Bible

[Paule]

Giants and the sons of God
a study from:
Dakes Annotated Reference Bible
by: Dr. Finis Jennings Dake (1902-1987)

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Gen. 6:4 (KJV)

Proofs giants were sons of angels
1. The fact that giants or beings of abnormal size in body, have lived on earth is one of the most clearly stated truths in Scripture. The Heb. nephilim from nephil means giant, bully, or tyrant (Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33). That they were abnormal in bodily size is clear from the fact that men of Israel were as grasshoppers in size compared to them (Num. 13:33). The Heb. gibbor is also trans. giant, meaning powerful, giant, mighty, or strong man (Num. 13:33; Job 16:14). To say that these original words refer to degree of wickedness instead of size in body, is a mistake.
The Anakims were a people great and tall in body (Dt. 1:28; 2:10-11,21; 9:2; Josh. 11:21-22; 14:12-14). Anak himself was of the giants; and if he and all Anakims were so big, we can be assured the other giants were also (Num. 13:22,33). The land of Ammon was a land of giants, for giants dwelled there in old time (Dt. 2:19-20). The Emims were also great, many, and tall as the Anakims (Dt. 2:10-11). Zamzummims were called giants, a people great, many, and tall as the Anakims. They dwelled in the land of Ammon from of old (Dt. 2:19-21). Og, king of Bashan, is described as a giant whose bedstead was of iron and about 18 ft. 6 in. long and 8 ft. 4 in. wide. This is not a measurement of wickedness, but of a material bed for a giant body measuring not too far from 18 ft. tall (Dt. 3:11; Josh. 12:4; 13:12). Bashan is called the land of the giants (Dt. 3:13).

A valley of the giants is mentioned in Josh. 15:8; 18:16. This is the same as the valley of Rephaim, the name of another branch of the giant races so often mentioned in Scripture (Gen. 14:5; 15:20; 2Sam. 5:18, 22; 23:13; 1Chr. 11:15; 14:9; Isa. 17:5). The Rephaims were well known giants, but unfortunately, instead of retaining their proper name in Scripture, the translators translated it dead (Job 26:5; Ps. 88:10; Pr. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16; Isa. 14:8; 26:19); and deceased (Isa. 26:14). The word should have been retained as a proper name in all these places, as it is 10 times otherwise.

Rephaim is trans. giant (2Sam. 21:16; 18, 20, 22; 1Chr. 20:4, 6, 8) and giants (Dt. 2:11, 20; 3:11, 13; Josh. 12:4; 13:12; 15:8; 18:16). The phrase remnant of the giants in Dt. 3:11; Josh. 12:4; 13:12 should be remnant of the Rephaims, for there were many nations of giants other than the Rephaims who filled the whole country trying to contest God's claim on the promised land. They are listed as: Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaims, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites, Jebusites, Hivites, Anakims, Emims, Horims, Avims, Zamzummims, Caphtorims, and Nephilim (Gen. 6:4; 14:5-6; 15:19-21; Ex. 3:8, 17; 23:23; Dt. 2:10-12, 20-23; 3:11-13; 7:1; 20:17; Josh. 12:4-8; 13:3; 15:8; 17:15; 18:16). Og was of the remnant of Rephaims, not the remnant of all other giant nations (Dt. 3:11; Josh. 12:4; 13:12).

All these giant nations came from a union of the sons of God (fallen angels) and daughters of men after the flood. Beings of great stature, some of them even had 6 fingers on each hand and 6 toes on each foot and carried spears weighing from 10 to 25 lbs. (2Sam. 21:16-22; 1Chr. 20:4-8). Goliath whom David slew, wore a coat of armour weighing 196 lbs. and was about 13 ft. tall (1Sam. 17:4-6).

The Revelation we have of giants, in Scripture, gives us a true picture of what Greek mythology tries in vain to give. Ours is an accurate account because divinely inspired. Mythology is the outgrowth of traditions, memories, and legends telling of the acts of the supernatural fathers and their giant offspring - the perversion and corruption in transmission of actual facts concerning these mighty beings. The fact that giants were partly of supernatural origin made it easy to regard them as gods.

2. The fact that the Rephaim have no resurrection (Isa. 26:14) proves the reality of giants and that they were not ordinary men. All ordinary men are to be resurrected (Jn. 5:28-29); therefore, giants must be a different class from pure Adamites. Isaiah makes it clear that the dead (Heb. Rephaim) are now in hell (Isa. 14:9). Solomon confirms the same in Pr. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16 where the word dead is Rephaim in the Hebrew Bible.

3. The fact that giants came only from a union of sons of God and daughters of men proves that their fathers were not ordinary men of the Adamite stock. No such monstrosities have been nor can be produced from a union of any ordinary men and women, regardless of how righteous the father is or how wicked the mother is. Many converted men who are sons of God in the sense of adoption and righteousness through Christ, have been married to unconverted women, and no such offspring the size of Bible giants has ever resulted from these unions. If, as some teach, giants were born of such unions both before and after the flood, then why do not such marriages produce that kind of offspring today? Why did this happen in every case then and in no case today?

4. God's law of reproduction from the beginning has been everything after his own kind. It was not possible then, that giants could be produced by men and women (Gen. 1:11-12, 21, 24-25; 8:19) of ordinary size. It took the supernatural element, the purpose and power of Satan and his angels to make offspring of such extra size within the human species. After the variation of the species, which had to do with size only, and when giants had come into being, they then produced others of like size instead of ordinary sized men (Num. 13:33; 2Sam. 21:16, 18, 20, 22; 1Chr. 20:4-8).

5. Not only is it unscriptual but unhistorical to teach that giants came from the union of ordinary men and women. The great question has been: Where did giants get their start? Gen. 6:4 makes it clear - from a union of the sons of God and daughters of men. If the sons of God were ordinary men in the same sense that the daughters of men were ordinary women, then we must conclude 4 things:

(1) That ungodly women have the power to produce such monsters if married to godly men. Or,

(2) That godly men have the power to produce giants when married to ungodly women.

(3) That a mixture of godliness and wickedness produces giants.

(4) That extreme wickedness on the part of either parent will produce giant offspring.

All 4 conclusions are wrong however, as proved every day by the marriages of unconverted persons with the converted and the producing of offspring through the union of a wicked parent and a godly one. Thus, the theory that giants came from the marriage of Seth's sons with Cain's daughters is disproved.

6. The sons of God could not have been the sons of Seth or other godly men for the following 7 reasons:

(1) There were no men godly enough to be saved during the Antediluvian Age except Abel (Gen. 4:4; Heb. 11:4), Enoch (Gen. 5:21-24; Heb. 11:5), and Noah (Gen. 6:8; 7:1; Heb. 11:7), as far as Scripture records are concerned. Shall we conclude that these 3 men were the sons of God who married the daughters of Cain and produced races of giants in the earth in those days before the flood (Gen. 6:4)? We have no record of any such marriage or offspring of Abel before he was murdered. Regarding Enoch , are we to believe that Methuselah and his other children were the giants? Are we to believe that Noah's 3 sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth were giants? If so, where is our authority for this? Had this been true, there would had been nothing on earth after the flood but giants born of Noah's giant sons, for by his children the whole earth was then replenished (Gen. 10:1-32). That would cause another unsolved mystery - how giants became ordinary sized men again.

(2) The time of the marriages of the sons of God disproves the theory that they were the sons of Seth. Marriage of Seth's sons could not have taken place during the first 325 years, for he had only one son of marriageable age up to that time (Gen. 5:1-8) and he (Enos) was not godly. To say that there were no such marriages before Enos would contradict Gen. 6:1-2 which shows that sons of God married daughters of men which such daughters began to be born. Shall we conclude that daughters were not born in the first 325 years? If so, then where did Cain, Seth and others get their wives?

Futhermore, such marriages between godly sons and ungodly daughters could not have been during the last 600 years before the flood, because Noah was the only son of God by righteousness during this time (Gen. 6:8-9; 7:1; 2Pet. 2:4-5). His sons were preserved in the ark because of being pure Adamite stock and not because of personal righteousness. The foregoing facts then, would limit these marriages to the 731 years between the first 325 years and the last 600 of the Antediluvian Age; whereas, sons of God actually married daughters of men throughout the entire 1,656 years of that age. Gen. 6:1-2 makes it clear that this happened "when men began to multiply on the face of the earth".

(3) Gen. 6:4 teaches that there were giants on the earth in those days (before the flood), and also after that (after those days which were after the flood) as a result of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men. If, as is taught, the sons of God were the sons of Seth, we can account for them after that (after the flood), for the line of Seth was continued through Noah. But, with the daughters of Cain (suppose to be the daughters of men), the story is different. Cain's line perished in the flood, both men and women, which means there were no daughters of Cain after the flood, for sons of God to marry.

(4) The Bible gives us no reason to believe that the statement "the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair" should be limited to Cain's daughters. Other families had daughters too, thousands of families which made up the many branches of the race both before and after the flood. These were daughters of men, too. In the 1,656 years before the flood (which is the period in which Seth and Cain lived), there must have been from 150,000,000 to 500,000,000 people. It is unbelievable that so many as half of these were godly and half ungodly; and we know that they were not limited to two lines - the line of Seth and the line of Cain. Regarding Seth's daughters we have reason to believe that they were as fair as the daughters of Cain - beautiful enough to attract men as husbands for themselves. The line of Seth alone survived the flood, so we know this is true. Gen. 6:1-2 therefore, cannot be said to refer only to the daughters of Cain; and the term daughters of men cannot be limited to mean only the daughters of Cain.

(5) The very expressions, sons of God and daughters of men, indicate two different kinds - one the product of God, the other the product of man. Seth was not God, so why call the sons of God the sons of Seth?

(6) It is a matter of record that Seth's children were as ungodly as Cain's.

(7) With the exception of Noah and his family all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth, before the flood (Gen. 6:12), which means the entire race (besides Noah's family) had become a mixture of fallen angels and men, or giants. Only Noah and his family had preserved their pedigree pure from Adam; and this is really why they were saved in the ark. They were the only ones capable of giving the race a new clean start after the flood. It is said of Noah that he was just a man and perfect in his generations (Gen. 6:9). The word for perfect in the Heb. is tamim, which means without blemish. It is the technical word for bodily perfection, and not moral perfection. Hence, it is used of the sacrificial animals of the O.T. which had to be of pure stock and without blemish (Ex. 12:5; 29:1; Lev.1:3; 3:1-6; 4:3, 23-32; 5:15-18; 6:6; 9:2-3; Ezek. 43:22-25; 45:18-23); without spot (Num. 19:2; 28:3-11; 29:17, 26); and undefiled (Ps. 119:1). The use of this word in connection with Noah means that he and his sons were the only pure Adamites left, and for such purity they (regardless of the sons' position in personal holiness) were all preserved in the ark.


Proofs the sons of God were angels
Since it cannot possibly be that the sons of God who married the daughters of men and produced giants by them, were the sons of Seth or godly men marrying ungodly women, then it must be that the sons of Gen. 6, were fallen angels. That this is true is clear from many scriptures, as follows:

(1) The expression sons of God is found only 5 times in the O.T. and every time it is used of angels (Gen. 6:1-4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). It is indisputable that the passages in Job refer to angels. Dan. 3:25, 28 calls an angel the son of God. Is it not possible then, that the sons of God of Gen. 6 could be angels?

(2) Some translations, as the Septuagint, Moffat, and others read, angels of God in Gen. 6:1-4, which is the only idea that will harmonize with facts in the passage itself, as well as many other passages.

(3) Josephus says,
"many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of their own strength... these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians called giants" (Ant. Book I, ch. 3).

Again, he says,
"There was till then left the race of giants, who had bodies so large, and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing. The bones of these men are still shown to this very day" (Ant. Book V, ch. 2).

(4) The Ante-Nicene Fathers also refer to angels as falling
"into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh.... Of these lovers of virgins, therefore, were begotten those who are called giants"
(Vol. 2, p. 142; Vol. 8, p. 85, 273).

Justyn Martyr, 110-165 A.D., says,
"But the angels transgressed... were captivated by love of women, and begat children" (Vol. 2, p. 190).

Methodius, 260-312 A.D., says,
"the devil was insolent .... as also those (angels) who were enamoured of fleshly charms, and had illicit intercourse with the daughters of men"
(Vol. 6, p. 370).

(5) Both testaments of the Bible teach that some angels committed sex sins and lived contrary to nature. Gen. 6:1-4 gives the history of such sinning. In 2Pet. 2:4-5 we have the statement that angels did sin before the flood and for their sin were cast down to hell to be reserved until judgement. This passage does not reveal that the sin was fornication, but Jude 1:6-7 does, saying:

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner (as did the angels) , giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Jude 1:6-7 (KJV)

If Sodom, Gomorrha and other cities lived contrary to nature and committed fornication, as the angels did, then it is clear that the sin of angels was that of fornication. According to Gen. 6 this sex sin was committed with "daughters of men."

(6) The one scripture used to teach that angels are sexless, which is Mt. 22:30, does not say that they are. It states that:

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Mt. 22:30 (KJV)

The purpose of this verse is to show that men and women who have part in the resurrection do not marry, nor do they need to, in order to keep their kind in existence. In the resurrected state they live forever, but not as sexless beings. The Bible teaches that every person will continue bodily as he was born, in all eternity. Paul said that everyone will have his own body in the resurrection (1Cor. 15:35-38). If one is a male he will continue as such with all his bodily parts. If one is a female in this life she will be resurrected as such even though her body is changed from mortality to immortality, and is called a spiritual body (1Cor. 15:35-54). There is nothing in the resurrection to uncreate men and women. Christ remained a man after His resurrection and so will all other males.

Throughout Scripture, angels are spoken of as men. No female angels are on record. It is logical to say then, that the female was created specifically for the human race in order that it could be kept in existence; and that all angels were created males, inasmuch as their kind is kept in existence without the reproduction process. Angels were created innumerable to start with (Heb. 12:22) whereas, the human multitudes began with one pair, Adam and Eve who were commanded to reproduce and thereby make the multitudes. That angels have tangible spirit bodies with bodily parts, appear as men, and have performed acts equal to and surpassing those of the human male, is clear from many passages.

The fact that some angels "kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation," as stated in Jude 1:6 to commit sin makes it somewhat understandable how a sex sin could be accomplished by them. The Gr. for habitation is oiketerion. It is used only twice in the Scripture, and then concerning the bodies of men being changed to spiritual bodies (2Cor. 5:2), and the angels having a bodily change, or at least a lowering of themselves in some way (Jude 1:6-7). This, in the N.T. helps explain the history of the O.T. concerning the angels living contrary to their nature and producing giants "when the sons of God (angels) came in unto (had relationship with) the daughters of men" as Gen. 6:4 says and other passages confirm.

(7) There are 2 classes of fallen angels - those loose with Satan who will be cast down to earth during the future tribulation (Rev. 12:7-12), and those who are now bound in hell for committing what the Bible calls fornication (2Pet. 2:4; Jude 1:6-7). Had the ones in hell not committed the additional sin of fornication, they would still be loose, with the others, to help Satan in the future. Their present confinement proves they committed a sin besides that of original rebellion with Satan. That it was sex sin is clear from 2Pet. 2:4 and Jude 1:6-7, which fact identifies this class of fallen angels as the sons of God of Gen. 6:1-4.

(8) In 1Pet. 3:19-20 we see that Christ "went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing" . Who are these spirits in prison, if not the confined angels who once lived contrary to their nature - in sin with the daughters of men (Gen. 6:1-4)? We read "Who maketh his angels spirits"(Ps. 104:4; Heb. 1:13-14). If angels are spirits, we can then conclude that the imprisoned ones Christ preached to were angels and the sons of God referred to in Gen. 6, especially since they "were disobedient ... in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing." The very purpose of Noah's flood was to destroy the giant offspring of these angels known as the sons of God who "came in unto the daughters of men."


The purpose of Satan in producing giants
It was the purpose of Satan and his fallen angels to corrupt the human race and thereby do away with pure Adamite stock through whom the seed of the woman should come. This would advert their own doom and make it possible for Satan and his kingdom to keep control of the planet earth indefinitely. It was said to Adam and Eve that the seed of the woman should defeat Satan and restore man's dominion (Gen. 3:15). The only way then, for Satan to avoid this predicted defeat was to corrupt the pure Adamite line so that the coming of the seed of the woman into the world would be made impossible



Paule Walnuts