Few passages in the Old Testament have sparked as much intrigue, debate, and speculative mythology as the opening verses of Genesis 6. Written right before the catastrophic judgment of the global Flood, the text introduces an enigmatic group of figures known as the Nephilim:
"There were giants [Nephilim] on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown." (Genesis 6:4, NKJV)
Who were these "sons of God"? Who were the Nephilim? And why did this union provoke the severe judgment of the Genesis flood? Over church history, biblical scholars have divided into three primary interpretations. Here is a clear, scripture-grounded breakdown of each view.
1. The Fallen Angel / Supernatural View (The Classical Interpretation)
Historically held by ancient Jewish commentators, the early church fathers (including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria), and many modern Old Testament scholars, this view asserts that the "sons of God" (Hebrew: B’nei HaElohim) were rebel angelic beings who took human women as wives, resulting in a hybrid race of towering giants called the Nephilim.
Scriptural Arguments in Favor:
- Hebrew Usage of "Sons of God": In the Old Testament, the phrase B’nei HaElohim almost exclusively refers to divine or angelic beings (see Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7).
- New Testament Cross-References: The New Testament epistles contain striking passages that seem to reference this specific angelic rebellion:
- Jude 1:6: "And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day."
- 2 Peter 2:4–5: "For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus]... and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah..."
- The Book of Enoch: The Second Temple Jewish work 1 Enoch (which is cited by Jude) provides an extensive narrative of the "Watchers" descending on Mount Hermon.
Common Objections:
Critics point to Jesus' words in Matthew 22:30, where He states that in the resurrection, humans "neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven." Proponents of the angelic view respond that Jesus was referring to holy angels in heaven who do not marry, not fallen rebel entities defying their created order on earth.
2. The Sethite Line View (The Moral Distinction Interpretation)
Popularized by Saint Augustine, John Calvin, and many Reformed theologians, this view argues that "sons of God" refers to the righteous lineage of Seth, while "daughters of men" refers to the worldly, ungodly lineage of Cain.
Scriptural Arguments in Favor:
- Contextual Flow of Genesis 4–5: Genesis 4 concludes with Cain's rebellious descendants (culminating in the violent Lamech), while Genesis 5 outlines the godly genealogy of Seth (where men "began to call upon the name of the Lord"). Genesis 6, according to this view, describes the tragic intermarriage and moral compromise between these two spiritual lineages.
- Old Testament Themes of Compromise: Throughout the Pentateuch, God repeatedly commands His covenant people not to intermarry with idolatrous nations (Deuteronomy 7:3–4; Ezra 9:1–2). The corruption of Seth's line explains why the entire earth became corrupt.
- Biological Coherence: Avoids the metaphysical complications of immaterial angelic spirits mating with physical human beings.
Common Objections:
The Hebrew text in Genesis 6:1 uses the general word for humanity (ha-adam): "when men began to multiply." To interpret "daughters of men" in verse 2 strictly as "daughters of Cain" requires reading an unnatural distinction into the plain Hebrew grammar. Furthermore, it leaves unexplained why the marriage of two normal human beings would produce "mighty men of renown" (Nephilim).
3. The Tyrant King / Dynastic Ruler View
A third view, held by some ancient Jewish targums and modern Near Eastern historians, suggests that the "sons of God" were despotic human rulers, kings, and nobles. In the ancient Near East, kings were frequently hailed as divine offspring or "sons of gods."
Key Arguments:
- In this view, Genesis 6 describes ancient aristocrats establishing polygamous harems by force ("they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose"), abusing their power and filling the earth with violence (Genesis 6:11).
- The term Nephilim (from the root naphal, meaning "to fall" or "to fall upon") can be translated as "the fallen ones" or "the assailants"—referring to ruthless warriors and conquerors who fell upon their enemies.
What About the Nephilim Mentioned in Numbers 13?
Years after the Flood, the 10 unfaithful spies returned from Canaan claiming:
"There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight." (Numbers 13:33)
Most commentators emphasize that this was the "bad report" of frightened, unbelieving scouts using hyperbole to instill fear in Israel. While there were indeed physically imposing warriors in Canaan (such as the Anakim, Rephaim, and Goliath of Gath), they were physical men who were ultimately defeated by David and Israel’s men of faith.
The Ultimate Theological Takeaway
Regardless of which view of the "sons of God" you find most persuasive, the theological message of Genesis 6 is unmistakable:
- Sin’s Deep Degradation: When boundaries established by God are shattered—whether supernatural boundaries or moral covenants—chaos and violence reign.
- God’s Sovereign Justice: God will not allow wickedness to multiply unchecked indefinitely (Genesis 6:3).
- The Sufficiency of Grace: Amidst universal corruption, "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord" (Genesis 6:8). The Ark points directly to Jesus Christ, the only refuge who rescues us from judgment and anchors our souls in eternity.