Don Stewart’s Insight on the “Sons of God” and Nephilim
Challenging prevalent views, Don Stewart examines grammatical context that suggests that the Nephilim in Genesis 6:1-4 were humans instead of angels.
Introduction
Don Stewart is a Christian apologist, accomplished speaker, and acclaimed author. He graduated cum laude from Talbot Theological Seminary and the International Seminar in Theology and Law, and authored over seventy books translated into thirty languages.
In his article, “Were the Sons of God Fallen Angels?“, he introduces a key consideration—grammatical gender versus actual gender. Rather than merely associating the term “sons of God” with male angels, Stewart invites us to delve deeper into its narrative context.
Analyzing Apocryphal Books
Stewart questions the credibility of apocryphal books, noting, “Though they are ancient interpretations, they are not on the same level as inspired Scripture. The angel view was not the only one held in antiquity. These apocryphal books represent only one interpretation.”
Prominent apocryphal texts supporting the angelic interpretation include the Book of 1 Enoch and the Book of Jubilees. In 1 Enoch, chapters 6 and 7 describe 200 angels descending to Earth, harboring desires for human women, resulting in the birth of giants. Similarly, the Book of Jubilees recounts angels descending to assist humankind, eventually leading to the birth of giants (Jubilees 7:21-25).
Additional apocryphal texts like the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, 2 Enoch 18, and 2 Baruch 56 also support the notion of angels being held accountable for their actions, paralleling Genesis 6. However, Stewart emphasizes that these texts do not possess the same sacred status as canonical Scriptures and represent only one cultural and historical perspective.
Angelic Confluence or Human Association?
Stewart addresses different arguments supporting the angelic interpretation, presenting intriguing counterarguments:
Technical Phrase: “There are only two places in the entire Old Testament where the exact phrase is used (Job 1:6, 2:1). In Job 38:7, the definite article ‘Ha’ is missing. Therefore, to say that the term is used consistently for angels is misleading.”
Proponents of the angelic interpretation argue that “bene ha’elohim” consistently denotes angels in the Old Testament. However, Stewart notes that only two occurrences of this exact phrase exist, and there are numerous instances where ‘sons of God’ refers to humans, such as Hosea 2:1 describing the sons of Israel as “sons of the living God.”
Consistent Interpretation: “The contrast between sons of God and daughters of men does not have to be between human and non-human entities. Those who reject the angel view do not feel their interpretation is inconsistent.”
Advocates of the angelic view emphasize the contrast between ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of men,’ suggesting a divine-human distinction. However, Stewart argues that similar expressions in the Old Testament distinguish human groups without implying a non-human presence, such as Judges 20:1-2 distinguishing between the tribes of Israel and Benjamin.
The Nephilim
The mention of giants, the Nephilim, in Genesis 6:4 suggests their existence required an extraordinary intervention. Angelic interpretation supporters argue that the giants’ supernatural traits imply angelic-human offspring. Stewart counters, stating that ‘Nephilim’ does not necessarily mean giants. The term may derive from Hebrew naphal, meaning “fall upon others,” or palah, meaning “extraordinary.” He notes that Nephilim are mentioned both before and after the unions of ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of men,’ suggesting their existence was independent of these unions.
Jesus’ Statement
“Angelic cohabitation with earthly women does not seem to be a possibility. God created humans and animals after their kind (Genesis 1:27) which means there are limits to the extent that they can reproduce. If angels are sexless, deathless creatures, without physical form, and had no need to perpetuate their kind, it does not seem likely that they could reproduce, even if they wanted. There is no reference in Scripture to fallen angels ever having a body.”
Stewart cites Jesus’ statement that angels do not marry (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35-36) to argue that angels, being sexless and without physical bodies, cannot reproduce. He also points out that grammatical gender does not equate to actual gender.
Continued Contemplation and Authoritative Resources
Despite his clear stance, Stewart acknowledges the historical belief in angelic interaction and encourages a balanced approach, considering contextual cues, theological implications, and cultural nuances.
In a world rife with speculation and sensationalism, we emphasize the need for reliable resources in biblical scholarship. Thus, we at Chasing the Giants commit ourselves to providing dependable repositories of information, fostering a deeper understanding of this complex narrative.
To know more about Don Stewart’s views, read his article titled “Were the Sons of God Fallen Angels?” on Blue Letter Bible.
