Were there really giants in the Old Testament?

Was Lawrence Taylor an example of a biblical Giant or just a New York football Giant?


In Genesis 6 who are the sons of God, the daughters of men, and the Nephilites (Giants)?


This is one of the weirder text in Genesis?  And with it come some equally strange ideas for interpretation.  Among these are the idea that the sons of God were Angels who married human women and bore giants as offspring.  Another theory is that the sons of God were the decedents of Seth, and the daughters of men were the descendants of Cain.  But this does little to explain the bizarre offspring that they have.

The most likely explanation is that the sons of God refers to the socially powerful men who had gained wealth and influence in the world to that point.  With such power they were able to exploit the “daughters of men” or women of lesser means.  In other words, they could ‘take what they wanted’ (verse 2).  The reference to the idea of Giants in the land who were the offspring of these men and women most likely refers not to their stature, but to their power.  They would have been like ancient princes, or aristocrats.  God’s anger came with the behavior of people doing their own wills, taking what they want, and doing evil to one another.

The later explanation can actually be explained within the limits of hebrew language and can make sense in the context of Genesis.  The other two explanations require wild speculation and imagination that is inconsistent with any other biblical material.

Tags: , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Were there really giants in the Old Testament?”

  1. Simon Says:

    Yeah…those dudes in 300 were freakish! I could imagine what david vs goliath must have looked like.

  2. Karen Says:

    I found this information about Nephilites on another blog that had very strong biblical references: Check it out;)

    Genesis 6:1-4 tells us, “When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days — and also afterward — when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.” There have been several suggestions as to who the sons of God were, and why the children they had with daughters of men grew into a race of giants (that is what the word Nephilim seems to indicate).

    The three primary views on the identity of the “sons of God” are that (1) they were fallen angels, or (2) they were powerful human rulers, or (3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain. Giving weight to (1) is the fact that in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). A potential problem with (1) is the fact that Matthew 22:30 indicates that angels do not marry. The Bible gives us no reason to believe that angels have a gender, or are able to reproduce. Views (2) and (3) do not have this problem.

    The weakness of views (2) and (3) is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary human females does not account for why the offspring were “giants” or “heroes of old, men of renown.” Further, why would God decide to bring the Flood on the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) when God had never forbidden powerful human males or descendants of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendants of Cain. The oncoming judgment of Genesis 6:5-7 is linked to what took place in Genesis 6:1-4. Only the obscene, perverse marriage of fallen angels with human females would seem to justify such a harsh judgment.

    The weakness of view (1) is that Matthew 22:30 declares, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” However, this weakness can be overcome by noting that the text does not say “angels are not able to marry.” Rather, it indicates only that angels do not marry. Secondly, Matthew 22:30 is referring to the “angels in heaven.” It is not referring to fallen angels, who do not care about God’s created order and actively seek ways to disrupt God’s plan. The fact that God’s holy angels do not marry or engage in sexual relations does not mean the same is true of Satan and his demons.

    View (1) is the most likely position. Yes, it is an interesting “contradiction” to say that angels are sexless and then to say that the “sons of God” were fallen angels who procreated with human females. However, while angels are spiritual beings (Hebrews 1:14), they can appear in human, physical form (Mark 16:5). The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to have sex with the two angels who were with Lot (Genesis 19:1-5). It is plausible that angels are capable of taking on human form, even to the point of replicating human sexuality – and possibly even reproduction. Why do the fallen angels not do this more often? It seems that God imprisoned the fallen angels who committed this evil sin, so that the other fallen angels would not do the same (as described in Jude 6). Earlier Hebrew interpreters, apocryphal, and pseudopigriphal writings are unanimous in holding to the view that fallen angels are the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4. This by no means closes the debate. However, the view that Genesis 6:1-4 involves fallen angels mating with human females has a strong contextual, grammatical, and historical basis.

  3. Evan Says:

    There are many speculative and physical evidences that giants roamed the earth.

    Google “Giants on Earth”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: