Uri Brito (“Senior Pastor of Providence Church…editor of The Church-Friendly Family, and author of The Trinitarian Father…board member of Theopolis,” “The Theopolis Institute perpetuates the Biblical Horizons agenda of church reformation and cultural transformation into the future”) wrote an article titled The Nephilim Connection which begins by reviewing, “three major theories regarding the identity of the Nephilim” regarding that which I term the Gen 6 affair:
- The Fallen-Angel Procreation Theory: this view puts forward that fallen angels entered into sexual union with the “daughters of men” and produced a hybrid creation known as the Nephilim.
- The Fallen-Angel Possession Theory: this view is similar to the first, but it assumes that these fallen angels possessed men who then had sexual relations with ungodly women thereby producing the Nephilim.
- The Seth-Line Theory: this view assumes that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 refer to the line of Seth that intermingled with the line of Cain and produced offspring (Nephilim) that corrupted the morality of the earth and eventually led to God’s flood.
There are variations of each theory…
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.
The Fallen-Angel Possession Theory barely makes the faintest blip on the historical interpretive radar and is utterly absent from the first couple of millennia. There’s literally no indication that Angels, fallen or not, ever have or even could possess anyone.
The Seth-Line Theory is a late-comer based on myth and prejudice.
Uri Brito notes:
Nephilim is often translated as “giants.” Jerome’s Latin translation has gigantes which literally means “giants.” The King James Version is one of the few translations to preserve the word “giant” in its text, thus leading to a majority interpretation that these creatures are giants similar to Goliath the Philistine who we see in I Samuel 17.
The idea that the Nephilim are super-human giants develops out of the first and second theories which assume sexual intercourse between angels and humans. In such readings, there is usually a presupposition that Second Temple Jewish texts offer clarity to the biblical text. In general, this leads to various speculative interpretations which de-materialize the human encounter choosing rather to prefer supernatural interactions.
These interpretations are not compelling since they generally add too much confusion to the text itself and seek for unhelpful ways to collaborate the interpretive process with outside biblical sources. My contention is that these do not form hermeneutical models that lead to more trust in the text, but rather find solace in extra-biblical appeals.
“often translated as ‘giants’…literally means ‘giants’…the word ‘giant’…creatures are giants…super-human giants” only begs these questions: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Jerome’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
As for, “gigantes…literally means ‘giants,’” the Latin gigantes comes from the Greek gigantes—which is how the LXX rendered (didn’t translate) Nephilim and also gibborim and also Rephaim—which literally means earth-born.
It’s odd to claim, “preserve the word ‘giant’” since that would only mean used an English word to render a rendered Latin (and Greek) word.
Now, since reference is made to Goliath it seems that Brito’s usage is something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average (and yes, that is how useless the common parlance usage of that modern English word is).
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.
The only way giant is used of Goliath is that it’s merely identifying his tribal affiliation, it’s calling him a Repha and not even implying anything about his size.
It’s also not the case that Nephilim as, “super-human giants develops out of the first and second theories” since there’s no indication that, “Fallen-Angel Procreation” or, “Fallen-Angel Possession” results in something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average.
I’m unsure how all of, “These interpretations…add too much confusion” since, for example, Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that, “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which some LXX editions have as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth.
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 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.
Oddly, Uri Brito opines, “how we interpret passages like these also reveals a bit of our understanding of the Creation Week…Theories that explain the creation account only through the lens of poetry or as topical guides without concern for chronology also seem to align themselves with theories of the Nephilim that introduce extra-mundum creatures into the world.”
Yet, it’s not poetic nor topical guides nor lacking concern for chronology which has us seeing that to guard the way into the garden of Eden, God placed introduce extra-mundum creatures into the world, namely Cherubim. Thus, the same goes for Angels/sons of God.
As for, “not…cohesive self-interpreting guide but is instead dependent on outside sources to make sense of it” that’s common since we can’t expect that any given text or mere verses will provide us all relevant details, “it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little” (Isa 28:10).
Brito tells us:
It seems a lot more reasonable to connect Jude’s language to the Sethites in Genesis 6. The “sons of God” are messengers who initially sought to follow the Seed of the Woman but intermingled with the line of Cain. They lost their places of authority and are set aside for judgment at the last day.
But that only begs questions: what, pray tell, was the problem with Sethites intermingling with Cainites?
Uri Brito notes, “two lines: The Seed of the Woman and the Seed of the Serpent (Gen. 3:15)…The first operates with a distinct view of creation…The second family line…” pause: there was a jump from lines to Seed(s), to family line(s). The seeds aren’t biological so aren’t about family lines, they are those who keep God’s Word and those who don’t.
From there, Brito plays upon the Sethite view myth and prejudice:
These two lines are put into concrete war zones when Cain murders his brother Abel and sets his trajectory away from Eden and farther into desert places. The Seth-line, initially a faithful line (Gen. 4:26), eventually cohabitates with the beautiful daughters of Cain (Gen. 6:2). One clear reason we are still dealing with humans in the text instead of an angelic/human combination is because the text explicitly says that the Spirit no longer wishes to contend with mortal humans (Gen. 6:3). There is no reference to angels in any of the judgment language used before/during/after the Flood (Gen. 6).
Note that Brito condemns the whole entire family line to Cain due to, “Cain murders his brother” which is ungracefully worldly.
He also praises the whole entire family line to Cain Seth due to, “a faithful line (Gen. 4:26)” yet, that verse merely reads, “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” so that Sethite view proponents reject God’s inspired general term, “people” and only apply it to Sethites.
But note that the qualifying term is, “The Seth-line, initially a faithful line” since they mate with the mythical group—and even the, “farther into desert places” claim is a myth.
As for, “Spirit no longer wishes to contend with mortal humans (Gen. 6:3)…no reference to angels” line, Brito invented the, “mortal humans” terms since the text has, “man” and humans, Angels, Nephilim (and ever God) are all referred to as man/men.
It’s noted, “mere men who once were ‘heroes of old’ and ‘men of renown’ (Gen. 6:4). Such language is never used of angelic beings” but that’s a non-issue since it’s used of the offspring of, “angelic beings.”
Brito claiming, “the stage for the destruction of the earth…not once implicates angelic creatures in that judgment” is missing that their actions are part of the premise.
As for the second usage of the term Nephilim in the Bible, with which the article ends:
The other reference to the Nephilim in Numbers 13 should be understood in the context of the narrative it is brought up in—i.e. the bad report brought from the Israelite spies. Whether their report was true or not, depending on how exaggerated their words were to express their fear of conquering the land, the Nephilim could simply have been a group of powerful men who chose to carry on the legacy of the offspring of the Seth/Cain alliance before the flood. The sons of Anak (Num. 13:30-33) could have been referred to as Nephilim to deter God’s people from conquering the land. But Joshua and Caleb do not reinforce their comrade’s report but challenge their statement by stating that God’s people should not be afraid of them (Num. 13:30).
In sum, whether the sons of Anak are revived forms of the Nephilim whose message was passed on by oral tradition through Noah’s family after the Flood, or whether this report is an attempt to frighten God’s people from conquering the land, the identification of Nephilim still continues to be an expression of a line of men who were initially judged by God due to their corruption. Further, assuming they re-appear in Numbers 13, they cause no fear in God’s people post-flood; they are a continual expression of the Serpent’s Seed in Genesis 3:15. This interpretation preserves the clarity of the text without conjectures about intermingling angelic beings. It allows the text to speak for itself without relying on non-scriptural texts for authority. Ultimately, the line of Nephilim is destroyed when the true Seed of the Woman breaks the power of the Serpent’s line on the blessed Tree (Heb. 2:14).
To add a bit of specificity, it’s, “the bad report brought from the” 10 out of 12, “Israelite spies.”
“their report was” not, “true.”
Granted, “The sons of Anak (Num. 13:30-33) could have been referred to as Nephilim to deter God’s people from conquering the land” since that report was a fear-mongering scare-tactic but they’re not mentioned in the LXX version of that verse.
Indeed, “Joshua and Caleb do not reinforce…but challenge.”
Referring to, “they re-appear” is tricky since they re-appear as a word in a text but not alive on the ground since they didn’t make it past the flood.
Let’s end with, “the usage of angelos in the Bible…can refer to angelic beings, but also to simple human messengers of God.”
Why weren’t there any attractive Sethite females nor any attractive Cainite males? Why the gender binary in the text?
Well, the Angel view explains that: Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
Thus, strictly male Angels had to mate with strictly females, by definition.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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