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
The Hebrew phrase for “sons of God” shows up in a few other places in the Old Testament (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7), and every other time it means members of God’s heavenly court — which is the main reason some scholars think it means angels here too, not godly humans. The word “Nephilim” probably comes from a Hebrew word meaning “to fall,” though experts aren’t fully sure. Older English Bibles translate it as “giants” because that’s how ancient Greek and Latin translators understood it, not because the Hebrew word itself means “giant.” The “mighty men” in verse 4 uses the same Hebrew word used for human war heroes elsewhere in the Bible, like David’s soldiers. One tricky detail: the verse never actually says outright that the Nephilim were the children born from these unions — it just says the Nephilim existed “in those days, and also afterward,” which is a loose enough connection that people have argued about exactly what it means for a very long time.
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
This short, strange passage sits right before God decides to send the flood. Jewish writers around the 3rd century BCE took the “angels” reading seriously and wrote whole books expanding it — 1 Enoch names the angels, explains what forbidden knowledge they taught humans, and describes their giant children causing trouble on earth. A related text called the Book of Giants was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Two New Testament letters, Jude and 2 Peter, both mention angels who sinned and are chained up awaiting judgment — language that lines up closely with these older Jewish writings, suggesting the earliest Christians knew and drew on this angel-based story. Early Christian writers mostly agreed with the angel interpretation for a few hundred years, until people started arguing that angels don’t have bodies and can’t have children. A theologian named Augustine wrote an influential defense of a different explanation in the early 400s CE, and his view became the standard one taught in Western churches for the next 1,500 years — until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 20th century got scholars interested in the older angel-based reading again.
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 most commonly taught explanation in Western churches has been that “sons of God” means the righteous descendants of Adam’s son Seth, and “daughters of men” means the ungodly descendants of Cain. When these two family lines intermarried, it blurred the line between a godly community and a corrupt one, which is part of why God judged the world with the flood. This avoids the strange idea of angels having children with humans, and it fits neatly with the family-tree chapters right before it. But some scholars point out that the phrase “sons of God” is never used elsewhere in the Old Testament to mean regular godly people, and that ordinary intermarriage between families seems like a strange explanation for producing legendary “mighty men of renown” — which is part of why the older “angel” explanation has made a comeback recently.
Minority & Alternative Views
Angelic / Watchers view
The oldest known explanation: “sons of God” were angels (called “Watchers” in the book 1 Enoch) who took human wives and had children, the Nephilim. This fits how the same Hebrew phrase is used elsewhere in the Bible to mean heavenly beings, and it matches how the New Testament books of Jude and 2 Peter both describe sinning angels being chained up. Some modern scholars, like Michael Heiser, argue this is actually the best fit for how ancient readers would have understood the passage. Critics point out that Jesus said angels don’t marry, though defenders say Jesus was talking about angels in heaven, not fallen ones.
Dynastic / royal rulers view
Some scholars think “sons of God” refers to human kings who claimed to be descended from gods, which was a common idea in the ancient world — Egyptian and Mesopotamian kings were often called “sons of the gods.” On this view, the passage is criticizing power-hungry kings who built large harems, and their sons became legendary heroes the way ancient epics like Gilgamesh blend royal family trees with superhero-like legends. This view is less well known to everyday readers than the other two.
Modern giant-legend and “ancient astronaut” claims
Some popular claims online say giants left behind real physical evidence today — giant skeletons, hieroglyphics showing giant people, or ancient ruins — sometimes connected to theories that Genesis 6 describes contact with aliens. We checked several of the most widely shared examples, and professional archaeologists and Egyptologists have identified them as fakes: a famous “giant skeleton” photo turns out to be a digitally edited picture from 2002, and Egyptian “hieroglyphics” supposedly showing giants in Australia have been called amateur forgeries by real Egyptology experts. This is separate from the genuine pattern of giant-being legends found across world cultures, which is real and worth taking seriously on its own terms (see below) — just not because of these specific, debunked images.
What Scholars Say
Separately from the debate over what Genesis 6 itself means, many ancient cultures have their own giant or demigod legends — Greek giants who fought the gods, the part-divine hero Gilgamesh in Mesopotamia, Norse giants, and giant beings in Hindu mythology. Historians debate why so many cultures share this idea. Some think it spread between cultures that were in contact with each other. Others point out that ancient people regularly dug up huge fossilized bones from mammoths, dinosaurs, and other extinct animals, and reasonably assumed they belonged to giant humans — a pattern a historian named Adrienne Mayor has documented carefully among the ancient Greeks and Romans. What isn’t supported by real evidence is any of the specific “giant skeleton” photos or “giant hieroglyphics” claims that circulate online today — those have been traced back to hoaxes, which is a different question from whether giant legends themselves are worth studying.
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.