The Nephilim: When the Sons of God Came to Earth in Genesis 6:1–4
We’ve journeyed through so much Scripture, and each time comparing the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint has opened up dimensions of meaning we’d otherwise miss. But now we’re about to tackle what might be the single most bizarre, controversial, and theologically explosive passage in the entire Bible. One that’s haunted interpreters for millennia, sparked wild speculation, and divided Christians and Jews alike.
Genesis 6:1-4. The Nephilim. The sons of God. The daughters of men. Giants. Heroes of old. Men of renown.
What on earth— or in heaven —was going on?
The Text: Strange From the Start
Let’s be honest: Genesis 6:1-4 reads like something out of ancient mythology. It shows up right before the Flood narrative, almost as an aside, and it’s so cryptic that for two thousand years, scholars, rabbis, church fathers, and theologians have been trying to figure out what it means.
Here’s the passage in question:
Genesis 6:1-4 (KJV/Masoretic Text)
“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
Read that again slowly. The sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, so they took them as wives. Their offspring were giants— the Nephilim —mighty men, heroes of old, men of renown.
Who were the “sons of God”? Who were the Nephilim? And why does this passage even exist?
The Hebrew Masoretic Text: Key Terms
Let’s break down the critical Hebrew vocabulary:
1. בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים (benei ha-elohim) – “Sons of God”
This phrase appears in Genesis 6:2 and 6:4. It’s the same phrase used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible:
Job 1:6 – “Now there was a day when the sons of God (בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים) came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.”
Job 2:1 – Same context: the sons of God presenting themselves before God’s throne.
Job 38:7 – “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (at creation)
In Job, the context is clear: these are angelic beings, members of the divine council who serve before God’s throne. They’re not humans. They’re supernatural entities.
So when the same phrase shows up in Genesis 6, the most natural reading— linguistically and contextually —is that it refers to angelic beings.
But that creates a massive theological problem: angels mating with humans? How? Why? And what does that even mean?
2. בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם (benot ha-adam) – “Daughters of Men”
This phrase is the counterpart to “sons of God.” It emphasizes humanity; specifically, human women. The contrast is intentional: divine beings (sons of God) and human beings (daughters of men).
3. הַנְּפִלִים (ha-nephilim) – “The Nephilim”
This is one of the most mysterious words in the Bible. It appears only here in Genesis 6:4 and later in Numbers 13:33 (when the Israelite spies report seeing giants in Canaan).
The root of the word is נָפַל (naphal), which means “to fall.” So Nephilim could mean:
“The fallen ones” (referring to their angelic parentage—fallen angels)
“Those who cause others to fall” (violent, oppressive beings)
“Giants” (the interpretation of ancient translators)
The Hebrew text doesn’t explicitly call them giants, but the implication is clear from context: these were extraordinary, superhuman beings.
4. הַגִּבֹּרִים (ha-gibborim) – “The Mighty Men” or “Heroes”
This word comes from the root גָּבַר (gabar), meaning “to be strong, to prevail.” The gibborim were warriors, conquerors, men of great strength and renown.
Genesis 6:4 says the Nephilim were gibborim, mighty warriors and legendary heroes. They were famous. They were powerful. And according to the text, they were the offspring of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men.”
The Septuagint Text: “Angels of God” and “Giants”
Now let’s see how the Septuagint— translated by Jewish scholars at least 250 years before Christ —handles this passage.
Genesis 6:1-4 (LXX)
“And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the angels of God (οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ, hoi angeloi tou theou), having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took for themselves wives from all whom they chose.
And the Lord God said, ‘My spirit shall certainly not remain among these men into the eon, because of their being flesh, but their days shall be one hundred twenty years.’
Now the giants (οἱ γίγαντες, hoi gigantes (literal translation is “earth-born”)) were upon the earth in those days, and after that when the angels of God entered to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them—those were the giants, the ones from the eon, the men of renown.”
Key Differences
1. “Angels of God” vs. “Sons of God”
The LXX translates בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים (benei ha-elohim) as οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ (hoi angeloi tou theou)—”the angels of God.”
This is huge. The Septuagint translators interpreted the phrase. They didn’t just translate “sons” as “sons.” They rendered it “angels” because they understood the phrase to refer to angelic beings.
This is the same translation choice they made in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7. Wherever בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים appears in contexts that clearly refer to divine beings, the LXX uses “angels of God.”
Codex Alexandrinus, one of the major LXX manuscripts, explicitly reads “angels of God” in Genesis 6:2. Codex Vaticanus originally had “angels” as well, though some later manuscripts “corrected” it back to “sons of God.”
The LXX translators— who were fluent in Hebrew and lived much closer to the original context —understood Genesis 6 as describing fallen angels who took human wives.
2. “Giants” (γίγαντες, gigantes)
The LXX translates הַנְּפִלִים (ha-nephilim) as γίγαντες (gigantes)—”earth-born” (referring to beings that were born when the blood of Uranus touched the earth goddess, Gaia. Later the word came to be associated with “giants,” however).
In Greek mythology, the gigantes were legendary beings of immense strength who rebelled against the gods. They weren’t just tall people; they were monstrous, violent, and ultimately destroyed by a partnership between the Olympian gods and heracles.
By choosing this word, the LXX translators connected the Nephilim to a concept their Greek-speaking audience would understand: bizarre creatures of immense size and strength (who came about from the power of the sky god reaching the earth) who brought chaos and violence to the earth.
The Latin Vulgate later adopted this choice, translating Nephilim as gigantes, and from there it entered medieval and modern translations.
Three Major Interpretations
So who were the “sons of God”? Over the centuries, three major interpretations have emerged.
Interpretation 1: Fallen Angels
This is the oldest and most widespread view in ancient Judaism and early Christianity.
The Case for Fallen Angels
Linguistic Evidence: The phrase “sons of God” (בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים) is used exclusively for angelic beings elsewhere in the Old Testament (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7). The most natural reading is that Genesis 6 refers to the same category of beings.
The Septuagint: Jewish translators in the 3rd century B.C. rendered it as “angels of God.” This was their interpretation, and they were native Hebrew speakers translating for a Jewish audience. They understood it as angels.
Second Temple Jewish Literature: The Book of 1 Enoch (estimated to have been written around 200-150 B.C.) provides an elaborate account of this event. According to 1 Enoch 6-7, a group of 200 angels called “Watchers” descended to earth, took human wives, and fathered the Nephilim. These were giant, violent offspring whose corruption led to the Flood.
Jubilees, the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q180, Genesis Apocryphon), and other Second Temple texts all interpret Genesis 6 the same way: fallen angels.
New Testament References: Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4–6 seem to reference this event:
Jude 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 and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah...”
Both passages connect angelic sin with the time of Noah, which is exactly the timeframe of Genesis 6.
Early Church Fathers: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen all held the fallen angel view. It was the dominant Christian interpretation for the first three centuries of the church.
The Problem with Fallen Angels
Jesus said angels don’t marry (Matthew 22:30). In response to the Sadducees’ question about marriage in the resurrection, Jesus said, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.”
Advocates of the fallen angel view respond in several ways:
Jesus said angels in heaven don’t marry. But these angels left heaven. They abandoned their proper domain (Jude 6). They weren’t acting within the bounds of their created nature.
The absence of marriage doesn’t mean angels are incapable of procreation, just that they don’t do so in heaven under God’s authority.
Jesus’ statement is about righteous angels in the resurrection state, not fallen angels in rebellion.
It has been suggested by some that abandoning their proper domain could actually be an idiomatic way of saying they left behind their true angelic bodies and took on human ones.
Still, this remains the biggest theological objection to the fallen angel view.
Interpretation 2: The Sethite View
This interpretation emerged in the 4th-5th centuries A.D., primarily through Augustine and other church fathers who were uncomfortable with the fallen angel view.
The Case for the Sethite View
According to this interpretation:
The “sons of God” = the godly line of Seth (Adam’s third son, through whom the line of the Messiah would come)
The “daughters of men” = the ungodly line of Cain
The Nephilim = the offspring of these mixed marriages. Therefore, not supernatural beings but powerful, wicked men who corrupted the earth
The argument is that Genesis 4 traces Cain’s line (characterized by violence and godlessness), while Genesis 5 traces Seth’s line (characterized by godliness: ”then men began to call upon the name of the LORD,” Genesis 4:26). Genesis 6 describes the breakdown of this separation: the godly line intermarried with the ungodly line, leading to universal corruption.
Problems with the Sethite View
The terminology doesn’t fit. If Moses meant “sons of Seth” and “daughters of Cain,” why didn’t he just say that? The phrases “sons of God” and “daughters of men” suggest a categorical distinction, not a genealogical one.
Not to mention that the term, “son” or “sons of God” is universally used for only 3 things throughout the Bible: Adam, Jesus, and angels.
Not all of Seth’s descendants were godly. Genesis 5 lists Seth’s genealogy, but there’s no indication that all of them were righteous. In fact, the text says mankind became universally corrupt, which would include Seth’s line.
It doesn’t explain the Nephilim. Why would the intermarriage of Seth’s line and Cain’s line produce “giants” or “mighty men of renown”? Normal human unions don’t produce superhuman offspring.
It contradicts the LXX. The Septuagint translators— who were closer to the original context —didn’t see it this way. They translated it as “angels of God.”
It’s a late interpretation. This view didn’t appear until the 4th-5th centuries A.D. For the first 300+ years of church history, the fallen angel view was dominant.
Interpretation 3: Divine Rulers or Kings
A third view, popular among some modern scholars, suggests that the “sons of God” were human rulers or kings who claimed divine status.
The Case for Divine Rulers
In ancient Near Eastern cultures, kings often took titles like “son of [deity]” to assert their semi-divine authority. The interpretation argues:
The “sons of God” = powerful kings or rulers who saw themselves as divinely appointed
The “daughters of men” = commoners or lower-status women
The sin was polygamy and abuse of power; kings taking multiple wives by force
This view fits the historical context of the ancient Near East, where kings built harems and oppressed the vulnerable.
Problems with Divine Rulers
The phrase “sons of God” doesn’t refer to human kings anywhere else in the Old Testament. In Job, it explicitly refers to angelic beings. There’s no precedent for using this phrase to describe human rulers.
It doesn’t explain the Nephilim. Why would the offspring of kings and commoners be called “giants” or “fallen ones”?
The LXX doesn’t support it. Again, the Septuagint translators used “angels of God,” not “sons of rulers” or “sons of the mighty.”
The text emphasizes their extraordinary nature. The Nephilim are described as “mighty men of old, men of renown,” which clearly denotes legendary figures, not just the children of polygamous kings.
What Does the LXX Tell Us?
The Septuagint’s choice to translate בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים as “angels of God” is telling. These were Jewish scholars— experts in Hebrew —translating for a Jewish audience before Christian theology existed.
They understood Genesis 6 as describing fallen angels who transgressed their boundaries, took human wives, and produced monstrous offspring whose violence provoked God’s judgment in the Flood.
This wasn’t a fringe view. It was the view in Second Temple Judaism. The Book of 1 Enoch, which elaborates on this narrative, was widely read in Jewish and early Christian circles. Jude even quotes from it (Jude 14-15).
The Sethite view— which became popular later —was a theological correction by church fathers who found the fallen angel view too scandalous or too difficult to defend against pagan myths.
But the earliest Jewish and Christian interpreters, reading the Hebrew and Greek texts in their original contexts, understood Genesis 6 as describing a supernatural incursion of fallen angels into human affairs.
Why This Matters Theologically
Genesis 6:1-4 isn’t just a weird interlude before the Flood. It’s a key to understanding the biblical worldview of spiritual warfare, judgment, and redemption.
1. The Flood Was Not Just About Human Sin
Genesis 6:5 says, “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
But the preceding verses (6:1-4) explain how things got so bad. There was a supernatural corruption of humanity. The line between heaven and earth, between the divine and the human, was violated. The result was chaos, violence, and the proliferation of beings who were not fully human.
Interestingly, there’s also a deeper lesson to be found here. Looking at Scripture, I think It’s reasonable to suggest that each time God makes a narrowing choice (Adam, Noah, Abraham, David, Jesus), Satan takes the opportunity to try to invalidate God’s plan of redemption. In this case, he knew that the redeemer of man had to be a man, so he tried to corrupt the bloodlines of men.
To which I imagine God saying, “watch this,” as he responds. And what was his response? To wipe the slate clean and start over with Noah, the one man who was “perfect in his generations,” meaning that his bloodline was not corrupted.
2. The Nephilim Appear Again After the Flood
Genesis 6:4 says, “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that...”
Numbers 13:33 confirms this: when the Israelite spies scout Canaan, they report, “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”
So the Nephilim weren’t completely wiped out in the Flood. Either:
Some Nephilim survived (unlikely, since Genesis 7 says only Noah’s family survived)
The same angelic transgression happened again after the Flood
The Nephilim were a category of beings (giants, violent warriors) that recurred in history
This explains why God commanded the Israelites to utterly destroy the Canaanite nations. It wasn’t arbitrary genocide, but rather the eradication of a corrupted line that threatened to pollute humanity again.
3. It Reveals the Scope of Spiritual Warfare
If Genesis 6 describes fallen angels corrupting humanity, then the Bible’s narrative is not just about human sin. It’s about cosmic rebellion, a war between God and the forces of darkness that extends beyond the human realm.
This sets the stage for:
The Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) – another attempt to breach the boundary between heaven and earth
The conquest of Canaan (Joshua-Judges) – the destruction of giant clans (Anakim, Rephaim) connected to the Nephilim
The Incarnation (John 1:14) – God Himself becomes human to defeat the powers of darkness
The Cross (Colossians 2:15) – Christ disarming principalities and powers
Genesis 6 isn’t a random myth. It’s part of the Bible’s larger story of God reclaiming His creation from the forces of chaos and evil.
My Take: Why the Fallen Angel View Fits Best
I’m convinced the fallen angel interpretation is correct. Here’s why:
It’s the most natural reading of the Hebrew. “Sons of God” means angels everywhere it appears.
The Septuagint explicitly says “angels of God.” The translators who were closest to the original context understood it that way.
Second Temple Judaism unanimously held this view. 1 Enoch, Jubilees, the Dead Sea Scrolls… they unanimously interpret Genesis 6 as describing fallen angels.
The New Testament references it. Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 connect angelic sin with the Flood.
It explains the Nephilim. The Sethite view and the divine rulers view don’t adequately account for why the offspring were “giants” or “mighty men of old.”
It fits the broader biblical narrative of spiritual warfare. Genesis 6 isn’t an isolated incident. Rather, it’s exemplary of the ongoing conflict between God and the forces of darkness.
Does this mean I believe fallen angels literally had sexual relations with human women and produced hybrid offspring? Yes. I think it’s clear that’s what the text is really saying.
If you’ve found this exploration helpful or enlightening, please share it with a friend who loves Scripture as much as you do.
What About the LXX’s “Giants”?
The Septuagint’s choice to translate Nephilim as gigantes is also significant.
The Greek word gigantes doesn’t just mean “tall people.” In Greek mythology, the Gigantes were monstrous beings born from the blood of Uranus (the sky god) when he was castrated by Cronus. They were violent, chaotic, and ultimately destroyed by Zeus and the Olympian gods.
By using this word, the LXX translators were drawing a parallel: the Nephilim were like the Gigantes; beings with a divine heritage, violent and rebellious, who brought destruction upon themselves.
This also explains why ancient cultures around the world have myths about giants, demigods, and god-human hybrids. These aren’t just fairy tales. They’re echoes of real events. Distorted through time and retelling, naturally, but rooted in the memory of something that actually happened.
Reading the Texts Together
Once again, comparing the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint enriches our understanding.
The MT gives us the raw Hebrew: “sons of God,” “Nephilim,” “mighty men.” It leaves room for interpretation.
The LXX clarifies: “angels of God,” “earth-born.” It tells us how ancient Jewish scholars understood the passage.
Together, they give us a fuller picture. Genesis 6:1-4 describes a supernatural rebellion of angelic beings who crossed the boundary between heaven and earth, producing monstrous offspring whose violence filled the earth and provoked God’s judgment in the Flood.
It’s a strange passage. It’s uncomfortable. It raises more questions than it answers.
But it’s also a powerful reminder that the biblical worldview is not naturalistic. The Bible doesn’t present a closed system where only human choices matter. It presents an open cosmos where heaven and earth intersect, where angels (fallen and otherwise) operate, and where God actively intervenes in history to preserve His creation and accomplish His purposes.
Genesis 6 warns us: don’t underestimate the forces of darkness. But it also assures us: God is sovereign, and He will judge evil no matter how powerful or supernatural it may be.
What’s Next
We’ve completed a full circuit now, from Isaiah to Genesis, from prophecy to primeval history, comparing the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint at every turn.
For my paid subscribers, you have access to the comprehensive Daniel 9 series on the Seventy Weeks prophecy, which is one of the most debated passages in all of Scripture. If you haven’t read it yet, dive in. It’s worth it.
For everyone else, thank you for journeying with me through these texts. My hope is that you’ve seen how reading Scripture in multiple traditions doesn’t undermine your faith but rather deepens it. It shows you the richness, the complexity, and the mystery of God’s Word.
And it reminds you that God has preserved His Word in multiple languages, through multiple traditions, so that we can see His revelation from every angle.
Keep reading. Keep comparing. Keep digging deeper.
The Word of God is alive, and it rewards those who search for it with all their heart.
The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:
Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.
Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.
Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.
Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible.
© 2025 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.
I agree with your intpretation of the "sons of God" as angels. The other alternatives disregard not just the Septuagint, but 1 Enoch, 2 Peter, and Jude.
I recently wrote an artilce on what are the Nephiliim, what happened to them after the Flood, and whether they are prophesied to return. If you're interested, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
https://extrabiblicallibrarian.substack.com/p/nephilim-return