Commencing a review of more of TJ Steadman’s views on Rephaim form his book Answers to Giant Question.
You can find all of my articles regarding TJ Steadman here.
Here are some of TJ Steadman’s claims about Rephaim in general, “The clans of the Rephaim are listed as: Rephaims, Emims, Horims, Zamzummims, Anakims, Horims, Avims and Caphtorims. All of these were Repahim. All were giants…the armies of the Rephaim, Zuzim, Emim, Horites, Amalekites and Amorites” I will note that it is quoted sic. due to listing Rephaims as being one of the “clans of the Rephaim” which is just circular and since he listed Horims twice in a simple error or repetition.
He notes that Rephaim were:
Those are people who became transformed by the powers of darkness into inhuman beings. They were normal people created in God’s image before that happened. What becomes of them?
The Rephaim chose to change themselves into the giants they became.
Therefore, the glorification they sought before men was the only “glory” they would ever receive. That fleeting aggrandizement would prove to fall far short of the eternal glory awaiting the children of God in their imputed righteousness.
Having deliberately deformed and defiled themselves, they can no longer bear the image of the holy God. They have cut themselves off from the line of Adam; they have removed themselves from the family of Noah; they have been scattered from Abraham’s people and have denied the throne of David. The Rephaim are unredeemable by virtue of having “disrobed” themselves of humanity.
Theologians tend to speak in terms of God’s perfect will vs. God’s permissive will. Thus, Nephilim were created “outside of God’s express will,” not His perfect will but His permissive will: which permits sin even whilst condemning it.
There is zero biblical evidence that Rephaim are what he claims they are. Biblically they are good ol’ fashioned human beings, some of whom were subjectively tall: such as the Anakim subgroup of Rephaim. For why he thinks what he wrote, see my article TJ Steadman on the rise and fall and rise of Nimrod aka Enmerkar, Giant, Nephil, Repha, Assyrian, Rahab, Leviathan.
In the part of his book I am quoting, he claim “Rephaim chose to change themselves into the giants” but in another part he claims, “Nimrod found a way to become a giant, a fate with which he had planned to infect all of humanity,” which is mere theo-sci-fi and that Nimrod exercised the “power to invoke the spirits of the dead Nephilim giants from the Flood, the Anuna-gods…They were the Rephaim” so where never human, and claims that Nimrod “brought the Rephaim into existence by summoning a power from the great deep.”
The last statement in the quote preaches good, as some say, but is a faulty conclusion based on a faulty premise.
TJ Steadman writes:
From Deuteronomy we know that the Anakims (sons of Anak) were Rephaim giants (along with the Emims, but more on that later), so we now see the descendants of Anak referred to as both Nephilim and Rephaim. How are the two names connected?
…the definition of Nephilim is best described as simply “Giants.” Rephaim does not only mean “Giants,” but there is a very strong allusion to the spirits of the dead (“spirits; shades; ghosts; the dead”). Literally, the Rephaim warriors were men who possessed the features and the living spirits of the dead Nephilim.
For this reason, the term Nephilim alone does not suffice to describe the post-Flood giants and is used only to make the connection apparent between them. This combination of Nephilim spirits in Anakim bodies produces a kind of duality common to all the diverse giant tribes.
The term “Rephaim giants” only causes confusion, especially since TJ Steadman uses the term “giants” to mean many things and leaves us to guess to what or whom he is referring at any given time. Biblically, “Rephaim giants” means “Rephaim Rephaim” and if he means “Rephaim of some generically unusual height” then no such thing is ever stated about Rephaim as a whole but only of certain Rephaim such as Anakim who are a Rephaim subgroup.
As for where we see Anakim being “referred to as both Nephilim and Rephaim” the reply is that they are not connected and the one and only time when Anakim are referred to as such is within Num 13:33 rebuked “evil report” which had it that, as the KJV has it, “there we saw the giants [Nephilim], the sons of Anak, which come of the giants [Nephilim]” which is a bit awkward. Some of the renderings seem to imply that “giants [Nephilim]” are “the sons of Anak” but then that Anakim “come of the giants [Nephilim]” which is circular. Thus, it is understood that the claim was that “we saw the giants [Nephilim]” and that “the sons of Anak, which come of the giants [Nephilim]” so that they are somehow related.
Yet, they are not related since Nephilim did not make it past the flood and Anakim come from the man name Anak.
Now, he referred to “Rephaim giants” and that “the definition of Nephilim is best described as simply ‘Giants’” which is incoherent since it begs the question: how could it be best described as simply “Giants” since we are not told what “Giants” means.
Moreover, “Giants” cannot be the “best described” definition of “Nephilim” since “Nephilim” does not mean nor imply “Giants” is any language.
I know, I know, some of you are yelling, “But, but, but Heiser!!!”
If from the Hebrew root naphal then Nephilim refers to fall, fallen, to cause to fall, etc.
When Nephilim is rendered to Greek in the Septuagint/LXX, the term gigantes is used which merely means “earth-born” (yet, the LXX also renders gibborim and also Rephaim as gigantes which only causes confusion).
I know, I know, some of you are yelling, “But, but, but Heiser!!!”
If from the Aramaic root naphiyla then well, Dr. Michael Heiser claims it means “giants” but the J. Edward Wright Endowed Professor of Judaic Studies states it (who is J. Edward Wright, Ph.D. himself, and who is the Director of the Arizona Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Arizona) “The term traditionally translated as ‘giants’ in both the Greek Septuagint (γιγαντες) and now in English is נפילים nephilim, a term based on the root נפל npl meaning ‘fall.’ It has nothing to do with size” and specifies that this goes for both Hebrew and Aramaic as “The root npl in Aramaic also means fall and not giants.”[1]
Now, this may just be a battle of the qualified academics, and I will leave the experts to it. Yet, note that Heiser telling us that it means “giants” only begs the question of what “giants” means. Since we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim then we cannot claim to know they were unusually tall nor to claim that we can know they were unusually tall based on the definition of a root word in Aramaic since then we commit the word-concept fallacy of claiming that we can determine the concept from the usage of a word.
Example, since I (at six ft. even in modern day North America) have been called a “giant” many times, including many times by my wife, then you must conclude that I am unusually tall but I am really not.
Heiser’s main problem is not that he is vague and comes up against Wright’s claims but that he thinks that Nephilim really were unusually tall based on simply picking up Num 13:33 uncritically and running with it.
Two more issues before moving on:
It is a fact that Heiser, rightly, claims that no one in the Bible, including “giants,” were taller than right around 8 ft so, so much for the theo-sci-fi-tall-tales of those pop-researchers who use and misuse his research. I would opt for no taller than 8 ft but even less would still be unusually tall to the average Israelite male who in those days was 5.0-5.3 ft. (so women were even shorter, on average).
In all of his papers, books, interviews, videos, etc. Heiser has consistently failed to interact with the narrative of Num 13—and since that is the second of only two Nephilim verses then that omission is a gigantic one.
In all he has produced he has merely devoted one paragraph size footnote on it and it is merely a generically dismissive assertion of a statement.
See my book The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants wherein I feature Heiser as well as various articles on my site plus Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus’ genealogy.
TJ Steadman claimed, “Rephaim does not only mean ‘Giants’” yet, does not only mean and actually does not mean that at all. Think about it, he has stated that “Nephilim” or naphal or naphiyla or npl means “giant” and also that Rephaim or repha/rapha or rph means “giant” and two very different words rarely mean the very same thing, au fond, etymologically.
What he does is to take the root word repha/rapha and apply its various meanings to one thing. That very complicated root refers to concepts are varied as healing and dead and is also used of a people group but that does not mean any and all definitions of a root need be or even can be applied to every and any usage.
Now, in our modern day it is very simple for anyone to look up the terms Nephilim and Rephaim in a biblical dictionary, encyclopedia, lexicographical, or various other resources and read that those words mean “giant.”
Yet, you must not leave it at that but see how those resources define “giant.”
And, then see how they treat Num 13:33’s “evil report” since they will most likely actually believe it and will then use that rebuked assertion to define Nephilim and Rephaim.
Thus, it is an unscholarly viciously circle—yet, as my book The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants proves, a lot of scholars actually do just what Heiser does, they pick up a rebuked “evil report,” actually believe it, and run with it.
Thus, just because some of the dead are referred to by the term repha/rapha, that does not mean that the Rephaim people-group were shades/ghosts/spirits of the dead nor that they “possessed the features and the living spirits of the dead Nephilim” which is a biblically incoherent assertion.
Thus, it is not for these reasons that “the term Nephilim alone does not suffice to describe the post-Flood giants” but because there is zero biblical correlation between “the term Nephilim” and whatever he means by “post-Flood giants.”
Yet, you can surely see why he is making such statements: he wants to first claim that Nephilim did not survive the flood but that they live on in spirit for as demons (because he actually believes pseudopigraphical folklore from millennia after the Torah was written) and then also claim that Nephilim returned physically in the guise of Rephaim—whom Nimrod allegedly manufactured via occult means at the Tower of Babel—who are Nephilim 2.0. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of an unbiblical theo-sci-fi-tall-tale.
Thus, he can affirm that only eight people and some animals survived the flood and/but that they did survive but only in spirit form (which of course they did since physical calamities do not affect spirits—which does not mean they became demons) and/but that they did return in physical form as Rephaim.
As for that a “combination of Nephilim spirits in Anakim bodies produces a kind of duality common to all the diverse giant tribes,” this is confused.
Firstly, he claimed that Rephaim are Nephilim 2.0 and then narrows that to that there are “Nephilim spirits in Anakim bodies” and Anakim are a Rephaim subgroup.
Yet, even since he actually believes the rebuked “evil report,” he can only get from it that the Anakim subgroup are related to Nephilim (not in the LXX, however) but not that all Rephaim are.
Such is why he must invent the theo-sci-fi tall tale about Nimrod’s occult powers to create Nephilim 2.0 which are conveniently no longer called Nephilim.
TJ Steadman further wrote:
It appears that the Rephaim came from the Amorites, since they were located within Amorite territory and have no evidence of lineage that shows any sign of external origins. Supporting this is the text of Genesis 15:16 “But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.”
This…paints a clear picture that what the Amorites were doing was that they were actually becoming the Rephaim.
As we know, Nimrod found a way to become a giant, a fate with which he had planned to infect all of humanity at Babel. That corruption was evidently passed on to the Amorites, who then began to give rise to the Rephaim, forming tribes of their own and taking possession of the Promised Land in advance of Abraham’s descendants.
Later in the book, he writes, “Rephaim – a mysterious group that have no lineage or historical origin to speak of in Scripture. The Rephaim seem to have just appeared out of the very ground.”
I am unsure how feasible it is to conclude or speculate that one people group came from another due to being from the same territory but let us go with it.
Now, interpreting this in accordance to TJ Steadman’s theo-sci-fi, “Rephaim came from the Amorites” and note that “the generations of the sons of Noah” include that he begat Ham and that “the sons of Ham” included Canaan and that “Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite” (see Gen 10).
Thus, Amorites did come from Cannan, himself actually, who came from Noah (and you can trace Noah’s genealogy back to Adam, of course).
So, how did Noah’s descendants become shades/ghosts/spirits of the dead, as TJ Steadman describes Rephaim? Well, they did not, of course, which is why be concocted an occult tale about Nimrod which must mean that Amorites were the unfortunate group that somehow ended up being pinpointed by Nimrod for transformation into Rephaim—the supposed demon-Nephilim spirit possessed ex-humans.
That is why he asserts “Amorites were…actually becoming the Rephaim.”
In stating, “Nimrod found a way to become a giant” we run into the problems of how he writes since we have to guess to what he is referring by “giant” and, in this case, it means a packaged deal: he thinks that Nimrod, by occult means, 1) became a “giant,” meaning became taller, 2) became a “giant,” meaning became a Repha, 3) became a “giant,” meaning becoming a Repha by being possessed by Nephilim spirits, and 4) became a “giant,” meaning became mighty.
Actually, 4 is the one and only thing the Bible, contextually, tells us about him is “Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.”
Now, since “mighty” is translating “gibbor” and Nephilim were referred to as “gibborim” then TJ Steadman thinks that there is a correlation but the only correlation is that they were both mighty: and the same term is used of Angels, of David’s soldiers, of Boaz, of God, etc.
Overall, sure, Amorites are one of the people groups that when about “forming tribes of their own and taking possession of the Promised Land in advance of Abraham’s descendants” but that has nothing to do with becoming occultically manufactured Nephilim 2.0 called Rephaim.
TJ Steadman further writes:
Rephaims: a tribal name for a race of giant men associated with the spirits of the dead pre-Flood Nephilim. The term appears only twice in the KJV, and both times it refers to specific tribes going by the name of Rephaims. As most other Bible versions do not use the double plural “Rephaims,” we will simply use “Rephaim” to refer to the giant tribes. Your version may have “Rephaim” or even “Rephaites.”
As we have seen, that definition of “Rephaims” is contrived, confused, and unsupported and equally so if we swap it for Rephaims.
He and I actually have a lot in common which is part of why I am writing articles of the sharpening iron with iron variety—yet, I have come to note that when we set out to sharpen iron with iron, someone tends to get cut.
For example, he refers to the term “Rephaims” as being a “double plural”—since the “im” ending is the Hebrew (male) plural and the “s” ending is the English plural—which he wrote in his 2020 book and in my 2019 book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology I wrote, “the KJV translates as a form of double plural.”
As far as I know, he did not know that I existed mid to late 2020 when our debate took place so it was just a case of common sense on both our parts.
Now, as for Rephaites/Rephaims as “the giant tribes,” biblically that only means Rephaim tribes with no implication of unusual height.
TJ Steadman noted:
Psalm 88:10 “Wilt thou shew wonders to the dead? shall the dead arise and praise thee?”
The first use of “the dead” here is muwth as we have seen elsewhere, referring to the spirits of those who have died. But the second is rephaim, meaning “the departed spirits.” This is the same as the description in Job 26:5.
Now we can see something of the character of the dead people in question. According to this verse, the rhetorical line of questioning implies that they are in denial and they refuse to honor God.
These are therefore characterized as evil spirits, and they are associated with the dead. But how is it that they are referred to as “departed?”
For the Israelites, when a person died their spirit was believed to reside in Sheol, the realm of the dead, which was cosmologically linked with the earth in which the body was buried. The spirit then resided in the same place as the body.
However, a departed spirit is able to leave Sheol. This idea relates closely to that ascribed to the Ugaritic r’pum (Rephaim) who were believed to be able to rise from ‘arts (the earth as the dwelling place of the dead, similar to the way Hebrew Sheol is sometimes interchangeable with ‘erets) to dwell on the earth. Hence the rhetorical “shall the dead rise to praise thee?” The implication is that the spirit in question may rise, but it was never going to.
We should wonder if we should read such distinctions in to different words for what, after all, even in English we may call by various terms such as the dead, deceased, passed away, etc.
Yet, perhaps there is something to it.
Considering TJ Steadman’s views on Rephaim, let us narrow down the linguistic some more and then drill down to the Ugaritic context.
He rightly notes:
It is worth remembering that not every occurrence of the term ‘rapha’ indicates that we are looking at the spirits of the Nephilim, although connotatively there is an association…the term ‘rapha’ is used to connect them with the opposition to God and Israel that they wrought upon the earth when they live as Rephaim. However, the actual Rephaim spirits are not only present in the underworld but roam the earth disembodied.
Here are some of the repha/rapha roots (plural):
H7495 is used for healing and physicians (related to H7499 rephu’ah that is used for medicine).
H7496 is used for dead/deceased.
H7497 is used when referring to descendants of, valley of, or land of Rephaim.
H7498 is used of a particular person mentioned in 1 Chronicles 8 vss. 2 and 37.
In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, Heiser wrote, “The biblical Rephaim are never cast as ‘healers’ in context” and “some texts clearly suggest that the Rephaim are warrior kings.”
He also notes, “Isaiah 14:9 is particularly interesting in this respect, as it describes Sheol awaiting the repha’im, a term set in parallel to ‘the leaders (literally, ‘goats’) of the earth’ who were ‘kings of the nations.’”
So, Rephaim were not necessarily healers but I can tell you who is a repha healer, “I am the LORD that healeth thee” which reads YHVH Repha (Exodus 15:26).
In my article Dead Kings and Rephaim: The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty, I quoted Baruch Levine and Jean-Michel de Tarragon’s Journal of the American Oriental Society article “Dead Kings and Rephaim: The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty” wherein they note that within a text known as KTU 1.161—which is “The written record of the sacred celebration [in honor] of the Patrons”—“Rephaim, and departed, historic kings” are referenced separately thus, “the historic kings are not among the most ancient Rephaim.”
They conclude, “our text compels us to conclude that the Rephaim are long departed kings (and heroes) who dwell in the netherworld…the Rephaim of our text are royal ancestors…Kings and heroes do, ultimately, become Rephaim…the Rephaim and the recently departed kings.”
Thus, these two categories of dead are actually one in the same but at different stages.
Is this concept that to which the Psalm and Job were appealing? Perhaps, perhaps not. Yet, it is at least worth considering in terms of literary context and historical context.
In such a case, this would not be a case of “evil spirits…associated with the dead” but different stages of death—different lengths of time that they have been dead.
Back to TJ Steadman’s point about “evil spirits” who could “leave Sheol…able to rise…to dwell on the earth…the spirit in question may rise” so that “actual Rephaim spirits are not only present in the underworld but roam the earth disembodied” because they are actually Nephilim 2.0 spirits.
He additionally wrote:
Psalm 88 and its use of “rephaim” as “the spirits of the dead who dwell in the underworld.” But in the Greek…the use of “rephaim” as physicians or healers would indicate the idea that the LXX writers believed the dead could, in fact, be raised or brought back form the underworld:
Psalm 87:11 (NETS) “Surely, you shall not work wonders for the dead? Or will physicians rise up, and they acknowledge you?”…
Observe another use of Rephaim: Job 26:5 “Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof.” The LXX makes the connection even clearer, using the word “Giants” instead of “dead things.”
Now, the one and only biblical indication that any such thing could occur is 1 Samuel 28’s reference to the medium of Endor.
Therein, God has turned away from King Saul and Saul orders his servants “Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit,” one is found who lives in Endor.
“Saul disguised himself” and traveled to her, asking her to “divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up.” Yet, she replies, “Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die?”
He assures her “there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.” Saul asks her to “bring up…Samuel” and “when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.”
Saul asks, “what sawest thou?” to which she replies, “I saw gods [Elohim] ascending out of the earth.”
Now, what was this all about? It is difficult to be certain since it is a unique event and does not provide many details not a commentary.
But let us begin with that it was indeed, a unique event. Does it mean that mediums could regularly do this or did she shout because it was just a parlor trick scam but this time it actually happened and it freaked her out?
Perhaps this was a unique event that God allowed in order to make a point.
Yet, perhaps she yelled because, apparently, Samuel said something about Saul calling him—since she yells and “Why hast thou deceived me?” and instantly knows, “thou art Saul.”
I would opt of the unique, God allowed, case only because it is indeed unique and we are told in texts such as many in Ecclesiastes that the dead know nothing, etc. within the context of what is going on upon the Earth, under the Sun.
I actually proposed a false dichotomy: it could also be that it was parlor trick scam but this time it actually happened and Samuel referenced Saul which freaked her out.
It seems to me that when mediums, by any other name such as channelers, etc., claim to be speaking to the spirits of people’s loved ones, they are actually speaking to demons who were around those families and so can related some accurate info sometimes—along with 99% of what the mediums/channelers do being a cold reading scam (made all the more easy with modern day tech such as people making their lives open books online).
TJ Steadman writes that a Ugarit] “‘the Rephaim Texts,’ contain rituals and incantations for summoning the spirts of the Rephaim” but just because Pagans claim the ability to do something, does not, of course, mean they were able to actually do it.
As for “The LXX makes the connection even clearer, using the word ‘Giants’ instead of ‘dead things.’” The exact opposite is the case, the LXX made things more confusing by rendering rapha in the Job text as “gigantes” (no, not “Giants,” of course). It is confusion, to personages such as TJ Steadman who suffer from that which I term gigorexia nervosa because the LXX also renders (no, not even translates) “Nephilim” as “gigantes” as well—and “gibborim” as “gigantes” as well—which is incoherent.
TJ Steadman wrote, “king Arad was guilty of divination by means of the Rephaim spirits” which is something I cannot seem to verify nor even find a vague reference.
In any case, continuing with TJ Steadman’s claims about Rephaim. He writes of “Rap`iu of Bashan (Canaanite Bathan) looks more like ‘the one who is joined of the serpent.’”
Rap`iu refers to Rephaim.
I would imagine that since Bashan actually means fruitful and refers to a district east of the Jordan known for its fertility, and that is not sexy enough for theo-sci-fi, he opts for an alternate rendering and/or transliteration in order to claim that it not only denotes serpent but that it refers to “the one who is joined of the serpent” all because tan, or than as he has to have it here, can refer to what which is variously termed dragon, sea/river monster, venomous snake/serpents, etc. in the form of the word tanniyn.
Yet, this is still all very myopic and selective since, for example, in Rabbinic Judaism the sage of the gemara (those who comment upon the Mishna) are called the Tannaim with the Aramaic teni referring to repeating and so is a term indicative of teaching or learning by repetition.
TJ Steadman writes that an event:
…recorded in the Cuthaean Legend is the creation of an army of strange hybrid creatures. These beings are described as partridge-bodied, raven-faced humans…they are known as the Umman-manda…This bears comparison to the Biblical Rephaim giants.
How “partridge-bodied, raven-faced humans…bears comparison to the Biblical Rephaim giants” is certainly as mysterious as it is incoherent and unfounded.
Even how “strange hybrid creatures…bears comparison to the Biblical Rephaim giants” is certainly as mysterious as it is incoherent and unfounded.
He also claims:
Isaiah 26 has much to say about the Rephaim. Firstly, the use in verses 13-14 refers to the Rephaim as lords (or, kings), which supports the idea that the ancient kings of the world were empowered by the Rephaim, like Nimrod, Og, Sihon, Amalek/Agag, Arba, Anak and many others.
Just because Rephaim, who ruled their own tribes and lands were “lords (or, kings)” has nothing whatsoever to do with that “ancient kings of the world were empowered by the Rephaim.” The former is biblically and historically verifiable, the latter is theo-sci-fi.
I do agree that ancient, and modern, kings (by any other name) were and are empowered but it is not by Rephaim spirits, see my article The Apocalypse of the Hidden Hand: The Bible’s teaching on the spiritual sovereign behind the human sovereign.
TJ Steadman writes:
As Lucifer’s humiliation continues in this passage [Isaiah 14:9-10], we see more allusions to the Nephilim, the mighty men of old, men of renown.
The Isaiah text states, “Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?”
Neither Nephilim nor the root naphal appear in those verses. He does go on to quote Isaiah 14:20-25 but Nephilim nor the root naphal also does not appear therein. If I had to guess, I would say that he read the root word rapha in v. 9 (dead) and (mis) interpreted as per his theo-sci-fi to mean Nephilim 2.0.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply