The Nephilim? or Giants?

Image: The Nephilim?

“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.” (Genesis 6:4, KJV)

“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” (Genesis 6:4, ESV) 

“The Nephilim” came up in a sermon I heard at church today and I did a little research on it after I got home. 

Personally, I don’t believe fallen angels copulated with human women and produced offspring. Thomas Aquinas held the same opinion (see below, at bottom). 



But the Nephilim as a half-angelic/half-human species is a very popular myth, which, it would seem, originated with the Jews. 



Nephilim: Fallen Angels, Giants or Men? https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1987422/jewish/Nephilim-Fallen-Angels-Giants-or-Men.htm 



I use the King James Version of the Bible, which translates the Hebrew word נְפִיל (nephilim) into English as “giants.” Most modern versions, however, transliterate the Hebrew word into English as “Nephilim.” 

Both the Latin Vulgate and the Greek Septuagint translate the Hebrew word נְפִיל (nephalim) as gigantes and γίγαντες (gigantes) respectively. So the English “giants” and Latin “gigantes” is simply a transliteration of the Greek γίγαντες.



The modern versions’ use of “Nephilim” is, I think, problematic, as it can lead people to think of “The Nephilim” as a hybrid race of half-angelic (= half-demonic!) half-human mighty men of renown who existed both before and after the flood, perhaps having even escaped the flood. Whereas the truth is more likely that these (100%) human giants existed, both before and after the flood, as part of the human race in those ancient times.





The giants before the flood drowned in the flood, and the giants who appear in Numbers 13:33 were different giants who came to exist after the flood, being descendants of Noah and his family.

“And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” (Numbers 13:33, KJV)

“And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.” (Numbers 13:33, ESV)

Who are the Nephilim in Genesis 6? https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-are-the-nephilim-in-genesis-6 



Who Were the Nephilim? Genesis 6 and Numbers 13—a Fresh Look https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/who-were-the-nephilim/



“Nephilim: giants, name of two peoples, one before the flood and one after the flood. Properly, a feller, i.e. A bully or tyrant -- giant. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon (1908) gives the meaning of nephilim as 'giants', and holds that proposed etymologies of the word are all very precarious.” (Strong’s) https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5303.htm



“As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv): "Many persons affirm that they have had the experience, or have heard from such as have experienced it, that the Satyrs and Fauns, whom the common folk call incubi, have often presented themselves before women, and have sought and procured intercourse with them. Hence it is folly to deny it. But God's holy angels could not fall in such fashion before the deluge. Hence by the sons of God are to be understood the sons of Seth, who were good; while by the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain. Nor is it to be wondered at that giants should be born of them; for they were not all giants, albeit there were many more before than after the deluge." Still if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed bodies, but from the seed of men taken for the purpose; as when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and afterwards of a man; just as they take the seed of other things for other generating purposes, as Augustine says (De Trin. ii.), so that the person born is not the child of a demon, but of a man.” (

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Part 1, Question 51, Article 2, Reply to Objection 6)

The universe is ordained towards God as its end

Image: Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem (c) National Geographic

Now if we wish to assign an end to any whole, and to the parts of that whole, we shall find, first, that each and every part exists for the sake of its proper act, as the eye for the act of seeing; secondly, that less honorable parts exist for the more honorable, as the senses for the intellect, the lungs for the heart; and, thirdly, that all parts are for the perfection of the whole, as the matter for the form, since the parts are, as it were, the matter of the whole. Furthermore, the whole man is on account of an extrinsic end, that end being the fruition of God. So, therefore, in the parts of the universe also every creature exists for its own proper act and perfection, and the less noble for the nobler, as those creatures that are less noble than man exist for the sake of man, whilst each and every creature exists for the perfection of the entire universe. Furthermore, the entire universe, with all its parts, is ordained towards God as its end, inasmuch as it imitates, as it were, and shows forth the Divine goodness, to the glory of God. Reasonable creatures, however, have in some special and higher manner God as their end, since they can attain to Him by their own operations, by knowing and loving Him. Thus it is plain that the Divine goodness is the end of all corporeal things.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Part 1, Question 65, Article 2)

Whether the multitude and distinction of things come from God?

I answer that, The distinction of things has been ascribed to many causes. For some attributed the distinction to matter, either by itself or with the agent. Democritus, for instance, and all the ancient natural philosophers, who admitted no cause but matter, attributed it to matter alone; and in their opinion the distinction of things comes from chance according to the movement of matter. Anaxagoras, however, attributed the distinction and multitude of things to matter and to the agent together; and he said that the intellect distinguishes things by extracting what is mixed up in matter.

But this cannot stand, for two reasons.

First, because, as was shown above (I:44:2), even matter itself was created by God. Hence we must reduce whatever distinction comes from matter to a higher cause.

Secondly, because matter is for the sake of the form, and not the form for the matter, and the distinction of things comes from their proper forms. Therefore the distinction of things is not on account of the matter; but rather, on the contrary, created matter is formless, in order that it may be accommodated to different forms.

Others have attributed the distinction of things to secondary agents, as did Avicenna, who said that God by understanding Himself, produced the first intelligence; in which, forasmuch as it was not its own being, there is necessarily composition of potentiality and act, as will appear later (I:50:3. And so the first intelligence, inasmuch as it understood the first cause, produced the second intelligence; and in so far as it understood itself as in potentiality it produced the heavenly body, which causes movement, and inasmuch as it understood itself as having actuality it produced the soul of the heavens.

But this opinion cannot stand, for two reasons. First, because it was shown above (I:45:5) that to create belongs to God alone, and hence what can be caused only by creation is produced by God alone—viz. all those things which are not subject to generation and corruption. Secondly, because, according to this opinion, the universality of things would not proceed from the intention of the first agent, but from the concurrence of many active causes; and such an effect we can describe only as being produced by chance. Therefore, the perfection of the universe, which consists of the diversity of things, would thus be a thing of chance, which is impossible.

Hence we must say that the distinction and multitude of things come from the intention of the first agent, who is God. For He brought things into being in order that His goodness might be communicated to creatures, and be represented by them; and because His goodness could not be adequately represented by one creature alone, He produced many and diverse creatures, that what was wanting to one in the representation of the divine goodness might be supplied by another. For goodness, which in God is simple and uniform, in creatures is manifold and divided and hence the whole universe together participates the divine goodness more perfectly, and represents it better than any single creature whatever.

And because the divine wisdom is the cause of the distinction of things, therefore Moses said that things are made distinct by the word of God, which is the concept of His wisdom; and this is what we read in Genesis 1:3-4: "God said: Be light made . . . And He divided the light from the darkness."

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Part 1, Question 47, Article 1)