked into the furnace,
he saw four,
four people there
and it says that one looked like a son of God,
which would mean a divine being, an angelic being.
There are only five occurrences in the entire Bible
where we have the exact expression,
son of God or sons of God
and it always refers to angelic beings.
We must distinguish this use
from other places.
There are other places in the Bible
where they indicate that the relationship of a human
to God is like a father-son relationship.
So Adam and God have a father-son relationship.
In the covenant that God makes with David,
God and David have a father-son relationship.
But it doesn't say that,
it doesn't actually say that Adam is a son of God.
It doesn't use that linguistic expression
and it doesn't say that David is the son of God.
So the only time that linguistic expression
occurs in the Bible,
it always and very clearly refers to angelic beings.
We also have the,
we also have the witness of the New Testament.
So there are two passages in the New Testament
that refer to this.
One is 2 Peter chapter 2
and the other is the book of Jude
and both of these texts
are very closely related to each other.
In 2 Peter chapter 2,
Peter is talking about
how difficult days are coming for the Christians
and there will be people who deny the faith,
who deny the truth about Jesus Christ,
the truth about His work,
who deny the gospel.
There will be false teachers
and they will bring corruption into the church
and destruction into the church.
What Peter does is he appeals to the Old Testament
and he says, well, if God could deliver,
if God could deliver His faithful people
in difficult times in the Old Testament,
then He will be able to do it in the New Testament as well.
Peter refers to two examples
in the Old Testament.
One is the story of the,
of Genesis 6 and Noah
and the other is the story of Lot
being rescued from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
And if you look in the Greek text
of 2 Peter, it's very clear
that there are two examples
and not three examples
by the use of the word and.
So if God did not spare the angels who sinned
and He delivered Noah
and He did not spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah
and He rescued Lot.
So there are two examples
joined by the word and
and each example has two parts,
a negative part and a positive part.
A negative part and a positive part.
So, when Peter is talking about the angels
who sinned, he's very clearly talking about
Genesis chapter 6 because this is connected
with the story of Noah.
Some people say, well, no,
he's not talking about Genesis 6.
Well, then my question to them is,
if Peter is trying to encourage
his readers from well-known stories
in the Old Testament and if the angels who sinned
is not Genesis 6, then where else is the story?
There is no other story in the Old Testament
that it could be referring to.
Some people think that it's the fall of Satan
but as we, we're going to see when we talk about that,
there is no story,
there is no story in the Old Testament
that describes the fall of Satan.
Peter is very clearly alluding to Genesis 6.
Jude is doing the same thing and it's very obvious
in the book of Jude
because he's talking about people
who are false teachers,
people who are going to deny the faith
and he also appeals to the Old Testament
and shows how God delivered His people in the past
and He will do so in the future.
He also refers to two events.
He refers to angels who abandoned
their proper dwelling place,
their proper home.
He also talks about the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah
and he says, since they,
in the same way as these
committed strange immorality.
Well, in the Greek text,
the they refers to the angels
and the same way as these,
the these refers to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
So what the story of Genesis 6
has in common with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah
is that there's an abnormal form of sexuality going on.
If God can deliver His people
from even the strangest perversions,
then He will deliver the people
who are listening to Peter
and the people who are listening to Jude.
He will deliver us.
Now, someone might come to me and say,
well, Jesus in the gospels
says that the angels in heaven
neither marry nor are given in marriage.
So it's impossible for an angel
to have physical relations with human women.
Well, they're not reading the gospels accurately
and clearly because Jesus
is saying that when,
in the resurrection, when Jesus returns
at the end of history,
we, who are resurrected,
are not going to marry because we're going to be
like the angels in heaven.
Notice he says the angels in heaven
and Jude says they left
their proper dwelling place.
So there's no contradiction between Jesus and Jude.
In heaven, the angels don't marry.
In Jude, they abandoned their proper dwelling place
and they go to commit strange immorality.
So there's no confusion.
So it seems very clear,
Genesis 6 is telling us
that these are angels who are marrying humans
and Jude and Peter are telling us
that is the correct interpretation.
The next piece is who are the Nephilim.
In verse 4 of Genesis 6, it says,
the Nephilim were on the earth in those days
and also afterward
when the sons of God had relations with human women
and they bore children of them.
End of sentence.
New sentence.
They were the heroes who were from the ancient past,
men of renown.
There's two major sentences there.
First one says, the Nephilim were on the earth
in those days and also afterward.
There are two possible interpretations
of this expression,
they were on the earth in those days and afterward.
What does that mean,
they were there in those days and afterward?
Well, some people think this means that
the Nephilim were the children
that came from the angels who married the women
in Genesis 6:1-3
and that the Nephilim were the product
of these unnatural unions
and they appeal to texts from the 3rd century B.C.
and 2nd century B.C.,
the so-called Enochic traditions,
the traditions about Enoch
where the Nephilim are interpreted as giants.
There's another interpretation that's possible.
When it says the Nephilim were there in those days
and also afterward,
it could mean that
before the angels had sex with the human women,
the Nephilim were there
and they were also there after
the angels had sex with women.
So it could mean that the Nephilim had nothing to do
with the angels marrying the humans.
I think that is the correct interpretation
for two reasons.
First of all, I examined every occurrence
of this expression and also afterward.
I went to the Hebrew Bible,
I looked up every occurrence of this phrase
and I examined how it was used.
And the second interpretation
best fits and suits how this word is used.
So when it says,
they were there in those days and also afterward,
it means the Nephilim were there before angels
cohabited with humans
and they were there after angels cohabited with humans.
There's a second reason why
this is the correct interpretation.
The last sentence says,
they were the heroes who were from the ancient past,
the men of renown.
This sentence does not begin with and.
Now that's very very important.
Almost every sentence in the Hebrew Bible begins with and.
When a sentence does not begin with and,
it does so for two reasons.
It could be because it's beginning
a new section
or secondly, because it's making a comment
on the previous sentence,
what we would call a footnote.
It's very clear that this sentence is not beginning
a new section but it's acting like a footnote
on the previous sentence.
So the previous sentence is saying
that the Nephilim were before,
were there before the angels and the humans cohabited
and they were there after.
And it's making a brief comment
that they were the ancient heroes.
In this case, what Moses is doing
is he's demythologizing
the Nephilim.
You notice one of the things that we should notice is
the text doesn't tell us who the Nephilim were.
What does that mean?
Why doesn't the text tell us
who they were?
Because they were well-known to the first readers
of this text.
The first readers of this text
knew who the Nephilim were
and didn't need that explained to them.
And all Moses is saying is,
look, whoever you think these heroes are
like Gilgamesh, these ancient heroes,
these men of renown,
you've read about them in the ancient mythologies.
Whoever they were, they're not part of this story.
They don't come from the cohabitation
of angels and humans.
And I think that's the correct interpretation.
But the problem is,
this has been a difficult text to interpret
and it has not always been interpreted correctly
down through the centuries.
And in the 3rd century B.C.
and the 2nd century B.C.,
they came to an incorrect interpretation.
They thought that the Nephilim were giants
who were produced by angels cohabiting with humans
and this got into the book of Enoch.
And Paul warns his readers against this
because he says in his letters to Timothy,
Don't argue over endless genealogies
and foolish myths.
This is a direct reference to the book of Enoch
which has a long genealogy of all the angels
until you finally come down to Satan
and then they blame all the evil in the world on Satan.
What they're trying to do is they're trying to
blame chaos and death
and evil in the world on angelic sin
instead of blaming it on human sin
and the Bible clearly puts the blame on humans.
Genesis 3 shows how sin came into the world.
How did we live in a world
that is troubled by chaos, by death,
by evil, by sin, by selfishness,
by all kinds of corruption.
That came about because God made a covenant
with the first humans and they broke that covenant.
They were fickle, they were disloyal,
they were unfaithful, they cheated on God
in the relationship
and they rebelled against Him.
And so when Jude quotes and refers to this material,
he's showing that it's,
the sin is in the world because of human rebellion
not because of angelic sin.
(upbeat music)
- [Narrator] Thanks for watching "Honest Answers."
Don't forget to subscribe.
Browse More Related Video
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)