Dr. Couch, I still hear Bible teachers saying that the Nephilim in Genesis 6 were a mixture between humans and fallen angels, thus creating a hybrid of strange creatures that were unusual being in early Genesis. What do you think?
ANSWER: For years I have studied these verses from the Hebrew text and am convinced that they are not referring to fallen angels! What is happening is that the two lines, the Godly and the unGodly lines of Seth and Cain, were coming together, by which the line of humans was weakened and degraded, becoming even more sinful.
By good exegesis, and reading carefully chapters 4-6, this view seems to make the most sense. While there are some Bible teachers who hold to the "angel" theory, the outstanding scholars I read hold to the fact that the two lines of Seth and Cain come together, washing down morally and spiritually the Godly line.
I just discovered the great Old Testament respected Jewish Christian scholar, Alfred Edersheim, holds to the coming together of the two lines. He writes:
"The corruption of mankind reached its highest point when even the difference between the Sethites and the Cainites became obliterated by intermarriage between the two parties, and that from sensual motives. We read that 'the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.' At that time the earth must have been in a great measure peopled, and its state is thus described, 'And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.'
This means more than the total corruption of our nature, as we should now describe it, and refers to the universal prevalence of open, daring sin, and rebellion against God, brought about when the separation between the Sethites and the Cainites ceased. With the exception of Noah there was none in that generation 'to call upon the name of Jehovah. … The giants (in Hebrew: Nephilim) were 'men of violence, or tyrants,' as Luther renders it, the root of the word meaning, 'to fall upon.'"
All of the above is what I teach from good, solid exegesis! Almost word for word!
The scholarly Jewish Rabbis in the Soncino commentaries hold to the same view—this is not referring to fallen angels. They write:
"There is no trace in Genesis of 'fallen angels' or rebellious angels; and the idea of inter-marriage of angels and human beings is altogether foreign to Hebrew though. The mythological explanation of this passage was in all ages repelled by a large body of Jewish and non-Jewish commentators, though it has been revived by many modern [and liberal teachers]."
There is one Jewish Christian teacher in Texas who holds to the angel theory. But he does so by following others, holding to mythology and not good exegesis from the Bible. Don't follow him blindly! I work with the best of commentators not those who buy into mythology! In fact, I do more Hebrew exegesis than this dear brother! He often does not do good independent exegesis as he should.
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (6/11)
