The nature of the nephilim is complicated by the ambiguity of Genesis 6:4, which leaves it unclear whether they are the "sons of God" or their offspring who are the “mighty men of old, men of renown”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim
The greater controversy is: “Are the Nephilim fallen angelic beings who cohabited with the “daughters of men,” or are they mighty men who lived at the same time as the Nephilim?”
We will examine the text of Gen. 6 going into the Hebrew from several top Hebrew lexicons and examine the ancient original sources of both sides of the controversy and see what this doctrine has evolved into in modern times and what is said in modern commentaries about it.
I will present the material from both sides so that you can make your own decision about which side is right. I will also admit to you up front that I have not yet come to a conclusion on the matter. I keep on hearing about the Nephilim and even that various governments are using ancient DNA of the Nephilim and mixing it with human DNA to create disposable super soldiers, so I decided to do my own study on it and share it with the readers of my blog. Hopefully, we will both learn something in the process. I will begin by presenting the passage and the pertinent Hebrew words and what one authoritative source has to say on it, the Encyclopedia Judaica.
Here is the passage:
Gen. 6:1 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,
Gen. 6:2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
Gen. 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
Gen. 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
Gen. 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen. 6:6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart (NASB).
Num. 13:33 is the only other place where the word “Nephilim” is found,
“There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.” (NASB)
Some Bible versions simply translate the word “Nephilim” as giants although the etymology of the word is itself uncertain. According to one of the most authoritative Hebrew lexicons, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, the word is derived from naphal, which means “to fall.” Thus Nephilim has the idea of “fallen ones” and does not in itself mean “giants” if they are right. Nevertheless, the above verse seems to show the Israelites used the word to refer to giants. TDOT says about the Nephilim,
“The Nephilim (Gen. 6:4; Nu. 13:33) should be interpreted analogously. The noun seems to embody the notion, so characteristic of ancient Israel, that something gigantic, something exalted, must necessarily fall” Vol. IX, p. 497.
We will look at other possibilities of the meaning of this word from other Hebrew lexicons and commentaries in future blogs.
TDOT’s definition brings up this question: From what have they fallen? Many believe they are the fallen angels who followed Lucifer and were cast down from heaven. Or are they once righteous “sons of God” who have fallen morally by marrying women based on beauty rather than moral character? Those who believe they are fallen angels often use Jude (quoting from the book of Enoch) in defense of their belief,
And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day (Jude 1:6 NKJV).
The phrase “did not keep their proper domain” is interpreted by the book of Enoch and others as marrying humans. We will look at what the book of Enoch has to say in another article. The detractors from this theory see other verses in the New Testament that go against this such as Hebrews 1:5-6:
For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him” (Heb. 1:5-6 NKJV).
Although verse five is a rhetorical question, it seems to be saying that God never called an angel a “son.”
Those who believe this also quote Jesus himself,
“The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection (Luke 20:34-36 NKJV).
This passage seems to be implying that the angels do not or cannot marry. Jesus is also making a distinction between the sons of God and angels here. Furthermore, Paul gives us a definition of “sons of God” in Romans,
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God (Rom. 8:14 NKJV).
The biblical definition of “sons of God” is “Those led by the Spirit of God.” This is certainly not the definition of a fallen angel. When trying to figure out the truth of a biblical teaching, many fail to search for a definition in the Bible itself. The importance of trying to find a biblical definition of a word or phrase cannot be over emphasized. It should be one of the first things we do when testing a doctrine. In all of the commentaries and articles I have read on the Nephilim being the “sons of God,” I have never seen any of them offer the biblical definition of “sons of God.”
These are some of the Scriptures that have kept me from swallowing whole the doctrine of the fallen angels marrying daughters of men without chewing on it. However, I do find some of the arguments from that camp compelling; and like I said, I have not yet come to a conclusion on it. I have no doubt that giants lived on the earth before and after the flood. I am just not convinced they were offspring of fallen angels, but I’m still searching for the truth on the issue. The Bible presents no evidence that Goliath was the offspring of a fallen angel and woman, but it does say his brother had six fingers and toes–a clear sign of genetic mutation that happens in mere humans.
Let’s read the passage again,
Gen. 6:1 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,
Gen. 6:2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
Gen. 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
Gen. 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
Verse 4 can and has been interpreted as the Nephilim being different than the “sons of God.” While many take the Nephilim as being the same as the “sons of God,” others see this passage as saying that they lived on the earth at the same time that the sons of God lived on the earth, before and after the flood. So here is another controversy: Are the Nephilim the same as the “sons of God?”
The Hebrew word for “mighty men” is the word gibbor. According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, this word means,
“Mighty, strong, valiant, mighty man. (RSV often translates “warrior.”) The heroes or champions among the armed forces.”
It is in fact derived from one of the Hebrew words for “man,” geber. TWOT says about this word,
“As distinct from such more general words for man as adam, ish, enosh, etc., this word specifically relates to a male at the height of his powers. As such it depicts humanity at its most competent and capable level.”
Let us also not miss that fact that the text tells us these gibborim or “mighty men” are called “men of renown” opposed to “angels of renown” or even “Nephilim of renown.” The Hebrew word for men in this phrase is ish–a very common word for “man” in the Hebrew and never used of an angel. The Hebrew word for “renown” here is shem, “name.”
Now from the Encyclopedia Judaica,
“NEPHILIM, a race of giants said to have dwelt in pre-Israelite Canaan (Num. 13:33). Genesis 6:1-2 relates that the ‘sons of gods,’ i.e., divine or angelic beings, took mortal wives; verse 4 continues, ‘it was then and later too, that the Nephilim appeared [lit. were] on the earth–when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes [Heb. gibborim] of old, the men of renown.’ This could mean that the Nephilim were contemporaneous, but not identical with the offspring of divine beings and earthly women, who were called gibborim. The above translation, however, follows an ancient tradition in equating the Nephilim and the gibborim as offspring of the union of angels and mortal.”
It would appear that this was the general interpretation of the Nephilim and sons of God by the Jews. However, as the article goes on to explain, this was not the only interpretation of the Jews.
“. . . As this dualistic myth does not appear in the apoclalypeses of Baruch and Esdras nor in the aggadah of the talmudic period, it was apparently rejected as incompatible with Jewish monotheism. The “sons of God” are explained in the Targum to Genesis and the Midrash (Gen. R. 26:5) [these are Jewish commentaries on Scripture, note mine] as young aristocrats who married the daughters of commoners.”
“. . . In post-talmudic literature (cf. Rashi, Yoma 67b) the long-suppressed myth came to the surface again. The Palestinian Targum gives the orthodox rendering of Genesis 6:1, but translates verse 4 as: ‘Shamhazzai and Uzziel fell from heaven and were on earth in those days’ –identifying the Nephilim as the fallen angels rather than their children. The same identification is found in late Midrash, which calls the fallen angels Uzza and Uzziel; another passage in the same document say the Nephilim were descendants of Cain (Aggadat Bereshit, ed. S. Buber, introd., p. 38). [Here we see a clear cut case of Jews differing from other Jews in the same commentary, note mine.] The Zohar (1:58a) also identifies the Nephilim with the fallen angels. The standard medieval Bible commentators generally followed the classical aggadah in rejecting the mythological interpretation and asserting that the marriges in Genesis 6 were human. Some variant opinions about the “sons of God” are offered–e.g., that their distinction was not only social, but physical and even moral, and that the offspring were called Nephilim because they “fell short” of their fathers in these respects (Nahmanides, Abrabanel; see also Anak).” Vol. 12, 962-963, 1972 edition.
This article shows that the Jewish people had many differing views on the Nephilim over the centuries and never had a unified interpretation of them. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising to me that many are so dogmatic when it comes to asserting their belief on the Nephilim. One thing this blog shows is that whatever the Nephilim were, it is not even certain they were the same as the “sons of God”; and it seems even improbable they were.