If you study the book of Genesis. you will see that it is pretty straight forward in its interpretation. You are guided by your understanding of “Nephilims” from Genesis in this verse.
In the book of Numbers, these men were scared and disobedient. They did not want to fight the inhabitants of the land, because of the might they observed; forgetting that they had God behind them. They were so scared, they exaggerated their claims in order to work the people up so as not engage the inhabitants.
@Wookin_Panub So why is it recorded in Numbers 13:33 “the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim”? The spies called them Nephilim and then the author added the parenthetical of the sons of Anak. Based on a literal reading of Numbers Nephilim were still alive after the flood. Feel free to dance around this as you see fit.
1 Like
I believe they were humans. Posted about this recently. But to summarize I agree with John Calvin, who wrote:
That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious. (Calvin’s commentary on Genesis.)
A more likely (“probable” would be a stretch) explanation: The sons of God were the “good” bloodline that descended from Seth. The “daughters of men” were exotic beauties in the “bad” bloodline of Cain. The progeny of the ill advised union between the two groups was worse yet, including a group of giants who it appears was something like a gang of thugs. (Brutes is perhaps a better word than giants.) Calvin blames Jerome (a worthy scapegoat!) for a faulty translation, pointing out (among other things) the Moses never actually comments on their size.
1 Like
I don’t like that explanation, I already made a list of areas in scripture where divine beings are called ‘Sons of God’. I also pointed out that the word ‘Nephilim’ proabably means giant. I also find it uncomfortable from a theological sense, it makes God seem like a racist.
Because it was the mightiest and strongest thing they could think of and that the people could relate to. Furthermore the global flood had already taken place hundreds of years after, in which only the stories of Nephilims remained and were probably exaggerated themselves.
Do you think the God directed ethnic cleansing of Joshua’s conquest of the Holy Land makes God look like a racist? Or even the simple fact that in OT times God had a favored race?
I believe the answer is yes and no. The Nephilims were a result of a unholy union/alliance between man and demons. The demons knew of the coming of Christ among men and may have tried to taint the human blood line. Even though it probably wouldn’t have affected anything. The fact that the demons would try this and that man was in union with them, would have been enough for God to wipe man off the face of the planet, apart from the 7 He saw as righteous.
1 Like
You write:
What we have, in effect, is the first of many warnings in the bible against syncretism
I sounds more like a diatribe against race-mixing when you put it that way. Do forgive me if I am misunderstanding you.
So you are saying that the Bible is in error? The inspired text? And yet you trust Genesis for which only stories could be the source as writing wasn’t in use to not be an exaggeration? I think you have started down that slippery slope.
I am sure that you are aware of the verses that use “sons of God” to refer, unambiguously, to humans? A couple examples:
For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. (Rom 8:14, NASB)
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:26, NASB)
Far from it! I believe that Nephilims were in fact real as scripture says. But, that it was, “the land of the giants” is a stretch. I see nothing in scripture to indicate that.
- I don’t follow the NT, only the OT.
- The New Testament was written many centuries after the OT, enough time for terminology to change meaning. The Sons of God in Genesis 6 were referred to as ‘Watchers’ in Second Temple literature.
Also, why didn’t the author of Genesis 6 just call them ‘Sons of Seth’ and ‘Daughters of Cain’?
Why didn’t the author just call them angels (or half-angels)?
1 Like
An Angel and a Son of God were two different things. Ugaritic literature clearly distinguished Bn il from Mlkm.
However, Genesis 6:4 states that:
“There were Nephilim [giants] in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men”
Based on this, there were Nephilim both before and after the Flood. The original Nephilim were wiped out by the Flood, but then somehow another group of Nephilm arose in Canaan after the Flood. The Bible is silent on where this second group of Nephilim came from, but most likely a second group (or even the first group, if they hadn’t been sent to the Abyss yet) of fallen angels came down to intermarry with the Canaanites.
While the spies’ report is “evil,” that doesn’t mean they were lying about seeing giants in the land, simply that they did not believe they could defeat them even with God’s help. Likewise, Joshua and Caleb never deny that giants were in the land, and in fact Caleb is later seen taking the city of Hebron from the Anakim (Josh. 14:12-14), who are described as Nephilim (Nu 13:33). These Anakim are said to have taken refuge in the Philistine cities of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (Josh. 11:22). Which famous giant do we know that comes from Gath? Goliath, who is clearly described as a giant at 6 cubits and a span tall (~8 to 9ft tall, by my estimate). While Goliath is never said to be a Nephilim, it would make sense if he was descended from the Anakim who took refuge in Gath.
I based that height on an minimum estimate of Goliath’s height, since he is the only giant whose height is given in Scripture.
Yet another reason to acknowledge that human biases crept into Scripture. God is not racist or sexist, but humans are products of their racist and sexist cultures, so no surprise you find racist and sexist stuff in the Bible. It is a human product as well as divine revelation.
1 Like
I am familiar with word studies on the term Son of God because it caused a major ruckus in the Bible translation world a few years back. I don’t know if the following article would help with your investigation into the Nephilim questions, but it examines the linguistics of sonship in the Bible. http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/17_1_PDFs/Son_of_God.pdf (See the side bar that starts on the first and page for references to uses of “sons of God” in the OT.)