Pastor Jeff Wickwire asked and answered What is the truth behind the NEPHILIM of Genesis 6? due to that, “while hosting or cohosting the national Bible question and answer call-in show called ‘To every man an answer’…many callers have heard is the teaching that the ‘sons of God’ found in Genesis 6 are fallen angels. And that they somehow morphed into flesh and blood men to have sexual intimacy with earthly women to produce a purported half man, half demon race of giants called the Nephilim.”
At this point, since he’s relating the views of others, I will just note that we ought to keep an eye out for answers to my key questions:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s Pastor Wickwire’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those two usages agree?
We must keep an eye out since he noted, “giants called the Nephilim” but we don’t yet know what he means—though, we can guess.
He reviews, “two views on this” and first considers the Sethite view yet, as he notes that, “in Genesis 5 (context is everything) you’ll see that the whole chapter is dedicated to tracing the lineage of Seth” he notes, “Seth was Adam and Eve’s third son” which may or may not be the case: just because Cain, Abel, and Seth are listed in a row that doesn’t necessarily mean they were the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd born since they could have been focused upon since there was something notable to say about them.
He then makes a typical Sethite view statement which is, “Seth in chapter 5 is clearly shown to be the righteous lineage, while the lineage of Cain is the wicked lineage.” That’s mythology, prejudice, and only causes more problems than it solves (so, more than zero).
It’s myth because there no indication of entire righteous and entirely wicked lineages and so that’s also why it’s prejudicial. Appealing to one single sin by Cain and two by Lamech is very, very, very far from condemning an entire lineage.
The problematic part comes in when that view expects us to believe that since, as Pastor Jeff Wickwire elucidates it, “‘sons of God’ is referring to the righteous line of Seth” and the “daughters of men” were wicked Cainites then it was, for some unknown reason, exclusively male Sethites and exclusively female Cainites—and, apparently those male Sethites were so very righteous that they sinned so terribly that their sin served as the premise for the flood—go figure.
As for the, “claim that the phrase ‘sons of God’ refers to fallen angels…never in all the Word of God is the phrase ‘sons of God’ used to refer to a fallen, evil person or being” yet, he can see that, “It is always a phrase reserved for the righteous, including the angels in Job that are twice described as ‘sons of God’”: it’s actually three times but, who’s counting?
I, who hold to the sons of God in the Genesis 6 affair, as I term it, view have no problem with that, “never in all the Word of God is the phrase ‘sons of God’ used to refer to a fallen, evil person or being” since such is how they Angels were referenced before they sinned and were never referred to thusly afterward.
He then wrote, “angels are spirit beings, not human. They can ‘appear’ as human, and did so several times in the Bible.” There’s no indication that Angels are, “spirit beings,” they are certainly “not human,” by definition, there’s no indication that, “They can,” merely, “‘appear’ as human” and never, “did so several times in the Bible.” Rather, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.
What’s interesting, and typical of that sort of faulty premise, is that he begins with the mere assertion that, “angels are spirit beings” and then reads that unevidenced man-made tradition into texts so that he concludes, “They can ‘appear’ as human.” Yet, for example, he notes, “Two angels appearing as men visited Abraham before Sodom’s destruction” but that text, which is Gen 18-19, doesn’t say a single word about them having been spirits not merely appearing as men. See, people such as Pastor Jeff Wickwire read about Angels described as men—period, full stop—and inset into those texts something they never even imply. He’s not exegeting, he’s eisegeting.
Even worse, he wrote, “Hebrews exhorts us, ‘Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels’ (13:2). These are angels appearing as men, not actual men.” Well, Angels, and Nephilim, are referred to as man/men since they look just like human males which is why it’s possible that we might, “unwittingly entertained angels.”
Based on his faulty premise, he goes on to argue:
…since angels are spirit beings they would literally have to morph into a real flesh and blood man complete with DNA, a gene pool, spermatozoa, and sex organs to marry and produce offspring.
Remember, the golden rule of all creation is that every living thing reproduces only and exclusively “after their kind” (Genesis 1:24). So how could spirit beings produce human offspring?
Even Jesus described angels as sexless: “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”—Mark 12:25
Nowhere in all the Bible do we find an angel with the ability to create or procreate. They are created, not creators. They’re never once shown in Scripture having power to create.
They can only appear as something they’re not. As Paul warns “Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.”—2 Cor. 11:14
The word “transforms” means “to change in appearance,” to don a disguise. It has ZERO to do with actually becoming a different being.
It saddens me that a pastor could compound so many biblically inaccurate assertions in to such a short statement. Yet, since I have attempted to specialize in such issues, I am aware of the pitfalls of those who appear to comment on them based on common knowledge and man-made tradition—which means they’re better off not posting such things on the WORLD WIDE web, mind you.
Again, “angels are spirit beings” is a mere assertion which he employes as a faulty premise.
As for, “morph…DNA, a gene pool, spermatozoa, and sex” well, Angels are described as looking just like human males and performing physical actions and without any indication that such isn’t their ontology. Why would they only be missing THE key features of the male anatomy?
As for, “every living thing reproduces only and exclusively ‘after their kind’”: Angels are always described as looking like human males, we were created “a little lower” than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.”
Note that he asserted, “Jesus described angels as sexless” but quoted a statement that doesn’t even hint at any such thing: many sexed humans have not married nor been given in marriage so marriage in and of itself, or lack thereof, doesn’t have anything to do with sexual organs.
We just read what Jesus said and it’s that, note the qualifying term, “angels in heaven” so, the loyal ones, “neither marry nor are given in marriage” which is why those who took it upon themselves to do so are considered sinners, having, “left their first estate” in order to do so, as Jude put it.
Note that it’s only after rejecting the Angel view of Gen 6 that he can then assert, “Nowhere in all the Bible do we find an angel with the ability to create or procreate.” In fact, Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.
As for that such is the case because, “They are created, not creators” that’s incoherent since humans are created and creators.
We already reviewed how, “They can only appear as something they’re not” is a mere assertion and continues to be so since the quote from Paul well firstly, Satan isn’t an Angel, he’s a Cherub (Ezekiel 28:14). Secondly, it’s tricky to deal in, “change in appearance…don a disguise” and not, “becoming a different being” since Paul was referring to changing appearance as in who one appears, how one comes across, and not morphology and disguising what one is and also not morphology. What Paul actually wrote was about humans first, “such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness.” Thus, this pertains to pretending to be someone, something, one is not: and Satan pretends to be a messenger, the meaning of Angel, of God but isn’t.
Next, Pastor Jeff Wickwire wrote, “the whole notion of a hybrid half man, half devil is straight out of ancient mythology.” The Angel view is just that, an Angel view and not a Devil view so it’s misrepresenting the view to invent the term, “half devil” yet, I get his hyperbolic meaning, of course. He doesn’t seem to consider that, “ancient mythology” got the notion of hybrids from the real event recorded in Gen 6—and then expanded upon and added to in this or that way post-Tower of Babel as such commonly known and shared history came, with time and telling, to be called myth and legend.
He next mischaracterizes the Angel view again as, “half man, half demon view” and tackles, “two New Testament passages are offered to support the” Angel view:
2 Peter 2:4 “For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;”
And Jude 6, “And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day.”
His take is:
The 2 Peter verse simply describes what we already knew—one third of heaven rebelled with Lucifer and were cast to the earth under the judgment of God. You have to read into it the notion that its about fallen angels impregnating women and coming under judgment for it.
This verse says NOTHING about Noah’s time or Nephilim.
The Jude verse also tells us what we already knew—the angels that rebelled with Lucifer “didn’t keep their proper domain (their place in heaven), and left their abode (dwelling place).” They rebelled against God by leaving their rightful place in the heavenlies, NOT by morphing into a hybrid half man, half devil.
There’s no indication of, “rebelled with” but rather that, Lucifer’s fall was due to the Gen 3 event and the Angels’ fall was due to the Gen 6 event. The only correlation is that Lucifer had something to do with their fall as he’s depicted as a dragon who’s tail cast them to Earth (Rev 12).
Note that he tells us in mere passing that, “They rebelled against God by leaving their rightful place” but didn’t bother telling us what they did, only that they left.
As for, “You have to read into it the notion that its about fallen angels impregnating women and coming under judgment for it. This verse says NOTHING about Noah’s time or Nephilim” well, I already noted that Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.
He then comments, “It is entirely possible that the Nephilim were simply giants through genetics. Giant people are around today. The tallest human in recorded…” Thus, let us review the key questions:
What’s Pastor Wickwire’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”? Something to do with subjectively unusual height and note that he merely asserted that Nephilim were subjectively usually tall yet, we’ve no reliable physical description of them so their height is a non-issue, an argument from silence.
As for, what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? It merely renders (doesn’t even translate), “Nephilim” in two verses or, “Rephaim” in 98% of all others.
Thus, do those two usages agree? No.
He ends by reiterating the mythical prejudicial Sethite view, “righteous line of Seth…Cain’s lineage—the ungodly lineage…righteous lineage.”
His last line is, “In summary, these are some (not all) of the reasons I struggle with the whole half man, half devil teaching of the Nephilim. Thanks for reading my ramblings!” Yet, what he ought to struggle with is that virtually every argument he posed is based on fundamental level mischaracterizations of Angelology and accepting a very problematic late-comer of a view. The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”
Oh, as for exclusively male sons of God and exclusively female daughters of men: the Angel view makes sense of that since, again, Angels look just like human males.
Update: I made Pastor Wickwire aware of my article and he replied:
thanks for the hearty rebuttal! While I still find the half man, half devil view impossible on just about every level, it was interesting to see your side.
In turn, I noted:
Thank you for your consideration. I must say that it troubles me that I noted that no one holds to “half man, half devil” but you repeat that again.
In any case, who did find it possible were the overwhelming majority of the earliest Jewish and Christian commentators for virtually a millennia with hardly another blip on the radar–and when Jews and Christians agree, we should pay close attention ;o)
He replied:
I would encourage you to go to the following site and give it a read. It fully explains my beliefs on this topic:
https://www.ligonier.org/…/who-are-sons-god-genesis-6
Who Are the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6?
I replied:
Appreciate the tip.
I don’t reject the Sethite view because I’m unaware of it rather, I reject it because I’m aware of it.
It’s a late-comer of a view that’s based on myth, based on prejudice, and only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero).
I included Sproul’s views in my book, “The Pastoral Nephilim And Giants: What Do Pastors Teach and Preach?”
He noted:
the Sethite view a myth? When it’s straight out of Genesis? Wow. Well, we certainly differ on this. Blessings!
I replied:
There’s literally not one single word in Genesis about an entire lineage of Sethites who were holy/righteous/Godly (and terrible sinners) nor an entire lineage of Cainites who were unholy/unrighteous/unGodly nor that exclusively male Sethies married exclusively female Cainites nor why there’d be anything wrong with those marriage–which is why the myth had to be concocted, in order to merely assert that there was something wrong with it since the holy/righteous/Godly Sethite were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood.
He commented:
wrong. The line of Seth is the lineage of faith. From their descendants Messiah was born. It was they who began to “call out on the name of the Lord” in Gen. 4:26. The Scriptures clearly present the Sethite line as the line of faith, and the Cainite line as the opposite. One of God’s clear directives to the righteous was to never intermarry with the ungodly. This was not the ONLY reason God sent judgment. But it was a sign of universal apostasy from God. Again, the notion that fallen angels copulated with earthly women is absurd on every level. and again, never in all the word of God does God call the wicked his sons. Only the righteous enjoyed that moniker. Anyway, we’re not going to agree on this. God’s best be yours!
I retorted:
But Pastor, how do you conclude “the lineage of faith” (whom, on your view, were quite faithless when it came down to it) based on that, “It was they who began to “call out on the name of the Lord” in Gen. 4:26”? What has that to do with every single individual in that entire lineage?
Likewise with Cainites: you condemn every single one of them when we can only point to one single sin of one of them and two sins of another one of them: it’s ungraceful and unjust to condemn an entire lineage based on three sins of two people.
“From their descendants Messiah was born” along with non-Sethite Gentiles.
“One of God’s clear directives to the righteous” many, many centuries post-flood, “was to never intermarry with the ungodly.”
But again, you’re also basing that on the myth and prejudice I noted.
That which is “absurd on every level” to you subjectively isn’t a standard and you just referred to the earliest church fathers as “absurd” as well as Jude and Jews before them.
And Pastor, please don’t argue just to argue or ignore arguments and reply as if they were never made since when it comes to, “never in all the word of God does God call the wicked his sons” I addressed that in the article that you read by noting, “I, who hold to the sons of God in the Genesis 6 affair, as I term it, view have no problem with that, “never in all the Word of God is the phrase ‘sons of God’ used to refer to a fallen, evil person or being” since such is how they Angels were referenced before they sinned and were never referred to thusly afterward.”
Sometimes people don’t agree because one of them is mistaken.
Shalom!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.