Who fathered the Nephilim?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Francine_Peters
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Francine_Peters

Guest
Some say 2 Peter 2:4 pertains to certain demons who were cast down at one point to the lowest area of hell, most likely the demons who had relationships with women in the time before Noah.

I have to disagree that demons fathered the Nephilim, because Sacred Scripture calls the ones who had relations with the daughters of men “Sons of God”. Good angels would never commit this sin, and bad angels would never be called sons of God. The offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men were simply men of renown, not monsters. Even the giants preceded this time.

Gen 6:4 “There were giants 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.”

The sons of God were men of the line of Seth, and the daughters of men were women in the line of Cain, and the entire line of godly men was corrupted in this way until no one remained who was righteous except Noah.
 
That is my understanding also.

St. John Chrysostom says concerning this verse:
“The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called Sons of God, from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men. The unhappy consequence of the former marrying with the latter, ought to be a warning to Christians to be very circumspect in their marriages; and not to suffer themselves to be determined in choice by their carnal passion, to the prejudice of virtue or religion.”
( From Geo. Haydock Bible footnote)

Nita
 
Some say 2 Peter 2:4 pertains to certain demons who were cast down at one point to the lowest area of hell, most likely the demons who had relationships with women in the time before Noah.

I have to disagree that demons fathered the Nephilim, because Sacred Scripture calls the ones who had relations with the daughters of men “Sons of God”. Good angels would never commit this sin, and bad angels would never be called sons of God. The offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men were simply men of renown, not monsters. Even the giants preceded this time.

Gen 6:4 “There were giants 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.”

The sons of God were men of the line of Seth, and the daughters of men were women in the line of Cain, and the entire line of godly men was corrupted in this way until no one remained who was righteous except Noah.

“sons of god/the gods/God” is a morally neutral term meaning “divine beings” - & in the Hebrew Bible generally, that refers to the heavenly “courtiers” of the God of Israel, who are sometimes seen as being the stars, the “host of heaven”,or “heavenly host”​

The “sons of God” also appear in Job 38.7, & the context makes it impossible for them to be human beings. “Angel” is a misleading translation, because
  • malakh = angelos = messenger *or *angel
  • “sons of god” is a translation of bene Elohim
  • an “angel” in Christianity is not the same thing as a “son of God” in the Hebrew Bible; the “sons of God” are usually (but perhaps not in Dan.3) the Israelite counterpart to the lesser gods of Israel’s neighbours
    In Job 1 & 2, the Satan is among the “sons of Elohim” as a member of the court of God. We also meet them in 1 Kings 22, where one of them volunteers to be a lying spirit in the mouths of Ahab’s prophets. Nowhere else in the OT are the “sons of God” human beings - so there is no basis in the OT for making an exception, & understanding Gen. 6 to refer to human beings.
The usual function of the “soGs” is to be members of the heavenly armies, the Council of God or Divine Assembly - as in Job 1 & 2, 1 Kings 22 & Daniel 7. Revelation 4 & 5 is a Christian equivalent of this. As the heavenly armies, they appear in the OT, in the gospels & in Revelation 12 & 19

The passage in 2 Peter is an allusion to a passage (in 1 Enoch) in which the punishment of the angels for lying with women is described - hence the mention of “strange flesh” The Enoch passage is itself based on Gen. 6. 1 Enoch 1.9 is quoted in Jude, verses 14 & 15. (1 Enoch is a composite work from the second century BC - & seems to have influenced the gospels greatly)
 
I want to know what is the Catholic Church stand on the issue of Gen 6:1-4. Does the Catholic Church teach that this passage does not refer to angels?

The reason why I am asking is because I believe they do. But I do not know if the Catholic Church believed something else. Am I not full communion with Rome if I believe this?
 
Some say 2 Peter 2:4 pertains to certain demons who were cast down at one point to the lowest area of hell, most likely the demons who had relationships with women in the time before Noah.

I have to disagree that demons fathered the Nephilim, because Sacred Scripture calls the ones who had relations with the daughters of men “Sons of God”. Good angels would never commit this sin, and bad angels would never be called sons of God. The offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men were simply men of renown, not monsters. Even the giants preceded this time.

Gen 6:4 “There were giants 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.”

The sons of God were men of the line of Seth, and the daughters of men were women in the line of Cain, and the entire line of godly men was corrupted in this way until no one remained who was righteous except Noah.
Here is the problem. Lucifer and the other angels were good angels, yet they rebel and sinned.

This shows that angels have free-will and can rebel. Likewise, I believe the “Sons of God” in Gen 6:1-4 refers to angels who choose to sin.

The “human view” does not account for the super-strength and size of the offsprings as humans do not give birth to anything out of their nature!

Second, two NT Scriptures tells us that they are some angels bound in the lower regions of Hell (Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4). We know this cannot refer to Lucifer and the angels that rebel with him because Scriptures alreadly tells us that they are not bound. So clearly, some other angels sin and were cast into prison. Gen 6:1-4 is the only we way we can know what St. Peter and St. Jude was talking about.

Third, “Sons of God” always refers to angels in the OT (Job 1 & 2, etc), so why should we think any different when we read Gen 6:1-4?

Fourth, in regards to “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that”–> According to a latter passage in Sacred Scriptures (Numbers 13:33) refers to the Nephilims. So “There were giants in the earth in those days [referring to to present time of Gen 6] and also after that [referring to Numbers 13:33]”.

They is no good reason to believe Gen 6:1-4 refers to human beings.
 
It could be a reference to the pagan religions which spoke of titans and god-men, attempting to reconcile a part of their religion with the Jewish faith. (I’ve heard many learned men affirm this.)

Or it could be otherwise. The pros and cons are many. All in all, I don’t know if it’s really a crisis-deal kind of question, so I’ve never pursued it passionately.

God bless, though.

Hope you find answers!
 
They is no good reason to believe Gen 6:1-4 refers to human beings.
I feels there is. Angels are spirit only. For them to assume a human body capable of procreation could occur only with God’s permission. It gets very far out when one contemplates just what species would those offspring be, etc. etc.

The expression “sons of God” (form of Hebrew bene Elohim; Greek yioi Theos) is used only 6 times in the Hebrew OT that I could find:
Gen 6:1 & 4
Job 1:6 and 2:1
Psalms 29:1 (28:1 in Greek and Douay)
Psalms 89:7 (88:7 in Greek and Douay; 88:6 in RSV)

The Psalms passages could apply to men. Now, if the two passages in Genesis refer to men and not angels, then there would be no predominant usage for angels.

Deuteronomy 32:8 is very interesting. The Hebrew and the Douay have “sons of Israel” (bene Israel):
Douay: “…He appointed the bounds of people according to the number of the children of Israel.”
When the Jews later translated the Hebrew text into Greek (Septuagint) they translated “children of Israel” as “aggelon Theos” (angel/messenger of God) - **the same words they used to translate the Hebrew “bene elohim” in the Job passages. **

The New Testament was written by Jews (Luke being a possible exception). The use of the expression “sons of God” is used there predominantly to designate humans who seek to follow God. I didn’t do a complete search, but I can’t think of a single instance where it designates angels.

Nita
 
The Nephilim passage was like many parts of the Genesis primeval tale (1 to 11) a poke at the Cannaites and the Babylonians tales.
They made the demigod Babylonian king genealogies look as the mating of angels with loose women. It was a theistic take on the Gilgamesh moking the politheism pretentions and the divinity of human kings.
Note that in Exodus, Numbers and Kings the canaanite enemies are represented as giants.
And they nephilim are blamed by the Flood.
 
Don’t you guys know it was the Aliens?:love:

😃 :whacky: :grouphug:
 
It seems that many of the early Church Fathers believed it was the (fallen) angels…

my view is that since angels, and demons, can take on physical forms - perhaps some of the angels fell and became demons by having children with human women. These children are the Nephilim, and perhaps when they died they became demons also.
 
The Nephilim “were giants – the same race that terrified Moses’ spies (Numbers 13:33). They were given this title from the root (Hebrew letters) to fall, because they fell and caused others to fall (Rashi), through their egregious sinfulness (Gur Aryeh). Alternatively, they were so called because the hearts of those who saw them fell in amazement at their size (Ibn Ezra).” (Stone Edition Chumash, Book of Genesis, verse 4 commentary, p. 27):

“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward, for the sons of the rulers would consort with the daughters of man, who would bear children to them. They were the mighty who, from old, were men of fame.” (Genesis 6:4, Ramban commentary on the Torah, p. 167).

Jewish Sage Ramban elucidates:

"(In those days and also afterward):
(What periods of time are meant by in those days and afterward? Ramban explains, beginning by citing Rashi):

This is a quote from Rashi:
(In those days) — in the days of the generation of Enosh. And also afterward – though they saw the destruction of the generation of Enosh, when the ocean overflowed and inundated a third of the world (Note: as punishment for worshiping idolatry) – and they were not humbled to learn from them. And Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra explains also afterward to mean “also after the Flood.” For, he continues, the “children of the giants” were from the family of the “children of the rulers”.
(If, as Ibn Ezra maintains, the Nephilim who lived after the Flood were descended from the Nephilim of our verse (who lived in those days, i.e., before the Flood,) how did this family survive the Flood? Ramban presents two possibilities):
If so, either the wives of Noah’s sons were of (the Nephilim’s) offspring and were similar to them in stature, and the family survived through them, or else he (Ibn Ezra) agrees with the Sages’ statement (Niddah 61a) that expounds concerning Genesis 14:13 that the giant Og survived the flood, but he goes further than that, asserting that other Nephilim also survived along with (Og).
(Ramban now presents an entirely new approach to this section):
The soundest explanation in my view is that Adam and his wife were called “children of God,” ---- because they were His handiwork, and He was their father, as it were, for they had no other father. And (Adam) begot many children, as it is written (above 5:4) and he begot sons and daughters.
Now, these were the first ever to be born to a father and mother, possessed great perfection in height and strength, for they were born in the image of their father, who was the epitome of human perfection, as is written concerning Seth: and he begot in his likeness and his image (above 5:3).
(Ramban offers a second possible explanation as to why the term children of God was applied to the first human beings):
It is also plausible that all sons of the first people in the world – Adam, Seth, Enosh – were called “children of God,” because these three men were in the image of God, meaning that they were gifted with physical perfection. But then the practice of idol worship began, and as a result of this a weakness and frailty began to affect people.
(Ramban shows that there is an opinion in the Midrash that corroborates this interpretation):
And similarly they said in Bereishis Rabbah (24:6): This is the account of the descendants of man (5:1) – The implication is that the previous people discussed just before this verse (Adam, Seth, and Enosh, mentioned at the end of Ch. 4) were not descendants of man. So what were they? Godly beings. (The students) asked this question before Abba Kohen Bardela: Why does Scripture, at the end of Ch. 4, tell us about Adam, Seth, and Enosh, and then fall silent and not discuss the subsequent descendants, as it did in Ch. 5? He answered them: Until this point (until Enosh) people were in God’s image and likeness; from this point on, beginning with Kenan, they acted in a way that angered God.
(Ramban resumes his explanation of our passage):
Now, when man began to proliferate, and they had many daughters, these sons of the first men (i.e., the “children of God”) were still in their full strength, for they did not experience the weakening of physical constitution that took place after Enosh. And because of their great desire they would choose the women who were the best, possessors of great height and health. And (Scripture) relates at first (v. 2) that they took them for wives unjustly, i.e., against their will, – and after this it relates (v. 4) that they also had illicit relations in secret with the daughters of man, i.e., women who were not on that high level of physical perfection. — But this matter of their secret promiscuity did not become known until (these) ordinary women bore them sons – and people recognized that (these) offspring were not children of ordinary men, but were born from these “children of God,” because they were huge. However, the children were inferior to their fathers in height and strength…These children were known as the mighty ones, in comparison to other, ordinary people."
 
(continued…)

"(Ramban notes that there is a different interpretation for our section as well, based on mystical ideas):

This is a fitting explanation for this passage on the level of simple interpretation. However, the Midrash that Rabbi Eliezer the Great has in his Perakim about the angels who fell from the place of their sanctity in heaven,-- and which is mentioned in the Gemara, in Tractate Yoma (67b), is the one that fits into the words of Scripture more than all othe other interpretations, except that it is necessary to expand upon the mystical meaning of that concept."
 
“Nephilim” was merely a title like “The Chicago 7”.

It refers to those who were notorious for the Fall: Adam and Eve and their immediate progeny, descendants of Cain.

The root ‘naphal’ means ‘to fall’ or ‘be cast out’. They were The Fallen Ones.

So Adam and Eve, and Cain and his wives, fathered the Nephilim.
 
The line of Adam preserved the image most like God among man. This most high image of God was re-established in Seth who was the first man born in the image of his father. The scriptures re-state that man is created in the image of God when Seth is born as if to mark the birth of this son as the beginning of a generation of man that can be rightfully called the image of God.
**1 This is the written account of Adam’s line. **
When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man. a] "
**3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; **and he named him Seth.
The title ‘Sons of God’ would not be fitting if there were not another line of man that was not a generation of man in the image and likeness of God. That line, although a generation of Adam, are decendants of Cain, and are born in the image of anti-adam. Because the image of God is re-established in Seth’s decendants who are in the likeness of their father the lineage is called ‘sons of God’ and the decendants of Cain who are born in the image of anti-adam are given a tile fitting for an image in direct opposition to Adam 'daughters of men. Not that that is the only reason.

At the time when sin in Cain’s line had reached a head, the man it had reached it in was Lamech. This is also the first polygamist. It’s no accident that these two women produced the inventor’s of music, which was a powerfull magic in a world that had never ecxperienced it, and the inventor of metal tools. The weapons of war and the tools necessary to extract from the earth the resources to organize human society and form a governing state.
Remember that the society that Cain formed was called a ‘town’ and it was named after his first son. Herein we have the anti-image of Seth

Back to the wives of Lamech. I believe these two women were the first to wield the resources of the community of fallen angels. This is the reason Lamech felt the need to reveal to them the sevenfold vengence that ofeending him would cost and why they bore children who introduced the means to cause a paradigm shift among man that was able to begin the modern era.

When the sons of Adam, who were obligated to preserve the image of God followed the example of Lamech this was a powerfull victory for the fallen angels. They hate the image of God above all things. The offspring of these fallen son’s of Adam and these spiritually empowered daughters of men are a line of man that is a kind of unity of man that had never existed. They were decendants of the sons of God and the daughters of men. The seed of Seth’s line and the spirit of God made captive in the womb of Cain’s daughters was an anti-image of the Virginity of Our Blessed Mother and the Incarnation of Our Lord. This spiritual reality flowed into the material reality of the offspring and produced the Nephilim. :twocents:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top