We are fascinated by stories about monsters, giants, and all manner of stranger creatures who seek to destroy all that is good. Christopher Booker writes, “The realm of storytelling contains nothing stranger or more spectacular than this terrifying, life-threatening, seemingly all-powerful monster whom the hero must confront with a fight to the death.” 

Every parent or grandparent knows the shrieks of terror and delight emanating from preschool children as we chase our beloved little ones and shout, “I’m gonna eat you.”

From antiquity, Bible readers have pondered the interpretation of one such group of stranger things, “the Nephilim” (Genesis 6:4). 

So little is said about them in Scripture that interpretive history is rife with speculation about them. At a popular level, the 2014 movie “Noah,” drawing on this interpretive history, portrays the Nephilim as angels who have descended to earth to assist mankind contrary to the creator’s will. As punishment they are transformed into rock-giants who experience the violence of humans “who broke the world.” 

What can we say about the notoriously challenging Genesis 6:1–4 and the related question of the Nephilim?

The Nephilim in the Old Testament

The word “Nephilim,” comes from a Hebrew root meaning “to fall,” leading some to suggest that the Nephilim are “fallen ones.” If so, in what sense have they fallen? Are they “fallen” with respect to moral failure? Are they heroes who have “fallen” (nophelim) as “mighty ones” (gibborim), dying in battle as in Ezekiel 32:27? 

Perhaps they are “fallen” from their place in the heavens? The specific term “Nephilim” occurs elsewhere only at Numbers 13:33. The spies claim, “And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves as grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.” This language arises not from faithful Caleb and Joshua but from faithless spies, whose rhetoric seeks to engender fear in Israel, provoking lack of trust in divine deliverance (Deuteronomy 1:28; 9:1–3). The proposed genealogical descent of the Anakim from the so-called Nephilim is an exaggeration. These spies are not to be trusted.

In both Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33 the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, translates “Nephilim” as gigantes (“giants”). This led to the King James Version translating “giants” in both Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33. Since Genesis 6:4 says nothing of their physical stature, representing them as giants in the verse is speculative. Below we briefly explore Genesis 6:1–4 since it necessarily impacts our view of the Nephilim.

In what biblical context do we find the Nephilim?

Whatever conclusions we reach on the Nephilim, good interpretation requires us to consider the wider biblical context. The origin of sin (Genesis 3) and the first murder — Abel, at the hand of his brother Cain (Genesis 4) — result in the vengeful Lamech (4:23–24). This contrasts immediately with the birth of Seth, another son for Adam and Eve, “another offspring instead of Abel” (4:25). A genealogy of Adam in Genesis 5 follows, narrating the multiplication of humanity. This readies us for Noah, a man who brings relief from painful toil (Genesis 5:28). 

However, Genesis 5 also throbs with sin’s resulting judgment upon humanity, evident in the ever-decreasing life spans and the constant refrain, “and he died.” The same chapter also reveals how God graciously relieves sin’s curse by preserving Noah. The context that precedes Genesis 6:1–4 is a litany of sorrow and death relieved by grace. 

Just before the flood, the Nephilim are mentioned within a set of preliminary verses that portray a humanity so depraved that the Lord determines to limit lifespan (6:3) and to “blot out man whom I have created” (Gen 6:7). God sees and sorrows over an earth now multiplied not with blessing (Genesis 1:27–28) but with dissolute and evil image bearers. God spares humanity through Noah, “who found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (6:8). 

The Nephilim and Others

The identity of the Nephilim depends upon one’s interpretation of three other groups mentioned in Genesis 6:1–4. As mankind spread, “daughters” are specifically noted as “born to them”—that is, to humankind (v. 1). Careful readers were prepared for these “daughters” in the multiple mentions of “daughters” in the Genesis 5 genealogy. These are further identified as “daughters of man” (Gen. 6:2, 4). 

These “daughters of man” are taken as wives (v. 2) not by “sons of man” but by those identified as “sons of God” (vv. 2, 4). In verse 4 we read of intimate relations between these sons of God and the daughters of men such that the daughters gave birth to “mighty ones” (gibborim) later called “men of renown” (v. 4). Determining the nature of the sons of God and the daughters of man, along with the relationship their offspring have to the Nephilim and the mighty men, highlights the complexity of the interpretive decisions.

That the daughters of man are human women raises no debate, but the identity of the “sons of God” increases the complexity of the discussion. The precise phrase “sons of God” is found in the Old Testament only at Genesis 6:2, 4 and in Job 1:6; 2:1; and 38:7. In Job, these “sons of God” are heavenly beings in God’s court. This encourages some English versions to translate “sons of God” in Job as “angels,” “heavenly beings,” or “divine beings.” There are places where the collective people of God are called God’s “sons” or “children,” but these are rare (Exodus 4:22–23; Deuteronomy 1:31; 8:5; 14:1; Hosea 1:10). For simplicity we may summarize the interpretive options for the “sons of God” as either non-human (i.e., angelic, demonic, divine in some way) or human.

The non-human interpretation of “sons of God” is prevalent in early Jewish and Christian interpretation, influenced by non-canonical texts like 1 Enoch. This view holds that the “sons of God” are fallen angels who transgressed in cohabiting with human women. This interpretation gains tentative support from 1 Peter 3:19–20, 2 Peter 2:4, and especially Jude 6–7, though scholars debate how these texts relate to Genesis 6. 

A second explanation envisions the “sons of God” not as fallen angels but pre-flood human kings or rulers claiming divine descent. The sense is that these powerful ancient Near Eastern kings abused authority. Like polygamous and tyrannical Lamech, they “saw,” and “they took as their wives any they chose” (Genesis 6:2). 

The most common Christian interpretation from the third to the 18th centuries described the “sons of God” not as angels or divine kings but humans arising from the genealogical line of Seth. This makes contextual sense of the genealogy attested in Genesis 5.

However, in this view, the “daughters of man” become descendants of Cain who have relations with Seth’s progeny, resulting in offspring that threaten the godly line. One problem with this view is that, with no textual warrant, one must shift interpretation of the daughters born to mankind in verse 1 to mean “daughters born to particular men, namely, descendants of Cain.” 

Each of these positions presents strengths and weaknesses. Whether the “sons of God” are viewed as non-human angels (demons), royals, or Sethites, the language “saw … good … took” (Genesis 6:2) has analogy with the verbs describing the transgression of “seeing” and “taking” of the forbidden fruit by Eve (Genesis 3:6, 12). This contrasts with God who saw his creation as good at first and now “saw that the wickedness of man was great” (Genesis 6:5).

Who are the Nephilim?

There are multiple options regarding the Nephilim and their relationship to the offspring born to the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” along with the “mighty men” in Genesis 6:4. In one reading, the Nephilim are mentioned only for background purposes. They are merely contemporaries of the “mighty men,” with the latter being the offspring. In this way, the Nephilim only provide context to the pre-flood era in which mighty heroes arose, yet the Nephilim remain distinct from them. If so, they contribute little to our understanding of the passage. Their presence and the phrase “and also afterward” must be referenced to ready us for the later mention of them in Numbers where they are presented as descendants of the imposing inhabitants of the land.

Other interpreters hold that the Nephilim are in fact identified with the “mighty men” but distinct from the offspring arising from relations between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of man.” In this view, some of the “sons of God” from the line of Seth intermarry with descendants of Cain and lose the righteous line.

However, most interpreters hold that the Nephilim are the divine-human offspring resulting from the relations between the “sons of God,” and “daughters of man,” and ought to be identified with the “mighty men” and “men of renown.” The Nephilim recall a pre-flood antiquity when tales of such royal demigods held sway. For the people of God, called to enter and inherit the Promised Land, even the threat that the descendants of such elite warriors of legend still existed would provoke fear. 

However, Genesis shows that these too are subject to the judgment of God who is a “consuming fire” (Deuteronomy 9:3). For the faithful on this side of the cross, there is a final hero, the true “Son of God,” the Lord Jesus Christ, who has fought and overcome the all-powerful monsters of the world, the flesh, and the devil and overcome even death itself.

Brian Aucker serves as professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary