Bible Study 106.2, 'The End of all Flesh has come Before me', Commentary

The main focus of this commentary is to discuss who these 'Sons of God' are who took daughters of men and had children called Nephilim. Some people may think it is a minor detail but it is actually extremely important for the future context of scripture. There are two main theories, one of which is the official view of most seminaries and religious schools. I will have a look at both (although, I admit, I'm more biased towards one of them; see if you can tell which one) and you guys can decide which one sounds better for you. I will properly give the context for both, of course, so that you can all make an informed opinion.

 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of Elohim saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them women of all which they chose. - Gen 6

(PS: Please forgive for any inaccuracies in my Hebrew spelling. I've done my best to produce the best Hebrew in English that I could find. If I've made a mistake in the grammar, please inform me and I will correct my error.)

This is the predominantly taught view preached in most seminaries and churches today. It is widely accepted and has the support of the Roman, Orthodox, Anglican and many other churches. Its earliest mention surfaces around the 2nd century AD in the literature of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Augistine of Hippo, Julius Africanus and the Letters attributed to St. Clement. This is also the mainly accepted view in Medieval and Modern Judaism.

 One thing benei elokim does not mean is “sons of G‑d.” In fact, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai would “curse” anyone who translated the term benei elokim as the “sons of G‑d.” The word elokim in Scripture, while generally referring to G‑d, is in essence merely an expression of authority.......  

Finally, there others who take a different approach and explain benei elokimto mean people who were—at least to begin with—on a spiritually high level. They are later called nephilim, for they or their descendants (or both) fell from their spiritual heights, became corrupted, and eventually brought G‑d’s wrath upon themselves by robbing, murdering and raping without hesitation......

Quite tellingly, they (Moses' spies) made sure to report on these angels who had fallen from heaven—perhaps because they themselves feared meeting the same fate. After all, the wilderness of Sinai was pretty much a heaven for them, with little else to do than contemplate G‑d’s Torah and His wonders. Entering the land of Canaan to conquer, work the land and harvest its produce threatened to be a tremendous descent. The difference, however, is that the human soul is not an angel. 

The argument revolves around the usage of the phrase 'sons of God' and the possibility of fallen angels. It conforms to Rabbinical Judaism, which preaches that there are no fallen angels and that the ones that seem to do evil are doing so by God's command, such as Satan being the Tempter, or Adversary. The view also disputes the angels' ability to perform physical acts of procreation, since they are spirits and lack corporeal form. It appeals to the overall context of the chapter's context to say that angels have been mentioned in other portions of Genesis but are always called 'angels' rather than 'Sons of God'.

For this view, I would like to address each of the points made above with Scripture to support why it is so. All of the above arguments are based on logic and rhetoric, arguing from silence of the scriptures, not from actual contradictions to the view.

First, I'll deal with the problem of the usage of 'Elohim'. Yehuda Shurpin says that Rabbi Shimon described Elohim to be merely an 'expression of authority', meaning that it can be used of men as well. The Scriptures, however, refute that. The word Elohim has been translated once in the entire Scripture as 'rulers', 'godly' and 'exceedingly'; 2 times as 'great' or  'mighty' and a staggering 204 times as 'gods', 2 times 'goddess', 45 times as 'god', 1 time as 'divine being' and 2326 times as 'God'. You guys can decide for yourself between the statistics.

Second, and this will be a brief one, the wilderness WAS NOT like heaven to the Israelites. All you have to do is have a look at how many times Yahuah became tired of their constant complaining, and how many times they insulted him by saying that he brought them to the desert to die, to see that they did not think it was a heaven of any kind.

Then, the phrase 'benei ha'Elohim' appears only twice in the entire Old Testament. The first time in Genesis, the second time in Job. In Job 38 God says:

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if you have understanding. Who has laid the measures thereof, if you know? or who has laid the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the cornerstone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of of Elohim shouted for joy?

Scholars are quick to agree that here the phrase refers to angels. It is also important to mention the dating of the Book of Job. Most scholars date the book to the Second Temple period. However, the peculiar language and its similarities to more ancient Middle-Eastern tales of an upright man being punished by 'the gods' drives many to believe that Job's origin is much much earlier; either written by Moses, or even before him by an unknown author. More than that, Ezekiel mentions Job together with Noah and Daniel as men of great renown (Ez. 14:14). If this is true, and Job is older than Genesis, it would make its usage of 'sons of Elohim' the original one. In which case, what is the likelihood that Moses copied the expression from it, instead of inventing a new one. Just to remind you, these are the only two occurrences of this expression. I leave the decision up to you.

The other point is that angels do not have physical bodies and cannot procreate. The first argument is that angels are spirits, who are not corporeal beings. Therefore, they do not have the same abilities, such as eating, drinking, mating and other mortal functions. However, Genesis and other parts of the Scriptures deny that, such as the angels who go to Abraham and sit down to have dinner with him. The men in Sodom also saw the angels and wanted to rape them, which would assume that they had bodies. This can also be seen in the resurrected body of Yehusha who could eat, drink and be touched as any other physical being, despite being in a spirit body. 

This leaves the question of whether they can have sex. The opponents of this view cite the words of Yehusha who says:

Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of Yahuah. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are given as the angel of El, in heaven.

Then they say ''You see, Jesus says that angels do not have sex". However, the critics are also quick to point out that in Genesis 6 it says 'they took them wives' and say "The does not say they had sex, it only says they married them". I would like to say that this is hypocritical and use their own argument against them and say that Yehusha talked about marriage and not the ability to have sex. He also said that they 'do not' marry, not that 'they cannot marry'. There is a big difference between the two. Still, you guys judge for yourself, as you certainly should.

There is also the issue of why would Moses only use 'sons of God' in Genesis 6 when he knew the word for angel and used it in the rest of the Pentateuch. This made me stop and think a little because it is a very valid point. After some thought on why Moses would pick something other than angel is because he meant something different than angel. I began to analyse the words. 'Angel' comes from the Greek 'aggelos', meaning 'messenger', or the Hebrew 'malak' which means the same. This gave me a profound revelation - Moses did not use angel because the beings in Genesis 6 were not messengers of Elohim anymore. However, despite leaving their first habitation, to quote Jude, these beings remained Sons of Elohim, which is what Moses accurately chose to describe them as. Remember, fallen angel is not an expression found anywhere in the Scriptures. They are called by three titles - 'messengers' when they perform God's work, 'morning stars' when they are described as heavenly beings, and 'benei ha'Elohim' when giving a generic description. One day, after the resurrection, we shall all be raised as 'benei ha'Elohim' and join the heavenly ranks.

Of course, there is also the small matter that marrying cousins does not give birth to giants. Deformities, yes, but 'cedar tree' tall giants... that's a stretch.

For these many reasons, I believe that Genesis 6 describes an angelic incursion into the human genetic code, which resulted in 'all flesh' being corrupted. The entire chapter is concerned with flesh and genetics, which is one of the reasons why Noach was the only one upright before Yahuah - he was 'perfect in his generations' and 'without blemish'. Both expressions are concerned with his biology and not so much with his spirituality, although he is also described as 'walking with Elohim'.

Of course, everyone has the right make up their own mind, which is why I showed you the first view's points as well. I have presented my case and everyone is welcome to disagree. However, I will take this standpoint when the giants return after the flood, and will discuss the Nephilim in detail.