Under review is the Beginning and End site’s article The Nephilim – Giants in the Bible which begins by referring to Numbers 13 the key portion of which is “The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” Thus, the straightforward commentary within the article is, “When Moses sent his spies to scout the Promised Land so the children of Israel could enter it, the spies reported seeing beings there who were giants.”
We are also told, “The Bible makes it abundantly clear that there were races of people at that time who were so large, that regular sized men appeared as “grasshoppers” before them (other references can be found in Deuteronomy 2:10-11, 2:21, and 3:11 or the story of David and Goliath for starters).”
This leads to a reference to Matthew 24’s reference to “But as the days of Noe [Noah] were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be” about which we are told, “Jesus explains that the times on Earth will be like the days of Noah before the flood. So now we should look to those times to see what made them unique” and the article does into the issue of the Nephilim within the Genesis 6 affair.
Before getting into that issue, there is a bit of house cleaning to do as the point will be that since the days of Noe/Noah included sons of God, Nephilim (giants), etc. then so much the eschaton.
Indeed, Numbers 13 states as much yet, the key to understanding the statement is to discern the context: who spoke it, why and what was said in reply?
In short, God commanded the people to conquer the land. Most spies dissuade the people from doing so and mention the Anakim—period. Caleb chimes in to encourage the people. At this point only do the other spies reference the Anakim in relation to the Nephilim within what is termed a bad/evil report—they were clearly fear mongering.
God in Numbers 14, Moses in Deuteronomy 1 and Caleb in Joshua 14 each affirms that the Anakim were in the land but none of the mention the Nephilim.
But what about “people at that time who were so large” well, to see how the Bible uses this symbolically see Isa 40 where humans are said to be as grasshoppers compared to God. Thus, this is meant as means to a one-to-one ration calculation or is symbolic—or else, you can figure out how tall God is, which is clearly an incoherent concept.
But what of the Deuteronomy texts that are cited, since they are cited in a manner whereby they are supposed to support the view of gigantic people?
2:10-11, “The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.”
2:21, “A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead.”
3:11, “For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.”
Thus, the Emims were generically “tall,” as the Anakim were generically “giants” and Og’s size is not given. The issue is that references to people who are “tall” or “very tall” or “giants” tells us nothing of specific heights as all of these terms merely mean taller than the average (and Hebrew males of those days were 5.5 ft.).
But what of Goliath? Well, the issue is that he is taller in Greek than he is in Hebrew as there is a discrepancy between those language’s manuscripts at this point so that his height range is 6.7 ft. to 9.8 ft. In fact, if he was the Philistine’s main scare tactic due to his size then that tells us that he was taller than the average Philistine and Israelite—in other words, a rarely tall person.
WHAT!!!
As for the days of Noe/Noah, Jesus is actually very specific as to what he is referencing about those days. Matthew 24, “For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” Luke 17, “They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.”
So, that is all that there is to it: it is solely a reference to going about one’s daily life business whilst being unaware of (or ignoring) the coming judgment. In fact, the Luke text goes on to quote Jesus stating, “Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.” Thus, the context is amplified: it is not just about the Genesis 6 sons of God and Nephilim scenario but about the days of Lot and for the same reason.
Thus, all of this will deflate much of the fanciful scenarios that many people manufacture from presuppositions about the return of fallen Angels, Nephilim, giants, etc., etc., etc.
Now, the article quotes Genesis 6, the key feature of which is, “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose…There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
We are told that “the children of these sons of God and daughters of men were ‘mighty men’ and of ‘renown’ which is accurate. We are then told, “They were also ‘giants.’ Something in their genetics made them super-sized people.” However, there are a few Hebrew words which some translate as “giant(s)” and here it is the word “Nephilim.” Again, this tells us nothing about their specific heights and so we cannot rightly conclude that their generics had anything to do with unusual height.
The Book of Job is referenced so as to support the view that the “sons of God” were “Angelic beings” (see Job chaps 1, 2 and 38)—this is the original and majority view of the early Jewish and Christian commentators, see Early commentaries on Genesis 6: Angels or not? – interactive chart.
We are told that within Job chaps 1 and 2 “Satan is among them (who of course is a fallen cherubim – a type of Heavenly being).” This is a rarity and quite accurate as Satan is not an Angel but is a Cherub (see Ezekiel 28:14).
We are also rightly told, “that fallen angels married human women and produced children with them. And this act was so abhorrent to The Lord that He punished them. First with the flood and then with imprisonment.”
Reference is made to Jude v. 7 which refers to “the vengeance of eternal fire” and are told that “this is not a reference to Satan. Satan is not in hell. He is roaming the Earth seeking to destroy and deceive” which is quite accurate. We are then told, “The Devil and most of his fallen angels are on Earth doing spiritual warfare and will not be sent to Hell until their time of Judgment (Revelations 20).” The second part of the statement is accurate yet, the first is tricky since whether “most of his fallen angels are on Earth” is based on identifying demons as fallen Angels (which, clearly, some people do). I have my own view but its elucidation will have to wait until my upcoming book which covers such topics. The point of interest for now is that the Devil and whatever demons may be are not yet in “hell.”
We are also told, “Many scholars say this habitation refers to the fallen angels leaving Heaven, but again that would not explain why they would already be in hell under chains until Judgment Day since the fallen angels are not in Hell yet.” We must slow way down at this point for the sake of accuracy. Agreed, leaving their habitation refers to the fallen Angels leaving Heaven. Agreed, they are being held under chains but not in “hell.” Thus, they are incarcerated but since they “are not in Hell yet.”
Jude’s reference to “vengeance of eternal fire” is not an identification of where the fallen Angels are at the moment as in chained up. Jude wrote that “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner” had been “giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh” they “are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
This is eternal fire: aionios (G166) pyr (G4442) which could rightly be translated “hell” as in the place of eternal torment which is hades (G86).
2 Peter 2 essentially states the same things as Jude’s relevant portions and Peter specifies that the Angels are incarcerated in tartaroo / tartarus (G5020) which is aka the abyssos / abyss / deep (G12, see Luke 8:31 and Romans 10:7) and aka abyssos phrear / bottomless pit (G12 and G5421, see Revelation 9:1).
The 2 Peter 2 text states, “God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment” which is what has been under discussion and yet the term here inaccurately translated “hell” is “tartarus.”
1 Peter 3 refers to “the spirits in prison” which we are told is “meaning they are already in bondage of Hell. Hell or Sheol at this time, was the holding place for the unsaved who died and Jesus went there to make a triumph over them (Colossians 2:15).” Yet, as we have seen, this is an erroneous usage of “hell” and the text tells us that this was about “having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.”
The article then notes, “Genesis 6:9 tells us that Noah was ‘perfect in his generations.’ As opposed to referring to his moral perfection (and Noah of course being a man, was not perfect) this phrase meant was that Noah’s lineage was 100% human. Noah did not have any Nephilim in his family line so he was able to carry on the lineage that would lead to Jesus Christ.”
I agree that this was not about “moral perfection” and also agree that “Noah’s lineage was 100% human” but this text is not about genetics but about righteousness in that Noah believed God.
Thus, the article makes some good and accurate points but also falls into certain inaccuracies at times which leads to problems.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.