We find a strange allusion in Genesis chapter six.
We read, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown” (Genesis 6:4). Note the ESV avoids translation here. “Nephilim” is simply a transliteration of the Hebrew term.
The King James translates the passage in this way: “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.” (The Septuagint translates Nephilim as “giants” which may be influencing this translation.)
The New Living Translation compromises: “In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times.”
So who are the Nephilim? Are they giants? And perhaps more importantly, as we will see, who are the “sons of God” in this passage?
The Nephilim Controversy
GotQuestions.org makes this claim:
“The Nephilim (“fallen ones, giants”) were the offspring of sexual relationships between the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4. There is much debate as to the identity of the “sons of God.” It is our contention that the “sons of God” were fallen angels (demons) who mated with human females and/or possessed human males and then mated with human females. These unions resulted in offspring, the Nephilim, that were “heroes of old, men of renown” (Genesis 6:4).”
Thus, according to GotQuestions.org, the “sons of God” are angels and the Nephilim are their superhumanish (my term) offspring. This understanding is not unfounded or unheard of, but does it work?
Let’s ask some other commentators.
The Commentators
In the John MacArthur Study Bible, MacArthur disagrees with the suggestion the Nephilim are the offspring of angels and humans. The notes read:
Nephilim. This word is from a root meaning “to fall,” indicating that they were strong men who “fell” on others in the sense of overpowering them (the only other use of this term is in Num. 13:33). They were already in the earth when the “mighty men” and “men of renown” were born. The fallen ones are not the offspring from the union in 6:1–2.
However, MacArthur does affirm the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis 6:4 refers to angels. He lays out the three typical explanations of this passage, but favors the one involving fallen angels:
“The sons of God, identified elsewhere almost exclusively as angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), saw and took wives of the human race. This produced an unnatural union which violated the God-ordained order of human marriage and procreation (Gen. 2:24). Some have argued that the sons of God were the sons of Seth who cohabited with the daughters of Cain; others suggest they were perhaps human kings wanting to build harems. But the passage puts strong emphasis on the angelic vs. human contrast. The NT places this account in sequence with other Genesis events and identifies it as involving fallen angels who indwelt men (see notes on 2 Pet. 2:4, 5; Jude 6). Matthew 22:30 does not necessarily negate the possibility that angels are capable of procreation, but just that they do not marry. To procreate physically, they had to possess human, male bodies.” (The MacArthur Study Bible)
The ESV Study Bible takes a different tact. Essentially, it implies interpreting “sons of God” is not necessary for understanding this passage and may miss the point. It notes:
“Though it would be difficult to determine which of these three views may be correct, it is clear that the kind of relationship described here involved some form of grievous sexual perversion, wherein the “sons of God” saw and with impunity took any women (“daughters of man”) that they wanted. The sequence here in Gen. 6:2 (“saw … attractive [good] … took”) parallels the sequence of the fall in 3:6 (“saw … good … took”). In both cases, something good in God’s creation is used in disobedience and sinful rebellion against God, with tragic consequences. Only Noah stands apart from this sin. (See note on 1 Pet. 3:19.)”
In other words, the main thing is simply that some type of perverse union was happening.
As for the Nephilim, the ESV Study Bible suggests the Nephilim and “men of renown” are one and the same, writing:
Nephilim. The meaning of this term is uncertain. It occurs elsewhere in the OT only in Num. 13:33, where it denotes a group living in Canaan. If both passages refer to the same people, then the Israelite spies (Num. 13:33) are expressing their fears of the Canaanites by likening them to the ancient men of renown. Although in Hebrew Nepilim means “fallen ones,” the earliest Greek translators rendered it gigantes, “giants.” This idea may have been mistakenly deduced from Num. 13:33; one must be cautious about reading it back into the present passage. The Nephilim were mighty men or warriors and, as such, may well have contributed to the violence that filled the earth (see Gen. 6:13).
So what do we make of all this?
The Sons of God
Considering all the above, I believe the “sons of God” were indeed humans. I favor John H. Sailhamer’s explanation of this peculiar phraseology. He writes:
Why then are the men specifically called the “sons of God” and the women the “daughters of men”? Such a designation of the men and the women in this summary is in keeping with the earlier description of the origin of the man and the woman. Though the description of the creation of the man and the woman in chapter 1 is clear that both have been created in God’s image, chapters 2 and 3 specify that the man was created by the breath of God and that the woman was created from the “side” of man. Thus men are called the “sons” of God – denoting their origin form God – and the women are called the “daughters” of man – denoting their origin form man. (Sailhamer, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 78)
The details from the text are so scant that it seems excessive to read into this brief allusion a story of demonic, half-breed angel children. This interpretation would also introduce all kinds of theological complications with regards to materiality/immateriality of angels and the fate of these offspring. As renowned Old Testament scholars Keil and Delitzsch point out, “the expression ‘sons of God’ cannot be elucidated by philological means, but must be interpreted by theology alone. (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, p. 81) In other words, there’s more to consider here than just vocabulary and grammar. We must consider if our interpretation is in keeping with the theology of the whole Bible. (See also their extensive treatment of 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, pp. 84-85 of Commentary of the Old Testament.)
The Nephilim
So who were the Nephilim? It seems most likely the Nephilim were not giants or superhumanish angel offspring. They were simply a mighty warrior clan.
But that’s just me. How do you interpret and piece together the data?
I’d love to hear your thoughts. Please consider leaving a comment.
Update: I’ve changed my view. I was wrong. I explain here: Fallen Angels in Genesis.
It seems to me that Sailhamer’s interpretation makes the most sense when looking at these Nephilim. Calling men Sons of God and then women sons of man seems in keeping with the truth that man was created by God and subsequently women from man. Also the implications and consequenses of heavenly being, fallen or not, would seem to me to be to great and far-reaching to have been something God would have allowed to come about.
All in my humble opinion of course.
Yes, I’m with you on the implications. It seems needlessly complex to add in this subplot and one that would never develop elsewhere in scripture.
#midnighttheology
Funny how things happen sometimes. My wife and I were reading this passage and discussing it just yesterday. The nephilim are very intriguing to me, and they are just one of the many things I would give anything to have a time machine to go back and witness. My contention would be the same as yours Derek, that they were simply really tall, strong people, much like Goliath. The passage does, though, leave room for question and interpretation for sure.
Great to hear from you Jeremy! What a coincidence! Are you all reading the One Year Bible by chance?
I definitely agree with you that there’s room for question and interpretation here. I don’t feel overly dogmatic in my conclusion. It’s more of a “if I had to decide…” situation. Anyway, thanks for weighing in!
Ha ha! We are indeed.
So I was thinking a little bit more about the whole thing. In Job it also refers to the sons of God coming to present themselves before the Lord.(Job 1:6) Now, if they were fallen angels, there would be no reason for them to seek the Lord’s presence. If they were “regular” angels, there would be no reason for them to seek the Lord’s presence, they would be able to simply come to the Lord. It also says satan came among them, implying(to me at least) that they were not aware of him, further convincing me that they were not angelic, as if they were angelic they would have clearly known his presence. I am probably not original with any of those thoughts, if I have read those passages correctly.
God Challenges Job
1.Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2. Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3. Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6. Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7. When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
You cannot have this term used before there were men on the earth it doesn’t make sense does it? Yet, the terms “Sons of God” was used in Job. It is only within the last 500 years has the church refused to acknowledge this truth. What are we to do with this?
We have no problem with angeles taking on human form and visiting Abraham on their way to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah eat and then go on their way to complete their job.
“And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.” (Was this pretend eating?)
We don’t even have problems with Jesus resurrecting from the dead coming back and eating fish with the disciples. But it’s impossible for angels to take human form and cohabitate with women… Really? Enoch told the story which fills in Genesis 6. So powerful the strength and truth of this story that Paul and Peter both warn us about them. So compelling the truth that Jude is allowed to remain in the canon, but quotes Enoch exclusively…why is that? Why is Jude in and Enoch out?
No, the hebrew is correct, the greek is more precise, church history up until 500 years ago understood and accepted the truth of this reality. The passage is correct. Even Yeshua warned us that as in the day of the Noah so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince men he didn’t exist.
I was listening to Dr. Robert Gagnon describe the creation of the genders. He goes into considerable pains to interpret the Genesis passage from the original language in which it was written. He does so to refute the claims of homosexuals who contend that marriage can be between any two people regardless of Gender. Okay, now what Dr. Robert Gagnon says is the original human was called Adam and was sexless UNTIL God removed woman from the side of Adam. That being the case both genders were created at that moment, and both came about as the result of God breathing life into the sexually undifferentiated Adam. If that is the case woman who was a part of the whole of Adam before the separation of the genders into Adam and Eve, and therefore BOTH Adam and Eve came to life when God breathed life into the sexually undifferentiated Adam, yet they had yet to be separated.
This was news to me, but I have heard Dr. Robert Gagnon argue against homosexuality (marriage) and he always describes the creation of the genders thusly, and none of the other theologians take him to task for this interpretation. But it would make sense, without a female counterpart a full functioning sexual male would not need be. Therefore it makes sense that Adam became exclusively male AFTER the separation of woman from his “side” To hear this interpretation you need only google Dr. Robert Gagnon and his Biblical arguments against same sex marriage on Vimeo or on his own website.
There are no theological complications introduced regarding the material/immaterial nature of Angels by taking the “angel” view of Genesis 6 if we start with the simple assumption that angels actually have physical bodies. And I don’t mean fallen angels taking on or possessing human flesh, but I mean physical bodies of their own, akin to what our resurrected, glorified bodies will be like–not bound by the four dimensional realities of space/time as we experience it now (hince the “apparent” spiritual/immaterial nature of angels). The bible does not teach that fallen angels and demons are the same thing, nor does it teach that angels are bodiless, ethereal spirits. In fact, the bible presents quite the opposite. These are cultural misconceptions. If we take the more biblical view that angles actually have physical bodies of their own, then the muddy water surrounding the nephilim begins to clear a bit. It is not inconceivable for God’s higher intelligent creatures to mix their dna with ours and produce hybrid offspring when you consider his lower intelligent creatures can put fish genes in a tomato, and who knows what else. And it’s not a theologically absurd idea to think of satan tampering with the seed of the woman in light of the seed war introduced in Genesis 3:15. In fact, I would argue that the notion is theologically consistent. Just my two cents.
Who Are the Nephilim?
The mysterious beings of Genesis 6
Comment from Vedat Shehu
The Nephilim, is not a Hebraic word. So, as is seems to me, it is unlikely that this interpretation is correct in English presentation. Consequently, in Genesis 6:1–4 given meaning of the nephilim, as if be “fallen ones” or “sons of god”, strong men, “great warriors”, “Biblical giants”, etc, are fantastic images that deform real meaning. Nephilim probably is composed from two pre-Indo-European words, wrongly presented as one word, when was written in Hebrew language. So no one know that this meaning is explained by this way: Nephilim = ne philim => in fill – ing =>in English = in beginning. So the meaning of the original phrase “So the phrase: “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” ; must be translated so: “ In the beginning, in those days, were on the earth and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”
My understanding is that the term comes straight over from the Hebrew (נְפִילִים). Transliterated it looks like this: nə•p̄iy•liym.