BibleTools

Topical Studies

 A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z


What the Bible says about Nephilim
(From Forerunner Commentary)

Genesis 6:1-4

The opening verses of Genesis 6 have been a stumbling block for many Bible readers through the ages. Instead of scouring the Bible for scriptural clues to their true meaning, many have allowed their imaginations and faulty reasoning to invent sometimes wild and fantastic interpretations of them. They either ignore or do not realize that God's Word contradicts their readings of this passage.

Many people believe that these “sons of God” were fallen angels who married beautiful, earthly women—“daughters of men.” This fanciful idea sounds familiar, a echo of classical mythology, in which the “gods” seduced human women, who afterward bore demigods who grew up to be “mighty men” and “men of renown.” It is a common theme in those Greek and Roman tales.

The basic idea of this interpretation is that, as a result of these unions between angels and women, the children produced were called Nephilim, a Hebrew word that means “giants.” Apparently, through their natural gifts inherited from their angelic fathers, these half-angel/half-human beings became powerful, famous men, doers of great exploits. We have only to recall the stories of Hercules, Perseus, or Achilles to understand this explanation of these verses.

It is surprising how many people across the breadth of religiosity believe this pagan understanding. It almost seems as if they want to believe it, not because it is true, which it is not, but because it is sensational and exciting like the old mythological stories that tickle the fancy rather than speak the truth.

John Reiss
Can Angels Marry Women?

Genesis 6:1-4

An often overlooked fact that precludes angels from being the fathers of these men of renown is that angels cannot reproduce. Jesus tells us in Mark 12:25 that in the resurrection, human beings will be like the angels in heaven, who “neither marry nor are given in marriage.” His statement very clearly contradicts the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6:2, which states that the “sons of God” (benē hā'ĕlōhīm) married the “daughters of men” (benôt hā'ādām).

In Genesis, a principle that surfaces early is that a created kind only reproduces after its own kind. This physical law means that one class of creature can mate and reproduce among its own class: Cats can only mate with other cats and produce kittens; dogs can only mate with other dogs and produce puppies—but cats and dogs cannot produce a strange hybrid of their very different species. This principle is established scientific fact.

That humans are fleshly, physical beings is evident in Genesis 2. In Genesis 2:7, Moses writes, “The LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground.” Later, when God formed Eve out of Adam's rib (verse 21), Adam exclaimed about her, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” The carnality or fleshiness of humanity is made countless times throughout Scripture.

Yet, Psalm 104:4 confirms that God “makes His angels spirits, His ministers a flame of fire,” and Hebrews 1:14 confirms this fact: “Are [angels] not all ministering spirits . . .?” (emphasis ours throughout). Since human beings are composed of flesh and angels of spirit, they cannot be of the same kind. Angels cannot impregnate mortal women and produce anything. It is not possible for two distinct kinds to mate and reproduce.

Further, were angels and human females able to reproduce, their children would not be human but some weird hybrid, half-angel/half-human. God, however, tells us that the progeny of the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” were human. Where is this? In the very context!

Notice verse 1: “Now it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth . . .” and also verse 3: “And the LORD said, 'My Spirit shall not strive with man forever.” And Moses writes plainly in verse 4 of the children who were born to them, these “giants”: “Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” The children of these unions were not angels, not hybrids, but men.

Genesis 6:4 points out that these giants were the result “when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men.” A phrase like this is a common term in the Old Testament for sexual intercourse (Genesis 16:4; 29:23, 30; 30:4; 38:2, 9; 38:18; etc.). Such a description of the process of human insemination eliminates any so-called spiritual—or even “magical”—conception that would supersede the normal human method of impregnation.

“Giants” is the translation of the Hebrew word nephilim. The Greek translation is gigantes, from which we derive the English word, “giants.” However, the Hebrew word seems to have its roots in naphal, which means “to fall,” and some translations render it “fallen ones.” The sense may be that such “men of renown” fell in battle or fell upon their enemies. Another sense is that they were a “fallen” form of humanity, that is, they had declined far from what God wanted men to be.

Verse 4 is not the only place where the word nephilim appears in the Bible. The same author, Moses, recording the words of the spies he had sent out, writes in Numbers 13:33: “And there we saw the giants [nephilim], the sons of Anak, which come of the giants [nephilim], and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”

These Nephilim were the sons of Anak, son of Arba (see Joshua 15:13-14; 21:11). Easton's Bible Dictionary identifies the Anakim as “probably a remnant of the original inhabitants of Palestine before the Canaanites, a Cushite tribe from Babel, and of the same race as the Phoenicians and the Egyptian shepherd kings.” If this is so, the giants in Moses' day were descended from Cush, not fallen angels. The Nephilim were human.

John Reiss
Can Angels Marry Women?

Genesis 6:4

The Scriptures indicate that these giants died out. Not long after this, God sent a worldwide Flood to destroy "all flesh" upon the earth (Genesis 7:21). Since these giants were simply a natural, genetic variation of human beings, they died along with the rest of the earth's population. The only humans to escape that catastrophe were Noah and his family.

Since Noah was of a stock of smaller people, most of his descendants were of his stature. However, some of the genes to produce giants survived through the wife of Ham, one of Noah's sons. Therefore, a number of the sons of Canaan (one of Ham's sons) were giants (Numbers 13:1-2, 32-33). In Deuteronomy 2:19-21, Moses records that God destroyed the giants who dwelt in Ammon so that the children of Lot could possess the land. Those giants - who apparently descended from Canaan through a man named Anak - eventually became extinct. King Og of Bashan was the last of them to inhabit Palestine east of Jordan (Deuteronomy 3:11).

Another well-known biblical giant is Goliath of Gath (or "the Gittite"), whom the teenage David killed with a sling stone (I Samuel 17). Goliath's brother and sons were also men of great stature, and the Bible explicitly mentions that David and his men killed them all (II Samuel 21:15-22; I Chronicles 20:4-8).

Both before and after the Flood, God was directly involved in the destruction of those giant men. The reason for their destruction is not stated directly, but like Goliath, those men seemed always to be in opposition to God and to His people Israel.

Staff


Genesis 6:4

"Giants" is the Hebrew word nephilim, which has little or nothing to do with being tall and muscular but refers to cultural leadership. God is describing the culture immediately before the Flood. Nephilim has to be seen in that context. These Nephilim - giants not in size but in influence - were establishing evil, deceitful, violent, and enslaving leadership. They were "men of renown," which literally means they were men of name. In other words, they had a reputation, but that term is used in a derogatory sense. These were not good characters.

John W. Ritenbaugh
Where Is the Beast? (Part Two)

Genesis 10:8-10

Nimrod means "let us revolt." In the context of Genesis 10, there is absolutely no mention of animals that he supposedly hunted. The context has to do with the description of character, moral spirituality, and culture. Nimrod was a mighty man, a mighty hunter in terms of men. He was like the Nephilim (see Genesis 6:4). He was a giant of a moral and spiritual nature.

What was Nimrod doing when he was hunting? Nimrod hunted other Nephilim and eliminated them. He got rid of the competition and established a despotic and autocratic system of government. He did that before the Lord. In other words, he did what he did right in front of God. God was aware of what he was doing. The revolt was not hidden.

If a person is standing before another, he can stand before him as a friend, as neutral, or as an enemy. There is already an indication of how Nimrod stood before the Lord, because he is named "he who revolts." He is standing before the Lord as an enemy. He is against God, as chapter 11 shows.

Nimrod founded a city, and he named it Babilu. Not Babel. He called it Babilu, which means "Gate of God." "Babel" is what the Hebrews called it, and thus when Moses, a Hebrew, wrote Genesis, he called it "Babel." Babel is the Hebrew name. It sounds somewhat similar to Babilu, but Babel means "confusion."

John W. Ritenbaugh
Where Is the Beast? (Part Two)

Genesis 10:8-12

The name Nimrod means "rebellion" or "let us revolt." At the heart of a rebel or revolutionary—one who seeks to change the present order through his own means—is the desire to rule. Satan, the original rebel, was not merely displeased with God—he wanted to replace Him. A rebel is known for asserting his position, his displeasure, his ideas, and ultimately his own authority. He seeks preeminence. His trail is littered with division and destruction rather than peace and stability. Rather than allowing God to govern in His own creation—physical or spiritual—and direct events according to what He knows will be best, the rebel takes matters into his own hands with an unshakable faith in his own efforts and abilities.

Rebellion and revolution are not just about change, but change with an eye toward establishing a replacement leadership. Indeed, Nimrod was the leader of a revolt against God, not militarily, but culturally and spiritually through the Babylonian system that has its roots in him. The Bible says that rebellion, and all it implies, "is as the sin of witchcraft" (I Samuel 15:23). It also warns "not [to] associate with those given to change" (Proverbs 24:21), implying a change in leadership, and especially in circumstances that God has ordained, for "an evil man seeks only rebellion; therefore a cruel messenger will be sent against him" (Proverbs 17:11).

The fact that Nimrod was a "mighty hunter" against God (Genesis 10:9) could have two different meanings. On the one hand, some scholars postulate that Nimrod's skill in dealing with wild animals led to various peoples flocking to his banner. His promise of protection and security from harm persuaded the residents of the land to submit to him:

Nimrod, like other great kings of Mesopotamian lands, was a mighty hunter, possibly the mightiest and the prototype of them all, since to his name had attached itself the proverb: "Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before Yahweh" (Genesis 10:9). In the primitive days of Mesopotamia, as also in Palestine, wild animals were so numerous that they became a menace to life and property (Exodus 23:29; Leviticus 26:22); therefore the king as benefactor and protector of his people hunted these wild beasts. (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

A second possibility is that Nimrod did not hunt animals at all, but that his prey was other human beings. Genesis 10:9 makes no mention of animals, but instead deals with Nimrod's character and moral base—something about his character was very contrary to God! He may have been one of the nephilim, one of the cultural giants who were "men of renown" or "men of name," signifying reputation (Genesis 6:4). Unwilling to brook any opposition, the "mighty hunter" would have hunted the other leaders of his time who were influential or mighty.

A common element connects these two possibilities: Nimrod's narcissism. Whether he gained a following through promising protection and security or he aggressively hunted the competition, what is revealed is his striving to be on top. Sadly, most people went along with it. People like to be associated with success, with popular movements, with momentum. Nothing attracts people like the appearance of greatness and accomplishment.

Nimrod certainly accomplished a great deal, as he has the founding of at least eight cities to his credit (Genesis 10:10-12). Indeed, one of them, Babel, was the site of the infamous tower of the same name. The project began as a means to protect against calamity—specifically an act of God. Genesis 11:4 records that the people of Shinar built a tower to "make a name" for themselves. Their solution to the threat of being scattered was to band together in a grand project that would ensure their viability. This, too, was likely done under the premise of providing protection—from another flood, if nothing else. The construction was not done to honor or glorify God, but for their own indulgence.

Name here means "an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication honor, authority, character." It contains the idea of a "definite and conspicuous position." They were not concerned about their standing with God, but only about their legacy! God's response to those who sought a name for themselves was the very thing they were trying to protect against: scattering (Genesis 11:8-9). God's scattering at Babel was so thorough that it exists to this day! "For who can make straight what He has made crooked?" (Ecclesiastes 7:13).

Nimrod's tale is one of arrogance and blindness. He did not use his leadership abilities and aptitudes constructively but for self-exaltation and the pursuit of preeminence. His competitiveness may have gained him subjects but always at the expense of someone else. He was not afraid to step on others as he fought his way to the top. His central thought was not what God was doing but what he was doing. He foolishly promised protection to those who would throw their lot in with him—something only God can guarantee! His "salvation through association," though it sounded nice, was deceptive and could only disappoint.

David C. Grabbe
Coattails


 




The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment

The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment

Sign up for the Berean: Daily Verse and Comment, and have Biblical truth delivered to your inbox. This daily newsletter provides a starting point for personal study, and gives valuable insight into the verses that make up the Word of God. See what over 150,000 subscribers are already receiving each day.

Email Address:

   
Leave this field empty

We respect your privacy. Your email address will not be sold, distributed, rented, or in any way given out to a third party. We have nothing to sell. You may easily unsubscribe at any time.
 A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z
©Copyright 1992-2024 Church of the Great God.   Contact C.G.G. if you have questions or comments.
Share this on FacebookEmailPrinter version
Close
E-mail This Page