Joel Richardson (“a New York Times bestselling author, internationally recognized Bible teacher, and tour guide with a passion for biblical history, prophecy, and the return of Jesus”) wrote a post titled The Sons of God and the Nephilim: A Historical and Theological Survey wherein he seeks to discern, “‘the sons of God,’ their union with “the daughters of men,” and the mysterious offspring known as the Nephilim.
He outlines how, “There are two major interpretive streams” as to who were that which I term the Gen 6 affair’s, “sons of God” which ties into the nature of Nephilim:
1. The Sethite View interprets “sons of God” as the godly line of Seth intermarrying with the ungodly line of Cain.
2. The Angelic View interprets “sons of God” as divine beings or fallen angels who cohabited with human women, producing a hybrid race.
He elucidates the following of, “The Angelic Interpretation”:
This is the older of the two primary views and has deep roots in Second Temple Judaism, the Septuagint, and the Book of Enoch. According to this view:
• The term “sons of God” (bene ha’elohim) refers to angelic beings.
• These beings took human women as wives, violating divine boundaries.
• Their offspring, the Nephilim, were a hybrid race of giants or semi-divine beings, contributing to the corruption that led to the flood.
He notes that, “Supporting Evidence” includes that, “bene ha’elohim elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) consistently refers to heavenly beings…1 Enoch elaborates upon this narrative” regarding, “Watchers…The Septuagint renders Nephilim as gigantes (giants), reinforcing the hybrid or
monstrous interpretation…New Testament passages such as 2 Peter 2:4–10 and Jude 6–7 appear to reference the sin of these angels, connecting it with sexual immorality and divine punishment.”
Older indeed, since the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christian 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.
As for, “race of giants…gigantes (giants)” the key questions are: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Richardson’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
He cited Job 38:7 which is the more direct route since it’s one example, shows us that, “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which some LXX editions have as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth.
1 Enoch elaborates but is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch. FYI: Watchers is merely a Second Temple Era a.k.a. for Angels and 1 Enoch employs it since it’s a text from that time.
It’s not, “gigantes (giants)” but rather, gigantes (earth-born).
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 of Angels in the Bible. So, if they’re not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we’ve no idea to what sin they’re referring.
Of the other option, we’re told:
2. The Sethite Interpretation
This view emerged primarily in the post-Apostolic era and became dominant in the Western Church during the 4th and 5th centuries. According to this view:
• The “sons of God” refer to the righteous descendants of Seth.
• The “daughters of men” refer to the ungodly descendants of Cain.
• The Nephilim are either tyrannical humans or metaphorically referred to as “giants” in terms of power and violence.
The, “Supporting Arguments” include, “Emphasis on human sin rather than supernatural rebellion as the cause of the flood. A desire to avoid mythologizing Scripture with what later interpreters saw as pagan or fantastical elements. Jesus’ statement in Matthew 22:30 that angels ‘neither marry nor are given in marriage’ was interpreted to preclude angelic-human sexual unions.”
The Sethite view is a late-comer based on myth and prejudice.
Richardson actually added qualifying nuance which makes it had to understand which point he’s making. Typically, if Sethite view-ers referred to, “the righteous descendants of Seth…the ungodly descendants of Cain” they claim a wholly righteous lineage vs. a wholly ungodly lineage. But since there’s no indication of that, some watered it down and would say that they’re referring to, only “the righteous” of the, “descendants of Seth” and only, “the ungodly” of the, “descendants of Cain” even though the Sethite view is still speculative, to say the least.
That it can be, “‘giants” in terms of power and violence” just shows that it’s a vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage term.
“the cause of the flood” is actually put forth across as a tripartite perfect storm: fallen humans, fallen Angels, and fallen Nephilim.
It may very well be that, “A desire to avoid mythologizing Scripture with what later interpreters saw as pagan or fantastical elements” came about due to that pre-Tower of Babel humanity lived in relative proximity but dispersed thereafter taking with them what was commonly known and shared history which eventually came to be called myth and legend.
As for Jesus’ statement, interestingly, many do manipulate it as something like, “angels ‘neither marry nor are given in marriage” but that’s not what He said and it wouldn’t, “preclude angelic-human sexual unions.”
“angels ‘neither marry nor are given in marriage” is an all-encompassing statement about all Angels at all times in all places at in all circumstances yet, His statement was very detailed, very nuanced, He employed qualifying terms, “the angels of God in heaven.”
So, not all Angels at all times in all places at in all circumstances but the loyal ones, “of God” and, “in heaven” which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.
Joel Richardson includes a subsection titled, “Hybrid or Watcher View (Revisited)” which seems like a false dichotomy since the Watcher View would result in the Hybrid view so it’s not, “or” but both.
He notes, “A growing number of modern scholars, including Michael S. Heiser, John Day, and Loren Stuckenbruck, argue that the angelic interpretation is the original and correct one.” I’m unfamiliar with John Day but I included Stuckenbruck and Heiser in my book The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?
It’s noted that, “Jubilees (5:1–11): Affirms the same view and associates the Nephilim with demonic activity” which is also done by 1 Enoch and yet, that demons are the spirits of dead Nephilim is just folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah. For a biblical view, please see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
Joel Richardson then offers samples of who, historically, took which view: I began my relevant book with a chart of such.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply