Pastor Larry DeBruyn has written a reply in response to my defense of  Tom Horn and Chuck Missler which he posted at his own website here and at the herescope site here. I respect him as servant of the Lord, as well as the folks at Herescope who usually seem to be well intended. I have no personal axe to grind but I will call it like I see it. The original article entitled “Doomsday Datesetters 2012” is hyperbolic and inaccurate as both Missler and Horn are outspoken against date setting. I find this unfortunate as I have admired the work of Sarah Leslie in the past.

DeBruyn’s essay is well written and reflects more serious scholarship than the previous offering. While he acknowledges that the “sons of God” are certainly to be understood as supernatural beings, he advocates an odd non-contingent interpretation of the Nephilim’s relationship to the “sons of God.”  His interpretation lacks force as no ancient commentator nor modern Hebrew scholar I can find agrees with it. Exegesis is about getting to what the original author meant, not simply offering possible readings. This was all addressed thoroughly enough in my original post (refer to the quote form the Word Biblical Commentary).  Scholarship aside, I find his essay objectionable because DeBruyn has quoted me out of context, appropriating the same misleading methodology as Gaylene Goodroad.  DeBruyn writes:

Based upon this interpretation, this critic of the Herescope post cavalierly dismisses Mrs. Goodroad’s alternative interpretation “as an example of very poor exegesis” and that “there really is no valid scholarship to suggest otherwise”?[4] Condescendingly, he asserts that Mrs. Goodroad’s take is “histrionic” (i.e., meaning “excessively emotional or dramatic”).[1]

While it is easy to burn straw men, it doesn’t advance the discussion. This is a demonstrably unfair and inaccurate presentation of my criticism. I certainly did call her exegesis poor and her criticism histrionic but he has taken it out of context. I wrote “she seems histrionic in her assertions:” punctuated with a colon in specific reference to her accusation that the majority opinion amongst scholars (the supernatural offspring view) is a “scheme to downplay the importance of the incarnation…it takes away from Christ’s uniqueness, virgin birth, atonement” and that it “diminishes the Gospel!”[2] I wonder if she will also accuse Francis Schaeffer of “scheming to downplay the incarnation.” It is histrionic and patently absurd. My original criticism is actually quite generous. DeBruyn continues:

In his fine commentary on Genesis, Allen Ross notes “four predominant interpretations of the ‘sons of God’: they are

1. the line of Seth, the godly line;
2. fallen angels;
3. lesser gods; or
4. despots, powerful men.”[6]

As evidenced by reading both the Horns’ and Goodroad’s interpretations, both fall within the interpretative options Ross lists; the Horns identifying with number two, and Goodroad with number four. Obviously, if Goodroad’s interpretation falls within the fourth category, it is unfair to call her understanding “poor” and “histrionic.”

Again “histrionic” only seems unfair divorced from the context I offered it in. Why does he resort to such misleading antics? It is also important to note that the fact that a commentary lists four views says nothing about their validity. As my original post documented Hebrew Bible scholars are in wide agreement that the text means the Nephilim were the offspring of the fallen angels and human women. The commentary I quoted presented textual and historical evidence. Proper exegesis is to interpret a passage on its own terms interacting with the original languages. The goal is the author’s intent. Neither Goodroad nor DeBruyn are doing that in my opinion. They are relying on English translations and seem to have a preconceived agenda. That her exegesis was poor is also evidenced by her referring to the term “Watchers” as some sort of apocryphal device when it is used by the prophet Daniel in canonical scripture (Dan 4:13, 17, 23). Not to mention, that she argues the Nephilim were simply “big bullies” rather than supernaturally endowed. DeBruyn presents a slightly better argument by G. Charles Aaslders:

It has been correctly pointed out that the text establishes no causal connection between these two historical phenomena. In fact, the text specifically states that the giants were already present when the “sons of God” produced children by the “daughters of men.”[3]

If this is so, I wonder why the vast majority of Hebrew scholars see it otherwise. This is where exegesis comes into play. Using the Hebrew/English reverse interlinear in my logos bible software I quickly see that the Hebrew text of Genesis 6:4 reads:

The key term here אֲשֶׁר, rendered “when” in English also carries the meaning of “because.”

834 אֲשֶׁר, בַּאֲשֶׁר, כַּאֲשֶׁר, מֵאֲשֶׁר [’aher /ash·er/] . A primitive relative pronoun (of every gender and number); TWOT 184; GK 889 and 948 and 3876 and 4424; 111 occurrences; AV translates as “which”, “wherewith”, “because”, “when”, “soon”, “whilst”, “as if”, “as when”, “that”, “until”, “much”, “whosoever”, “whereas”, “wherein”, “whom”, and “whose”. 1 (relative part.). 1a which, who. 1b that which. 2 (conj). 2a that (in obj clause). 2b when. 2c since. 2d as. 2e conditional if. [4]

That definition surely supports a causal relationship.  I will be the first to admit that I am not a Semitic languages scholar but Dr. Michael Heiser, the academic editor for logos bible software, is a recognized authority. I emailed him the above argument by Aaslders that there was no causal connection and that the Nephilim were already present. He wrote back,

“I know of no grammatical possibility for this – ask him to produce it.”

Pastor DeBruyn, that is an invitation from Dr Heiser to mount an argument from the Hebrew grammar that supports a non-causal interpretation.  As far as DeBruyn’s view that there was nothing genetic going on with the Nephilim he contends,

Via the mating process, the “sons of God” appeared to have transgressed the created order of life, terrestrial and extraterrestrial, by infusing the “the daughters of men” with supernatural powers that they in turn, and in an occult way, passed on to the nephilim-gibborim, powers that might be compared unto those that will belong to the “man of sin” at the end of the age,[5]

While this is an interesting theory and likely has truth to it, I don’t understand the pressing need to divorce the account of any space-time material substantiality.  Angels manifest as physical beings in the bible, for instance the “men” that visited Abraham come to mind (Gen 18). The men of Sodom surely had little doubt about their material potential (Gen 19:5). But DeBruyn concludes,

In short, the Genesis record does not support the fantastic construct that the change in the nephilim was physical. When the sons of God took the daughters of men to wife, the nephilim were already giants.[6]

Again a quote from a dated commentary will not suffice. This is not supported by exegesis and it doesn’t make much sense logically. The text connects them firmly to the offspring of the angels (Gen 6:4). While I don’t know if it was genetic or purely supernatural, I suspect it was both. How can anyone say that there was no genetic component?  Giantism is a genetic condition and the biblical text also supports further evidence of mutations,

And there was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number, and he also was descended from the giants.(2 Sa 21:20)

That sure sounds physical to me!

Follow @logosapologia