Feb
16
My Take on the Sons of God and Nephilim in Genesis 6
If the topic revealed in this post’s title sounds somewhat familiar, it may be because roughly a year ago I began my “What to Make of This Weird Bible Passage?” series with the opening lines from Genesis 6. In those posts, I laid out what four of the best Study Bibles had to say about the passage in question, including the different approaches and/or positions that Bible scholars and teachers have taken. But, I didn’t really say what my view was. (If you aren’t curious about that, then you probably aren’t reading this post, or you are reading but will stop any second now….)
In any case, I decided to review those posts, along with a couple other sources, and present my view and reasoning in brief. I’ll expand on a few points but nothing too fancy or super in-depth. While not necessary, you might want to first (re-)read the previous two “What to Make of This Weird Bible Passage?” posts I did on this passage before continuing with the rest of this one.
“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 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.” (Gen. 6:1-4 (ESV))
“sons of God”
There are those who interpret this term to be referring to either the righteous lineage of Seth (perhaps kings), with the “daughters” being descendants of Cain; or, the “sons of God” were of the rebellious lineage of Cain/Lamech (perhaps judges or other tyrannical rulers), and the “daughters” were simply human women in general. I can see the appeal, especially if a “supernatural” explanation makes one uncomfortable, or one doesn’t think angels can or would want to have sex. But, I don’t see those objections as valid, and I am unconvinced by either the Sethite or the Evil Tyrant theory. Plus, as Hugh Ross has pointed out, “the Old Testament provides no conclusive evidence that the phrase ‘sons of God’ must always and only refer to humans.” I, therefore, strongly lean toward the idea that these “sons of God” were rebellious former-members of the heavenly host (1 Kings 22:19-23), i.e. fallen “angels”.
I should note that, while I am using “angels” as a catch-all phrase, the Host consists not merely of messenger angels (malakim) but also of divine throne guardians (cherubim and seraphim), watchers (Dan. 4:13-25), and possibly other types of heavenly/divine beings in service to YHWH. (I’ll refrain from getting into the weeds on this particular aspect, especially since I’m still learning and assessing.) The “sons of God” in the Genesis 6 context, then, might have included fallen creatures who used to function in any of these capacities. (Fwiw, the Book of 1 Enoch specifies that it was the Watchers, which makes sense, I suppose.)
As for taking “daughters of men” as wives, the Hebrew word translated “wives” here is simply the plural for women (nashim). Also, “‘taking’ a woman” is a euphemism that can be (and often is) used to describe the sexual act, or sexual relationship, outside of a marriage bond. So, I can’t help but wonder if this activity may have merely consisted of rebellious “angels” appearing on Earth in functional, physically human form (as seen elsewhere in the Bible) and bedding human women, whether voluntary on the women’s part or not. Alternatively, these angelic beings (demons?) may have possessed human males and proceeded to rape or seduce the women in that way. (Or, perhaps demon-possessed men were these “sons of God”?) If a human male was involved, then there could indeed have been “marriages”. Of course, we don’t have details on the specifics, so I’m speculating here…
Perhaps the biggest objection to this interpretation of “sons of God” here is that Jesus himself (e.g., Matt 22:30) said that angels are not given in marriage. Of course, if the sexual activity in question was outside of matrimony as hypothesized above, this objection does not apply. The more common response, though, is to point out that Jesus referred to “angels in heaven”. The “sons of God” in this view were fallen angels and, while the spiritual realm was their native “home”, they no longer served God in Heaven. Again, the objection therefore does not apply.
“120 years”
Some think that this is a reference to the amount of time between God’s pronouncement and when the Flood would arrive. (Others think it was 100 years, I suppose because Noah was 500 when he fathered his eldest son and 600 when the Flood began.) That’s fine, but I think it makes more sense that this refers to a shortening of the human lifespan, perhaps to minimize the amount of evil any one person can do. This limitation seems to have been implemented gradually rather than sudden. Following the Flood, we see the average lifespan trending downward until the time of the post-diluvian patriarchs (i.e., Abraham (175), Isaac (180), Jacob (147)), and later Moses (120). Surpassing even “threescore years and ten” became somewhat unusual (Psalm 90:10). (King David died at the “ripe old age” of 70.) Nowadays, whenever the current “oldest living person in the world” dies, they are always a few years short of 120. This is consistent with the position I’ve adopted.
“the Nephilim”
One school of thought holds that the Nephilim may also be the “sons of God” from Gen 6:1, because verse 4 does not explicitly say that the Nephilim were the offspring of the “sons of God” / “daughters of men” unions, only that they were around “in those days”. It’s a fair observation, but others believe — and I agree — that the context implies that the Nephilim were in fact the hybrid offspring. “They were the heroes of old, men of renown.” (NIV) But they were not what you would call “good guys”.
Although the Hebrew word nephilim (also used in Numbers 13:33) translates to “fallen ones”,
“Ancient Jewish texts and translations of the OT render the Hebrew word nephilim with terms that describe men of inordinate height. The Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the OT) renders the term gigantes (‘giants’). The term is not a synonym for ‘sons of God’ (see Ge. 6:2 and note); the Nephilim could, though, be the offspring of the sons of God from cohabiting with the daughters of humans.” (NIV Faithlife Illustrated Study Bible)
Regarding the “inordinate height”, I have seen some using Amos 2:9 to posit that the Nephilim were absolutely gigantic (“tall as the cedars and strong as the oaks”). (See the lower image in my Part 1.) I suppose the bit about feeling like grasshoppers in comparison (Num. 13:33) might be used as support, as well. Other ancient stories of giants probably contribute to this theory, too, but I’m not aware of any serious scholar who holds to this. There are a couple different, more reasonable takes on the “inordinate height” of the Nephilim.
Probably the most popular rendering of Goliath’s height in 1 Sam. 17:4 (Hebrew Masoretic text: “six cubits and a span”), for example, uses the common cubit (middle fingertip to elbow) that is roughly 18 inches. This puts Goliath at over 9 feet tall; I’ve seen 9’6″ and 9’9″. Another approach 1) favors the “four cubits and a span” alternative reading from the Greek Septuagint and one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2) recognizes that not only were there multiple “cubits” (even the Hebrews had three: common, royal, and long) but measurements changed over time, and 3) claims that “the average Israelite male of the time was about 5 feet 3 inches”. The result is an estimate of 6’7″ to 7’9″ in height for Goliath. (For comparison, Shaquille O’Neal is 7’2″; Yao Ming is 7’6″.) Such a person is pretty tall to someone well under 6′, and we can acknowledge that the 10 Israelite spies (Number 13) used hyperbole when they said that they “felt as small as grasshoppers” in comparison to the Anakite Nephilim they saw in Canaan.
I suppose I might be willing to accept the latter view, if I could confirm a few things, but I find that I still favor the former view with giants over 9 feet tall. Either way, given the huge weights of the armor and weapons that warriors like Goliath had to wield, it is obvious that they demonstrated supernatural strength…
“5 He had a helmet of bronze on his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail, and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of bronze. 6 And he had bronze armor on his legs, and a javelin of bronze slung between his shoulders. 7 The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and his spear’s head weighed six hundred shekels of iron. And his shield-bearer went before him.” (1 Sam. 17:5-7 (ESV))
Nowadays, it is rare for those over 7 feet tall to also be particularly muscular. Shaq and actor/bodybuilder Olivier Richter (7’2″) are exceptions. Yao isn’t too skinny, either, at least when compared to someone like the late Manute Bol (7’7″). But, as Hugh Ross has pointed out,
“Basketball players who are seven-and-a-half feet tall or taller tend to move, jump, and dodge with less speed and agility than those only a few inches shorter. The shooting advantage gained from that extra height is counterbalanced by the reduced mobility and stamina associated with it.”
Can you imagine them marching and fighting in 250 lbs. or so of armor and weapons?
Now, let’s consider the fact that Nephilim were not only around pre-Flood but “also afterward”. How could this be? Wouldn’t they have been wiped out in the Flood? Well, apparently not, because Scripture mentions tribes of Nephilim/giants in Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and 1 & 2 Samuel.
There are two approaches to explaining how this might have happened. The first assumes that the Flood was a geographically local/regional event. Interestingly, the Hebrew words typically translated “earth” or “land” in verse 1 (adamah) and verse 4 (erets) can both be referring to a region, territory, or plot of ground. In this case, one might hypothesize that the Nephilim were able to survive the Flood by escaping somewhere outside the Flood zone, though probably still within the area consisting of the ancient Near East and other lands around the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas (Gen. 10). (How would they have known? Demonic informant?) Some or all of the Nephilim could have then migrated back to their original habitat post-Flood and at some point they or their descendants settled in what would be called the land of Canaan. But, while I do hold to a local/regional Flood, I see too many problems the rest of this view.
The alternative approach holds that the same sort of behavior that led to the judgment of the Flood happened again (perhaps continuously) after the Flood. In other words, the original Nephilim died with everyone else in the Flood, but rebellious “sons of God” returned to impregnate the “daughters of man”, leading to new clans/tribes of giants. (Assuming that 2 Peter 2 and Jude 5-7 tell us that the original “sons of God” from Gen 6:1 were then chained in darkness until the day of judgment, then the offending parties after the Flood would have been different “sons of God”.) These Nephilim (Anakim, Rephaim, etc.) were both genetically and morally corrupted like their predecessors. Fortunately, King David and his mighty warriors appear to have exterminated the last of the giants. This explanation for Nephilim existing after the Flood makes more sense to me.
Given the dearth of information on these things — some more than others — in the Bible itself, any position on this must be held tentatively. I am open to other arguments, and after further study and consideration, my position(s) might just change. But, for now, I continue to lean toward the conclusions stated above. What about you?
P.S. It is also interesting to note that there is no mention or naming of any female Nephilim/giants in the Bible. At least, not in the Protestant canon. If you are aware of any females listed in deuterocanonical books or in ancient Jewish sources (1 Enoch?), let me know.
(H/T Hugh Ross, Michael S. Heiser, Wesley Huff)
