top of page

Search Results

31 items found for ""

Blog Posts (4)

  • Further Biblical Support for the "Angel View" of Genesis 6:4

    (From the study "The Identity Of The Nephilim") In our past several articles, we've advocated for what may be called the "angel view" of Genesis 6:4. This refers to the interpretation that the "sons of God" mentioned in that verse refer to fallen angels, whom the passage then states had sexual relations with human women, producing a hybrid offspring of giants the Bible calls "Nephilim." While it may be difficult for some to accept, this is the clear, plain meaning of the text – as we've shown so far in this article series. But if this is to be accepted as the accurate understanding of Genesis 6 and the pre-Flood world, wouldn’t we expect to find further mention of it elsewhere in Scripture? Taking into account the enormity of this subject’s impact on the Biblical narrative, we would absolutely expect further mention, commentary, or allusion to it being woven throughout the Bible. Actually, that is exactly what we do find – and these further complimentary passages add valuable confirmation of the interpretation presented in these articles. Let’s begin to take a closer look at some of these passages… Earlier in our study, we mentioned that Numbers 13:33 is the only passage other than Genesis 6:1-4 that explicitly uses the word “Nephilim.” Although that is true, there are a multitude of other passages in the Bible that clearly deal with this concept. We will save the Numbers 13:33 passage for later on in our study when we begin to take a closer look at the Conquest of Canaan. Instead, let’s begin with a key Old Testament passage that is often overlooked or ignored – but that convincingly verifies the angel view of Genesis 6. This passage is Job 4:13-18, and it reads as follows… “Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly:” -Job 4:18 We’ve underlined the key words in this passage: “angels” and “folly.” Most readers may quickly overlook this word “folly,” as it’s not a word commonly used in modern English – and when it is used, it doesn’t carry with it the same connotations as it did in the Elizabethan period of Early Modern English (the era in which the King James Version was written). [1] In modern English, we may think of “folly” as referring to “silly behavior.” However, let’s be clear that in KJV English, it’s used to describe serious, illicit sexual activity. Ryan Pitterson writes the following concerning this subject… “The word ‘folly,’ which is translated from the Hebrew ‘nebalah,’ is commonly defined as ‘senseless; or disgraceful.’ While dictionary definitions are important, the primary source for the meaning of a word is the context in which it occurs. In the King James Version of the Old Testament, ‘folly’ is most often used to describe sexual sin.” [2] It is enlightening to look at several examples of how “folly” is used in the KJV Old Testament… “And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her. And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter: which thing ought not to be done.” -Genesis 34:1-2, 7 “Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.” -Deuteronomy 22:21 “Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him ("know", meaning to have sexual relations with – in this case, rape). And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.” -Judges 19:22-23 “And it came to pass after this, that Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. And Amnon was so vexed, that he fell sick for his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin; and Amnon thought it hard for him to do anything to her. And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister. And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly.” -2 Samuel 13:1-2, 11-12 From looking at these instances, we can see that rape, fornication, and incest are three prominent contexts in which “folly” is used in the King James Old Testament – three examples of illicit sexual activity. With this in mind, we can then look back to our original passage (Job 4:18 – “his angels he charged with folly”) and recognize that when you let Scripture interpret Scripture, the Bible itself confirms that a group of angels committed illicit sexual activity, providing a strong confirmation of our understanding of Genesis 6. Let’s now skip ahead to the New Testament and focus on several significant complimentary passages that also validate the angel view of Genesis 6... Jude 1:6-7 First, we will look to the book of Jude, which provides one of the principal complimentary passages on the angelic seduction of human women and subsequent rise of the Nephilim. Actually, this passage even includes within it a key to answering the question of how an angel from heaven could produce a child with a human woman. In Jude 1:6-7, we read the following… “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 Gomorrha, 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.” -Jude 1:6-7 This passage describes a certain group of angels that “kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation.” This same group of sinful angels is now described as being imprisoned in “everlasting chains under darkness” until their final judgment. Interestingly, Jude appears to assume that the readers are already familiar with who these angels are. In other words, he’s clearly alluding to the storyline of the fallen angels first mentioned in Genesis 6, which everyone during his day was familiar with. This is made even plainer in the next verse, which identifies the sinful activity these angels were committing – which resulted in their imprisonment. It says they were committing fornication (or illicit sexual activity) and going after “strange flesh” – much like what was happening at Sodom and Gomorrah. In "The Identity Of The Nephilim", we look deeper into the issue of what really may have been happening at Sodom and Gomorrah – but for now, let’s just say that the reference to these cities may have closer ties to Genesis 6 than most realize. Let’s not overlook the fact that the men of Sodom also wanted to have sexual relations with angels – the angels that came to visit Lot (Genesis 19:5). Again, you can find out more about that by reading our fully study. For now, let’s further break down this passage in Jude… The phrase “first estate” (in “the angels which kept not their first estate”) refers to their beginning or their origin – the Greek word arché (Strong’s # G746). [3] In other words, these angels abandoned their original position as holy angels of God in heaven. It then says that they left this position by leaving their “own habitation.” As we will see, this word “habitation” is the key we referenced earlier that helps us answer the question of how an angel can come together with a human woman and produce offspring. This word translated as “habitation” is the Greek word oikétérion (Strong's # G3613), and means a dwelling place, a habitation, or an abode. [4] But here’s the key: this word oikétérion is only used twice in Scripture. The only other place where it’s found is 2 Corinthians 5:2, which metaphorically describes the glorified, heavenly body that a born-again believer will one day receive in the resurrection. 2 Corinthians 5:1-6 reads… “For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house (oikétérion) which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:” -2 Corinthians 5:1-6 The apostle Paul uses the Greek word oikétérion (translated as “house” in Verse 2) to describe the future resurrection body that we, as believers, will receive. Pitterson further connects the dots for us, writing the following… “The Apostle Paul, under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, explains that for Christians the flesh bodies we are born with pale in comparison to the heavenly bodies we will receive at the Rapture when all believers are translated. This celestial body is immortal and does not contain the sin nature that all human beings have inherited from Adam. So, the ‘house’ that Paul desires is the same ‘habitation,’ or ‘oikétérion’ that the angels who sinned chose to desecrate to pursue their sinful schemes.” [5] Chuck Missler put it this way… “The very term oikétérion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.” [6] Scripture is very clear that the angels were able to leave their original heavenly bodies and manifest themselves in bodies that were physical. So, the sinning sons of God who left their “habitation” to go after “strange flesh” received the punishment of being reserved in chains of darkness until the day of judgment. The renowned 20th Century Bible scholar Arthur W. Pink summarizes our position in the following comment concerning this passage in Jude… “The reference in Jude (1:6) to the angels leaving their own habitation appears to point to and correspond with these ‘sons of God’ (angels) coming in unto the daughters of men. Apparently, by this means, Satan hoped to destroy the human race (the channel through which the woman’s Seed was to come) by producing a race of monstrosities. How nearly he succeeded is evident from the fact that with the exception of one family, ‘all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth’ (Gen. 6:12). That monstrosities were produced as the result of this unnatural union between the ‘sons of God’ (angels) and the daughters of men, is evidence from the words of Genesis 6:4: ‘There were giants in the earth in those days.’” [7] So, we can see that this passage in Jude is a clear New Testament confirmation of the “angel view” of Genesis 6. But the New Testament continues to give us further confirmation of this in several other key verses… 2 Peter 2:4-9 Next, we will look to the book of 2 Peter, which gives us a second principal complimentary passage that describes the illicit union between the fallen angels and human women. 2 Peter 2:4-9 reads… “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Greek: “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; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:” -2 Peter 2:4-9 In this similar passage, we again see a mention of a group of angels who sinned and received the punishment of being imprisoned in chains of darkness until the judgment. And in the verses that follow, like the passage in Jude, we again find a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah. But this passage even more clearly links these angels to the days of Noah and the Genesis 6 context. We see this in Verse 5, as it immediately refers to God’s destruction of the “old world” through the judgment of the Flood. But there’s an additional point of significant that we must make note of from this passage. As mentioned, the Greek word translated “hell” in this passage is the word Tartarus (Strong's # G5020) – and it provides us with another unique clue. First, we should note that this is the only place in Scripture where this Greek word is used. This word has been variously translated in our English Bible versions; for example, the New English Bible translates it as “the dark pits of hell,” the Revised Version has it as “pits of darkness,” and the New International Version says “gloomy dungeons.” In all of these translations, depth and darkness are the distinctives of Tartarus. Normally, when, for instance, the KJV uses the word “hell,” it is translated from the Greek word hadés (Strong's # G86). Hades refers to the resting place of the dead and place of departed souls/spirits. [8] So then, why doesn’t the Bible use Hades to describe this place of imprisonment for the fallen angels (instead of Tartarus)? And if Tartarus is only used this one time in the Bible, can we know what this term refers to? Actually, the answer to the second question is “yes,” we can know what this word means – and learning what it means will answer the first question of why the Bible uses this term here. What did the word Tartarus mean to the ancient Greeks? The late author, researcher, and pastor I.D.E. Thomas tells us that this word was used by the ancient Greek poets, such as Homer. Thomas writes... “When Homer used the word (Tartarus) he gave it the meaning of subterranean. Hades was the place where the souls of departed men awaited the coming judgment, but Tartarus was a much deeper and darker abyss and reserved specifically for fallen angels.” [9] In Greek so-called mythology, Tartarus is the abyss described as a place lower than Hades where the Titans had been imprisoned. Who were the Titans? According to the Greek legends, the mighty Titans were a powerful race that ruled the world before the Olympians, in the time of the Golden Age of men. They were known as being immortal giants of incredible strength, and they possessed knowledge of advanced technology, or what the mortals would have called “magic,” which they brought to earth. They are also known as the “elder gods.” [10] [11] The legends of giant Titans, Olympians, gods and demigods (half god/half human) were considered by the Greeks to be based on an actual core of real history. The Greeks believed these legends and actually worshipped many of these figures as deities. Interestingly, it seems that even the Psalmist David poetically referred to the existence of this lowest part of Hades in Psalm 86:12-13… “I will praise thee, O Lord my God, with all my heart: and I will glorify thy name for evermore. For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell.” -Psalm 86:12-13 But the point here is that Peter, the writer of the passage we’re examining in 2 Peter, living in a Greco-Roman world and writing in Greek, certainly knew the difference between Hades and Tartarus. Specifically choosing the word Tartarus describes another more specific place of punishment other than Hades. In other words, in this passage, Peter was deliberately linking the account of the sons of God/Nephilim in Genesis 6 with the events of Greek so-called mythology (which we propose is actually just a perversion of the Genesis 6 story). These were the “mighty men of renown” spoken of in Genesis 6:4 – men whom the Greeks viewed as gods. It is eye-opening to recognize that all of the ancient cultures have legends echoing these same concepts of heavenly beings called “gods” descending to earth, having relations with human women, and introducing advanced technology to mankind. Just as we find countless ancient cultures that record a legend of a great Deluge afflicting the planet, we find the story of the Nephilim reflected in numerous ancient cultures worldwide. Based on the Biblical record, it seems as though these so-called legends are actually based on a core of truth, and actually substantiate the Genesis 6 account. 1 Peter 3:18-20 For our third complimentary passage, we look to the book of 1 Peter, which provides us with another witness of the Genesis 6 event, and clearly connects with the common themes of the first two passages we looked at. 1 Peter 3:18-20 reads… “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit; By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is eight souls were saved by water.” -1 Peter 3:18-20 In this third passage, we find a reference to “spirits” who are currently in prison, and Peter identifies these spirits as being disobedient during the pre-Flood days when Noah was preparing the ark. Psalms 104:4 and then Hebrews 1:7 which quotes it, identify angels as being spirits (“…who maketh his angels spirits…”). Clearly, this is yet another reference to the angels who sinned and are now imprisoned – as Peter said in the previous passage we looked at – in Tartarus, and as the first two passages both said – in chains of darkness until the judgment. Clearly, these three passages we’ve examined are all referring to this same event – the sons of God who fell and sinned with women in Genesis 6. But in this passage, Peter says that Jesus at one point actually went to this prison to “preach” to these spirits. What does this mean? Peter is describing Christ’s time in the underworld during the time after His crucifixion and prior to His resurrection. The Greek word translated “preach” here actually means “to herald, or publicly declare.” It doesn’t mean that Jesus preached the gospel to them so that they could be saved. Instead, Jesus, while His body lay in the grave, went to Hades and proclaimed His victory to the fallen angels imprisoned there! They had lost, and He had won – and their ultimate fate was sealed! [12] Another passage that appears to confirm this understanding is found in 1 Timothy 3. In this passage, it confirms that God, in His manifestation as the Son, was “seen of angels.” “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” -1 Timothy 3:16 It would seem that when this passage mentions Jesus being “seen of angels,” it's referring to His descent into Tartarus to announce His victory. And why would Jesus need to make such an announcement? The book of Philippians describes the exaltation of Jesus after His victory on the cross… “And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” -Philippians 2:8-11 When this passage mentions “things under the earth” confessing the Lordship of Jesus, what could it be referring to? It clearly seems to be a reference to the underworld, which the Bible often describes as being somewhere down “within” or “underneath” the earth. While imprisoned in underworld in Tartarus, (or the deep abyss or bottomless pit) awaiting their judgment, the sinful sons of God were completely unaware of what was happening up on the earth’s surface until Jesus showed up to herald His victory and the redemption of all humanity through His death on the cross! Whether it was at that moment or in the future, these fallen angels will also bow before Him! The more you begin to understand the circumstances surrounding Genesis 6 and the Nephilim, the more the dots of Scripture become connected. And so, after looking at these three complimentary passages in detail (found in Jude, and 1 and 2 Peter), it should be clear to us that the New Testament absolutely corroborates the interpretation of Genesis 6 that we are advocating. In fact, if these verses are not describing the angels that fell in Genesis 6, to which angels are they then referring? The Bible gives us no indication that any of the other angels that fell with Satan are imprisoned anywhere. If all of the fallen angels were imprisoned, then who are the fallen angels described in Scripture as being active in the world? For example, in Daniel Chapter 10, we are told that the moment Daniel began to pray, God sent an angel to minister to him – yet, the angel tells us that he was opposed and held up for 21 days by the “prince of Persia” – referring to a fallen angelic entity that controlled the kingdom of Persia. Additionally, in Ephesians 6:12 we are told that we as Christians battle against ranks of fallen angels who, under Satan’s leadership, exert their wicked influence over the earth… “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” -Ephesians 6:12 The fallen angels referred to here are not “chained” anywhere. They will ultimately be defeated, but as of now, they’re able to move around and influence life on earth – which is why we face spiritual warfare in our Christian walk. If they were all chained in prison, earth would be a much more wonderful and godly place! So, the point is, if you’re hesitant to accept what’s being clearly taught in Genesis 6:4 concerning human-angelic sexual relations producing giant Nephilim offspring, it is on you then to explain the identity of the fallen angels imprisoned in Tartarus described in Jude and 1 + 2 Peter. In addition, you also need to explain the passage in Job that describes the “folly” of the angels – referring to illicit sexual activity. Clearly, the only explanation is that these fallen angels that are currently bound in chains of darkness are the "sons of God" who fell and committed sexual sin with human women in the time before the Flood, as described in Genesis 6. There is no other coherent Biblical explanation. [1] -“King James English,” Bible Research. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/english.html - Retrieved 5/02/21) [2] -Ryan Pitterson, Judgment of the Nephilim, New York, NY: Days of Noe, 2017, p. 106. [3] -Strong’s Concordance, entry “746, arché,” BibleHub.com. (https://biblehub.com/greek/746.htm - Retrieved 4/16/21) [4] -Strong’s Concordance, entry “3613, oikétérion,” BibleHub.com. (https://biblehub.com/greek/3613.htm - Retrieved 4/16/21) [5] -Pitterson, p. 102-103. [6] -Chuck Missler, “Textual Controversy: Mischievous Angels or Sethites?” Aug. 1, 1997, Koinonia House. (https://khouse.org/articles/1997/110/ - Retrieved 4/16/21) [7] -Arthur W. Pink, Gleanings in Genesis, Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1922, p. 93. [8] -Englishman’s Concordance, entry “86, ᾅδης (hadés),” BibleHub.com. (https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_86.htm - Retrieved 4/16/21) [9] -I.D.E. Thomas, The Omega Conspiracy, Anomalos Publishing House, 2008, pp. 101-102. [10] -“The Titans, elder Greek gods and first divine rulers,” GreekGods.org. (https://www.greek-gods.org/titans.php - Retrieved 4/17/21) [11] -“Titans of Greek Mythology: Facts & Overview,” Sept. 9, 2016, Study.com. (https://study.com/academy/lesson/titans-of-greek-mythology-facts-lesson-quiz.html - Retrieved 4/17/21) [12] -NASB Lexicon, entry “1 Peter 3:19,” BibleHub.com. (https://biblehub.com/lexicon/1_peter/3-19.htm - Retrieved 4/15/21)

  • An Analysis of the "Sons Of Seth" View of Genesis 6:4

    (From the study "The Identity Of The Nephilim") In our previous two articles on this subject, we've endeavored to take a sound, Biblical look into what was happening back in Genesis 6 with the "sons of God" entering into relations with human women, producing "Nephilim," or giants. In one of these articles, we touched on the subject of Biblical hermeneutics (or methods of interpretation). We discussed the foundational principles of properly interpreting the text of the Bible – including the need to take the text literally unless the text itself makes it obvious that a figure of speech is being used. We also mentioned the fact that the Bible is the best interpreter of itself. In other words, we should not feel free to impose our own interpretations on a particular passage when the Bible clearly defines it elsewhere. These are some of the foundational principles of sound Biblical hermeneutics. When we utilize these principles and apply them to Genesis 6:4, the only resulting interpretation that demonstrates coherence is the one we’ve been advocating thus far – that the sons of God should be understood as angels, and that they married and had sexual relations with human women, producing a hybrid offspring of giants that the Bible calls the Nephilim. But as clear as this is, we should recognize the existence of a prominent, alternative view of Genesis 6:1-4, which we need to more closely address. First, we should point out that even if you’ve grown up in a Christian church, there’s a very good possibility that the information we’re presenting in this article is new to you. If you fit this description, you may be wondering "Why haven't I heard this before?” The answer is that, unfortunately, around the 5th Century A.D., an alternative view (referred to as the “Sons of Seth view”) became prevalent. The popularity of this newly proposed Sons of Seth view of Genesis 6:1-4 eventually surpassed the earlier traditional “angel view” for which we’re advocating. This alternative view then became accepted by the mainstream (Catholic) church at the time, and has remained the dominant – and in many cases the only – view taught in many churches and seminaries today. This is especially true in Catholic and Reformed circles. In this article, we will take a deeper and more critical look at this interpretation and see if it holds up to scrutiny. So, what is this “Sons of Seth” view, and what exactly does it claim? Steve Schmutzer, writing in a multi-part series on this topic, summarizes it as follows… “Its premise rests on the claim that the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6:1-4 were ordinary men from the ‘godly line of Seth,’ and the ‘daughters of men’ were ordinary women from the ‘ungodly line of Cain.’ In other words, the first gender group was righteous and the second gender group was unrighteous. The assumption is, they were alike in their physical nature, though different in their spiritual one. This theory argues that the joining of these two genetically homogenous groups of humans produced offspring of such deviant character and unnatural physical proportions that God was compelled to wipe the slate clean.” [1] So, the Sons of Seth view really boils down to an attempt to substitute subjective meanings for clear Biblical terms in Genesis 6:4. Let’s review this passage before we look deeper into this… “There were giants (Nephilim) 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 6:4 Make note of the phrase “sons of God” (which in an earlier article, we clearly defined as “angels,” based upon how this term is always used elsewhere in Scripture). Also make note also of the phrase “the daughters of men.” Proponents of the Sons of Seth view subjectively define the phrase “sons of God” to mean the supposedly righteous "sons of Seth” (a group the Bible never even mentions as existing). They then also subjectively define the phrase “daughters of men” to mean the supposedly wicked "daughters of Cain” (whom the Bible also never mentions). Of course, this is not at all what the text reads, and it contradicts how the phrase “sons of God” is clearly defined elsewhere in Scripture! As mentioned, in an earlier article, we conclusively showed that “sons of God” (benei ha Elohim) always means "angels" in the Hebrew Scriptures. “Daughters of men” is the translation of the Hebrew “benoth ha adam” (or “daughters of Adam”). [2] The text gives no indication that these are specifically daughters of Cain, nor does it say they’re wicked. Instead, by the Hebrew reading – “daughters of Adam” – the intention of the text is obviously to refer to the general population of mankind. There is no way (in Hebrew or in English) to interpret it to mean the daughters of a particular subset, such as those of Cain. This is why the Bible translators rendered it simply as “daughters of men” in English. And so, it is easy to see how the proponents of this view have to radically alter the Biblical text and infer completely different meanings in order to establish their interpretation. In other words, they rely on eisegesis instead of exegesis. They read their predetermined interpretation into the text rather than relying on the text to form their interpretation. Also, make note of the fact that proponents of this view fabricate a scenario in which the sin being described in Verse 4 is the failure to maintain separation between “believers” and “unbelievers”. However, again, the text simply does not say that! First of all, it’s important to note that nowhere in Scripture does it state that the descendants of Seth were godly and the descendants of Cain were ungodly. This is a total assumption made by the Sons of Seth interpreters. Furthermore, the Biblical record doesn’t require “separation” until much later in Genesis! They then attempt to create a scenario in which these two fictional groups intermarried, producing the Nephilim. According to their view, these alleged groups were not supposed to marry, but did. In other words, righteous people marrying unrighteous people can somehow produce Nephilim giants. As you can surely see already, this interpretation goes far beyond poor exegesis and finds its way into pure absurdity. So then, how did this Sons of Seth view originate? In the centuries following the Apostolic era, the growth of Christianity brought the Old Testament into the pagan Gentile (or non-Jewish) nations. When this took place, it brought about a clashing of religious and philosophical worldviews that gave rise to many attacks of pagan Greco-Roman philosophers against Christianity and the Bible. This in turn gave rise to the era of the Christian apologists – early church fathers who attempted to provide a defense of Christianity against these attacks. [3] One of the ways some of the pagan critics began to attack the Old Testament was by focusing on the Genesis 6 story, which at that time was universally understood by Jews and Christians to describe the cohabitation of angels with human women. The Sons of Seth view then surfaced as a way for the apologists to fend off these attacks and provide an alternate explanation of these “uncomfortable facts” of Genesis 6. But let’s emphasize that this in itself is proof that the “angel view” was the original! The traditional Jewish understanding was always the “angel view” – and then the earliest Christians (which of course, first arose as a sect of Judaism) also upheld this view. Author Bryan Huie echoes this historical fact, writing… “The first and oldest belief is that ‘the sons of God’ were fallen angels who consorted with human women, producing giant offspring called Nephilim. This view was widely held in the Judaic world of the first century, and was supported by many of the (Christian) ‘Ante-Nicene Fathers,’ including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Eusebius.” [4] Schmutzer adds to this perspective, stating… “Early church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Lactantius, and Ambrose were proponents of (the angel view) in their own writings. The historical record is clear enough to suggest that a straightforward reading and interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 was the official position of the early church up through the fourth century. This is even recorded in Volume 8 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers.” [5] But like we said, as Christianity began to spread into the pagan world, subjects like Genesis 6 became fodder for the attacks of pagan critics. They viewed the traditional “angel view” as ridiculous, and used it to disparage Christianity and the Bible. Chuck Missler summarizes these attacks of the pagan critics and the subsequent development of the Sons of Seth view... “Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional ‘angel’ belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox ‘angel’ position with the ‘line of Seth’ interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal ‘angel’ view a bit disturbing.” [6] Let’s back up a bit and focus on Julius Africanus, who seems to be the first to advocate the Sons of Seth theory. As we read the following quote of what he stated, notice how he (in typical fashion of the apologists) abandons the literal interpretation in order to embrace an allegorical interpretation that feels “more comfortable”… “When men multiplied on the earth, the angels of heaven came together with the daughters of men. In some copies I found ‘the sons of God.’ What is meant by the Spirit, in my opinion, is that the descendants of Seth are called the sons of God on account of the righteous men and patriarchs who have sprung from him, even down to the Saviour Himself; but that the descendants of Cain are named the seed of men, as having nothing divine in them, on account of the wickedness of their race and the inequality of their nature, being a mixed people, and having stirred the indignation of God. But if it is thought that these refer to angels, we must take them to be those who deal with magic and jugglery, who taught the women the motions of the stars and the knowledge of things celestial, by whose power they conceived the giants as their children, by whom wickedness came to its height on the earth, until God decreed that the whole race of the living should perish in their impiety by the deluge.” [7] Let’s take note that in the beginning of this quote, Julius Africanus implies that some copies of Genesis that he had access to in the first several centuries A.D. actually read “angels of heaven” in place of “sons of God” – demonstrating the universality of the angel view in antiquity. But we then see the way he interjects his interpretive technique of allegorism because he doesn’t like the conclusion that a literal interpretation brings. Notice how he says, “what is meant by the Spirit”. In other words, the allegorist believes it’s his duty to ignore the plain meaning of the text and instead substitute a meaning of his own choice. This is the main problem with an allegorical hermeneutic – the control is in the hands of the interpreter’s subjective imagination instead of in the actual words of the author. Huie expands upon this history even further, specifically focusing on how the early church father Augustine’s embracing of the Sons of Seth view resulted in its formal acceptance by the Catholic Church, and its subsequent dominance in the mainstream even up to the present-day… “(The Sons of Seth view) is one which was advocated by Saint Augustine, the Catholic Bishop of Hippo. He rejected the concept of the fallen host having committed fornication with women. In his early fifth century book The City of God, he advanced the theory that ‘the sons of God’ simply referred to the genealogical line of Seth, who were committed to preserving the true worship of God. He interpreted Genesis 6 to mean that the offspring of Adam through Seth were ‘the sons of God,’ and the offspring of Adam through Cain were ‘the daughters of men.’ He wrote that the problem was that the family of Seth had interbred with the family of Cain, intermingling the bloodlines and corrupting the pure religion. This view has become the dominant one among most modern biblical scholars.” [8] Remember that it was also Augustine (in his famous book The City of God) who embraced and advocated for the allegorical interpretation of much of the Bible (instead of a literal hermeneutic). Although much of his allegorization was aimed at reinterpreting prophetic portions of Scripture, he also used this method to interpret passages that he found uncomfortable or dissatisfying. His views were then embraced by the Catholic Church at large, and the Sons of Seth view became the mainstream interpretation going into the Middle Ages. Even the great Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin failed to reexamine this error, and consequentially, this view found its way into the teachings of the Protestant churches. Most of the denominations that are an outworking of the Reformation still hold to this view, stemming from the Catholic tradition that the Reformers failed to reexamine. [9] So, unfortunately, the Sons of Seth view is still widely taught in churches today, with many people simply being unaware that any alternative even exists. Let’s now review thirteen key points (many of which we’ve already touched upon) that highlight the problems with the Sethite theory and summarize why this view should be rejected… #1 - The text simply doesn’t say what the Sons of Seth view would require. Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the “Sethite” view. In the Old Testament, the term “sons of God” is never used to refer to human beings, and certainly never to “believers” or “the righteous.” Interpreting it to mean “righteous sons of Seth” is based on subjective inference, not the text. #2 - Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. The “Daughters of Adam” does not mean the descendants of Cain, but rather, the whole human race is clearly intended. It is obvious from the text that these daughters were not limited to a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the “benoth ha adam”, or the “daughters of Adam”. Interpreting it to mean “daughters of Cain” is based on subjective inference, not the text. #3 - There is no Biblical mention of “daughters of God” or “sons of Adam”. Were the sons of Seth only attracted to the daughters of Cain? Were the daughters of Seth so unattractive? In other words, why does it only go one way with the genders (only sons of Seth with daughters of Cain and not the other way around)? #4 - The concept of separate “lines” itself is suspect and contrary to Scripture. There is no Biblical suggestion that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves separate, nor were even instructed to. The injunction to remain separate was given much later, and was given to Israel upon entry into Canaan (an area that the Bible tells us happened to be filled with Nephilim descendants, according to Numbers 13:33). #5 - The inferred godliness of Seth’s descendants cannot be substantiated. There is no evidence that the line of Seth was godly. To the contrary, the son of Seth himself was Enosh, about whom there is textual evidence indicating that rather than having a reputation for righteousness, he instead seems to have initiated the profaning of the name of God. Genesis 4:26 is likely mistranslated in many English Bibles; According to virtually every early Jewish source (for example, Targum of Onkelos, Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, Kimchi, Rashi, Maimonides, et. al.), Enosh initiated the profaning of God, not “calling upon” God as many translations render it. The early Christian scholar Jerome also testified that the Jews of his day believed this as well. [10] So, there is no evidence that Seth’s line was godly – but to the contrary, there is Biblical evidence that his own son actually warranted special mention in the Genesis record for his wickedness in profaning God. #6 - The inferred wickedness of Cain’s descendants cannot be substantiated. Cainites were not necessarily wicked. Yes, as we know, Cain murdered his brother, but when looking at his genealogy, it is clear that his descendants had the name of God (“El”) in their names (“Mehujael” and “Methusael” as we see in Gen. 4:18). It is possible that Cain was a repentant believer! At the very least, we don’t know for sure, and to imply that all of his descendants were godless is reading into the text instead of drawing out from the text. #7 - What made Noah’s genealogy in Genesis 6:9 so distinctive? If he's described as being “unblemished” in this passage, what is everyone else “blemished” by? Proponents of the Sons of Seth theory are forced to believe that if separation is the issue here, then everyone else on the planet was “corrupted” by the intermarrying of so-called “believers” and “unbelievers”, which caused God to destroy the planet in a worldwide Flood! Think about that for a moment. That is the “Sunday-School” level of Bible interpretation that causes so many to view God as a cruel mass-murderer. #8 - If you assume the Sons of Seth theory is true, then who are the Nephilim? In other words, a believer marrying an unbeliever and then having children doesn’t produce giants! Their offspring isn’t going to be genetically distinctive! From where then did this unique group called the Nephilim originate? And how are they then also found inhabiting the Land of Canaan after the Flood? Even if you accept that there were so-called “righteous sons of Seth” and “wicked daughters of Cain” living as distinct groups before the Flood, you of course cannot believe they could still be around after the Flood. So again, what produced the post-Flood Nephilim giants? The Sons of Seth view has no satisfactory answer for this. And again, this simplistic Sethite view is another cause for people to view God as some sort of genocidal ethnic-cleanser, as the Israelites were given instructions to wipe out entire people groups in Canaan. #9 - Who are the angels that are described in Job 4:18 – which describes a certain group of angels as being charged with “folly” (in the KJV)? Since the Bible self-interprets that “folly” is an antiquated way of referring to illicit sexual activity (cf. Gen. 34:1-2, 7; Deut. 22:21; Judg. 19:22-23; 2 Sam. 13:1-2, 11-12) then this passage in Job clearly supports the angel view of Genesis 6. #10 - Given the Sons of Seth theory, who then are the imprisoned angels described in 1 Peter, 2 Peter and Jude? Here, we have three clear New Testament confirmations of the angel view of Genesis 6 (to be described in a future article). If the Sethite view is correct, what did these angels do to get imprisoned, and where does the Bible tell us about this? The authors of these passages wrote them assuming their audiences were well aware of the context. The only context provided earlier in the Bible is the Genesis 6 story, which was well-known by not only the Jewish culture, but all ancient cultures worldwide. Proponents of the “Sethite” theory have nothing to which they can ascribe these New Testament passages. #11 - All of the ancient Greek and Hebrew sources are in agreement that the Nephilim were the offspring of angels and women. What evidence can those who believe in the Sons of Seth theory use to refute this unanimous agreement? And why does the Sons of Seth view only seem to date back to Julius Africanus at the earliest (who lived during the 2nd and 3rd Centuries A.D.)? [11] #12 - How could a God who calls all people to repentance, and who is willing to forgive even the most depraved sinners and cultures (think Ninevah in the book of Jonah) issue forth mandates to systematically wipe out certain tribes, as in Canaan? God judges nations, but Scripturally, only appears to order their complete annihilation when His natural order is violated in a way that threatens His ultimate plan to save mankind. #13 - All of the world’s ancient cultures share similar stories of gods, angels, star people, etc., coming to earth early on in history and mating with women. How is the awareness of this story as referring to beings from the heavens (angels) so universally agreed upon if it was really just wicked people marrying righteous people? In sum, these thirteen points completely dismantle the Sons of Seth view of Genesis 6:4. When proponents of this theory make their case, they do not and cannot provide Scriptural support or exegesis in the way we have throughout this article series. In fact, all three of our articles on this subject up to this point has been solely focused on the proper Scriptural exegesis of Genesis 6:4. Proponents of the Sethite view do, however, offer several claims that are intended to puncture the angel view. We address these objections in our study "The Identity Of The Nephilim". [1] -Steve Schmutzer, “Who are the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis Chapter 6? – Part 3,” June 26, 2018, RaptureForums.com. (https://www.raptureforums.com/bible-study/who-are-the-sons-of-god-in-genesis-chapter-6-part-3/ - Retrieved 4/19/21) [2] -NASB Lexicon, entry “Genesis 6:4,” BibleHub.com. (https://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/6-4.htm - Retrieved 4/18/21) [3] -John N.D. Kelly, article “Apologist,” Oct. 20, 2021, in Encyclopedia Britannica. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Apologist - Retrieved 8/19/21) [4] -Bryan T. Huie, “Sons of God,” DouglasJacoby.com (https://www.douglasjacoby.com/sons-of-god-by-bryan-t-huie/ - Retrieved 4/18/21) [5] -Schmutzer. [6] -Chuck Missler, “Textual Controversy: Mischievous Angels or Sethites?” Aug. 1, 1997, Koinonia House. (https://khouse.org/articles/1997/110/ - Retrieved 4/18/21) [7] -Julius Africanus, Extant Fragments of the Five Books of the Chronography of Julius Africanus in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 6, Christian Classics Ethereal Library. (https://ccel.org/ccel/juliusafricanus/extant_fragments/anf06.v.v.ii.html - Retrieved 5/14/21) [8] -Huie. [9] -Lee Anderson Jr., “Is the “Sons of God” Passage in Genesis 6 Adapted Pagan Mythology?” Answers Research Journal, 8 (2015):261–271. (https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/is-sons-of-god-passage-genesis-6-adapted-pagan-mythology/ - Retrieved 4/14/21) [10] -Appendix 21 To The Companion Bible, “Enos (Genesis 4:26.) ‘Calling On The Name Of The Lord,’” TheRain.org. (https://therain.org/appendixes/app21.html - Retrieved 4/22/21) [11] -Anderson Jr.

  • An Exegesis of the “Sons Of God”

    (From the study "The Identity Of The Nephilim") The correct identification of the "sons of God" is probably the single most critical aspect of correctly understanding the Biblical concept of the Nephilim. Unfortunately, there’s been a massive amount of confusion and disagreement regarding this – not only in recent times, but going all the way back to the centuries following the Apostolic Era in church history. But fortunately, the Bible actually offers us a number of passages that shed light on this issue, allowing us to confidently identify the sons of God. Let’s enter into this exploration by reviewing our perspective of the proper method of Bible interpretation – a discipline called “hermeneutics.” -Utilizing Proper Hermeneutics: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” -2 Timothy 2:15 Biblical hermeneutics is the science of properly interpreting the various types of literature found in the Bible in order to determine what the text actually means. Hermeneutics can be called “the laws of sound Biblical interpretation.” Taken out of context, the Bible can be improperly used to justify almost anything. But in order to draw the intended meaning out of the text (the definition of exegesis), we need to hold to proper Biblical hermeneutics. We want to avoid reading outside meanings (our own personal views) into the text (the definition of eisegesis). [1] The most important law of Biblical hermeneutics is that the Bible should be interpreted literally. Literal Bible interpretation means we understand the Bible in its normal/plain meaning unless there’s a clear indication in the text to do otherwise. The Bible says what it means and means what it says. Many make the mistake of trying to “read between the lines” and come up with meanings that are not truly in the text. [2] Dr. David L. Cooper described this literal method of interpretation in the following way… “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.” [3] Proper Biblical hermeneutics keeps us faithful to the objective, intended meaning of Scripture and away from allegorizing and symbolizing Biblical text with our own subjective meanings. One of the most basic concepts of Scripture interpretation is that the Bible is the best interpreter of itself (within context). In other words, to gain understanding as to what a certain word or phrase may mean (such as “sons of God”), you need to study all of the other places in the Bible in which that same word or phrase is used. You then closely analyze and compare them within context to find out what the word or phrase in question refers to or means. [4] A sound Biblical analysis is one that ensures you don’t create doctrine from a single verse, especially if it doesn’t parallel with supporting Scriptures. You cannot come up with an interpretation of your own choice. You must examine what the text actually says, and discover the meaning without adding to the text and without drawing inferences that are not tied to or implied by the text. So, let’s exercise sound Biblical hermeneutics by conducting a thorough Biblical exegesis of the phrase “sons of God”… -Exegesis Of The “Sons of God”: In Hebrew, the phrase “sons of God” is “benei ha elohim.” [5] So, we need to search and examine every other place in the Bible where this exact phrase is used in order to determine its correct meaning and context. Of course, we would only expect to find this Hebrew phrase in the Old Testament, since only the Old Testament is written in Hebrew. When we perform this examination, we find three passages that use this exact phrase “sons of God” (benei ha elohim, or in the case of one of the passages, the similar phrase benei elohim) – and we find that in all three, it is always used to refer to angels. Let’s begin to take a look at these passages… “Now there was a day when the sons of God (benei ha elohim) came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.” -Job 1:6 Job 1:6 is one of the clearest and most obvious references to angels in the entire Bible. This passage describes an actual meeting in heaven, in which God oversees an assembly of holy and fallen angels to discuss earthly affairs, grant permission to carry out certain actions in the human realm, or assign various tasks. “Again there was a day when the sons of God (benei ha elohim) came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.” -Job 2:1 Again, we see the same concept restated, clearly identifying sons of God as being angels who are meeting with God in another “divine council.” A third reference is also found in Job, but with this one using the close phrase “benei elohim”… “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God (benei elohim) shouted for joy?” -Job 38:4-7 In this passage, we find God posing questions to Job about the creation of the universe in order to demonstrate to Job how little he actually knew in comparison to God. God implies that the sons of God were created prior to the creation of earth itself, which helps us eliminate basically all of the alternative interpretations of “sons of God.” Of course, only the angels were created at that time. These three passages are the only ones in the Old Testament that use this phrase (benei ha elohim or benei elohim) – and they are all clear references to angels. So, we can confidently say that since every other usage of benei ha elohim or benei elohim in the Old Testament clearly refers to angels, we should recognize the Genesis 6:4 instance to also mean angels. Any other explanation of the phrase “sons of God” is subjective inference, rather than Biblical exegesis. To even further establish this position, we can examine other similar phrases to benei ha elohim that also appear in the Old Testament. Again, these phrases always refer to angelic beings, and never to human men. Let’s take a look at some of these additional verses… “He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” -Daniel 3:25 This passage in Daniel uses a similar phrase in Aramaic, “bar elahin,” and yet still clearly refers to a supernatural being. [6] It speaks in reference to the fourth man walking in the fire, which we know was at minimum an angel, but possibly even an Old Testament theophany of Jesus Christ. “For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord?” -Psalm 89:6 Here is another Old Testament passage that slightly differs even further (“benei elim”), and yet still is a reference to angels. [7] This is obvious as the first part of the verse gives the context: “who in heaven...” Obviously, this refers to angelic beings. And so, we find that other similar Hebrew phrases in the Old Testament also all clearly refer to angelic beings. But let’s also take a look into the New Testament, where we see the phrase “sons of God” in our English Bibles. The New Testament (which was written in Greek not Hebrew) gives us further information on how this phrase “sons of God” is progressively used. The expansion of its usages in the New Testament reveal to us even more specifically that it’s always used to designate a direct creation of God. This expanded New Testament usage range will include Adam, New Testament saints, and of course, Jesus Christ. Let’s briefly discuss each of these… -Adam: Adam, being the first man, was directly created by God. He is called a son of God in Luke 3:38. In this chapter, Jesus’ genealogy is given to us, and Luke traces it all the way back to Adam. Because Adam had no earthly father to speak of, Luke lists him as the “son of God.” “Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” -Luke 3:38 -New Testament Saints: New Testament saints (or Christians) are also called sons of God in the New Testament. Why would this be? Because those who have obeyed the gospel are unlike any other human beings in history. Those who are in Christ, having undergone salvation and received the Holy Spirit and a new nature are considered a direct creation of God! John 1:11-12 explains this… “He (Jesus) came unto his own, and his own received him not. 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:” -John 1:11-12 Jesus elaborates on this further in John 3:6... “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” -John 3:6 Human beings (aside from Adam) are never called “sons of God” unless they are New Testament believers having undergone the gospel plan of salvation. Christian believers who were “born again” have been adopted into sonship. Other humans are not initial direct creations of God in this sense. They are sons (or descendants) of Adam. This also corresponds to what we just discussed regarding Jesus’ statement in Matthew 22:30 about the future resurrection bodies of believers that will be like the angels. 1 John 3 explains this… “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. 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.” -1 John 3:1-2 In other words, we as Christians are sons of God right now, but the ultimate manifestation of this is future-looking, as in the resurrection we will receive heavenly bodies. When we receive these bodies, we will be able to see Christ in the fullness of His resurrected glory, as we will also have a body similar to His – a body that can interact in the extra-dimensions (like the angels). Note: Some additional references to the sonship of New Testament Christians include Romans 8:14, 8:19, Galatians 4:6, and Philippians 2:15. -Jesus Christ: Lastly, we of course know that Jesus Christ is called the Son of God in the New Testament. Jesus Christ is called the Son of God primarily because the Holy Ghost (referring to God in action towards humanity) caused His conception, rather than it being caused by a human man. In other words, He also in His humanity can be called a direct creation of God. We know that in His divinity, He is God – but the human aspect of Him (the manifestation of the Son) was created at a point in time. “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,” -Galatians 4:4 At a specific point in time, God caused Jesus’ conception in Mary’s womb. And so, of course, Jesus Christ (in His humanity) was also a direct creation of God, rather than being the son of a human father. So, our exegesis of the usage of “sons of God” in the Bible clearly reveals how this phrase is always used. In the Old Testament, the phrase “sons of God” is always used to refer to angels. In the New Testament the phrase “sons of God” is expanded to mean a direct creation of God – including Adam, saved Christians, and of course, Jesus Christ. A further interesting revelation is that in the Old Testament, human saints or followers of God were normally referred to as “servants of God,” while the angels were referred to as “sons of God.” This seems to be reversed in the New Testament, where Christian believers now are called “sons of God” and the angels are portrayed as “servants of God”! Therefore, by a thorough search of the Scriptures, and after analyzing and comparing the usages of “benei ha elohim” and similar phrases, the only conclusion one can come to is that the passage in Genesis 6:4 is clearly referring to angels. To take any other position is to take a position without Scriptural foundation, being found outside of the Biblical usage of the phrase. Genesis 6 then, is clearly describing something that many find disturbing or difficult to accept. It describes the sons of God (or angels) lusting after human women, coming to earth, apparently taking on a human form, defying God’s natural order by having sex with human women, and producing a hybrid offspring called Nephilim (who were giants). Something about their hybrid genetic makeup made the children of this illicit union larger, more powerful, more wicked, and likely even more intelligent than average humans – and that “something” was the angelic origin of their fathers, the sons of God. Again, the notion of angels doing this (or even being able to do this) is a hurdle for many to accept – one we specifically address in our study "The Identity Of The Nephilim". However, we should never be troubled about the clear, literal reading of the Word of God. We must leave behind whatever presuppositions we bring to the Bible, and instead, allow the text to speak for itself, no matter how difficult it may be for us to accept. Genesis 6 tells us that angels from heaven took human women and produced children with them – and this, as we find, is a pervasive theme woven throughout the Scriptures. [1] -Alyssa Roat, “What is Biblical Hermeneutics and Is it Still Important Today?” June 22, 2020, Christianity.com. (https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible/meaning-origin-history-of-biblical-hermeneutics.html - Retrieved 4/10/21) [2] -Ibid. [3] -David L. Cooper, “Some Basic Laws Of Interpretation,” Biblical Research Studies Group. (http://www.biblicalresearch.info/page502.html - Retrieved 11/10/20) [4] -Roat. [5] -NASB Lexicon, entry “Genesis 6:4,” BibleHub.com. (https://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/6-4.htm - Retrieved 4/14/21) [6] -NASB Lexicon, entry “Daniel 3:25,” BibleHub.com. (https://biblehub.com/lexicon/daniel/3-25.htm - Retrieved 4/14/21) [7] -NASB Lexicon, entry “Psalm 89:6,” BibleHub.com. (https://biblehub.com/lexicon/psalms/89-6.htm - Retrieved 4/14/21)

View All

Studies (27)

  • Let Us Reason | Truth, Bible Study, Prophecy, Apologetics

    let us reason Recent Articles Michael Filipek Dec 30, 2022 16 min Further Biblical Support for the "Angel View" of Genesis 6:4 (From the study "The Identity Of The Nephilim") In our past several articles, we've advocated for what may be called the "angel view" of... Michael Filipek Dec 13, 2022 14 min An Analysis of the "Sons Of Seth" View of Genesis 6:4 (From the study "The Identity Of The Nephilim") In our previous two articles on this subject, we've endeavored to take a sound, Biblical... Michael Filipek Nov 24, 2022 9 min An Exegesis of the “Sons Of God” (From the study "The Identity Of The Nephilim") The correct identification of the "sons of God" is probably the single most critical... Michael Filipek Nov 19, 2022 4 min An Overview of the Word "Nephilim" (From the study "The Identity Of The Nephilim") In this article, we will undertake an examination of the Hebrew word “Nephilim” that we... Ou r Mission Our Statement of Faith New Testament Salvation Daily Script ure/Devotional Weekly Torah P ortion (Parsha) Western Wall Live Video Feed Further Biblical Support for the "Angel View" of Genesis 6:4 Michael Filipek Dec 30, 2022 An Analysis of the "Sons Of Seth" View of Genesis 6:4 Michael Filipek Dec 13, 2022 An Exegesis of the “Sons Of God” Michael Filipek Nov 24, 2022 Subscribe Mail Let Us Reason is a ministry dedicated to the pursuit and discovery of truth. Our primary objective is to help viewers better understand Biblical truth by providing in-depth studies on topics that are frequently either ignored or overlooked in most churches. We provide this teaching in three formats - eBook/PDF studies , podcasts , and videos . ​ All of these resources are provided for free on this site. Feel free to download, distribute, and use them to further your investigation of truth. All of our study notes contain the full study information, complete with charts, quotes, and references. In addition to our Videos page, our video studies can be found by going directly to the Let Us Reason YouTube channel (or Rumble or BitChute , if you prefer). "Come now and let us reason together, saith the Lord..." -Isaiah 1:18 Our goal is to provide current believers with the tools and information to have a more "perfect" understanding of God's Word, as He intended it to be understood - not necessarily how religious traditions and institutions have interpreted it. Additionally, it is also our goal to educate non-believers and complete skeptics on the genuine truth of the Bible and its teachings and concepts. ​ If you have some background with Christian teaching, but yet it never quite made sense to you or became real for you personally, we encourage you to spend some time going through our study material. We find that the majority of Christians today unfortunately do not understand the true teachings of the New Testament through Christ and the Apostles - resulting in them never being able to experience the type of full and genuine Christianity that God intended for the believer. ​ In addition, many Christians today have unknowingly become the spiritual casualties of erroneous doctrines that have evolved through man-made religious institutions. Although the Reformation was an important time in Christian history, the reality is that the Reformers didn't go as far as they needed to in their attempt to return to the original patterns and teachings of the Apostles. Many errors remain mainstream, including (but not limited to) the nature of God , soteriology (the study of salvation), hermeneutics (the study of Biblical interpretation), and eschatology (the study of the end-times). ​ Our hope and mission is to provide the content and the study tools for you to investigate these things for yourself and arrive at your own conclusions based on the evidence - not the traditions of men. ​ But in addition to just those topics themselves, there are also a number of Biblical concepts that are foundational keys for enabling the believer to avoid the pitfalls of erroneous doctrine. We also focus our studies on elucidating these concepts. In doing so, it makes the sound teachings of the Word of God much easier to understand. Everything aligns the way it should when you interpret the Bible from within these guidelines. But when you interpret outside of them, confusion and error are always the ultimate outcome. ​ Beyond just purely Biblical topics, it is also our goal to provide viewers with a range of various subject matter that will enhance and illuminate your perspective on a number of issues. Some of these issues and topics you may have never considered before. Or, you may not have considered them especially relevant. But when you start to plug in all of the pieces - like a puzzle - a picture begins to emerge. In fact, when you understand many of these topics, it enhances your understanding of the world and of reality. ​ We hope that you enjoy exploring the studies, videos, and resources provided on this site! Let us know your feedback on the Contact page, and consider subscribing to our YouTube channel - Let Us Reason. Lastly, please consider subscribing below in order to receive email notifications when we post new content on the site and the YouTube channel! Subscribe to LetUsReason to receive notifications of new content uploads Subscribe Thanks for subscribing!! Popular Studies Read More Read More Anchor 1 Home Studies The Romance Of Redemption Basic Christian Doctrine The Daniel 9:25 Prophecy A Refutation Of Alternative Chronologies The Basis Of Our Epistemology Prophecy - The Various Forms... The Nature Of Time How Sure Can We Be That Jesus Was The... The Psalm 22 Prophecy Establishing The Prophetic Validity... The Daniel 11 Prophecy The Isaiah 53 Prophecy The Luke 19:43-44 Prophecy Typology Of The Moedim Understanding The Distinction Between... Jeremiah's 70 Years Prophecy... The Identity Of The Nephilim Should Christians Support Israel? Videos Podcast Articles Charts Contact

  • The Identity Of The Nephilim | Let Us Reason

    let us reason Daniel 9:25 Prophecy Description Contents Download In this study, The Identity Of The Nephilim , we will delve into a topic that’s widely been either ignored or misunderstood by many who study the Bible. It’s a topic that requires one to expand their thinking, and presents a profound exercise in sound Bible interpretation. As we will see, the Bible leaves us no room for private interpretation on this matter. The text of Scripture is very clear in its declaration of the existence of giants, called Nephilim in Hebrew, the offspring of the illicit sexual union of rebellious angels and human women in the ancient past. We will also examine the opposing mainstream viewpoint that denies this interpretation. How will it hold up against the evidence? What profound implications does the subject of the Nephilim have on our understanding of the foundational background of the Old Testament (subjects such as the purpose for the Flood, the conquest of Canaan, etc.), as well as potential implications for end-time prophecy? Download this free study and find out for yourself! let us reason the identity of the nephilim giants Back to Home Home Studies The Romance Of Redemption Basic Christian Doctrine The Daniel 9:25 Prophecy A Refutation Of Alternative Chronologies The Basis Of Our Epistemology Prophecy - The Various Forms... The Nature Of Time How Sure Can We Be That Jesus Was The... The Psalm 22 Prophecy Establishing The Prophetic Validity... The Daniel 11 Prophecy The Isaiah 53 Prophecy The Luke 19:43-44 Prophecy Typology Of The Moedim Understanding The Distinction Between... Jeremiah's 70 Years Prophecy... The Identity Of The Nephilim Should Christians Support Israel? Videos Podcast Articles Charts Contact

  • Jeremiah's 70 Years Prophecy: The Babylonian Captivity | Let Us Reason

    let us reason Daniel 9:25 Prophecy Description Contents Download In this study, Jeremiah's 70 Years Prophecy: The Babylonian Captivity , we will explore this often misunderstood prophecy in depth and try to determine if what we know from history aligns with what the Bible says about these prophetic 70-years. ​ Jeremiah’s prophecy about the impending Babylonian invasion and the captivity of the Jews is undoubtedly his most well-known prophecy – and is linked with a duration of 70 years. But a historical 70-year period has been problematic for some commentators to identify precisely. Can we identify this period with any confidence? Some have concluded that these 70-year prophecies are only approximate at best, and wildly inaccurate at worst. Is this true? Or were these prophecies fulfilled accurately? And if so, can it be proven using our understanding of ancient history? Download this free study and find out for yourself! let us reason jeremiah 70 years prophecy babylonian captivity Back to Home Home Studies The Romance Of Redemption Basic Christian Doctrine The Daniel 9:25 Prophecy A Refutation Of Alternative Chronologies The Basis Of Our Epistemology Prophecy - The Various Forms... The Nature Of Time How Sure Can We Be That Jesus Was The... The Psalm 22 Prophecy Establishing The Prophetic Validity... The Daniel 11 Prophecy The Isaiah 53 Prophecy The Luke 19:43-44 Prophecy Typology Of The Moedim Understanding The Distinction Between... Jeremiah's 70 Years Prophecy... The Identity Of The Nephilim Should Christians Support Israel? Videos Podcast Articles Charts Contact

View All
bottom of page