Who Are the Nephilim?

Some passages in the Bible are difficult or weird because the argument is complicated. Others are challenging because they tell us something strange and then move on before answering all the questions we want to ask. Genesis 6:1-4 is one of those passages.

As mankind multiplied on the earth, “the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose” (Genesis 6:2). A few verses later we meet the Nephilim, the “mighty men who were of old, the men of renown” (Genesis 6:4). Then the story moves directly into the wickedness of man and God’s judgment in the Flood.

Naturally, we want to know who these people were. Who were the sons of God? Who were the Nephilim? Were they giants? Were they angels? Were the Nephilim the children produced by these strange marriages? And if they were destroyed in the Flood, why does Numbers 13 mention the Nephilim again? Social media is having a field day with these questions.

Christians have offered several answers. Some are more convincing than others, but Genesis does not give us enough information to answer every question with certainty. That makes this passage a good opportunity to do more than solve a Bible mystery. It also gives us a chance to think about how we should read difficult passages in the first place.

Here are seven questions that can help.

What Does the Text Explicitly Say?

Before trying to explain the passage, we should pay attention to what it actually says. Genesis tells us that mankind was multiplying and daughters were being born. The “sons of God” saw that the “daughters of man” were attractive, and they took wives from any they chose. The Lord then declared, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years” (Genesis 6:3).

Then Genesis tells us, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward.” The sons of God went in to the daughters of man, and children were born to them; these are connected with “the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown” (Genesis 6:4).

Already we need to slow down. We often hear that the Nephilim were children born from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of man. That may be what the passage means, but the wording isn't as explicit as we sometimes make it. Genesis says the Nephilim were there in those days and also afterward. Then it speaks about the children born from these unions and the mighty men of old. These things are closely related, but the passage does not pause to define every relationship for us.

That matters because Bible study can go wrong remarkably early. We make an inference, repeat it often enough, and eventually forget the Bible never actually said it. Good interpretation starts by keeping those categories separate.

What Does the Immediate Context Tell Us?

Genesis 6:1-4 comes immediately before one of the Bible’s strongest statements about human depravity. “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5). God decides to judge the earth, while Noah finds favor in the Lord's eyes.

That should govern how we read the strange material immediately before it. Whatever is happening with the sons of God, the daughters of man, and the Nephilim, this passage is part of the Bible’s movement toward the Flood. The world God created good has become deeply corrupt. Human rebellion has spread. Something is badly disordered, and judgment is coming.

Genesis 4 and 5 have already been moving us in this direction. Cain murders Abel. Violence increases. Lamech boasts about killing a man. Humanity multiplies, civilization develops, and sin grows with it. By Genesis 6, wickedness has become so pervasive that God brings judgment upon the world.

That does not answer the Nephilim question, but it tells us where the author’s emphasis falls. Moses does not give us Genesis 6:1-4 so we can construct an elaborate theory of supernatural beings and then forget what happens in verse 5. Whatever view we adopt has to fit the argument Genesis is actually making.

Does the Rest of Scripture Give Us Any Additional Information?

This is where the discussion gets more interesting.

The phrase “sons of God” appears elsewhere in the Old Testament. In Job 1:6, “the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD.” The same thing happens in Job 2:1. Job 38:7 uses the expression in the context of creation, when “the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.” In these passages, the expression refers to heavenly beings. That is important evidence and one of the strongest reasons some interpreters believe the sons of God in Genesis 6 are also heavenly beings.

The Nephilim appear again in Numbers 13. The spies who returned from Canaan said, “And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim)” (Numbers 13:33). That introduces another difficulty. If the Nephilim lived before the Flood, what does it mean that they were also present afterward? Did some survive? Did the same kind of people appear again? Were the spies using the term more generally? Genesis does not stop to explain.

We should also remember that Numbers 13 records the report of the frightened spies who were discouraging Israel from entering the land. Their report becomes increasingly fearful and exaggerated. That does not mean we dismiss what they said, but it should make us cautious about building an elaborate doctrine on one line from their report.

Two New Testament passages are also often connected with Genesis 6. Second Peter 2:4 speaks about angels who sinned and were cast into judgment, then moves almost immediately to the ancient world and Noah. Jude 6 speaks of angels “who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling.” Those connections are certainly worth considering.

But there is an important difference between saying that a passage may illuminate Genesis 6 and saying that it certainly explains Genesis 6. Neither Peter nor Jude explicitly identifies the sin of these angels with the events of Genesis 6:1-4. We should use Scripture to interpret Scripture, but we should not make a connection more certain than the Bible makes it.

What Are the Major Responsible Interpretations?

Three views deserve serious consideration.

The first understands the sons of God as heavenly beings, usually fallen angels who transgressed God’s established boundaries by taking human women. The strongest argument for this view is straightforward: “sons of God” refers to heavenly beings elsewhere in the Old Testament. This interpretation also has ancient roots and may fit the references to sinning angels in Jude and 2 Peter. It also helps explain why this episode sounds so unusual.

But the view raises difficult questions. How would angelic beings reproduce with human women? Jesus says that the angels in heaven “neither marry nor are given in marriage” (Matthew 22:30). Does that settle the question, or was Jesus speaking about the normal state of the angels in heaven rather than what rebellious spiritual beings might attempt? Genesis does not tell us. Some try to solve the problem by suggesting demonic possession of human men, but that introduces another idea Genesis itself never mentions.

A second view understands the sons of God as descendants of Seth. Genesis 4 traces the line of Cain, while Genesis 5 traces the line from Adam through Seth. On this reading, Genesis 6 describes the breakdown between the godly line of Seth and the ungodly world around them. The sons of God marry the daughters of man, and the result is further corruption.

That fits some of the literary movement from Genesis 4 through Genesis 6, and it keeps the entire event within human relationships. But it also has difficulties. Genesis never calls these men Sethites or identifies the women as descendants of Cain. More importantly, the expression “sons of God” is not clearly used elsewhere in the Old Testament as another name for the descendants of Seth. The view may fit a larger theme in Genesis, but the specific words of Genesis 6 still need to be explained.

A third view understands the sons of God as powerful kings or rulers. Ancient kings sometimes claimed divine status or a special relationship with the gods. The statement that these men “took as their wives any they chose” could describe tyrants using their power to seize women. The later reference to mighty men and men of renown may also fit a world of famous warriors and rulers.

This view makes good sense of the abuse of power, but Genesis never actually identifies the sons of God as kings. Much of the case depends upon what we know about kingship in the ancient Near East. That background may be useful, but historical background should help us understand the Bible, not quietly supply the information the Bible itself never gives.

What Does Each Interpretation Explain Well, and Where Does It Struggle?

This step matters because we are usually much better at spotting problems in someone else’s interpretation than in our own.

The heavenly-being view has a strong argument in the Old Testament use of “sons of God.” It may also explain why this short episode is so unusual and could connect naturally with Jude and 2 Peter. But it has to explain the nature of the union between heavenly beings and human women, and Genesis gives us almost no help doing that.

The Sethite view fits the movement from the genealogies of Genesis 4 and 5 into the widespread corruption of Genesis 6. It also avoids the difficulties of supernatural beings producing human offspring. But it must explain why “sons of God” should suddenly mean descendants of Seth and why “daughters of man” should refer specifically to women outside that line when the text never says either thing.

The ruler view can explain the language of men taking whichever women they chose and may fit the presence of mighty, renowned men. It also fits what we know about ancient rulers claiming divine standing and abusing their power. But the passage does not identify the sons of God as kings.

Every view explains something. Every view also carries some baggage. This does not mean all interpretations are equally strong. It means we should be willing to make our preferred interpretation answer the difficult questions too.

What Can We Conclude Confidently?

We may not be able to settle every question about the Nephilim, but that does not mean Genesis 6 tells us nothing clearly.

Something has gone terribly wrong. The events of Genesis 6:1-4 belong to the growing corruption that reaches its summary in verse 5. God sees that human wickedness is great and that the thoughts of the human heart are continually evil. Judgment follows.

We can also say the Nephilim were real figures associated with this period, and that Genesis connects them in some way to the mighty men of old, the men of renown. We may debate exactly who they were or how they related to the sons of God, but Genesis presents them as part of the real world it describes.

Beyond that, our certainty should probably begin to decrease.

That is not a weakness in our doctrine of Scripture. Inerrancy does not mean the Bible answers every question we can think to ask. Sufficiency does not mean exhaustive information about every person, event, or mysterious creature mentioned in the biblical story. Scripture tells us everything God intends to tell us for the purposes for which he gave it. Sometimes we want details he did not choose to give.

A mature reading of Scripture should be able to say, “This is clear,” “This seems likely,” and “I don’t know.” Those are three different conclusions, and we should not be embarrassed by any of them when they honestly reflect what the Text gives us.

What Are We Tempted to Conclude That the Bible Never Actually Tells Us?

This may be the most important question in the entire discussion.

The Bible does not tell us exactly how tall the Nephilim were. It does not say that every giant mentioned later in Scripture was a Nephilim. It does not identify Goliath as a Nephilim. It does not tell us that fallen angels manipulated human DNA, produced a genetically corrupted race, or that the main purpose of the Flood was to wipe out angel-human hybrids. It does not explain how the Nephilim were on the earth “also afterward.” It certainly doesn't explain how people walking around today have Nephilim ancestry.

People have developed theories to answer many of those questions. Some of those theories may attempt to connect genuine biblical observations. Others have traveled a very long way from Genesis 6. Either way, we need to remember something simple: a theory may explain a question the Bible leaves unanswered without therefore becoming something the Bible teaches.

That is where difficult passages can expose something in us. We do not like unanswered questions. We want every loose end tied up. When Scripture gives us four strange verses, we are tempted to supply the missing chapter ourselves.

But our task is to receive what God has given us, not to improve upon it.

Study the Nephilim. Compare the views. Pay attention to the words Genesis uses. Look at Job, Numbers, Jude, and 2 Peter. Wrestle with the strengths and weaknesses of the various interpretations. It's fine to reach a conclusion about which view seems most likely.

Just remember where the Bible stops.

We should be confident where Scripture is clear, careful where the evidence is limited, and quiet where God has chosen to remain quiet. That is not avoiding the hard work of Bible study. It is part of doing the hard work well.