Insurmountable Problems with the Angel-Human Hybrid Theory of the Nephilim

This is an article from my archives of 2011.

Ordinarily, I would avoid topics such as this, which are a kind of “tabloid theology” for those obsessed with such things.  But this particular issue has grown in such popularity and its speculative errors are propagated with such tenacious authority that a voice of reason is desperately needed.  The controversy centers around Gen. 6: 1-6 (ESV):

1When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

The question is whether these “sons of God” were angels or men.  Authors such as Chuck Missler (among many others, both living and ancient) teach that angels took human wives, and their offspring were superhuman hybrids.  It gets worse.  The near cult-like followers of this theory now hold that these hybrids, called Nephilim, are responsible for all the UFO “activity” and sightings today.  The sad part is that such ideas are put forth as solidly Scriptural, which is not true in the least. It’s time for a reality check.

Problems with the Hybrid Nephilim Theory

1. Even if true that angels could have mated with humans, what reason have we to assume that their DNA was somehow slightly different from the usual human as opposed to normal human DNA?  If their DNA and body composition was close enough to produce offspring with human women, then they had bodies that were essentially human.  But Scripture does not support the idea that angels are nearly men physically.  The Church has always held that they are spirits by nature, who are able to take on human appearance in order to do their work.  In fact, when the believers in Acts were praying for Peter’s release, and then Peter himself knocked at the gate, they said, “It is his angel,” a euphemism for his spirit apart from his body (Acts 12:15).  Angels are called “ministering spirits” in Heb. 1:14.  Our battle against the angelic forces of darkness is not a battle against flesh and blood:

Eph. 6:11-17 (ESV)

Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,

2 Col. 10:3-4

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds);

Just as our warfare against these spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places is not carnal (of the physical body), neither is our foe a carnal foe, of flesh and blood.  Our foe is spiritual, and so our armor and our weapons are spiritual.  The “body” of a fallen angel is no more physical than the flaming darts they throw at us.

2. Moral corruption and supposed genetic corruption are completely unrelated ideas.  Genetic corruption is an ongoing process since the fall of man, and this is why we have certain genetic diseases among us.  But there neither is nor can be any relation between the quality of one’s genetics and the quality of one’s morality.  A man may have excellent genetics and be a champion of immorality and evil, while a man with Down syndrome may be the greatest self-sacrificing, Christ-loving saint.  This idea of the moral corruption of Noah’s world being linked to genetic corruption smacks of the Gnostic “tainting” of the physical, as if sin and moral corruption could be properties of physical cells or bodies.  The fact is that there is nothing in the Genesis account that demands that Noah not be one of those genetically affected by these angels.  All that the scriptural account demands is that Noah was morally uncorrupted.  Moral corruption is completely unrelated to physical corruption.  While it is true that physical corruption was initially caused by moral corruption, in that the sin of Adam and Eve brought physical changes to the universe and resulted in human mortality, it is completely untrue that physical corruption somehow causes or contains moral corruption.  Sin is a matter of the heart, or spirit, alone.

3. Scripture really leaves no room for any other reason for the flood.  It clearly tells us that the wickedness of men was THE reason God destroyed the world, and does not in any way imply that this was only one reason among others.  The statements in Gen. 6 regarding the reason for the flood are unambiguous and direct: it was for the wickedness of man.

Gen. 6: 5-7
5The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7  So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
Notice that it was the wickedness of man, and not of hybrids, angels or nephilim, but of man.  Notice that it was wickedness — “every intention of the thoughts of his heart…” — and not any other reason.  Notice that the Lord was sorry that He had made man, not that the angels had made some other hybrid creatures that the Lord was sorry were made — God was not sorry He had made angels.  Notice that God’s decision was to blot out man whom He had created, not to punish or blot out angels or the offspring of angels.  Notice the classifications of creatures that God intended to blot out: “man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens” — not one mention of a class of hybrid beings, nephilim, giants, or angels.

Once again, these are direct statements of Scripture.  To argue that mankind is and has been just as corrupt as it always was — even before the flood — and so there must be some other additional reason for the flood, is to argue that moral corruption really was NOT the reason for the flood, but some other reason must be looked for.  This is an outright denial and contradiction of Scripture — just as when the serpent asked Eve, “Hath God said…?”  “Hath God said that He destroyed the earth with flood because of the wickedness of men?  It was not because of the wickedness of men — men have been just as wicked at other times in history without such drastic judgment as a flood.  There must be another reason…”  Yet God said that moral corruption was the reason.

Gen. 6:11-12, “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth and behold it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.”

The term for corrupt is the Hebrew shachath. It can be used in a comparative way — as indicated by Noah being held out as an exception (see also Ez. 23:11).

Eze. 23:11

And when her sister Aholibah saw this, she was more corrupt in her inordinate love than she, and in her whoredoms more than her sister in her whoredoms.

Deu. 31:29
For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.
In this verse, “utterly corrupt” is the same word twice, [“shachath shachath”], as if to say, “doubly corrupt.”
Hos. 9:9
They have deeply corrupted themselves, as in the days of Gibeah: therefore he will remember their iniquity, he will visit their sins.
Eze. 16:47
Yet hast thou not walked after their ways, nor done after their abominations: but, as if that were a very little thing, thou wast corrupted more than they in all thy ways.
Judges 2:19
And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way.

It is because this word for corrupt does admit of varying degrees that it also admits of varying levels of comparison.  The meaning of this term carries with it an implied comparison to a standard (“corrupt by what standard?”)  The implied standard may be the absolute moral standards of God; however, it is not necessarily so.  In cases where extreme corruption is pointed out, the implied standard can be the moral norm, corrupt as it is.  In other words, when the corruption in view is extreme enough, its excessiveness pushes out of view the moral norm, the corruption of which is minuscule by comparison.  Gen 6:11 indicates how extreme the corruption was: “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.”  In Gen. 6:12, “all flesh” speaks of all mankind as a whole.  “All flesh had corrupted his way” is literally “all flesh had corrupted its way”.  It was not mere universal depravity that God was suddenly noticing that was causing Him to decide to destroy the earth with flood.  Along with the extreme wickedness that was prevalent, the ubiquity itself drew God’s wrath upon the race.  Never before in history (except in the beginning when the ninth believer of humanity came to faith) had the human race been reduced to only eight believers (assuming all eight were believers) — no more than eight human beings on the planet at that time were justified and righteous in God’s sight.  Like Sodom and Gomorrah, wickedness of the people had reached “critical mass.”  This verse is not saying that each individual had corrupted his way, though that was also true; but rather, that all flesh as a whole (humanity as a whole) had corrupted its way.  When seen as an organic unit, the whole had become corrupted because such a minuscule percentage remained uncorrupted.

4. If God flooded the earth to destroy everyone except Noah and his sons and their wives, and yet the Nephilim did not die, then the flood failed in its purpose.  If the Nephilim did die, then they are gone, and we need not worry about them any more.  If the whole thing about the angels taking human wives and producing Nephilim is the accurate interpretation, then the Scripture is clear that God had a solution to that mess, and the flood put an end to it.  If you want to think that God’s solution was ineffective to prevent another occurrence, or a continuing of that practice, then you make God out to be ineffective in solving such problems, and quite wasteful, considering that He went to all that trouble of destroying the earth only to have the Nephilim come back again.  Not only that, but either the wives on the ark were also genetically corrupted (defeating the whole purpose of the flood), or the wives’ extended families (parents, siblings, grand-parents, etc.) were destroyed without reason.

5. God has the power to effect genetic change.  After all, He created DNA.  And the question begs to be asked, why did He supposedly create angels with bodies so similar to men that they can produce hybrids in the first place?  The idea of a God who doesn’t quite plan things out adequately, or who creates functions and capacities without real reason or intended usage, is not the God of the Bible or reality.  If God created angels with functioning male gonads, then He must have intended its use at least in some angels (i.e., angelic reproduction).  The idea that God would create all the angels not only with functioning male gonads, but also with a libido, but not create any female angels — coupled with the fact of an everlasting existence — and you have the making of a cruel joke.  So then, in Matt. 22:30, when Jesus said, “For in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven,” was He promising an eternity of unfulfilled desire?

6. It is God alone who creates the different kinds of beings.  He created angels.  He created man.  Angels and man cannot create a new class of beings that are neither man nor angel.

7. Why would the all-powerful God let these rogue angels mess up His plan to the point where destruction by flood was the only remaining remedy?  How long do you think it took for these angels to completely corrupt, through marriages, the entire gene pool of the human race?  If such corruption were so unacceptable as to make God willing to destroy all men and animals (excepting the ark) then one would think it would have been unacceptable enough to “nip it in the bud,” so to speak, much earlier.  The God who caused the ground to open up to swallow rebellious Hebrews but leave the good ones standing could not have done something similar to these rogue angels and their offspring? — Not even a genetic plague of some kind?  And what about the fact that God has His own army of loyal angels to do battle with the bad angels?  God could have sent His angels to fight with the angels who married humans and destroy their offspring.  Instead, He supposedly did nothing until it was too late for anything but world-wide destruction of humanity.

8. God is said to close and open the womb, and every child is a blessing from God, knit together by His immanent hand.  No child is or ever can be brought into existence in spite of God.

9. The Book of Enoch and the proponents of the mating-angels theory would have us believe that men can discover and invent nothing, but must instead have the instruction of angels.  Men did not figure out how to get metals from melting rocks, or a myriad of other discoveries, but rather, these co-habitating angels of Noah’s day instructed men in these forbidden secret things.  What should be obvious is that men have been made in God’s image, and like our Creator we are gifted with both intelligence and creativity, and men by nature are highly inventive and need no angels.  Did a rogue angel visit Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, etc.?

Answering Objections from Proponents of the Hybrid Nephilim Theory

Objection 1: The term, “sons of God,” is used in the Old Testament eight times, and always to refer to angels.

Merely because a term is used eight times in the OT does not guarantee the same intended meaning in all cases.  It might mean the same in all cases, or it might not.  Each one needs to be considered in its context.  It is also important to note that there is an idea — a meaning — behind the term, “sons of God.”  Here are some verses you might not have considered:

  • Luke 3:38, “Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.”
  • Psalm 82:6, “I said, ‘You are gods [elohim], and all of you are children [sons] of the Most High...”
  • Psalm 73:15, “If I had said, ‘I will speak thus,’ behold, I would have betrayed the generation of Your children [sons].”
  • Deut. 32:5-6, “They have dealt corruptly with Him; they are no longer His children [sons] because they are blemished; they are a crooked and twisted generation. Do you thus repay the LORD, you foolish and senseless people? Is not He your Father, who created you, who made you and established you?
  • Isaiah 63:16, “For you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name.”
  • Deut. 14:1, “‘You are the sons of the LORD your God [Elohim]. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead…”
  • Prov. 14:26, “In the fear of the LORD one has strong confidence, and His children [sons] will have a refuge.

Clearly, God (Elohim) in these places in His Word, considers men (people) to be His sons (or, children-1121, ben); thus, sons of God in actuality.  The Word of God is propositional, not formulaic — it’s words are meant to be taken for their face-value meaning, and no magic formula of special word orders are to be looked for.

Objection 2: Why does Paul instruct, in 1 Cor. 11:10, that a woman should cover her head as a sign of subjection to her husband, and because of angels!”  Can it possible be because of what occurred in Genesis 6, where angels were seduced by the wiles and charm of women and that such women were also a temptation that they should be covered?  Look at the context again, and notice where the head covering was meant as a symbol of authority.  Let me also point out that “angels” (as well as “sons of God” when used of angels) is ALWAYS used of GOOD angels, and NEVER of BAD angels (except when speaking of the fall of good angels who then became bad angels).  Job 1:6, “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and satan ALSO came among them.”  Why does it say “also?”  It is because satan did not belong to that group called the sons of God — no evil “angel” does…

John 8

42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him.

Satan certainly does not love God, so he is no longer a son of God.  And his minions who carry out his desires are now sons of satan rather than sons of God.  So what the proponents of the mating-angels theory propose in Genesis 6 is really that good angels, not already fallen angels, were tempted by women and gave up their first estate as good angels in heaven and fell into wicked unions with women on earth.  And that is indeed what is being proposed for 1 Cor. 11:10.  If Paul had been telling the women to avoid tempting the devils, he would have plainly said so.  Rather, he said it was for the angels’ sake that the women wear the covering (symbol of authority) on their heads.  So then, they are consistently proposing that even the holy angels in heaven are continually tempted by human women — tempted to even now give up their rightful place around God’s throne and engage in wicked union with women.  My, those poor angels — century after century of unfulfilled (but God-given) desire.  And how is a head covering worn in public supposed to be any real relief to these angels?  Have you considered the multitudes of immodest women who leave far more uncovered?  Angels not only live forever, they can travel all over the world, and they are everywhere watching though they are unseen.  If these angels would be so tempted by a woman’s hair, do you think they would look the other way when the woman took off that head covering and every other piece of clothing so she could bathe — or have sex?  Seriously, with all that angels must be witness to, it is strange to think that a head covering worn in public would really make any difference whatsoever.

Objection 3: Why does Jude 1:6 speak of “angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode… reserved in everlasting chains under darkness”?

There are three main New Testament passages that deal with this: Jude 1:5-7; 1 Peter 3:18-22; 2 Peter 2:4-11.

Jude 1

5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

The context here is a comparison of the apostasy of these false teachers to the famous apostasies and rebellions of the past.  Unbelievers in Egypt are mentioned in v. 5; angels who did not keep their proper domain are mentioned in v. 6; Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in v. 7.  That is why, in v. 11, these false teachers are said to have “gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.”  All of these examples are similar rebellions, and examples of those whom God has judged and punished.  Each example is tied back to these false teachers and their conduct and faults.  The proper domain of the angels was worshiping God and serving Him in holiness.  When Lucifer rebelled against God, he took a third of the angels with him as evil but loyal followers (Rev. 12:1; Is. 14:12).  It is these who left their proper domain.  “As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh…”  By “these,” in, “in a similar manner to these,” is not meant the angels of the previous verse, but simply the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.  “…as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these [Sodom and Gommorah], having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh…”

1 Pet. 3

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.

“By whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison…”  The words “by whom” refer to the Spirit by whom He was made alive.  It was by that Spirit that He went and preached to the spirits in prison.  It is these spirits who were disobedient in the days of Noah and perished in the flood, and thus sent to the prison of hell (having been sent there at their death), and that is why they are NOW in prison.  However, Christ did not preach to the spirits after they were already in prison; but rather, He, by the Spirit, went and preached to them during the days of Noah.  Christ, by the Spirit, preached to the people of Noah’s day (whose spirits are now in hell), and He did so THROUGH Noah-“while the ark was being prepared..”  (Barnes and Clarke, in their respective commentaries, agree with this understanding).

2 Peter 2

4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)- 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment…

Why would God (through Peter) use these three examples together?  The one common factor being illustrated is the awesome judgment and punishment of God in a major biblical event.  The fall from heaven of Lucifer and a third of the angels, the destruction of the whole world by flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.  There is no need nor any justification in the text for the assertion that the first judgment (that of the angels) happened chronologically at the flood (and for the same reasons), or for the assertion that all three were judgments specifically caused by “seeking after strange flesh” as was the case of the third judgment.

Objection 4: Since it is all speculation, no theory or interpretation can be superior to the popular “mating angels” theory.

The key to seeing clearly through any fog of speculative theories is to focus on what Scripture has revealed with certainty.  Whenever there is much speculative “freedom” involved in a topic, there is always the temptation to abuse that freedom by overextending the boundaries of speculation.  This occurs when a speculative theory ignores those things that Scripture has revealed with certainty and treats them as if they were subject to speculation just as the rest of the topic, in effect conforming revealed Scripture to the speculative theory.  It is of utmost importance that speculations always be conformed to the boundaries of what Scripture has certainly revealed, and that speculators be held accountable to the revelation of Scripture.  We are free to speculate regarding what Scripture has not revealed with certainty, but we are NOT free to speculate regarding what Scripture HAS revealed with certainty.

It is a matter of speculation as to whether or not angels mated with human women and produced “nephilim.”  However, it is NOT a matter of speculation as to why God destroyed the earth with flood.

Gen. 6:5-7

5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

Scripture is explicitly clear that the reason was MORAL corruption.  There is no room for denial on this point — not by any who submit to the authority of Scripture.  If it is speculatively held that angels mated with women and produced nephilim, then that fact MUST be understood as either incidental or contributive to the MORAL corruption of mankind, since that is the reason God destroyed the earth with flood.

This revealed FACT of Scripture alone knocks down much of the speculative “house of cards” built around so-called “genetic corruption.”

Objection 5: Since the Book of Enoch was revered by the early Church, and even quoted in the Bible, then its legitimacy is undeniable.

The early Church, even right from the beginning with the Apostles, believed the Word of God to include only those books written in the past that were accepted by the Jews as the Word of God (Genesis through Malachi).  Though the early Church recognized certain books and letters written by Apostles as part of the Bible, such old books as the Book of Enoch were never accepted as Scripture by the Jews, the Apostles, or the early Church — regardless of what high esteem they were otherwise held in.  Since these books are not Scripture, then they have not benefited from either divine inspiration or divine preservation from corruption.  Thus, they are unreliable.

Objection 6: In Gen. 6, satan is said to have a “seed,” and this can only refer to the nephilim.

Genesis 3

15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

“I will put enmity between you and the woman…” What had the serpent done?  He had put enmity between the God and the woman, by influencing her to sin against God.  Now, God says that He will reverse this, which is a clear reference to salvation.  Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Bible commentary, explains it this way:

Enmity with the enemy of God indicated a return to friendship with God, and presupposed incipient feelings of repentance toward him, and reviving confidence in his word . The perpetuation of this enmity is here affirmed, in regard not only to the woman, but to her seed.  This prospect of seed, and of a godly seed, at enmity with evil, became a fountain of hope to our first parents, and confirmed every feeling of returning reverence for God which was beginning to spring up in their breast.  The word heard from the mouth of God begat faith in their hearts, and we shall find that this faith was not slow to manifest itself in acts.

“…and between your seed and her seed…”

God’s salvation will also put enmity between men and the devil for all generations to come.  Eve’s seed consist of mankind in a general sense, since she is the mother of all living (and all men are born of a woman).  It is not necessary for all men to be at enmity with the devil, but only that there will always be those of the woman’s seed who are at enmity with him.  As for the serpent’s seed, it is not necessary that such seed be literal descendants, since Eve was a physical being and the devil possessing the serpent is a spiritual being by nature.  All those whom satan influences to share in his enmity against God become his seed or his children, whether fellow fallen angels or men who fall to his temptations.  The devil is spiritually dead and under condemnation.  When Adam and Eve sinned, they took on the image of the devil, but only because their spiritual condition was now the same as his.  When God makes believers into His children, He restores His image within them.  The devil propagates by causing his fallen image to be formed within men.  Though the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent are parallel in this verse, the difference in the methods of obtaining those seed are just as vast as the difference between the serpent and the woman.  Barnes states:

We cannot pass over this part of the sentence without noticing the expression, “the seed of the woman.”  Does it not mean, in the first instance, the whole human race?  Was not this race at enmity with the serpent?  And though that part only of the seed of the woman which eventually shared in her present feelings could be said to be at enmity with the serpent spirit, yet, if all had gone well in Adam’s family, might not the whole race have been at enmity with the spirit of disobedience?  Was not the avenue to mercy here hinted at as wide as the offer of any other time?  And was not this universality of invitation at some time to have a response in the human family?  Does not the language of the passage constrain us to look forward to the time when the great mass, or the whole of the human race then alive on the earth, will have actually turned from the power of Satan unto God?  This could not be seen by Adam.  But was it not the plain import of the language, that, unless there was some new revolt after the present reconciliation, the whole race would, even from this new beginning, be at enmity with the spirit of evil?  Such was the dread lesson of experience with which Adam now entered upon the career of life, that it was to be expected he would warn his children against departing from the living God, with a clearness and earnestness which would be both understood and felt…

“I will put enmity.”  This is still more strictly applicable to the spiritual enemy of mankind.  It intimates a hereditary feud between their respective races, which is to terminate, after some temporary suffering on the part of the woman’s seed, in the destruction of the serpent’s power against man.  The spiritual agent in the temptation of man cannot have literally any seed.  But the seed of the serpent is that portion of the human family that continues to be his moral offspring, and follows the first transgression without repentance or refuge in the mercy of God.  The seed of the woman, on the other hand, must denote the remnant who are born from above, and hence, turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God.

he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” Now, a specific, individual seed in brought into view.  Notice that when the text regarding the seed moves from general to specific (from the many to the one), there is no individual seed of satan to interact with the individual seed of the woman (Christ).  While God has a Messiah, in the God-man, Jesus Christ, His eternal Son, it is the devil himself that will bruise His heel and have his head crushed by the Lord.  So while the seed of the devil are spoken of in a general sense, regarding the enmity that God will put between them and the people whom God saves, the text does not speak of the devil’s seed in any singular, individual sense as it does about the woman’s seed.  In other words, there is a singular individual, the seed of a woman, who will deal with the devil in the end; but there is no singular individual, the seed of the devil, who is spoken of here.  Just as the seed of the serpent is meant in a general sense, the seed of the woman is compared in the parallel in a general sense.  Then, as the seed of the woman gets specific, and prophesies of the Messiah, it is the serpent (the devil) who is compared in the parallel. Barnes explains:

Still further, do we not pass from the general to the particular in the sentence, “He shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel?”  Is not the seed of the woman here individualized and matched in deadly conflict with the individual tempter?  Does not this phraseology point to some pre-eminent descendant of the woman, who is, with the bruising of his lower nature in the encounter, to gain a signal and final victory over the adversary of man?

…It is the seed of the woman especially that is to bruise his head.  It is singular to find that this simple phrase, coming in naturally and incidentally in a sentence uttered four thousand years, and penned at least fifteen hundred years, before the Christian era, describes exactly and literally Him who was made of woman without the intervention of man, that He might destroy the works of the devil.  This clause in the sentence of the tempter is the first dawn of hope for the human family after the fall.  We cannot tell whether to admire more the simplicity of its terms, the breadth and comprehensiveness of its meaning, or the minuteness of its application to the far-distant event which it mainly contemplates.

Therefore, this verse does not support the hybrid-nephilim or serpent-seed theories.

Objection 7. The increasing prevalence of UFO activity cannot be denied.  Our nephilim theory is the best and only explanation; and we have a responsibility to warn the world.  Besides that, we can reach more sinners for Christ by preaching to them about the Nephilim — “As in the days of Noah, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be…” 

If these supposed UFO activities are so prevalent, then why are they always the other guy, and never me?  No one I know has ever seen one or been abducted.  Reports from enthusiasts abound, but never with solid proof.  They are said to be landing everywhere, but never on the Whitehouse lawn, never at a major airport. They are said to abduct millions of people, but never a reporter with a camera, never an interview, never any confirmation.

Even if given as true, what does it really matter?  They would be just one more group of beings added to the list of those who are evil with intent to harm us.  And if these demonic creatures capture you physically, is that really any worse than if they capture you morally with temptation?  The devil’s minions have been trapping people and capturing them since Eden.  The fact is that they can do nothing to us unless permission is given them from Above.  So we are not to fear them, but fear God alone.  Neither should we preach to men to fear the Nephilim or the UFO’s.  Rather, we should preach to men to fear God and the coming Judgment.  If “prophetic” preaching that the world is coming to an end soon can be shown to result in more conversions than the “plain, old-fashioned” preaching of the gospel that sinners are headed to hell and may be saved from their sins by the blood of Christ, then the additional conversions resulting from the former are not genuine conversions.  If a man does not think his own mortality and impending death is enough reason to embrace Christ in faith, neither will he believe if given some thrilling theme of nephilim and prophetic doom.  As Abraham told the rich man, if they will not believe Scripture (Moses and the Prophets), then they will not (genuinely) believe even if one rise from the dead.  Since Paul was a divinely inspired apostle, he must have known more of these things then we can ever know, and yet his method of preaching was to preach Christ crucified and nothing else.  “For Jews demand signs, and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified…”  And to preach to sinners that nephilim are returning in UFOs would be to preach signs.  “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”  The only thing that we ought to warn people of is that they are headed for certain judgment and hell; and the only thing we need to preach to them is Christ and Him crucified.

Let the devil and his minions do whatever is theirs to do.  Let US focus on GOD and what HE is doing.  The world seeks to capture our attention and our minds.  The devil seeks to capture our hearts and our testimonies.  The old man within each of us seeks to capture the throne within us.  If we get these things right, we have no need whatsoever to concern ourselves with UFO’s or nephilim.

Ken Hamrick, 2011

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Indigenous Posts, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Insurmountable Problems with the Angel-Human Hybrid Theory of the Nephilim

  1. Edward says:

    Honestly, while I really hoped to believe what you were saying, I’m sorry but I see your premise is wrong to begin with. You appear to be blinded by your own presuppostional apriori prejudice that all but says “Since we rational Christians know of course that these kinds of creature just do not exist let us say why” May I remind you Sir, that the Bible is our authority of what is out there,not you? Really,what you write is not any such exegetical examination of the subject, but seems to me to be nothing else but rationalistic anti-supernaturism.

    But without even going into this very controversial subject, I can tell you that even as a young 14 year old reading the Genesis account of the flood, I was immediately struck by God’s ultra extreme measure of destroying all the humans on the face of the earth just because they were partying and having a good time, as my Sunday school teacher taught us to believe.
    Those like yourself who teach us that there were no such things as the vile and extremely violent hybird humans, which caused a loving Creator to destroy them all, make a mockery of God’s holy character!

    This to me, is the real problem, not really the Nephilim of the sons of God, which being a Hebrew speaker I happen to know it always speaks of angels and never humans in the Bible.

  2. Ken Hamrick says:

    …And yet it calls them “mighty men of old, men of renown. You’ve made it clear that you do not like what I’ve written in this article. But you have not offered a substantive, point-by-point rebuttal. I suggest you start with the objections and and provide a reasonable rebuttal of each. I say you cannot.

  3. mike says:

    Jasher 3:23
    2 Peter 2:4
    Jude 1:6
    Josephus 3:1
    Jubilees V:1-20
    I Enoch 6:1-2
    I Enoch 7:2-6
    Jasher 4:18
    Wisdom of Solomon 14:6
    Wisdom of Sirach 16:7
    Book of Baruch 3:26

    All of these passages, which btw were read by Jesus himself, validate Genesis 6 as being exactly what it says….Angels lusted after women, married them, and produced hybrid giants. The early church had this understanding, but the leaders of the day in the 4th century didn’t like it and made up the sethite view at the council of laodicea. The books i mentioned above may not be “inspired” by God, but they are not heresy, they were widely read by the early church, a few of them were included in the bible until the 1800s.

  4. jay adams says:

    Excellent article. Many other arguments that the believers of this Hybrid theory that are given are also speculative and not biblically sound. Surprising that some very good preachers fall for this because they make assumptions based on what they’ve heard from Jewish Rabbi writings such as the Book of Enoch that created these myths/fables.

  5. jay adams says:

    Hebrews 1:5 “5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
    “You are my Son,
    today I have begotten you”?
    Or again, “I will be to him a father,
    and he shall be to me a son”?

    The phrase “sons of God”, “children of God”, “children of the Living God” area always used when in Direct/Literal
    language as those who have received the spirit of Adoption. It’s littered all throughout the NT too. Those of Faith
    in the OT as well. The only exception is Job 38:7 which uses Poetic Imagery and it refers to “morning stars” (stars
    in the Heavens” and sons of God “Sun and Moon” praising creation just as the Rocks will cry out if no one praises
    the Lord.

Comments are closed.