Nephilim: Giants of the Bible

[I Am Hugh]

The term giant can be found in the Bible to describe people of an unusual size. Og, the king of Bashan was of the people of the Rephaim who were unusually tall. His bier was nine cubits (13.1 ft; 4 m) in length and four cubits (5.8 ft; 1.8 m) in width. (Deuteronomy 3:11) Other giants mentioned in the Bible were Goliath of Gath, who was about 9.5 ft (2.9 m) tall, Ishbi-benob, Saph (Sippai); and Goliath's brother Lahmi as well as a man with six fingers on each of his hands and six toes on each of his feet. (1 Samuel 17:4-7; 2 Samuel 21:16, 18, 20; 1 Chronicles 20:4, 5)

Genesis 6:4 - The Hebrew word nephilim is plural, from the causative form of the verb naphal, meaning to fall, as found at 2 Kings 3:19; 19:7. Nephilim, then, means Fellers, or those who cause others to fall down. It is also used in a false sense at Numbers 13:33 (see below).

Scholarly interpretation varies as follows:

Some scholars believe the meaning of the word from fall indicates that the Nephilim were the fallen angels themselves who mated with human women. The Nephilim being the fallen angels.

Others believe the term "and so after that" at Genesis 6:4 indicates that the Nephilim were not the fallen angels or the mighty ones since the Nephilim "proved to be in the earth in those days" before the sons of God had sexual relations with the women. Those who interpret it this way believe the Nephilim were simply wicked men who would have been destroyed in the flood.

Considering the context, the Nephilim were not the angels themselves but the hybrid offspring of the unnatural union of angels taking the form of man and mating with human women.

I am convinced of the latter interpretation based upon the fact that in physical form the angels who forsook their natural position to become men in order to have sex with human women had their physical forms perish in the flood but would have returned in spirit form to heaven. (1 Peter 3:19-20; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6)

Some translations will move the term “and after that” to the beginning of the verse. This identifies the Nephilim with the mighty ones. For example Some Bibles translate the Hebrew hannephilim as giants and heroes from the Hebrew haggibborim. (See NIV) In the Greek Septuagint the word gigantes (giants) is used to translate both of those expressions.

Numbers 13:33 is a really cool reference to use here. It can easily be somewhat misunderstood. No one can deny the Bible’s potential for being misunderstood, but often it is misunderstood in that it is expected to reveal the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when that isn’t always the case as such. In this verse ten of the twelve sent out to survey the situation returned fearful and faithless. With Jehovah God on their side they were nevertheless afraid of the men of extraordinary size who they would come up against. They referred to them as the “Nephilim” and as “giants.” Only in this occasion are the people of Canaan referred to as “Nephilim” and only then to strike fear into the hearts of the camp. The fearful returning spies only used the term for that reason. The Nephilim perished in the flood, so the Bible is truthful in revealing this distortion but the distortion itself shouldn’t be misconstrued as truth. The Nephilim of Numbers 13:33 may be misapplied as those mentioned above in Genesis 6:4 when they in fact are not the same.

After the confusion of languages at Babel the brief account of the Nephilim seems to have inspired more than a few pagan mythologies. The confusion, at least in a modern interpretation, might be due to the term giants being thought of as mythological in the sense of the Greek deity, the Titan.

Joshua 12:4; 18:16 - Is an interesting example of the distinction between the two types of Bibles available. Many people don’t realize that the Bible version differs from the Bible translation in that the version allows for a greater or lesser degree of creative license whereas the translation typically leans towards the literal translation. The King James Version tends to be a great deal more liberal than most versions. Most Bibles read this verse as being in reference to the area of Rephaim, which in other verses is associated with people of unusual tall stature. NIV, ESV, ASV.

1 Samuel 17:4-7 - Goliath's height was six cubits and a span, which in today’s terms would be about 9.5 ft [2.9 m]. His coat of mail weighed about 125 lbs. [57 kg] and the blade of his spear weighed about 15 lbs. [6.8 kg]. His mail alone likely weighed as much or more than David himself.

Deuteronomy 2:20-21; 3:11 - These verses are similar to the verses above in that the King James Version uses the term associated with the area of Rephaim with the “land of giants” which, while not inaccurate isn’t a very literal translation. These verses differ in that they elaborate on the reference to giants. Here they are described in fuller detail.

Deuteronomy 2:10-11 - This verse indicates to me, the fallacy of the King James Version’s liberal approach to translation. The NIV reads: "The Emites used to live there - a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. Like the Anakites, they too were considered Rephaites, but the Moabites called them Emites." The KJV’s mention of Rephaites simply as “giants” gives us some insight into the unusually tall stature of the people in this area which the more literal translation doesn’t, but on the other hand there is something specific lost in translation; the specific mention of the Rephaites / Emites.

 

[Aaron112]

This has nothing to do with Christianity at all....

 

[I Am Hugh]

This has nothing to do with Christianity at all....

Well, to some people that may be the case, but some Christians think the Bible is relevant to Christianity.

 

[Aaron112]

The Bible is Truth.
The myths are fables the Bible warns sternly against.

 

[arrepto veritate]

The Bible is Truth.
The myths are fables the Bible warns sternly against.

But Gen 6:1-4 speak of the Nephilim and the the sons of God taking daughters of man as wives. So how is this myths and fables?

 

[arrepto veritate]

But Gen 6:1-4 speak of the Nephilim and the the sons of God taking daughters of man as wives. So how is this myths and fables?

I missed the fables part of the original post, please accept my apology.

 

[Paleouss]

IMO, Gen 6:1-4 is one of the thorniest parts of the Bible to interpret. A number of the words that are translated to english are used only once or only a handful of times in the entire Bible. Also, I am suprised that the original poster did not reference any Job verses.

I am convinced of the latter interpretation

I am a little confused as to which the original poster holds, since you went back and forth a couple of times before stating "I am convinced of the latter".

I myself am not convinced. To be specific, I am not convinced that Gen 6:1-3 is desribing the Nephilim in Gen 6:4. Although I do concede that Gen 6:4 is part of a whole of Gen 6:1-4. IMO, this is the 'ground zero' of any discussion on this issue. All the other stuff the original poster wrote is of little interest to me (unless it had to do with Gen 6:1-4 specifically).

 

[biblelesson]

The term giant can be found in the Bible to describe people of an unusual size. Og, the king of Bashan was of the people of the Rephaim who were unusually tall. His bier was nine cubits (13.1 ft; 4 m) in length and four cubits (5.8 ft; 1.8 m) in width. (Deuteronomy 3:11) Other giants mentioned in the Bible were Goliath of Gath, who was about 9.5 ft (2.9 m) tall, Ishbi-benob, Saph (Sippai); and Goliath's brother Lahmi as well as a man with six fingers on each of his hands and six toes on each of his feet. (1 Samuel 17:4-7; 2 Samuel 21:16, 18, 20; 1 Chronicles 20:4, 5)

Genesis 6:4 - The Hebrew word nephilim is plural, from the causative form of the verb naphal, meaning to fall, as found at 2 Kings 3:19; 19:7. Nephilim, then, means Fellers, or those who cause others to fall down. It is also used in a false sense at Numbers 13:33 (see below).

Scholarly interpretation varies as follows:

Some scholars believe the meaning of the word from fall indicates that the Nephilim were the fallen angels themselves who mated with human women. The Nephilim being the fallen angels.

Others believe the term "and so after that" at Genesis 6:4 indicates that the Nephilim were not the fallen angels or the mighty ones since the Nephilim "proved to be in the earth in those days" before the sons of God had sexual relations with the women. Those who interpret it this way believe the Nephilim were simply wicked men who would have been destroyed in the flood.

Considering the context, the Nephilim were not the angels themselves but the hybrid offspring of the unnatural union of angels taking the form of man and mating with human women.

I am convinced of the latter interpretation based upon the fact that in physical form the angels who forsook their natural position to become men in order to have sex with human women had their physical forms perish in the flood but would have returned in spirit form to heaven. (1 Peter 3:19-20; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6)

Some translations will move the term “and after that” to the beginning of the verse. This identifies the Nephilim with the mighty ones. For example Some Bibles translate the Hebrew hannephilim as giants and heroes from the Hebrew haggibborim. (See NIV) In the Greek Septuagint the word gigantes (giants) is used to translate both of those expressions.

Numbers 13:33 is a really cool reference to use here. It can easily be somewhat misunderstood. No one can deny the Bible’s potential for being misunderstood, but often it is misunderstood in that it is expected to reveal the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when that isn’t always the case as such. In this verse ten of the twelve sent out to survey the situation returned fearful and faithless. With Jehovah God on their side they were nevertheless afraid of the men of extraordinary size who they would come up against. They referred to them as the “Nephilim” and as “giants.” Only in this occasion are the people of Canaan referred to as “Nephilim” and only then to strike fear into the hearts of the camp. The fearful returning spies only used the term for that reason. The Nephilim perished in the flood, so the Bible is truthful in revealing this distortion but the distortion itself shouldn’t be misconstrued as truth. The Nephilim of Numbers 13:33 may be misapplied as those mentioned above in Genesis 6:4 when they in fact are not the same.

After the confusion of languages at Babel the brief account of the Nephilim seems to have inspired more than a few pagan mythologies. The confusion, at least in a modern interpretation, might be due to the term giants being thought of as mythological in the sense of the Greek deity, the Titan.

Joshua 12:4; 18:16 - Is an interesting example of the distinction between the two types of Bibles available. Many people don’t realize that the Bible version differs from the Bible translation in that the version allows for a greater or lesser degree of creative license whereas the translation typically leans towards the literal translation. The King James Version tends to be a great deal more liberal than most versions. Most Bibles read this verse as being in reference to the area of Rephaim, which in other verses is associated with people of unusual tall stature. NIV, ESV, ASV.

1 Samuel 17:4-7 - Goliath's height was six cubits and a span, which in today’s terms would be about 9.5 ft [2.9 m]. His coat of mail weighed about 125 lbs. [57 kg] and the blade of his spear weighed about 15 lbs. [6.8 kg]. His mail alone likely weighed as much or more than David himself.

Deuteronomy 2:20-21; 3:11 - These verses are similar to the verses above in that the King James Version uses the term associated with the area of Rephaim with the “land of giants” which, while not inaccurate isn’t a very literal translation. These verses differ in that they elaborate on the reference to giants. Here they are described in fuller detail.

Deuteronomy 2:10-11 - This verse indicates to me, the fallacy of the King James Version’s liberal approach to translation. The NIV reads: "The Emites used to live there - a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. Like the Anakites, they too were considered Rephaites, but the Moabites called them Emites." The KJV’s mention of Rephaites simply as “giants” gives us some insight into the unusually tall stature of the people in this area which the more literal translation doesn’t, but on the other hand there is something specific lost in translation; the specific mention of the Rephaites / Emites.

No such thing as Nephilims or spirit-men born from an angel and a human woman.

Giants in the land means men of renown from great kingdoms and great wealth. Adam, a son of God had sons, and they had sons, and so on. These sons were called the sons of God. Daughters were born called daughters of men. So there were sons of God born after Adam who married daughters of men and some of these men became men of renown.

Renown: the condition of being known or talked about by many people; fame.
"authors of great renown"

I know people want their to be half-men and half-angels walking around? But that goes against all laws of nature!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Biblically "giants" are just people of above-average stature. The most famous biblical "giant", Goliath, in a modern context would be shorter than some NBA players, standing at just short of 7ft.

That needs to be contextualized, as the Masoretic Text, which is the Hebrew source text for most English-language Bibles, records Goliath as significantly taller (just under 10ft). But the older witnesses of the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls record the more reasonable height of "four cubits and a span", which is about 6'9 or a little over 2 meters tall. Whereas the much later Masoretic Text offers a height of "six cubits and and a span" which is about 9'9 or almost 3 meters tall.

So "giants" biblically aren't fantastical, they're just tall people. Especially when we consider that the average male height at the time and place was around 5'5 or 165 cm.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

But Gen 6:1-4 speak of the Nephilim and the the sons of God taking daughters of man as wives. So how is this myths and fables?

Depends on how one is interpreting the text.

The idea that angels had sex with human women and gave rise to a race of human-angel hybrids is a very silly idea. Which is why it isn't the mainstream view of either Christianity or Judaism in how either religion interprets the text here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[arrepto veritate]

Depends on how one is interpreting the text.

The idea that angels had sex with human women and gave rise to a race of human-angel hybrids is a very silly idea. Which is why it isn't the mainstream view of either Christianity or Judaism in how either religion interprets the text here.

-CryptoLutheran

When researching 1 Cor 11:10 Gen 6:1-4 came up a lot. I am still looking into. However thank you for your insight.

 

[Paleouss]

When researching 1 Cor 11:10 Gen 6:1-4 came up a lot. I am still looking into. However thank you for your insight.

Hello arrepto veritate

As I said previously, I think ground zero is your research, prayer and interpretation of Gen 6:1-4. I recommend an in depth, word-for-word research of the translated Hebrew words in these four verses (Gen 6:1-4).

For example, my first start at this topic began with Gen 6:1. More specifically, around whether Hā-’ā-ḏām should be tranlsted 'men' or 'mankind' and the translated word "began" (hê·ḥêl).

The Hebrew word “hê·ḥêl” in its exact form occurs 19 times in the Bible. The root word is chalal which has a “defile”, “break”, “eat as common things” hint. Of those 19 occurrence of hê·ḥêl in this exact form it appears only 2 other times in Genesis. In Gen 10:8, hê·ḥêl is used within the context of Nimrod (trans: “rebel” or “lord of rebellion”), he is a “rebel” that is “in face” of God (lip̄·nê Gen 10:9); And in Gen 44:12, hê·ḥêl is used within the context of Joseph testing his brothers to see if past defilement is also current defilement of their character.

Of the other 16 uses of hê·ḥêl in the OT, 15 of the 16 are within the context of defilement. In Num 16:46 & 16:47, hê·ḥêl is used within the context of the plague that had begun; In Judges 20:39, within the context of the moral degeneration of Israel and Benjamin “strik[ing] and killing” men of Israel; In 1 Samuel 14:35, where Saul built an altar to the lord but it was defiled by the sin of Jonathan who had eaten honey (forbidden as a burnt offering (Lev 2:11)) after an oath was given; 2 Kings 10:32, hê·ḥêl is used when defilement began with Israel and God “cut off parts of Israel” (NKJ); In 2 Kings 15:37, when in Jotham’s reign God sent “Rezin king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah against Judah” (NKJ) for defilement; In 1 Chr 1:10, hê·ḥêl is again used within the context of Nimrod (trans: “rebel” or “lord of rebellion”); In 2 Chr 29:27, twice in the context of the beginning of the burning of the burnt offering for defilement atonement; In 2 Chr 34:3, in the context of a purge of defilement beginning in Juda; In Eze 20:9, 20:14 & 20:22, the word hê·ḥêl is translated “profaned” (NKJ, ESV, NIV) and is in the context of God not wanting his “name” to be defiled... you get the point.

We see other forms of a Hebrew phrase suggesting a translation of “began” more frequently pointing toward good use or with a verse where there is no sin or defilement. In Gen 4:26, the first use of any Hebrew word translated for “began” in Genesis when the Hebrew word of hū·ḥal is used, as “people began to call on the name of the Lord” (NKJ, NIV, ESV); In Gen 9:20, the Hebrew way·yā·ḥel translated “began” is within the context of Noah working the soil; In Gen 26:13, the Hebrew word phrase way·yiḡ·dal translated “began” is within the context of Isaac being prosperous, the root word being gadal which means to grow up or become great.

So it seems to me, it is very clear from above that the Hebrew hê·ḥêl, commonly translated to only “began”, can intend to carry with it a notion of defilement. So my preferred, more awkward, interpretation of Gen 6:1 would be (reading it in Interlinear order)…

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, - when - defile/began - men - to multiply - on - the face - of the earth

In other words, it should be, IMO, "men" not "mankind" and the reason for the distinction is that these "men" are possibly being identified as a restrictive group by the Hebrew word hê·ḥêl.

This interpretation impacts Gen 6:2.

 

[arrepto veritate]

That was very informative about began hê·ḥêl meaning defilement and I saw rebellion in another place. How does the defilement/rebellion of man affect the sons of God bene Elohim taking daughters of hehel? I know Elohim is mainly translated God but has been translated as judges and even tribe. Scholars now and Jewish rabbis of the past are divided as to whether the sons of God are divine or not. I have even seen division on if the divine sons of God are fallen or not.
Personal, I want to think it was divine sons of God, because that makes Ps 82 a lot more interesting, and raises question about 1 Cor 11:10, which I am still looking into.

 

[RonJohnSilver]

My church pastor happens to be going through the Bible again and we are just now in early Genesis. His view of the Gen. 6 issue is that it is angelic/human interaction. The other views (Sethite/Human rulers) have too many holes to be meant and the angelic view has corresponding verses in the NT. Odd, to be sure, but it fits with other Bible verses in Numbers, Peter and Jude as well as some Jewish secular beliefs. The reason seems to be an attempt to destroy the possibility of the messiahs totally human birth. A lot of controversy to be sure, but this is angelic warfare at the highest level.

 

[Paleouss]

The other views (Sethite/Human rulers) have too many holes to be meant and the angelic view has corresponding verses in the NT. Odd, to be sure, but it fits with other Bible verses in Numbers, Peter and Jude as well as some Jewish secular beliefs.

Hi Ron

I would like to ask you to provide chapter and verse numbers for all to see who read your post. When one reads things on this site, one should always take it to scripture and prayer for study and renewal. Providing that information would help those that read your post seek God's truth.

The reason seems to be an attempt to destroy the possibility of the messiahs totally human birth. A lot of controversy to be sure, but this is angelic warfare at the highest level.

IMO, those that hold to a "Kingdom" spiritual battle narrative do not have to hold to Gen 6:1-4 being angelic mischief.

There is a reason that Gen 6:1-4 has been debated for over 2000yrs. The reason being that both sides, IMO, have more implicit verse references than explicit verse references. That and many of the Hebrew words in these four verses, Gen 6:1-4, are used only once or only a couple of times within the entire Bible.

May God do a fruitful work through you

 

[Paleouss]

Personal, I want to think it was divine sons of God

Greetings arrepto,

I hope we find God's truth. Whatever that may be.

How does the defilement/rebellion of man affect the sons of God bene Elohim taking daughters of hehel?

As I said in another post, this has been a dispute for a long, long time. A couple of posts won't clear it up. No matter what side a person is on, a lot of cutting paths through the weeds is required. In the end, niether side can present enough to be definitive to eliminate the others evidence, IMO. That's why the debate goes on. I think one that truely seeks God's truth knows both sides. I will not be presenting the Angel side of it. Please do this research, however. Luckely, this issue has nothing to do with our salvation and shouldn't hinder God's children from interacting in peace and love with one another.

So what we have previously done in Gen 6:1 is given a reason to take a more narrowed use of the word bə·nō·wṯ hā·’ā·ḏām ("daughters of men" (Gem 6:2)) other than 'humans' or 'men' in general; since the usage of hā·’ā·ḏām with hê·ḥêl in Gen 6:1 may give imagery of a restricted group of man, that is the defiled or rebellious group that had defiled or rebellious daughters. So why is it important to discover if "daughters of men" (Gen 6:2) are a restricted group? One reason would be to set the stage for seeking the truth on whether Gen 6:2 is attempting to dipict a contrast of imagery; that contrast between goldy sons (Gen 4:26, 5:24) vs ungodly daughters (Gen 4:16).

The Hebrew word bə·nō·wṯ is translated “daughters” and hā·’ā·ḏām to “men” (KJV) or “man” (ESV) throughout the Bible. The phrase “daughters of”, when referring to humanity’s defilement in the face of God, occurs 3 other times in Genesis. (A disclaimer, many translations remove the term "daughters of" within these verses. You will have to go to Strongs # to research it properly as I present it) It appears in Gen 6:4 under the same context as Gen 6:2; In Gen 27:46, when Rebekah puts the term “daughters of Heth” in a general defiled context and laments about Jacob possibly taking one as a wife (which if very pertinant to our research); and in Gen 28:8, when the “daughters of Cannan” is used again as a phrase in a context of defilement and marriage.

So we have set a possible stage in which Gen 6:2 is giving a contrast of imagery between two groups, "sons of God" and "daughters of men". We have already established that these daughters of men are most likely not those that "call on the name of the Lord" (Gen 4:26) so they would be out of the presence of God (Gen 4:16). So we have a possible contrast of (1) Angels vs ungodly daughters (2) Godly men vs ungodly daughters. I don't take to the "rulers" position.

I'll stop for now, needing to get to other things.


May your daily renewal and submission to God bring blessings

 

[Paleouss]

which I am still looking into.

Good morning,

Reflecting on context before Gen 6:2, we see Adam and Eve sinned (Gen 3:6-7), Cain killed (Gen 4:8), Lamech took two wives (Gen 4:19) and killed two men (Gen 4:23), Seth begat Enosh and “people began to call upon the name of the Lord” (Gen 4:26). And in Gen 6:1, man’s defile-began to multiply; and they had “daughters of men” (denoting ungodly daughters).

So the overarching question, for me, is how did Gen 4:26 “people began to call upon the name of the Lord”, deteriorate down to only "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord" (Gen 6:8)? Which leaves us with our two contrasting groups. Either (1) Fallen Angels vs ungodly daughters. (2) Godly sons vs ungodly daughters. If we say that Gen 6:2 is angels, we still don't answer the question. Which is how did the godly detererate down to only Noah?

It is another key piece, IMO, that Scripure states that they "took wives" (Gen 6:2). The pharase "to take wife" is an expression throughout the entire OT for the marriage relationship, union between man and woman, established by God at creation. This expression is a Biblical fit within Gen 6:2 if we see “sons of God” as men calling on the name of the Lord (Gen 4:26). This term “to take wife” is never applied to adulty, fornication, homosexuality, sexual relations with animals, or any simple act of physical connection within the Biblical text. If we applied this “to take wife” to Gen 6:2 under the assumption that “sons of God'' are angels, we would have to consider our inconsistentcy with the rest of the Bible. Is it warranted? Some might still say, yes.

In Gen 6:2 the Hebrew way-yiq-ḥū nā·šîm, translated “and they took wives”, can be paralleled with Judges 3:6.

Judges 3:6 And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons; and they served their gods.

In Judges 3:6 we see that the Israelites failed to keep the covenant by “living among” the people of the land, intermarrying with them “took their daughters to be their wives”, and “served their gods” by being pulled and influenced away from God. Marriage outside the Israelite community leads to weakening the bond with God. Could this be the same thing going on here in Gen 6:1-2? We would have good Biblical sourcing that God does not like intermarriage between the godly and ungodly, to be sure.

Just as a observational hesitation about Angels procreating with human beings. In all of God's creation, one species cannot procreate with any other species. Mankind cannot procreate with horses, dogs, birds, monkeys, bears... you get the point. Likewise, horses cannot procreate with dogs, nor birds with monkeys or bears. It seems that God has so designed his creation to prevent cross procreating. I'm not sure why this shouldn't at least give us pause and additional diligence when anaylying whether angels can procreate with humans.

So is the sin established within Gen 6:2 not of recklessness, promiscuousness or fornication? But a sin of some kind of marriage that was a violation of God’s will. We have three reasonable options from the text.

1. Spiritual degradation: “of all whom they chose” may refer to choosing wives without regard to their spiritual status.
2. Marital Polygamy: “of all whom they chose” may refer to choosing multiple wives.
3. Or both.


And now, finally, to "sons of God".


May your living sacrifice be a blessing to others

 

[biblelesson]

Personal, I want to think it was divine sons of God, because that makes Ps 82 a lot more interesting, and raises question about 1 Cor 11:10, which I am still looking into.

Reading the linage of Jesus, Luke 3:23-38 KJV, tells us who the sons of God is in Gen 6:2 KJV

Adam being the first man was the son of God. The “race of man” that God created, are called sons of God, Luke 3:38 KJV.

The “race of angles” God created are also called sons of God, Job 1:6 KJV.

So as it relates to Genesis 6:2 KJV, it is clear who those sons of God relate to based on the breakdown of Jesus lineage in Luke 3:38 KJV.

If people would pay attention to Genesis 6:1 KJV, it is obvious the earth was being populated and daughters as well as sons were being born. The men born, who were the sons of God married those daughters born unto those men, who were called daughters of men.

Daughters born could not be called daughters of God based on God’s creation because God created man. Woman was taken from God’s creation. So they are called daughters of men.

This is what I believe is creating confusion.

 

[Paleouss]

Hello all,

Still working on my long winded review of Gen 6:1-2. I debated on giving a thorough analysis of how the Bible uses bēn (son) and sons-of-X to denote such things as family heredity or descriptions of humanity’s alienation from God. But I chose not to do it. Just know that the understanding of the OT use of “sons of” is important.

Before we get to the Job verses and there use of the term "sons of God" (bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm), it is important to list a few initial problems with the angel view, IMO, in Gen 6:2 up to this point in my presentation.

(1) If “daughters of men” is supposed to be a restricted group (per our previous analysis in this thread), then why? One could conclude, “sons of God” are to be contrasted with “daughters of men” in 6:2. The contrast being between godly and ungodly. If these sons of God are angels then the contrast would simply be with angels and humans, no restricted group needed for the daughters of men. But we have suggested the group should be restricted due to Gen 6:1.

(2) Gen 6:2 is speaking of marriage not fornication or sexual mischief. It’s not saying these sons of God deceived or tricked these daughters, but married them. The daughters were not enticed by the sons, the sons were enticed by the daughters because they were “beautiful” (Gen 6:2) We have established previously that “to take wife” is an expression throughout the entire OT for the marriage relationship, union between man and woman, established by God at creation. This term “to take wife” is never applied to adulty, fornication, homosexuality, sexual relations with animals, or any simple act of physical connection within the Biblical text.

(3) The term “sons of God” (Gen 6:2), at first glance, would appear to support imagery suggesting being in the favor of God. But that is not what the angel view would suggest. It would suggest that these angels have fallen and are not in the favor of God. This notion that “sons of God” is imagery reserved for those in the favor of God and his blessing seems to be supported by the fact that no other reference of imagery to a fallen angel in the Bible is anything other than things like sinful, fallen, astray, a thief, a murderer, a father of lies. The fallen are given imagery of rebellion and evil in the Bible, not favor. On the other hand, angels in the favor of God are called “angels of God” (Luke 12:8), “sons of the mighty” (Psalm 89:6), “holy ones” (Psalm 89:5), “holy watchers” (Daniel 4:13)... and … most likely “sons of God” (Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7); although these Job verses will be disputed. And Satan is described as masquerading as an angel of light (2Cor 11:14), leading the whole world astray (Revelation 12:9). He is a thief (John 10:10), a murderer, and the father of lies (John 8:44).

The most sticky part of the “sons of God” as angels or men is that Job uses the same exact phrase, bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm, three times in Job (Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7). The exact phrase, bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm is not used any other place in Scripture. These uses in Job are clearly referring to angels. The debate from here on out is upon whether bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm is a distinction only for angels or a phrase depicting imagery and the favor of God.

So to address the angel view, the Job verses must be analyzed to discover if the use of bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm is more of a name for angels or imagery of being in favor of God.

May your fait and submission be a living sacrifice to God

 

[Paleouss]

The strongest source the angel view has, IMO, is the uses of bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7. The angel view holds that bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm is only used in Gen 6:2, 4 and in Job (x3). Therefore, according to the angel view, since we know that the three Job verses are angels then Gen 6:2 are also angels.

The first thing I think is very important to point out is that Job uses other Hebrew words within Job when speaking about angels besides bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm, “sons of God” (Job 1:6,2:1, 38:7). Job refers to angels in two other instances using a different Hebrew form of angel (Job 4:18, Job 33:23). In both those verses Job uses the Hebrew word mal·’āḵ (Job 33:22) or its derivative mal·’ā·ḵāw(Job 4:18). This Hebrew word for angel, mal·’āḵ, is found in the Bible 64 times. It is a well known Hebrew word for angel.

A legitimate question should materialize from this realization. Why doesn’t Job use a more common Hebrew rendering of angel in the verses he decides to put “sons of God” (bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm)? He clearly knows other Hebrew forms of angel. Why does he choose to use the imagery of “sons of God” (bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm) instead of “angel” (mal·’āḵ)?

Job 1:6 (NKJV) Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

Looking at Job 1:6, we see the passage distinguishing three entities: (1) the “sons of God”, (2) the “Lord”, (3) and “Satan”. Job has clearly chosen to distinguish three groups. The question becomes, why? Is it because…

Job wanted to designate a single, individual angel from the rest of the angels by
A) name (angels vs Satan/angel)
or
B) imagery (“Sons of God” vs “Adversary”); the Hebrew word haś·śā·ṭān is translated “Satan” which means “adversary”.

The (A) option would be the angel view to be placed in Gen 6:2. The Gen 6:2 angel advocates often see the term bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm only applying to angels so the imagery of “sons of God” here in Job 1:6 would seem to lose meaning. If bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm should simply be translated to ‘angels’ (like NIV) and not retain its imagery, then the relationship, membership and favor of this group of angels in Job 1:6 becomes blurred. But is this what Job wants? Who are these other angels? Are they fallen angels or devoted to God? Are they demonstrating “readiness for service” or are they “taking one’s stand”? It doesn’t say.

However, if we take Job to mean that sons of God is imagery for relationship, membership, and favor of God then we know exactly who these other angels are. They are angels in the relationship, membership and favor of God that are being contrasted against the angel that is not, the adversary (Satan). This would clearly fall within our understanding of the imagery use of the phrase “sons of…” within the Bible. We would not need to contort our understanding of the frequently used imagery throughout the Bible and the imagery use fits well within Job 1:6 explaining why the “sons of God” imagery is being used and not the more common word for angel (mal·’āḵ). This imagery use can also explain the other uses of bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm in Job (Gen 2:1, 38:7).

So, I think I have established with reasonable information that bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm can be more appropriately considered as imagery for contrasting than a particular name or reference for angels only.

Finally...I'm done.


Peace be with you