Pastor Henry Au (“Bible teacher and writer…MPhil in Computer Science · Master of Theological Studies”) wrote an article titled Who Were the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6? And Who Were the Nephilim? for his Theology Blog.
It was in reply to this question, “Who exactly were the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6? And were the Nephilim simply famous warriors—or were they really ‘giants’?” along with the various questions than that which I term the Gen 6 affair begs.
He wrote, “My own conclusion is that the ‘sons of God’ are best understood as heavenly beings, and that the Nephilim belong to an ancient tradition of extraordinary, giant-like warrior figures. But that conclusion needs to be argued carefully.”
Indeed, and in part since we can’t know what, “giant-like” means without first knowing what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree?
As for, “heavenly beings” he may get more specific and for now, note that The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christian commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view as I proved in my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.
He reviews, “The Sethite View” which is a late-comer based on myth and prejudice. The claim is that the sons of God were, “descendants of Seth, the supposedly godly line” and, daughters of men were, “descendants of Cain…a faithful group with an ungodly group.”
Pastor Au notes, “The text never identifies the ‘sons of God’ as Sethites. Genesis nowhere explicitly calls the descendants of Seth ‘sons of God.’” What Sethite view adherents do at this point is to turn a general statement into a specific one since Gen 4 notes, “To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord” which they turn into that general, “people” actually refers specifically to Sethites.
Also, as Pastor Henry Au notes, “nor does Genesis clearly establish Seth’s descendants as an entirely godly community standing over against Cain’s descendants as an entirely ungodly one…The ‘daughters of humans’ are not identified as descendants of Cain” which is where the myth and prejudice come into play: Sethite view adherents are willing to condemn an entire genealogy, an entire lineage, based on being able to point to a grand total of 2-3 sins by 2 of its members and that’s unrighteously ungracefully worldly.
Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that, “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth. Granted, Pastor Au noted, “The textual tradition of Genesis 6:2 is not completely uniform. Some important Greek manuscripts preserve a reading corresponding to ‘sons of God,’ while others read ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ—‘angels of God.’”
He then reviews, “The Ruler View” which is an ancient one yet, hardly makes a blip on the radar of historical interpretations:
A second interpretation identifies the “sons of God” as ancient rulers or kings who claimed divine status. On this reading, Genesis 6 describes powerful men using their authority to seize women “whomever they chose”…
The Ruler View still needs to explain why the Nephilim appear in this context and why later Jewish tradition so consistently connected Genesis 6 with supernatural beings. Furthermore, Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4–5 both speak of sinful angels in the context of ancient judgment. Those passages do not explicitly say, “We are now interpreting Genesis 6,” so they should not be used as if the connection were undisputed. Nevertheless, they make a heavenly-transgression interpretation much harder to dismiss.
Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible. So, if they’re not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we’ve no idea to what sin they’re referring.
Pastor Au gets into, “The Divine Council Background”:
Psalm 82 portrays God standing in a divine assembly and judging other heavenly beings. Psalm 89 speaks of the “assembly of the holy ones.” In 1 Kings 22, Micaiah sees the LORD seated on His throne with the host of heaven standing around Him. Job 1 similarly depicts heavenly beings appearing before God.
This is sometimes described as the Divine Council. The point is not polytheism. These beings are created and subordinate. None is comparable to YHWH. Within this worldview, the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 can naturally be understood as members of the heavenly realm rather than descendants of a particular human family.
Psalm 82 is to what Jesus referred when He said, “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?…he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came.”
Via whom the word of God came is referenced when in Gal 3 it is noted, “the covenant…the law…was ordained by angels.”
Acts 7 refers to, “your fathers…received the law by the disposition of angels” ἄγγελος/angelos.
Heb 2 notes, “the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward.”
Pastor Henry Au further notes:
The Hebrew word Nephilim is rendered in Greek as γίγαντες (gigantes). This word lies behind the English word giants. That does not automatically settle every question about what the Nephilim physically looked like. In ancient usage, gigantes could carry associations with extraordinary, ancient, powerful warrior figures rather than functioning merely as a modern biological description of unusual height.
Nevertheless, it is clear that an ancient Jewish translation tradition understood the Nephilim as something more unusual than simply “famous people.”
Indeed, “γίγαντες (gigantes)…giants…does not automatically settle every question about what the Nephilim physically looked like” especially since the dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
At this point, I’ll note that the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
He then comments on am objection to the Angel view, “But Don’t Angels Neither Marry nor Give in Marriage?” that I will succinctly reply to by noting something what Pastor Au also mentions: that “Angels Neither Marry nor Give in Marriage” is generic, myopic, and all-encompassing of all Angels at all times in all places and all circumstances. Yet, Jesus’ statement was very detailed, very nuanced, He employed qualifying terms, “the angels of God in heaven.”
So, not all Angels at all times in all places in all circumstances but the loyal ones, “of God” and “in heaven” which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.
I will jump from his review of the sort of literature I reviewed in my On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? Book to the section, “Were the Nephilim Really Giants?”:
Now we return to the most mysterious word in the passage: נְפִלִים (Nephilim). The word occurs in Genesis 6:4 and again in Numbers 13:33. Its exact etymology is uncertain.
It is often connected with the Hebrew verb נפל (naphal), “to fall,” leading to suggestions such as “fallen ones” or “those who cause others to fall.” But those proposals should not be treated as certain lexical facts. The safest approach is to allow the word Nephilim itself to remain somewhat mysterious.
At the same time, there are good reasons why ancient and modern interpreters have associated the Nephilim with giants.
The Septuagint. As noted earlier, the LXX uses gigantes. That is significant evidence for an ancient “giant” or extraordinary-warrior interpretation.
Numbers 13:33. The Israelite spies report seeing the Nephilim in Canaan and describe themselves as grasshoppers in comparison. The report may contain exaggeration—the spies are terrified—but it certainly connects the Nephilim tradition with extraordinary size.
The Anakim and Rephaim traditions. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, groups such as the Anakim and Rephaim are associated with exceptional stature. Deuteronomy 3:11 famously gives the dimensions of the bed of Og king of Bashan. Second Samuel 21 also remembers unusually formidable descendants of the giant-warrior traditions. These texts suggest that Israel preserved memories or traditions of unusually large and fearsome warrior peoples.
Note that, “The word occurs in Genesis 6:4 and again in Numbers 13:33” is merely a claim about just that where, “The word occurs.”
We’re back to the issue of not knowing what, “associated the Nephilim with giants” means since we don’t yet know what that would mean: what’s the usage of giants—and likewise with, “ancient ‘giant.’”
As for the Num 13:33 paragraph, we need to discern to what, “it” refers in, “but it certainly connects the Nephilim tradition with extraordinary size.” This is a case of that, again, “The word occurs in Genesis 6:4 and again in Numbers 13:33” is about where a word appears, not necessarily where Nephilim physically appeared. And it’s a case of that, “The word occurs in Genesis 6:4” in a historical context of a real life event when they were actually alive on the ground at the time, “and again in Numbers 13:33” wherein it was not a case of, “The Israelite spies report seeing” since that’s too generic: there were 12 but 10 of them asserted that within an, “evil report.”
In short, anyone appealing to Num 13:33 needs to mention that they’re relying on:
1. One single unreliable sentence
2. From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse doesn’t even mention Anakim)
3. Of an unreliable “evil report”
4. By 10 unreliable guys
5. Whom God rebuked—to death
6. Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible
7. Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible
8. Then post-flood Nephilologists have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim got past the flood, past God.
I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal—which I’m currently updating.
Thus, there’s no reliable indication there were, “Nephilim in Canaan” and the 10 are the only ones who made up the fantasy tall-tale wherein they, “describe themselves as grasshoppers in comparison.” Thus, that it, “certainly connects the Nephilim tradition with extraordinary size” is irrelevant since they just made that up.
As for, “Anakim and Rephaim are associated with exceptional stature” to include the Repha Og’s, “bed,” since we’ve no physical description of him.
What Pastor Henry Au put as, “exceptional stature….unusually large” Deut 2 puts as, “tall” which is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants and is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days. As for the, “bed” indications are that it was a ritual object, not something upon which he slept—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
He then gets into, “What About the Gibborim?”:
Genesis 6:4 also calls these ancient figures הַגִּבֹּרִים (ha-gibborim)—“mighty men,” “warriors,” or “heroes.” But gibbor does not itself mean “giant.” Nimrod, for example, is called a gibbor in Genesis 10 without the word itself implying gigantic physical size.
So we should not argue: gibborim = giants. Rather, Genesis 6 combines several ideas: the mysterious Nephilim, mighty warriors, and famous figures from ancient times. The association with gigantic stature emerges from the broader textual and interpretive tradition, especially the Septuagint and Numbers 13, rather than from the word gibborim alone.
This is an important issue since pop-Nephilologists—who make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians—tend to assert that gibborim were a people groups. Yet, it’s a mere descriptive term that is applied to Nephilim (Gen 6:4), Nimrod (Gen 10:8), Angels (Psa 103:20), Gideon (Jdg 6:12), Boaz (Ruth 2:1), some of King David’s soldiers (1 Chron 11:11), even God Himself (Isa 9:6).
Part of his closing is, “an obvious problem. If the Flood destroyed the pre-Flood world, why do the Nephilim—or giant clans associated with them—appear again later in the biblical story?”:
Numbers speaks of the Nephilim. Deuteronomy speaks of enormous warrior peoples. The Anakim and Rephaim appear in Israel’s conquest traditions. So what happened? Did some Nephilim survive the Flood? Did the Genesis 6 event happen again? Or are later giant traditions related to the pre-Flood Nephilim in some other way?
That question deserves a separate article. And it opens into an even larger biblical theme: the relationship between the giant traditions, hostile spiritual powers, and the Bible’s wider picture of cosmic conflict.
Simply stated, Num 13:33 is one single unreliable non-LXX sentence from one single unreliable evil report spoken by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. Yet, it is the one and only statement on which all post-flood Nephilology and “giants”-Nephilology is based—based on siding with 10 guys whom God rebuked rather than with the God who rebuked them.
They contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the whole rest of the entire Bible but post-flood-giants-Nephilologists side with them.
Thus, “one single unreliable non-LXX sentence from one single unreliable evil report spoken by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked in Numbers speaks of the Nephilim. Deuteronomy speaks of subjectively tall peoples taller than 5.0-5.3ft. The Anakim and Rephaim appear in Israel’s conquest traditions but Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them and we can’t correlate anyone to Nephilim based on size.”
“So what happened?” Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form, God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc., centuries post-flood 10 unreliable guys made up a fantasy tall-tale.
Lastly, his list of, “Related Articles” includes the following unreliable Nephilologists:
Michael S. Heiser: he was credentialed and experienced but his Nephilology wasn’t altogether biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved—search online for these articles for examples:
Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus’ genealogy.
Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s “All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal.”
I also included him in my book The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?
Douglas Van Dorn: see my articles on him here.
Brian Godawa: see my articles on him here. I also included him in my book The Great Nephilim Debates: Featuring Gary Wayne, T.J. Steadman, Rob Rowe, and Eric Rolson Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers: A Comprehensive Consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al.
Anthony Delgado: see my articles on him here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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