This post is still a work in progress, but here is what I have so far.
Nephilim
The identity of the “Nephilim” (Genesis 6:4) and their relationship, if any, to the marriages (Genesis 6:2) is perplexing. The word “Nephilim” occurs but once more, in Numbers 13:33, where it refers to an indigenous population inhabiting Canaan. For Genesis 6:1–4 the primary question is whether the Nephilim are the offspring of the marriages or merely their contemporaries. The term “Nephilim” (nĕpilîm) offers little help in resolving the issue, since its etymology is uncertain. “Nephilim” is a transliteration of the Hebrew, not a translation, which indicates a group or class. It is commonly related to nāpal, meaning “to fall”; thus the Nephilim are considered “the Fallen Ones.” If so, does this refer to their expulsion from heaven, their death as “fallen” in battle, or to their moral degeneracy?
Another proposal is the related noun nēpel, meaning “miscarriage” (Job 3:16; Ps 58:8 [9]; Ecclesiastes 6:3), suggesting that they were unusual in appearance since they were born by miscarriage. The terms “fallen” and “warriors” occur repeatedly in Ezekiel’s oracles against the nations (Ezekiel 32:20–27) whose armies fall in battle; this may have alluded to Genesis 6:1–4. Ezekiel’s use of “fallen,” however, is likely a sound play on the word “Nephilim” rather than deriving from an etymological association.
The traditional English rendering “giants” follows the LXX (Septuagint, the earliest extant Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures or Old Testament), which translates gígantes for Hebrew nĕpilîm (Nephilim). We can most likely attribute this to the influence of the later account in Numbers 13:33. The frightened Israelite spies marveled at the Nephilim's exceptional height, remarking that the Hebrews were no more than “grasshoppers” before them. Later Jewish literature interpreted the Nephilim as giants and referred to their infamous pride and wickedness.
However, Numbers 13:33 cannot be used confidently to interpret the meaning of “Nephilim” in 6:4 because of the passage’s own problems. Numbers 13 tells us that the Anakites are said to be descendants of the “Nephilim.” If the Nephilim of Numbers 13:33 and Genesis 6:4 are taken as the same group, the verse indicates that the Nephilim and their descendants survived the flood. Related to this is the question of the authenticity of the phrase “the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim” (Numbers13:33). It is absent from the LXX tradition and may be a superficial gloss motivated by a late interpretation of Genesis 6:4 as “giants.” This is further suggested by the divergent language in v. Numbers 13:33, “sons of Anak,” whereas Numbers 13:22, 28 earlier have “descendants of Anak.” Moreover, the Anakites in Deuteronomy are cataloged with peoples, such as the Rephaites, who resided in Canaan and were known for their size and military prowess (Deuteronomy 1:28; 2:10–23; 9:2). Yet it is significant that the Nephilim are never listed in Deuteronomy, where the inhabitants of Canaan are given.
Defining the term on the basis of Numbers 13 may be misleading since the spies were certainly exaggerating (“grasshoppers”) the opposition they encountered in Canaan. Actually, the faithless spies counted all the inhabitants as formidable: “All the people we saw there are of great size” (Num 13:32). There is no intention in Numbers to equate the Nephilim of Moses’ day directly with the antediluvian Nephilim. When we consider the evidence of Deuteronomy’s recollection of these Canaanite peoples, it is better to understand the allusion to the Nephilim therefore in Numbers 13 as figurative, cited by the spies because of the violent reputation attributed to “Nephilim” from ancient times.
Beyond the meaning of the name “Nephilim,” the primary exegetical challenge is understanding the logical relationship between v. 4 and the preceding verses, since there is no grammatical connection. Is there a relationship between the marriages of vv. 1–2 and the “Nephilim” (v. 4)? Are the “Nephilim” the offspring of these marriages or only contemporaries? Are the “Nephilim” and “heroes” (i.e., “Gibborim”) the same? The problem rests with the progression of vv. 1–4. The expected transition from the sexual unions recounted in vv. 1–2 to the acknowledgment of children born to those unions in v. 4 is interrupted by the oracle of judgment in v. 3. Verse 3, however, is logically the end of vv. 1–2, which leads to God’s interdiction against the marriages. There is no compelling reason to alter the present arrangement of vv. 3 and 4.
It still remains for us to explain the proper place of the “Nephilim” in the sequence of the passage. Some have recommended that the reference to the Nephilim in v. 4a is either a secondary gloss or a parenthetical aside.131 Yet recognition of the “Nephilim” who live at this time is integral to the purposes of vv. 1–4, describing what the times were like at the end of the antediluvian age. The presence of the Nephilim, then, was another evidence presented by the author to depict the wickedness that marked antediluvian society.
Sometimes overlooked is the fact that the Nephilim are not specifically said to be the offspring of the marital unions. Rather, for the author, establishing the time of the Nephilim’s era is prominent: they lived in “those days,” a reference to this antediluvian period of human proliferation described in vv. 1–2, and they existed “when” the intermarriages took place and “also afterward.” This establishes the period of the Nephilim as being before and after the marriages (v. 2). The verb “went to” (yābōʾû), describing the actions of the “sons of God,” often is used of sexual relations. Here it has been taken as customary in sense; thus “whenever” the sons of God and daughters of men marry, the result is children born.134 This fits obviously with the theme of proliferation in vv. 1–4. It may be rendered as ingressive “when [they] began going …”; this latter sense focuses on the commencement and continuation of their sexual liaisons. If so, this indicates that the Nephilim are already alive at the beginning of the momentous event of the times, the intermarriage of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men.”
“And also afterward,” as rightly shown by the NIV arrangement (also NRSV, NJB, NAB), is a parenthetical note that reflects Num 13:33. We have remarked earlier that “Nephilim” is best taken in Numbers 13 as a scare tactic by the cowardly spies who drew on these shadowy figures of the past to win their case. “The Nephilim” (hannĕpirîm) with the definite article in 6:4 indicates that a specific or well-known group or class is meant. When the spies appealed to the designation “Nephilim” as imposing adversaries, they drew on the reputation of the Nephilim, probably because of their association with an era infamous for its violence (6:5–8).
This is further insinuated in 6:4 by the presence of the “heroes [gibbōrîm] of old” (i.e., Gibborim) who are the “children” born to the sons of God and daughters of men. These are the warrior class, men of ignoble reputation whose violent exploits are remembered (cf. 6:11–13) and whose names strike fear in the hearts of their hearers. They are identified as “men of renown” (ʾanšê haššēm), not divine or semidivine figures. Despite their notorious achievements they are no more than “men,” subject to the same judgment as any (v. 3). As warriors of “renown” (šēm) they seek reputation by their wicked deeds in the way the people of Babel will seek fame through their building enterprise (cf. 11:4). The allusion in 6:2 to Eve’s vain desires (3:6) and the inclusion of “name” here contribute to the motif of prideful autonomy, which characterizes the sins of prepatriarchal times (chaps. 1–11). Not all is lost however. There is in the midst of the wicked generation a favored man, Noah (6:8). God graciously preserves Noah’s lineage (8:1) and gives him a “name” (šēm), which is his son, “Shem” (šēm; 11:10–26); by Shem’s family the Lord gives Abraham, upon whom he confers a “name” (12:2; cf. also 2 Sam 7:9).
(K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 335–339.)
