The Nephilim and the “Sons of God”
The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when God’s sons came in to men’s daughters and had children with them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.Genesis 6:4 · World English Bible
Original Language & Text
Hebrew בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים (bene ha’elohim, “sons of God”) appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible only for members of the heavenly court (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7), a key plank in the angelic-view argument, since the same phrase is not otherwise used for godly humans. נְפִלִים (Nephilim) is usually connected to the root naphal, “to fall,” though the exact derivation is debated — some link it instead to an Aramaic word for “giant.” The KJV’s “giants” reflects the Septuagint’s gigantes and the Vulgate’s gigantes, not a direct Hebrew etymology. גִּבֹּרִים (gibborim, “mighty men,” v.4) is the same word used elsewhere for human military heroes, including David’s “mighty men” (2 Samuel 23). Notably, Genesis 6:4 never explicitly equates the Nephilim with the offspring of the unions described in verses 1-2 — the Hebrew only notes they “were on the earth in those days, and also afterward,” a grammatically loose link that has fueled centuries of debate over what, precisely, the verse is claiming.
Key Terms in the Original Language
“the Nephilim” (Gen. 6:4)
Probably from the root naphal (“to fall”), though some connect it instead to an Aramaic word for “giant”; the KJV's “giants” reflects the Greek/Latin translation tradition rather than a settled Hebrew etymology.
“the sons of God” (Gen. 6:2, 4)
The identical phrase elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7) always denotes members of God's heavenly court, the central plank of the angelic-view argument.
“mighty men” (Gen. 6:4)
Used elsewhere for human military heroes, including David's “mighty men” (2 Sam. 23), so the word alone doesn't settle whether these figures were understood as human, angelic, or hybrid.
“watcher” (Dan. 4:13, 17, 23)
The term later Enochic tradition adopted for the fallen angels of Genesis 6 (“Watchers”), though Daniel's own “watchers” are faithful heavenly beings, not the rebellious ones of 1 Enoch.
History & Authorship
Genesis 6:1-4 is a brief, notoriously cryptic fragment inside the primeval history (Genesis 1-11), positioned immediately before God’s decision to send the flood (6:5-7). Second Temple Judaism took the angelic reading seriously and expanded it: 1 Enoch’s Book of the Watchers (3rd century BCE) names the rebel angels, describes them teaching humanity forbidden arts, and casts their giant offspring as a source of ongoing evil; the Book of Giants, among the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran, elaborates the same Nephilim as named characters. The New Testament alludes to this tradition rather than to the Sethite reading: Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 both reference angels who sinned and were bound in chains awaiting judgment, language that maps onto the Enochic Watchers story. The angelic reading remained widespread among Jewish and Christian interpreters (Philo, Josephus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian) until roughly the 3rd-5th centuries, when theologians increasingly objected that angels are incorporeal and cannot procreate. Julius Africanus and, most influentially, Augustine (City of God, Book XV, c. 426 CE) championed the Sethite alternative, which became the dominant Western Christian reading for the next 1,500 years — until the 20th-century rediscovery of 1 Enoch and the Dead Sea Scrolls renewed serious scholarly and popular interest in the older angelic interpretation.
How This Debate Developed
-
3rd century BCE
1 Enoch's Book of the Watchers
Names the rebel angels and gives the earliest full narrative of their fall and giant offspring.
-
1st century BCE–1st century CE
Book of Giants at Qumran
A Dead Sea Scrolls text in the wider Enoch tradition casting the Nephilim as named characters, confirming the angelic reading's currency in Second Temple Judaism.
-
early 200s CE
Sethite alternative proposed
Julius Africanus proposes the Sethite reading, objecting to angel-human procreation.
-
c. 426 CE
Augustine's City of God, Book XV
Augustine's influential defense of the Sethite view becomes the dominant Western Christian reading for the next 1,500 years.
-
1947–1956
Dead Sea Scrolls discovered
Recovery of Enoch and Book of Giants manuscripts at Qumran renews scholarly attention to the ancient angelic reading.
-
2015–2017
The Unseen Realm / Reversing Hermon published
Michael Heiser's books reintroduce the angelic/divine-council reading to a wide popular evangelical audience.
The Popular / Mainstream View
Since Augustine, the reading most widely taught in Western churches — reflected in many study Bibles and Sunday-school curricula — has been the Sethite view: the “sons of God” are the righteous line of Seth (Genesis 5), the “daughters of men” are the line of Cain, and their intermarriage represents a righteous community being absorbed into a corrupt one, directly motivating God’s judgment in the flood. This avoids the theological difficulty of angels fathering children and fits the immediately preceding genealogies contrasting Seth’s and Cain’s lines. Critics note that “sons of God” is not otherwise used in the Hebrew Bible for godly humans, and that ordinary intermarriage seems a disproportionately small cause for producing legendary “mighty men of renown” — objections that have fueled a strong modern revival of the older angelic reading, discussed below.
Minority & Alternative Views
Angelic / Watchers view
The oldest attested reading, held widely in Second Temple Judaism: “sons of God” are angelic beings (“Watchers” in 1 Enoch) who took human wives and fathered the Nephilim. Its strongest support is that bene ha’elohim elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7) denotes members of God’s heavenly court, and that Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 both allude to sinning, imprisoned angels in language borrowed from this tradition. Scholars including Michael Heiser argue it best fits the passage’s ancient Near Eastern context; critics counter that Jesus’ statement that angels do not marry (Matthew 22:30) complicates an angel-human procreation reading, though defenders note that statement concerns angels in heaven, not fallen ones on earth.
Dynastic / royal rulers view
A minority scholarly reading holds that “sons of God” designates human kings claiming divine descent — common royal ideology across the ancient Near East, where Mesopotamian and Egyptian kings were frequently titled “sons of the gods.” On this view, the passage critiques polygamous, tyrannical rulers (“taking any they chose” echoes harem-building) whose sons became legendary “mighty men,” paralleling how Mesopotamian epics blend royal genealogy with heroic legend (Gilgamesh is described as “two-thirds divine”). Scholars such as Ronald Hendel have connected the passage to this wider genre of Near Eastern demigod and flood-hero literature. It has less traction among lay readers than the angelic or Sethite readings.
Modern giant-legend and “ancient astronaut” claims
Outside formal biblical scholarship, a popular strand of belief holds that giants like the Nephilim left recoverable physical traces — oversized skeletons, hieroglyphic depictions, or ancient monuments — sometimes tied to “ancient astronaut” theories reading Genesis 6 as an encounter with extraterrestrial beings. Many specific artifacts circulated online for this claim have been examined by professional Egyptologists and archaeologists and identified as modern fabrications: the best-known “giant skeleton” photograph originated as a 2002 digitally altered mastodon-excavation image, and the “Gosford hieroglyphs” in Australia have been dismissed by Egyptology specialists as amateur fakes with no genuine ancient Egyptian basis. This is distinct from the genuine, well-documented pattern of independent giant/demigod traditions across world mythology (see below), which comparative-mythology scholarship treats seriously without relying on any of these disputed images.
What Scholars Say
Independent of the interpretive debate over Genesis 6:1-4 itself, comparative mythologists have long noted that many ancient cultures feature primordial giant or demigod beings — Greek Gigantes at war with the Olympians, Mesopotamian Gilgamesh (“two-thirds divine”), Norse jötnar, and Hindu Daityas — generally as chaotic forces opposed to a divine or heroic order. Scholars debate why: some see a shared ancient Near Eastern literary motif spreading through cultural contact, others point to the ancient practice of encountering large fossilized bones of mammoths, dinosaurs, or other megafauna and interpreting them as giant human remains, a phenomenon classicist Adrienne Mayor documents among Greek and Roman “fossil legends.” What the current archaeological record does not support is any of the specific viral “giant skeleton” photographs or “giant hieroglyph” claims circulating online today; those have been traced to hoaxes and identified as fabrications by Egyptologists and fact-checkers, a separate matter from the legitimate comparative-mythology question.
Sources & Further Reading
- 1 Enoch (Book of the Watchers)
- Augustine, City of God, Book XV
- Ronald S. Hendel, “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4,” Journal of Biblical Literature (1987)
- Michael S. Heiser, Reversing Hermon: Enoch, the Watchers, and the Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ (2017)
- Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (Cambridge, 2005)
- Adrienne Mayor, The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times (2000)
Find More Books on This
Search Google Books' full catalog — print and ebook alike — for more on The Nephilim and the “Sons of God”, beyond Berea's curated source list above.
Study & Discussion Questions
- The Sethite, angelic, and dynastic-rulers readings of Genesis 6:1-4 each solve some problems in the text and create others — which objections to each view do you find most and least persuasive?
- Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 both describe angels who sinned and were bound in chains. How does this New Testament language relate to the Enochic Watchers tradition, and what does it suggest about how the earliest Christians understood Genesis 6?
- Numbers 13:33 and Deuteronomy 3:11 both mention giants (the Anakim and the Rephaim, including Og of Bashan) generations after the flood, even though Genesis 6-9 implies the Nephilim's line was destroyed. How have interpreters tried to reconcile this?
- Adrienne Mayor's research suggests many ancient giant legends arose from real fossil discoveries misidentified as giant remains. Does a natural explanation for other cultures' giant traditions strengthen or weaken the case that Genesis 6 describes a distinct historical event? Why?
- Viral “giant skeleton” photos and “giant hieroglyph” claims circulate widely online despite being identified as fabrications by professional Egyptologists and archaeologists. What steps would you take before treating a dramatic archaeological claim like this as credible?
Dig Deeper
Have a more specific question about The Nephilim and the “Sons of God”? Ask it below — Berea will look into it live and note where views differ, the same way it does everywhere else.
Answers here are generated live by AI and are not independently vetted.