A while ago I posted an article on the Nephilim stating that I did not believe that the Nephilim were demonic offspring. I then deleted the article because I became uncertain if I was indeed correct. Since then I have been searching for the truth and I am happy to say I have found the TRUTH. The reason I am so passionate about the answer to this question is because of the rise in interest in the supernatural, i.e, aliens, trans-humanism etc. There are stories running abound that during the tribulation demons will be free to do as they please on earth, producing offspring like the Nephilim. The bible is very clear that we are to not let our minds be captured by occult imagination because when human minds get hold of unbiblical ideas it runs free and causes all sorts of havoc.
Permission received by Anton Bosch to re-publish his article. Thank you!
[** Emphasis added by DTW]
[** See DTW notes at bottom of article.]
By Pastor Anton Bosch – www.antonbosch.org
The Hebrew word Nephilim is translated “giants” in the Old Testament. It only appears twice in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33. A whole series of doctrines have been built around this word, in spite of the fact that the word only appears rarely. These doctrines on the Nephilim are based on Genesis 6:1-4.(It must be noted that most speculators lean very heavily on extra-biblical writings for most of their information.) The theories can basically be summed up as follows:
Demons / angels (sons of God) had illicit relationships with women (the daughters of men) and these perverted relations produced genetically mutated beings known as Nephilim (giants). God then imprisoned some of the angles who did this and in order to purify the bloodline of man God brought on the Flood. Through genetic engineering these Nephilim will be resurrected, one of which will be the Antichrist[i]. To these people, the Nephilim are also connected to so-called extra-terrestrial forms of life.
Since these theories are gaining ground and a number of books have been published based on this hypothesis, it is necessary to examine Genesis 6 again and see what exactly it teaches. We will discover that the proponents of these theories break every principle of hermeneutics. Here is the text:
“Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” There were giants 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“. (Genesis 6:1-4)
Sons of God
The first problem revolves around who in the passage are the “sons of God”. Some make the connection with Job 1:6; 2:1. “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.” (Job 1:6). It is obvious, and not contested, that the “sons of God” in Job were angels. But does that mean that this term in Genesis 6:2 also refers to angels?
First, the normal meaning of “sons of God” is “believers”. “But as many as received him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12). Job 1:6 (a poetic book) is the only place where angels are called “sons of God”. It is logical and reasonable therefore that the normal meaning be attached to the term here, rather than the exception, as found in Job, unless there were something in the text that made a connection between Genesis 6 and Job 1 – which is absent.
Second Jesus explicitly said that “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30) (See also Luke 20:34-36). Therefore in Jesus’ own words, angels are asexual and do not procreate.
So here is the problem. Genesis is obscure about who had the relations. Jesus said angels do not have relations. So either Jesus was mistaken or the “sons of God” were not angels. You choose! It is really as simple as that – there are no other options.
Some try to get around this by saying that the angels inhabited (possessed) human bodies to do this. That sounds good. But here is the question: A Christian man has the Holy Spirit in him. When that man produces a child by his wife, what is the child? God or man? Clearly, it is a man. There are multitudes of people in the world who are demon possessed and who procreate. What do they produce? Human babies or mutants? Obviously human babies. So why should Genesis 6 be any different. If demons entered into men to produce offspring the children would be human, and only human.
One of the principles of hermeneutics is that the Old Testament is interpreted in the light of the New Testament and not the other way round. In order to say that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are angels (or demons) we must discard the light of the NT and that should never happen.
The nature of the relationships
The next problem is that it is claimed that the angels had illicit relations with women. Yet the text is very clear: “they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose” (Genesis 6:2b). The phrase “took wives for themselves” only, and always, means marriage. It never refers to casual, illicit or adulterous relationships. (See Genesis 11:29 & Ruth 1:4). To suggest otherwise is reading into the text that which is simply not there.
The theory goes that the giants were the product of these illicit relationships. We have shown that the text does not refer to illicit relationships and that the fathers could not be angels.
Genesis 6:4, again is very clear: “There were giants 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.” Notice that it says there were giants (fact number 1) and afterwards the sons of God came into… (fact number 2). There is NO connection between the fact that there were giants and the fact that people had children.
It is exactly like me saying: “There is milk in the supermarket and eggs are $1.50 a dozen” Milk has no effect on the price, or even the existence, of eggs and the other way around. I am simply stating two facts that describe things about food in the supermarket.
In Genesis 6 Moses is describing the state of the world before the flood. He makes no connection between the Nephilim and the sons of God and daughters of men. If the sentence had been reversed as follows: “The sons of God came into the daughters of men and they bore Nephilim” then you could postulate some theory about the nature of this process. But the text does not give us any room to connect the Nephilim with these marriages.
Genesis 6:4 does say that the children that were produced “were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown“. “Mighty men” is a term which is used 154 times in the OT and simply refers to powerful men, either physically or politically. Just like there are many mighty men today and some are men of God and others are worldly and unsaved, so there were mighty men in those days, of which Noah was one.
“Men of old” also holds no mystique, these were simply the heroes of bygone days.
“Men of renown” is also used in Numbers 16:2 and Ezekiel 23:23. These are famous men, or well-known men. The Hebrew term literally means “men with a name” meaning they had “made a name” for themselves.
The descendants of these relationships were not monsters, mutants, or anything extraordinary. Some were ordinary people and some were powerful, some were little known and others had made a name for themselves. Genesis 6:5 (the next verse) goes on to describe these people as wicked and worthy of God’s judgment.
Furthermore, the translation of the word Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 as “giants” is very arbitrary. There are many other possible ways this word could be translated here: “Bullies”, “mighty ones” or “tyrants”. At least one dictionary states that the Nephilim in Genesis and in Numbers were two different peoples[ii]. Once again, we cannot build an entire doctrine on a word which we cannot translate or explain with any measure of certainty.
Genesis 6:4 is simply a description of life before the flood and not a commentary on mysterious genetic mutant life forms. Jesus obviously has this verse in mind when he says: “But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.” (Matthew 24:37-39) (note the reference to marriage in both verses).
One of the most important principles of hermeneutics is that the verse has to be read in its context. The context is clear, that life was going on as usual, people were becoming more and more self-absorbed and sinful but judgment was coming. This is the same point Jesus was making in Matthew 24 – people will be self-absorbed and fixated on every-day life and will not be ready for His coming.
The cause of the Flood
Those who speculate about the Nephilim, connect them with the reason for the Flood. Once again, there is no connection there. Genesis 6 describes life on earth. Yes, there were Nephilim, but more significantly, people were marrying and having children and becoming more wicked. Genesis 6:5-6 cannot be clearer. God’s judgment fell because of the wickedness of man. This had absolutely nothing to do with demons, angels or mutants. Look at these verses again: “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”(Genesis 6:5-7).
If the flood had anything to do with anything other than man’s sinfulness, either Moses or Jesus would have said something in that regard, but both are silent about demons, angels and mutants. The flood had nothing to do with clearing the gene pool. It was all about clearing the earth of sinful and wicked people. Even Sunday school children should be able to tell you that.
If the flood had anything to do with God wanting to destroy the giants because they were “contaminated seed” or to purge the gene pool then, Noah and his sons should have been destroyed also. Noah and his sons carried the gene from which giants were formed. This is obvious since giants (Nephilim) are born after the flood and were present in the Land when the spies were sent to scout out the land (Numbers 13:33). These giants were descendants of Noah since all of humankind after the flood descended from Noah.
These speculators quote the Book of Enoch (and other apocryphal books) in support of their ideas as though they are Scripture. Yet, Enoch and the rest of the Apocrypha are not part of the canon of Scripture for obvious reasons – they are not, and have never been regarded as inspired except by apostate churches and false teachers.
Once again they break one of the fundamentals of Evangelical and Reformed hermeneutics: We hold only to Scripture and do not add, nor subtract from it (Revelation 22:18; Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32). It is especially reprehensible to formulate an entire doctrine on extra-biblical evidence as these people are doing.
The fact is that there is overwhelming evidence in very old writings that the Hebrew sages never regarded the “sons of God” as angels or demons. But we dare not use that as evidence lest we sink to the same level as these speculators.
Jude 6 is quoted in support of the theories. This verse says: “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).
Once again, there is absolutely nothing in the verse, or the context, that connects it with Genesis 6. There is nothing in the context that gives rise to understand that “not keep(ing) their proper domain” has anything to do with having relations with women. These angels sinned by overstepping their boundaries – that is evident. But what those boundaries were can be any of a hundred things. We just cannot draw connection between Genesis 6 and Jude 6, except that the chapter number is the same as the verse number!
2 Peter 2:4-5
Verse 4 is similar to Jude 6: “For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly.” (2 Peter 2:4-5).
To those who pluck verses out of their context there appears to be a connection between the sinning angels and the flood. But look at the context:
2Peter 2:1-3 There were, and will be, false teachers and they will “bring upon themselves swift destruction“.
2Peter 2:4 Angels sinned and God “reserved them for judgment”
2Peter 2:5 The ancient world sinned and God judged them by the flood but spared Noah
2Peter 2:6-8 Sodom and Gomorrah sinned and God judged them but spared Lot
2Peter 2:9 Therefore in the future, the Lord will judge the unjust and save the godly.
The angels and the pre-flood world are simply two of four examples that Peter quotes to show that God will punish sin. The connections between the sinning angels and the flood are the same connection with false teachers and Sodom – the connections have nothing to do with gene mutation but is all about sin and the consequences thereof.
The purpose of this brief article is not to provide answers to all the questions that surround Genesis 6. In fact, we do not have all the answers and those who claim they have a full and detailed explanation for these verses are speculating. The point of the text in Genesis 6, and 2Peter 2 is to warn that God will not tolerate sin and will judge it.
But what we are certain of is that the theories about angels producing mutant life forms are not Biblical and that the conclusions derived from this theory are fictional, at best.
“…charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith“. (1 Timothy 1:3-4).
“But reject profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise yourself toward godliness.”(1 Timothy 4:7).
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
[i] This is a very brief and highly sanitized summary of some very extreme and bizarre teachings. But it must also be noted that those who hold to these teachings differ greatly amongst themselves as to how far they take their conclusions.
[ii]Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
[DTW notes with the help of Anton Bosch (thank you again for all your assistance):
1) David and Goliath –
Yes, there were giants but not in the sense of the pictures of Jack and the beanstalk. Goliath was anywhere between 6’9” to 10′ tall. The oldest manuscripts – the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel, the first-century historian Josephus, and the fourth century Septuagint manuscripts – all give his height as “four cubits and a span”, about six feet, nine inches tall (two meters), but later manuscripts have it as “six cubits and a span,” which would make him almost ten feet tall (three meters). The average height of the LA Lakers basketball team is 6’4″, with a few of them at 6’9″. Andre the Giant from the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) stood at 7’4″ while the Great Khali currently stands at 7’1″. [Note that DTW has never referred to the dead-sea scrolls for information, but to help explain Goliath in this instance, it is very necessary.]
Saul stood “head-and-shoulders” above the rest of the people and David (it seems) could fit into his armour. David appears extra small to Goliath because he was just a youth when he fought and killed Goliath. However when David grew up he was able to use Goliath’s sword (1Sam 21). So as adults David and Saul were almost as big as Goliath! – now that’s a revolutionary thought!
The same goes for the Canaanites, they were giant men, but not from another world. There is no possible way that these giants were of an extraterrestrial nature because the bible does not say so – the bible does say there were giants before the flood and their DNA must have been in Noah because the DNA is carried forward to beyond the flood. We need to remain silent on the things the Bible is silent on – we can’t go around and make wild speculations as many well known pastors are doing. To again speculate that angels came down again to have relations with human women to produce more giants after the flood is just nonsense.
2) Those giant skeletons they supposedly found in Greece and Middle East –
THERE’S A good reason we haven’t heard about this epic discovery in the New York Times, Scientific American, or any other legitimate publication, and that is that these photos, like the one circulating since 2004 purporting to show a giant skeleton found in the Middle East, are fakes.
As if it weren’t preposterous enough to claim that one 15-foot-tall fossilized human skeleton had turned up without media fanfare, we’re asked to believe that archaeologists recently dug up four of them in a single location (Greece). In point of fact, each of the photos appears to have been taken at a different time and place.
So far I’ve only been able to locate the original of one of them, but it serves as clear proof that Photoshopping took place. Image #4 was created by inserting an outsized human skull into a photo of a 1993 University of Chicago dinosaur dig in Niger, Africa (see the original here). If you look at a blow-up of the doctored image, the skull appears flattened and unnatural (and one of the workers actually appears to be standing on it!).
Moreover, the same cut-and-pasted skull was used to create image #2 (see side-by-side comparison). A blow-up of image #2 with brightness and contrast enhanced reveals unnaturally dark “shadows” around the skull. The skull in Image #3 is marked by incongruously bright highlights on the teeth and around the edges of the gaping temple wound. And in image #5 the shadows coming off the skeleton fall more or less toward the camera, while the worker’s shadow falls due left, suggesting that elements of two different photos were combined.
Finally, despite frequent references to “giants” in ancient mythology and English translations of the Bible, there is no generally accepted scientific or historical evidence that such beings ever actually existed (unless you consider the Weekly World News a reliable source).
NB!! See here for more giant skeletons and why they are a hoax as well: http://yowcrooks.blogspot.com/2008/12/giant-skeleton-hoax.html
3) A greater understanding of Jude 5-10:
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)
Jude 6 is quoted in support of their theories connecting it to Genesis 6 that angels came down and had relations with women. Once again, there is absolutely nothing in the verse, or the context, that connects it with Genesis 6. There is nothing in the context that gives rise to understand that “not keep(ing) their proper domain” has anything to do with having relations with women. These angels sinned by overstepping their boundaries – that is evident. But what those boundaries were can be any of a hundred things. We just cannot draw connection between Genesis 6 and Jude 6, except that the chapter number is the same as the verse number!
To explain Jude 5 – 8 properly, it contains a number of separate examples of God judging sin. Just like paprables where there is a central truth and the only connection between the parables is that truth (e.g. That which was lost is found: lost coin, lost sheep, lost son). Here there are four examples showing the same truth that God judges sin. The examples are: 1) Israel’s unbelief in not crossing into the land, 2) angels who did not keep their proper domain, 3) Sodom and Gomorrah’s sexual sin and 4) false teachers.
If there is a sexual connection between Sodom and the angels (the angels sinned in a sexual way) then there must also be a connection between Sodom and Israel and between Israel and the angels. But that is not the link here. The link is sin.In the case of Israel it is unbelief (Hebrews 3 & 4), in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah it is homosexuality and in the case of the angels it was rebellion when Satan was cast down from heaven and 1/3 of the angels followed.
Note that the text must be read in its context and we cannot simply make connections and draw conclusions that are not there. Now concerning the statement “who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode”. People connect that to Sodom and say that this means angels had relations with women. But we need to examine the statement carefully. The first word “proper domain” according to Thayer means:
– Transliteration: Arche
– Phonetic: ar-khay’
1. beginning, origin
2. the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3. that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4. the extremity of a thing
a. of the corners of a sail
5. the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
a. of angels and demons
Note the word is “Arche” from which we get “arch-enemy”, “arch-rival” etc. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation but with primacy, authority etc. The second is “abode”. This is also a very common word: (oiketerion) which simply means house, habitation or abode.The verse then teaches that the angels did not remain in their proper authority and left their place. This could be construed to mean they had relations with the daughters of men. But it forces and construes a meaning that is NOT obvious to the sentence.
A more natural interpretation is that the angels rebelled against God’s authority at the very beginning when Satan was cast out of heaven and left their place in the order and hierarchy of God. The English Standard version (ESV) is one of the best translations available. The ESV has the verse as follows: “And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day-
“This is supported by June 9-10 which speaks about false preachers who do not know their proper place when dealing with the Devil and demons(and yes, Satan is a “dignitary” – powerful person ).
What we do not know is why some of these angels (demons) were chained in the “abyss” and others were left to roam the earth. We can only surmise that some sinned more grievously than others. But it also seems that the Lord can (and probably does) throw more of them into the abyss for whatever reason:
Luke 8:30-32 “30 Jesus asked him, saying, “What is your name?” And he said, “Legion,” because many demons had entered him. 31 And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss. 32 Now a herd of many swine was feeding there on the mountain. So they begged Him that He would permit them to enter them. And He permitted them..”
Now for Jude 7: The cities around them refers to Admah and Zeboim:
Deuteronomy 29:23 “And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath:”
Hosea 11:8 “How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together.”
The words “similar manner to these” can only refer to the most recently mentioned subjects – the cities. There is no way, at all that it can refer to the Angels. No language works like that.
When we say “Tom went to church and John went to the mall and Jerry went to the beach and he got sunburned.” The “he” can only refer to the most recent subject – Jerry.
So the meaning is very clear and obvious that Sodom and Gomorrah gave themselves over to immorality and Admah and Zeboim did likewise. There is no other possibility.
The problem here is that it all begins with a bad exegesis is Genesis 6. If you read Genesis 6 to mean that Angels had relations with women (and reject the words of Jesus that they cannot) then you have to find further support. Once you have jumped to that conclusion, it is easy to misread and misinterpret Jude 6&7. But if you do not make assumptions about relations between angels and women, then there is no way you can read that into Jude. So, you have to force the meaning of Gen 6 and then you have to force the meaning of Jude 6 to come to a conclusion.