We get a succinct elucidation of some views of the Gen 6 affair:
Some hold that the “sons of God” were fallen angels “who did not keep their proper domain” (Jude 6-7, compare “as Sodom and Gomorrah”; 2 Pet. 2:4-9).
Accordingly, this intrusion into the human sphere produced a race of wicked giants (Gen. 6:4—6).
Others hold that since angels are spoken of in a sexless way (compare Matt. 22:30), and because the words “took wives” signify a lasting marriage, the reference has to do with the breakdown of the separation of the godly line of Seth by intermarriage with the godless line of Cain.
A refinement of the latter view holds that the expression “sons of God” refers to all the godly, and “daughters of men” to all the ungodly, irrespective of their natural paternity.
Whichever view is held, it is obvious that Satan attempted so to corrupt the race that the Messiah could not come to redeem man. But God salvaged a remnant (Gen. 6:8ff.), and a godly line was preserved.
However, there is no remedy for rebellion against God; the judgment predicted by Noah’s ancestor fell (Jude 14-15; compare Gen. 7:11; Is. 1:2-7,24—25).
The, “compare” statement directs us to that 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.
Also, 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.
As for, “a race of wicked giants” well, biblically contextually that means, “a race of wicked Nephilim” since 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.
It’s not at all the case that, “angels are spoken of in a sexless way” and Matt. 22:30 doesn’t even hint of any such thing (it quotes Jesus stating that the loyal, “Angels of God in heaven” don’t marry): 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.
As for the, “godly line of Seth…godless line of Cain” well, since there’s no such thing in the Bible then the Sethite view is not only a late-comer of a view but is based on myth, prejudice, and only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero)—apparently there were no attractive female Sethites and no attractive male Cainites.
Regarding, “that the expression ‘sons of God’ refers to all the godly, and ‘daughters of men’ to all the ungodly” well, this poses the same problem as the Sethite view has, the godly weren’t really godly since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood. Also, 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.
As for that, “God salvaged a remnant” such is why there’s never been any such thing as post-flood Nephilim, of course.
We find some vaguely regarding the English word giants and I already noted one. The other is the 98% of usage since the Scofield Annotated Study Bible has a note that reads, “Og…An Amorite. King of Bashan who was defeated by Moses. He was the last of the giants of Rephaim. This victory was recalled and celebrated.” The phrase, “giants of Rephaim” biblically contextually reads as, “Rephaim of Rephaim.”
Now, on the word, “Rephaim” a note has, “Literally Giants” and then another note along the way has, “giants. Hebrew Rephaim.”
So, which is which? If giants equals Rephaim then, “Literally Giants” means, “Literally Rephaim” and “giants. Hebrew Rephaim” means, “Rephaim. Hebrew Rephaim.” And, of course, that is exactly how to read the English Bibles that use that English word.
Yet, most who write that way imply something vague about merely subjectively unusual height. Such is why statements such as, “Literally Giants” are made even though such statements are meaningless—beyond the uselessly vague implication of merely subjectively unusually tall.
The answer to, “Literally Giants” are the questions:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
For, “Valley of Rephaim” it has, “Literally valley of the giants” which is circular since we were (rightly) told, “giants. Hebrew Rephaim.”
The Scofiled Annotated Study Bible also provides a chart of what begins with the statement, “GIANTS IN THE LAND Although Goliath is the most well-known giant in the Bible, there are several places that refer to very large people living in the land.”
See what happened there? It’s typical of English authors to use the word giants without defining it or defining it but then re-defining it along the way.
Before it merely rendered Rephaim (and Nephilim) but now the usage is something about being, “large”—which is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants.
The charts reads thusly:
Giants on the earth Genesis 6:4
Giants in the Promised Land Numbers 13:33
The people named Emim Deuteronomy 2:10-11
The people named Zamzummim Deuteronomy 2:20
Og, King of Bashan Deuteronomy 3:11, 13
Children of Anak Joshua 15:14
Goliath 1 Samuel 17:4
Ishbi-Benob 2 Samuel 21:16
Saph 2 Samuel 21:18
Brother of Goliath 2 Samuel 21:19
Man of great stature 2 Samuel 21:20
Reviewing:
“Giants on the earth” if subjectively unusual height is meant then Genesis 6:4 refers to no such thing.
As for, “Giants in the Promised Land” well, that’s a multi-issue since 1) that’s an evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked, 2) they asserted that “all the people that we saw” were all, “of great stature” which we can’t verify (see my article Were “all the people” in Canaan “of great height”?), and 3) they merely asserted that they saw post-flood Nephilim (which is impossible) and that they were very, very, very big which was just a tall-tale.
“The people named Emim” are like unto, “Children of Anak,” the Anakim, and, “The people named Zamzummim” since Zamzummim (or Zuzim) is just an a.k.a. for Rephaim and Emim and Anakim were Rephaim subgroups like clans of a tribe. Yet, the only thing we’re contextually told about them is that they were, “tall” on average—and that 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.
“Og, King of Bashan” was a Repha and we’ve no physical description of him.
“Goliath” was a Repha and the Masoretic text has him at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. so, that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.
“Brother of Goliath” (more likely a son) was also a Repha, of course, and we’ve no physical description of him.
“Man of great stature” was one of Goliath’s sons and, “great stature” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants or tall.
“Ishbi-Benob” and, “Saph” were also Goliath’s sons and we’ve no physical description of them.
See the problem with chasing the English word giants around a Hebrew Bible? If the point was to point out subjectively unusual height then only Rephaim fulfill that: on average and, again, subjectively.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.