Brandon D. Smith (Assistant Professor of Theology & New Testament at Cedarville University) posted an article titled Who Were the Nephilim? wherein he asks and answers, “Who were the Nephilim in Genesis 6:1-4”:
This text is confusing in part because the Nephilim (which means “fallen ones”) are mentioned but not really described here.
In Numbers 13, however, they’re described as some sort of large people, like giants.
To add to the confusion, this language about the “sons of God” procreating with the “daughters of men” surrounds the mention of the Nephilim.
We need to keep an eye on whether he elucidates by whom and why they are, “described” in Num 13:33.
Another issue is that since Prof. Smith jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word Nephilim to the modern generically subjective English one giants we must ask: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s his usage? Do those two usages agree?
He actually begins by reviewing different views of who the Gen 6 affair’s (as I term it) sons of God were, “The idea is that the ‘sons of God’ refers to angels or fallen angels (this term is used for angels in other places in Scripture, like the beginning of Job)” so that, “Nephilim, then, are superhuman offspring of angels and humans.”
He adds:
Proponents of this view will also point to Jude 6-7 (God has kept certain fallen angels/demons locked away in Hell [actually, Tartarus] because they committed sexual immorality and went beyond their boundaries as non-humans).
Some people will also couple this with 1 Peter 3:19, where it may indicate that Jesus proclaimed judgment on the angels who committed this crime between his death and resurrection.
So, the “sons of God” are fallen angels who had sex with human women, creating the Nephilim, and were chained up for crossing the boundaries God had given them to roam the Earth (like they do now) before Jesus comes back to destroy them for good.
A few bottom line points:
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.
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.
The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians 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.
Now, he added, “This would explain their size” but the only thing he’s told us about that is whatever is meant by, “In Numbers 13…they’re described as some sort of large people, like giants” so we still have to see if we’ll get any data besides the single modern English word giants.
The other view he reviews is, “that the ‘sons of God’ describes godly men, perhaps from the line of Seth, one of Adam and Eve’s other children, who procreated with sinful/non-God-worshiping women (‘daughters of men’ meaning they didn’t belong to God).”
This is typically called the Sethite view and it based on myth and prejudice. Prof. Smith offers a more generic view since it may be, “godly men” in general and only, “perhaps from the line of Seth.” Yet, one of the main problems is the same: the supposedly godly men weren’t very godly after all since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood.
In support of that view, he offers that Gen 6, “follows right after Cain wanders out into the wilderness, and so the wicked offspring of Cain start intermingling with the people who still worship God.” So that would mean that the, “sinful/non-God-worshiping women” who, “didn’t belong to God” were specifically, “wicked offspring of Cain” but we’ve no indication that offspring of Cain were generally nor uniquely nor specifically nor particularly sinful, non-God-worshiping, didn’t belong to God, wicked.
He also notes, “some argue that the Nephilim are simply an odd addition here, but don’t mean much to the story” which is essentially a non-issue since well, there they are and we have to deal with them.
Overall, he concludes that the Angel view, “lines up best with the canon of Scripture” and something on which I want to focus since this is from the last paragraph of his article, “the view does make sense of the Flood, at least in part, because sin had become so rampant that angel/human procreation had begun.”
Ok then, one huge issue that creates is since God flooded the Earth, even in part, to be rid of Nephilim then how is it that, “In Numbers 13…they’re” there at all?
Well, they’re written in a text but where not alive, on the ground.
Such is why I noted We need to keep an eye on…by whom and why they are, “described” in Num 13:33.
Num 13:32-33 are just a record of an, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked—to death.
Thus, there’s literally zero reason to take anything they asserted seriously—and they made five mere assertions.
For more details, see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
Such, incidentally, is why I noted that the only thing Prof. Smith told us to back the they’re described as some sort of large people, like giants is just that: large and giants.
Well, both of those are vague, generic, subjective, and multi usage.
The dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue since they only physical description we have is from one sentence from an unreliable report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
Lastly, FYI, 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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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