Who Were the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6? And Who Were the Nephilim?

Chinese version: 創世記六章的「神的兒子們」究竟是誰？他們所生是「偉人」，還是「巨人」？

Question: Who exactly were the “sons of God” in Genesis 6? And were the Nephilim simply famous warriors—or were they really “giants”?

Genesis 6:1–4 is one of the strangest passages in the Bible. As the human population increased, the “sons of God” saw that the “daughters of humans” were beautiful, took wives for themselves, and produced offspring associated with the mysterious Nephilim—figures later described as “mighty men” and “men of renown.”

Who were these “sons of God”? Were they descendants of Seth who married descendants of Cain? Were they ancient kings and rulers? Or were they heavenly beings who crossed a boundary between the divine and human realms? And what exactly were the Nephilim?

The passage is difficult partly because modern readers often approach Genesis with a much less supernatural worldview than many ancient Jewish readers did. Yet when Genesis 6 is read alongside the Hebrew terminology, ancient Jewish literature, the Septuagint, and several New Testament passages, an interpretation that sounds strange to modern ears begins to make considerable sense.

My own conclusion is that the “sons of God” are best understood as heavenly beings, and that the Nephilim belong to an ancient tradition of extraordinary, giant-like warrior figures. But that conclusion needs to be argued carefully.

Three Major Interpretations of the “Sons of God”

The Hebrew expression translated “sons of God” is בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים (bene ha’elohim). Three main interpretations have been proposed.

1. The Sethite View

The Sethite interpretation understands the “sons of God” as descendants of Seth, the supposedly godly line of Adam, while the “daughters of humans” are understood as descendants of Cain. On this reading, Genesis 6 describes the intermarriage of a faithful group with an ungodly group, leading to increasing corruption before the Flood.

This interpretation has been highly influential in Christian tradition, particularly in the West. It also has an obvious attraction: it removes the supernatural difficulty of heavenly beings having relations with human women. But there are several problems.

The text never identifies the “sons of God” as Sethites. Genesis nowhere explicitly calls the descendants of Seth “sons of God,” nor does Genesis clearly establish Seth’s descendants as an entirely godly community standing over against Cain’s descendants as an entirely ungodly one. To make the Sethite interpretation work, therefore, we must introduce a genealogical framework that Genesis 6 itself never states. That does not make the interpretation impossible, but it does mean that its textual basis is less direct than is sometimes assumed.

The “daughters of humans” are not identified as descendants of Cain. The Hebrew phrase is simply בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם (benot ha-adam)—“the daughters of humankind” or “the daughters of humanity.” Nothing in the expression itself restricts these women to the lineage of Cain.

The expression bene elohim elsewhere refers to heavenly beings. In Job 1:6 and 2:1, the “sons of God” appear before the LORD in a heavenly assembly. Job 38:7 uses similar language for heavenly beings rejoicing at creation. In those passages, the expression plainly does not refer to human beings.

What about the unusual offspring? If Genesis 6 describes only the intermarriage of two ordinary human populations, why does the narrative immediately introduce the enigmatic Nephilim? Why do the offspring become “mighty men of old, men of renown”? The Sethite interpretation can explain moral corruption. What it explains less naturally is the unusual character of the offspring.

Historically, the Sethite view became especially influential through Augustine. In The City of God 15.22–23, Augustine interprets the “sons of God” within the framework of the descendants of Seth and Cain. That reading went on to exercise enormous influence in Western Christianity.

2. The Ruler View

A second interpretation identifies the “sons of God” as ancient rulers or kings who claimed divine status. On this reading, Genesis 6 describes powerful men using their authority to seize women “whomever they chose.”

This interpretation has a real strength: ancient Near Eastern kings sometimes did claim special divine status or divine ancestry, and the phrase could therefore be read politically. It also takes seriously the coercive language of the passage.

But again, there are difficulties. The Ruler View still needs to explain why the Nephilim appear in this context and why later Jewish tradition so consistently connected Genesis 6 with supernatural beings. Furthermore, Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4–5 both speak of sinful angels in the context of ancient judgment. Those passages do not explicitly say, “We are now interpreting Genesis 6,” so they should not be used as if the connection were undisputed. Nevertheless, they make a heavenly-transgression interpretation much harder to dismiss.

3. The Angelic or Watcher View

The third interpretation understands the “sons of God” as heavenly beings. According to this reading, certain members of the heavenly realm crossed the boundary established for them, took human women, and produced the beings associated with the Nephilim tradition.

This interpretation sounds bizarre to many modern Christians. Yet it has one major advantage: it brings together the language of Genesis 6, other Old Testament uses of “sons of God,” ancient Jewish interpretation, and several New Testament passages in a remarkably coherent way. For that reason, I find it the strongest of the three major interpretations.

The Divine Council Background

To understand why “sons of God” can refer to heavenly beings, we need to recover part of the Old Testament’s supernatural worldview. The Bible teaches that YHWH alone is the supreme Creator and sovereign God. But this does not mean that the spiritual realm contains no other created heavenly beings.

Psalm 82 portrays God standing in a divine assembly and judging other heavenly beings. Psalm 89 speaks of the “assembly of the holy ones.” In 1 Kings 22, Micaiah sees the LORD seated on His throne with the host of heaven standing around Him. Job 1 similarly depicts heavenly beings appearing before God.

This is sometimes described as the Divine Council. The point is not polytheism. These beings are created and subordinate. None is comparable to YHWH. Within this worldview, the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 can naturally be understood as members of the heavenly realm rather than descendants of a particular human family.

Evidence for the Heavenly-Being Interpretation

1. The Old Testament Usage of bene elohim

As already noted, Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 use “sons of God” for heavenly beings. That does not mechanically prove that Genesis 6 must use the phrase in exactly the same way. Context always matters. But it means that the supernatural interpretation begins with an established biblical usage rather than having to invent a new meaning for the expression.

2. The Septuagint: “Sons of God,” “Angels of God,” and Gigantes

The ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, commonly called the Septuagint or LXX, is particularly interesting here. The textual tradition of Genesis 6:2 is not completely uniform. Some important Greek manuscripts preserve a reading corresponding to “sons of God,” while others read ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ—“angels of God.”

Therefore, we should not say that “the Septuagint” unanimously translated the expression as “angels.” But the existence of the ancient “angels of God” reading is still significant. It shows that some early Jewish interpreters understood the “sons of God” as heavenly beings.

Genesis 6:4 is even more interesting. The Hebrew word Nephilim is rendered in Greek as γίγαντες (gigantes). This word lies behind the English word giants. That does not automatically settle every question about what the Nephilim physically looked like. In ancient usage, gigantes could carry associations with extraordinary, ancient, powerful warrior figures rather than functioning merely as a modern biological description of unusual height.

Nevertheless, it is clear that an ancient Jewish translation tradition understood the Nephilim as something more unusual than simply “famous people.”

Does Jude 6 Refer to Genesis 6?

Jude 6 speaks of angels who did not keep their own position but abandoned their proper dwelling. They are kept in darkness awaiting judgment.

Second Peter 2:4 likewise speaks of angels who sinned and were cast into Tartarus, followed immediately by Noah and the Flood in verse 5. The connection is striking: sinful angels → Noah → Flood.

Jude places angelic rebellion beside the transgression of Sodom and Gomorrah, where sexual boundaries are also central to the story. Does this prove beyond dispute that Jude and Peter are interpreting Genesis 6? Not quite. Neither writer explicitly says, “These are the angels of Genesis 6.”

But the connection becomes considerably stronger when we remember that Jude clearly knows the traditions associated with 1 Enoch. The language of rebellious heavenly beings abandoning their proper place fits remarkably well with the Watcher interpretation of Genesis 6. So I would describe Jude and 2 Peter as strong intertextual evidence, rather than as an explicit commentary labelled “Genesis 6.”

What About the “Spirits in Prison” in 1 Peter 3?

First Peter 3:19–20 is another famously difficult passage. It speaks about Christ making proclamation to “the spirits in prison” and connects those spirits specifically with the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared.

One possible interpretation is that these “spirits” are the rebellious heavenly beings associated with the Genesis 6 tradition. That would create a striking correspondence: Genesis 6—heavenly beings transgress; 1 Enoch—Watchers are imprisoned; 2 Peter 2—sinful angels are confined; Jude 6—rebellious angels are kept for judgment; 1 Peter 3—imprisoned spirits are associated with Noah’s generation.

I find this interpretation persuasive. But 1 Peter 3:19 is one of the most disputed passages in the New Testament, and other readings exist. For that reason, I would not build the entire Genesis 6 case upon this verse alone. It works better as part of a cumulative argument.

“But Don’t Angels Neither Marry nor Give in Marriage?”

One of the most common objections comes from Jesus’ words in Matthew 22:30: at the resurrection, people “neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” Does this make the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6 impossible?

Not necessarily. Jesus is answering a question about marriage in the resurrection. His point is that resurrected people will not participate in the institution of marriage as they do now. That is different from making a biological statement about what rebellious spiritual beings are metaphysically capable of doing.

There is also an important phrase in Matthew: “angels in heaven.” The beings described in Jude 6 are precisely angels who did not remain within their proper sphere. In other words, we should distinguish between what heavenly beings are meant to do within God’s order and what rebellious beings might attempt when violating that order.

The Watchers in Second Temple Jewish Literature

One of the strongest historical reasons for taking the supernatural interpretation seriously is that it appears very clearly in ancient Jewish literature. These writings are not Scripture. They do not possess canonical authority simply because they are ancient. But they are extremely valuable for understanding how Jews near the time of the New Testament interpreted Genesis.

1 Enoch

In the Book of the Watchers within 1 Enoch, heavenly beings called Watchers see human women, descend, take wives, and produce gigantic offspring. The story is clearly an expanded interpretation of Genesis 6. The Watchers also introduce forbidden knowledge and contribute to escalating corruption and violence on earth. Their offspring become monstrous and destructive.

Again, 1 Enoch is not being used here to establish doctrine independently of Scripture. Its importance is historical: it demonstrates that the heavenly-being interpretation of Genesis 6 is ancient—far older than many modern readers realize.

Jubilees

The Book of Jubilees preserves a very similar interpretation. It describes angels of God taking human women and producing giant offspring. This shows that the Watcher interpretation was not confined to a single obscure document. Rather, it belonged to a substantial stream of Second Temple Jewish interpretation.

We should therefore avoid saying that every Jew in the period necessarily agreed. Our surviving evidence cannot prove such a sweeping demographic claim. But we can say confidently that the supernatural interpretation was early, important, and widely attested in surviving Jewish literature.

Early Christian Writers

The same interpretation appears in several important early Christian writers. Justin Martyr describes angels entrusted with responsibility over the world who transgressed and became captivated by women. Athenagoras similarly speaks of angels who violated their appointed order, became involved with women, and produced beings identified as giants. Irenaeus also preserves a tradition in which sinful angels became entangled with humanity before the Flood.

This does not justify claiming that every early Christian writer held exactly the same interpretation. But it does show something important: the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6 is not a modern novelty. It was a significant stream of early Christian interpretation. Only later did alternative readings—especially the Sethite interpretation as influentially developed by Augustine—come to dominate much of Western Christianity.

Were the Nephilim Really Giants?

Now we return to the most mysterious word in the passage: נְפִלִים (Nephilim). The word occurs in Genesis 6:4 and again in Numbers 13:33. Its exact etymology is uncertain.

It is often connected with the Hebrew verb נפל (naphal), “to fall,” leading to suggestions such as “fallen ones” or “those who cause others to fall.” But those proposals should not be treated as certain lexical facts. The safest approach is to allow the word Nephilim itself to remain somewhat mysterious.

At the same time, there are good reasons why ancient and modern interpreters have associated the Nephilim with giants.

The Septuagint. As noted earlier, the LXX uses gigantes. That is significant evidence for an ancient “giant” or extraordinary-warrior interpretation.

Numbers 13:33. The Israelite spies report seeing the Nephilim in Canaan and describe themselves as grasshoppers in comparison. The report may contain exaggeration—the spies are terrified—but it certainly connects the Nephilim tradition with extraordinary size.

The Anakim and Rephaim traditions. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, groups such as the Anakim and Rephaim are associated with exceptional stature. Deuteronomy 3:11 famously gives the dimensions of the bed of Og king of Bashan. Second Samuel 21 also remembers unusually formidable descendants of the giant-warrior traditions. These texts suggest that Israel preserved memories or traditions of unusually large and fearsome warrior peoples.

What About the Gibborim?

Genesis 6:4 also calls these ancient figures הַגִּבֹּרִים (ha-gibborim)—“mighty men,” “warriors,” or “heroes.” But gibbor does not itself mean “giant.” Nimrod, for example, is called a gibbor in Genesis 10 without the word itself implying gigantic physical size.

So we should not argue: gibborim = giants. Rather, Genesis 6 combines several ideas: the mysterious Nephilim, mighty warriors, and famous figures from ancient times. The association with gigantic stature emerges from the broader textual and interpretive tradition, especially the Septuagint and Numbers 13, rather than from the word gibborim alone.

So Who Were the “Sons of God”?

Putting the evidence together, I find the heavenly-being interpretation the most persuasive. Several lines of evidence converge:

1. Old Testament terminology: “sons of God” elsewhere refers to heavenly beings.
2. Ancient Greek textual tradition: some Septuagint manuscripts explicitly read “angels of God,” while Genesis 6:4 renders the Nephilim as gigantes.
3. New Testament intertextuality: Jude and 2 Peter speak of rebellious angels in the context of ancient judgment, strongly resonating with the Watcher tradition.
4. Second Temple Jewish interpretation: 1 Enoch and Jubilees clearly understand Genesis 6 in terms of heavenly beings who transgressed with human women.
5. Early Christian interpretation: important writers such as Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and Irenaeus preserve versions of the same understanding.

None of these pieces alone settles every question. But together they form a substantial cumulative case.

I therefore think the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are most naturally understood as heavenly beings who crossed a divinely established boundary. If that interpretation is correct, the Nephilim are associated with the extraordinary offspring produced within that rebellion—figures remembered in Jewish tradition as giants or mighty primordial warriors.

One Question Remains

There is, however, an obvious problem. If the Flood destroyed the pre-Flood world, why do the Nephilim—or giant clans associated with them—appear again later in the biblical story?

Numbers speaks of the Nephilim. Deuteronomy speaks of enormous warrior peoples. The Anakim and Rephaim appear in Israel’s conquest traditions. So what happened? Did some Nephilim survive the Flood? Did the Genesis 6 event happen again? Or are later giant traditions related to the pre-Flood Nephilim in some other way?

That question deserves a separate article. And it opens into an even larger biblical theme: the relationship between the giant traditions, hostile spiritual powers, and the Bible’s wider picture of cosmic conflict.

Related Articles

• Genesis 1:26 and 11:7 — Why Does God Say “Us”? The Divine Council in the Bible
• 1 Peter 3:19 — Who Are the “Spirits in Prison”?
• Where Do Unclean Spirits Come From?

Further Reading

• Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Lexham Press, 2015).
• Michael S. Heiser, Reversing Hermon: Enoch, the Watchers & the Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ (Defender Publishing, 2017).
• Douglas Van Dorn, Giants: Sons of the Gods.
• Brian Godawa, When Giants Were Upon the Earth: The Watchers, the Nephilim, and the Biblical Cosmic War of the Seed.
• Anthony Delgado, The Watchers and the Holy Ones: An Evangelical Reading of 1 Enoch: The Book of the Watchers.