Prof. Brian Aucker, professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary, wrote an article titled Stranger Things of the Old Testament: The Nephilim.
He notes, “From antiquity, Bible readers have pondered the interpretation of one such group of stranger things, ‘the Nephilim’ (Genesis 6:4). So little is said about them in Scripture that interpretive history is rife with speculation about them.” Indeed, and that means a few things such as that we have to take the little we’re told about them carefully and what I noted in my papers such as How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.
On a linguistics level, the Prof. tells us:
The word “Nephilim,” comes from a Hebrew root meaning “to fall,” leading some to suggest that the Nephilim are “fallen ones.” If so, in what sense have they fallen? Are they “fallen” with respect to moral failure? Are they heroes who have “fallen” (nophelim) as “mighty ones” (gibborim), dying in battle as in Ezekiel 32:27?
Perhaps they are “fallen” from their place in the heavens? The specific term “Nephilim” occurs elsewhere only at Numbers 13:33. The spies claim, “And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves as grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”
This language arises not from faithful Caleb and Joshua but from faithless spies, whose rhetoric seeks to engender fear in Israel, provoking lack of trust in divine deliverance (Deuteronomy 1:28; 9:1–3). The proposed genealogical descent of the Anakim from the so-called Nephilim is an exaggeration. These spies are not to be trusted.
The descriptive term gibbor(im) is used of 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).
As for Eze 32:27, that’s a case of the usage of the root term naphal(im).
Some readers may not have caught that while claiming, “The spies claim” is too generic but is rescued via, “faithful Caleb and Joshua” and, “faithless spies” since there were 12 but 10 were unreliable, unfaithful, disloyal, embellishers whom presented an evil report and were rebuked by God.
The Prof. also failed to note that he’s exclusively replying on non-LXX versions since the LXX doesn’t mention Anakim in that version’s version of that verse.
Thus, indeed, Num 13:33 merely records, “an exaggeration. These spies are not to be trusted.”
Prof. Aucker noted:
In both Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33 the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, translates “Nephilim” as gigantes (“giants”). This led to the King James Version translating “giants” in both Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33. Since Genesis 6:4 says nothing of their physical stature, representing them as giants in the verse is speculative. Below we briefly explore Genesis 6:1–4 since it necessarily impacts our view of the Nephilim.
Actually, “Septuagint, translates” should technically actually be rendered, “‘Nephilim’ as gigantes” is accurate but keep in mind that for some odd reason it does the same with gibborim and Rephaim and, “(‘giants’)” isn’t accurate since it really means earth-born.
Thus, “the King James Version translating ‘giants’” means that when therein you read giants in those two verses you must understand that the Hebrew behind it is Nephilim and, “nothing of their physical stature” in part 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.
Thus, “representing them as giants in the verse is speculative” is really saying that representing them as 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) in the verse is speculative—which is to say the very least.
Prof. Brian Aucker noted:
The identity of the Nephilim depends upon one’s interpretation of three other groups mentioned in Genesis 6:1–4. As mankind spread, “daughters” are specifically noted as “born to them”—that is, to humankind (v. 1). Careful readers were prepared for these “daughters” in the multiple mentions of “daughters” in the Genesis 5 genealogy. These are further identified as “daughters of man” (Gen. 6:2, 4).
These “daughters of man” are taken as wives (v. 2) not by “sons of man” but by those identified as “sons of God” (vv. 2, 4). In verse 4 we read of intimate relations between these sons of God and the daughters of men such that the daughters gave birth to “mighty ones” (gibborim) later called “men of renown” (v. 4). Determining the nature of the sons of God and the daughters of man, along with the relationship their offspring have to the Nephilim and the mighty men, highlights the complexity of the interpretive decisions.
That the daughters of man are human women raises no debate, but the identity of the “sons of God” increases the complexity of the discussion. The precise phrase “sons of God” is found in the Old Testament only at Genesis 6:2, 4 and in Job 1:6; 2:1; and 38:7. In Job, these “sons of God” are heavenly beings in God’s court.
This encourages some English versions to translate “sons of God” in Job as “angels,” “heavenly beings,” or “divine beings.” There are places where the collective people of God are called God’s “sons” or “children,” but these are rare (Exodus 4:22–23; Deuteronomy 1:31; 8:5; 14:1; Hosea 1:10). For simplicity we may summarize the interpretive options for the “sons of God” as either non-human (i.e., angelic, demonic, divine in some way) or human.
The non-human interpretation of “sons of God” is prevalent in early Jewish and Christian interpretation, influenced by non-canonical texts like 1 Enoch. This view holds that the “sons of God” are fallen angels who transgressed in cohabiting with human women. This interpretation gains tentative support from 1 Peter 3:19–20, 2 Peter 2:4, and especially Jude 6–7, though scholars debate how these texts relate to Genesis 6.
If, “‘sons of God’…human” then what was wrong about humans marrying? Also, why weren’t there any attractive daughters of God nor attractive sons of men? Why the gender binary right down the middle of sons of God on one side and daughters of men on the other? The Angel view, (not, “demonic”) explains why since 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. Also, 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.
Prof. Aucker then notes:
A second explanation envisions the “sons of God” not as fallen angels but pre-flood human kings or rulers claiming divine descent. The sense is that these powerful ancient Near Eastern kings abused authority. Like polygamous and tyrannical Lamech, they “saw,” and “they took as their wives any they chose” (Genesis 6:2).
The most common Christian interpretation from the third to the 18th centuries described the “sons of God” not as angels or divine kings but humans arising from the genealogical line of Seth. This makes contextual sense of the genealogy attested in Genesis 5.
However, in this view, the “daughters of man” become descendants of Cain who have relations with Seth’s progeny, resulting in offspring that threaten the godly line. One problem with this view is that, with no textual warrant, one must shift interpretation of the daughters born to mankind in verse 1 to mean “daughters born to particular men, namely, descendants of Cain.”
Each of these positions presents strengths and weaknesses. Whether the “sons of God” are viewed as non-human angels (demons), royals, or Sethites, the language “saw … good … took” (Genesis 6:2) has analogy with the verbs describing the transgression of “seeing” and “taking” of the forbidden fruit by Eve (Genesis 3:6, 12). This contrasts with God who saw his creation as good at first and now “saw that the wickedness of man was great” (Genesis 6:5).
The, “human kings or rulers” view barely makes a blip on the historical interpretation radar.
The Sethite view is a late-comer based on myth and prejudice.
Just as I noted, “Angel view, (not, ‘demonic’)” I’ll note that, “angels (demons)” is a tricky term since while demons are fallen Angels, they didn’t exist pre-flood: see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
Lastly, Prof. Brian Aucker has a subsection titled, “Who are the Nephilim?”:
There are multiple options regarding the Nephilim and their relationship to the offspring born to the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” along with the “mighty men” in Genesis 6:4. In one reading, the Nephilim are mentioned only for background purposes. They are merely contemporaries of the “mighty men,” with the latter being the offspring.
In this way, the Nephilim only provide context to the pre-flood era in which mighty heroes arose, yet the Nephilim remain distinct from them. If so, they contribute little to our understanding of the passage. Their presence and the phrase “and also afterward” must be referenced to ready us for the later mention of them in Numbers where they are presented as descendants of the imposing inhabitants of the land.
Other interpreters hold that the Nephilim are in fact identified with the “mighty men” but distinct from the offspring arising from relations between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of man.” In this view, some of the “sons of God” from the line of Seth intermarry with descendants of Cain and lose the righteous line.
However, most interpreters hold that the Nephilim are the divine-human offspring resulting from the relations between the “sons of God,” and “daughters of man,” and ought to be identified with the “mighty men” and “men of renown.” The Nephilim recall a pre-flood antiquity when tales of such royal demigods held sway. For the people of God, called to enter and inherit the Promised Land, even the threat that the descendants of such elite warriors of legend still existed would provoke fear.
However, Genesis shows that these too are subject to the judgment of God who is a “consuming fire” (Deuteronomy 9:3). For the faithful on this side of the cross, there is a final hero, the true “Son of God,” the Lord Jesus Christ, who has fought and overcome the all-powerful monsters of the world, the flesh, and the devil and overcome even death itself.
It’s not, “Nephilim are mentioned only for background purposes. They are merely contemporaries of the ‘mighty men,’ with the latter being the offspring” since the Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, their copulation, and their offspring. Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.
Also, “the phrase ‘and also afterward’” is only, “to ready us for the later mention of them in Numbers” when we do just that, cut it into pieces and just when the verse was about to tell us to what days it’s referring and ignoring that the, “mention of them in Numbers” is just that, a mere, “mention” since they weren’t actually alive on the ground at the time.
Note that there’s no viable reason, no reason at all, that “line of Seth intermarry with descendants of Cain” would result in, “lose the righteous line.”
As for, “the people of God, called to enter and inherit the Promised Land” many people pre and intra the exodus were told who lived in and around the land—they were actually listed—but no one was ever told a single word about Nephilim. They only, “provoke fear” when 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked told a fantasy tall-tale about them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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