The Divine Council Part 5: When Angels Fell

Genesis 6, the Watchers, and the Origin of the Nephilim

Jun 17, 2026

Article voiceover

0:00

-35:41

Hello brothers and sisters,

There’s a passage in Genesis 6 that has been sanitized, allegorized, and explained away for centuries. It sits just four verses long, wedged between the genealogy of Adam’s descendants and the Flood narrative, almost like an afterthought.

But it’s not an afterthought. It’s the hinge on which the entire pre-Flood narrative turns. It’s the reason God sent the Flood. And when you read it alongside the Septuagint, the book of Enoch, and the letters of Jude and Peter, the picture that emerges is far stranger and far more disturbing than the version most of us were taught in Sunday school.

If you haven’t read the earlier posts in this series, I’d encourage you to read them first as it will give you the framework for how we’re approaching this.

Read the Divine Council Series HERE.

I should tell you upfront: this is the post in the series where I agree with Michael Heiser almost completely. On Genesis 6, I think he got it right. The evidence is overwhelming, and it comes from every direction: the Hebrew text, the Greek translation, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament, and the unanimous testimony of Jewish and Christian interpreters from antiquity and up through the first three centuries of the church.

If you’ve already read my earlier deep-dive on this passage (published last year as a standalone post), some of this ground will be familiar. But this time we’re approaching it through the lens of the divine council framework we’ve been building across this series. And that lens changes the picture significantly.

Let me show you.

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Available for iOS and Android

The Text Side by Side

Let’s start where we always start: with the text itself.

Genesis 6:1-4 — Masoretic Text:

“Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God (בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים, bene ha-elohim) saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
And the Lord said, ‘My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.’
There were giants (נְפִילִים, 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.” (NKJV)

Genesis 6:1-4 — Septuagint:

“And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God (οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ, hoi huioi tou theou), having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose.
And the Lord God said, ‘My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men forever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be one hundred and twenty years.’
Now the giants (οἱ γίγαντες, hoi gigantes) were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore children to them; those were the giants of old, the men of renown.”

The first thing to notice is that the two traditions agree on the essential narrative. Both the Hebrew and the Greek describe “sons of God” taking “daughters of men” as wives. Both describe the offspring as extraordinary beings, “giants,” “mighty men,” and “men of renown.” Both place this event immediately before God’s decision to limit human lifespan and, ultimately, to send the Flood.

But the details reveal important nuances.

The Key Terms

בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים (Bene Ha-Elohim) — “Sons of God”

By now, having spent four posts establishing what elohim means, you should recognize this phrase immediately. Bene ha-elohim, “sons of God,” is not a generic term for pious humans. It’s a technical phrase that appears in specific contexts throughout the Hebrew Bible, and in every other occurrence, it refers to divine beings. Angels, typically.

Job 1:6

“Now there was a day when the sons of God (bene ha-elohim) came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.”

These are clearly heavenly beings gathering in God’s court. No interpretation of this passage reads “sons of God” as the godly line of Seth showing up for a meeting.

Job 2:1 presents the same scene, the same phrase, and the same meaning.

Job 38:7

“When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God (bene ha-elohim) shouted for joy?”

This is describing the creation of the earth, long before any human lineage existed, let alone the line of Seth. These are divine beings celebrating God’s creative work.

The phrase bene ha-elohim has a consistent, specific meaning in the Hebrew Bible. It refers to members of the divine council, the spiritual beings who serve in God’s heavenly assembly. When Genesis 6 uses this exact phrase, we should understand it the same way.

The Septuagint translators agreed. In the main LXX manuscripts, they rendered bene ha-elohim as οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ (hoi huioi tou theou), “the sons of God.” But some manuscripts, including the important Codex Alexandrinus (5th century A.D.), go further and render it as οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ (hoi angeloi tou theou), “the angels of God.” This is the same translation strategy used in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 in the LXX, where bene ha-elohim is consistently rendered as “angels of God.”

This means the LXX translators didn’t just translate the phrase. They interpreted it. They understood “sons of God” as referring to angelic beings, and at least some of them rendered it explicitly so that Greek readers couldn’t miss the point.

נְפִילִים (Nephilim) — “Fallen Ones” or “Giants”

The word Nephilim appears only twice in the entire Hebrew Bible: here in Genesis 6:4 and in Numbers 13:33, where the Israelite spies report that the inhabitants of Canaan include the descendants of the Nephilim (the Anakim), and that they felt like grasshoppers by comparison.

The etymology is debated. Most scholars connect it to the Hebrew root נָפַל (naphal), meaning “to fall,” which would give us “fallen ones.” Others connect it to a root meaning “to be extraordinary” or “mighty.”

The LXX translators chose γίγαντες (gigantes), a word that in Hellenistic culture carried deep theological weight. While it is often simplified as "tall people" today, to a Greek reader, the Gigantes were a specific category of primordial, earth-born beings famous for their violent rebellion against the heavenly gods (the Gigantomachy).

By choosing this term, the translators weren't just describing physical size; they were mapping the Hebrew Nephilim onto a Greek concept of cosmic insurrectionists. Within the divine council framework, this choice perfectly captures the essence of Genesis 6: extraordinary, powerful, and adversarial beings born of a breach between the heavenly and earthly realms.

And the text itself describes them in extraordinary terms: “mighty men who were of old, men of renown” (הַגִּבֹּרִים אֲשֶׁר מֵעוֹלָם אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם, ha-gibborim asher me-olam anshei ha-shem). The word גִּבֹּרִים (gibborim) means “warriors, heroes, mighty ones.” The phrase אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם (anshei ha-shem) literally means “men of the name,” a phrase suggesting fame, notoriety, and legendary status. These weren’t ordinary children. The text goes out of its way to signal that something unprecedented happened.

And interestingly, when the LXX translators reached the word gibborim, they translated that too as gigas. In ancient Greek, gigas didn't just mean a monster; it was frequently used to describe mighty, violent, larger-than-life warriors.

We see this same translation pattern when we reach Nimrod. The Septuagint translates Genesis 10:8 into Greek as

"Nimrod... became a gigas (giant/mighty warrior) on the earth."

Nimrod wasn't a physical giant monster; he was a tyrant and a powerful warrior, showing that the translators used gigas for its connotations of power, hubris, and might, not just height.

The Sethite Interpretation: Why It Fails

Before I make the positive case for the supernatural reading, I need to address the elephant in the room. The most common interpretation taught in modern evangelical churches is that the “sons of God” are the godly descendants of Seth, and the “daughters of men” are the ungodly descendants of Cain.

On this reading, Genesis 6 is about intermarriage between believers and unbelievers, a warning against being “unequally yoked.”

This interpretation is widespread. It’s comfortable. And it’s wrong.

Let me explain why.

First, and most fundamentally, the offspring problem. When two ordinary human beings have children, the result is ordinary human children. It doesn’t matter how godly one parent is or how ungodly the other is. The marriage of a believer and an unbeliever does not produce giants, mighty warriors, or beings of legendary renown.

The text describes the offspring of these unions as something extraordinary, something the world had never seen.

The Sethite view has no explanation for this.

You might argue that the “mighty men” language is metaphorical, describing influential but normal humans. But the Hebrew (gibborim... anshei ha-shem) is the language of legend. And when the spies later encounter the descendants of the Nephilim in Canaan (Numbers 13:33), they describe beings of terrifying physical stature, so large that the Israelites felt like grasshoppers.

The Anakim, the Rephaim, and other giant clans in the conquest narratives are consistently presented as physically enormous, not merely socially prominent. Now, let me present this with precision, because this is important.

You don’t use a phrase like “We were grasshoppers in their sight,” about physically imposing men. You don’t even use it about a “giant” (in the sense of how it’s used today) at the upper range of what the text of 1 Samuel says about Goliath.

In case that range escapes you at the moment, let’s recap. 1 Samuel in the Hebrew says Goliath was “six cubits and a span.” So if we go with the traditional 18-inch cubit, that presents Goliath as about 9’9” (so, big, really big, but still technically possible by modern understanding, even if we’ve never recorded a man that tall). However, if we use the measurements of a “long cubit,” which is about 21 inches, then that gives us a ceiling of about 11’3” and that changes the conversation considerably.

The important point here is that even at that upper range of just over eleven feet in height, you’re not going to say that you’re a “grasshopper in their sight.” Even Og of Bashan, who by the same math we could say had a bed of roughly 13’6” – 15’9,” suggesting his physical height could have been as much as 15 feet or so, would not elicit that kind of statement.

Now, if the phrase had been “we were like rats in their sight,” or “we were like dogs in their sight,” or even “we were like lambs in their sight,” then that could be a solid argument for the Anakim being “giants” in the sense of just really big men or even what modern science would call “gigantism.”

But because of that phrase about grasshoppers, even if we consider it was an exaggeration for effect, we have to imagine that these giants were much bigger than Og of Bashan.

Now, I’m not suggesting we take seriously some of the more fanciful statements (such as from 1 Enoch) about the height of the giants, especially since some suggest the giants could have been over 4,000 feet in height. However, I suspect that the height of these giants may well be the exact datum that formed the ancient Greek ideas of the sheer size of the titans and the Olympian gods.

Let’s engage in a little thought experiment.

Homer gives Aries an area covering about 7 acres, which, if we assume something close to human dimensions (though with greater width to account for the bulky way he’s often portrayed), that would give us something close to 1,100 feet in height and around 275 feet in width.

Modern science tells us that a being of this size is impossible, that it would suffocate or it’s bones be crushed under it’s own weight.

So let’s consider. Maybe these figures were greatly exaggerated. But, to get to “we were grasshoppers in their sight,” even accounting for significant exaggeration. So let’s do some quick math to see what it looks like if we’re talking about giants of around 100 feet in height.

If we do the math, a 5-foot tall man is approximately 1/20 the size of a 100-foot giant. Comparatively, 1/20 the size of a 5-foot man is approximately 3 inches. Now that’s a fair bit bigger than your average grasshopper, but it’s pretty close.

Now, to account for significant exaggeration, let’s say we’re talking about giants of roughly 40-50 feet in height. At that point, the 5-foot human is roughly 10% of their size. 10% of the size of a 5-foot human is about 6 inches. That’s a good sized mouse or an small-to-average adult rat (depending on where you live!).

I think that’s getting us pretty close to what we’d have to be looking at. Maybe even a bit smaller.

But considering the language used and the way these figures work out, I can’t imagine that we’re looking at anything smaller than maybe 30 feet. Anything smaller than that and the grasshopper analogy just doesn’t work, even accounting for the exaggeration.

And here’s one significant snag to note. In Numbers, while Caleb and Joshua gave a very different report of the meaning of what the land contained, they did not contradict the “grasshoppers in their sight” language.

I’m not often a proponent for agreement by silence, but this is one of the times that I think it’s a compelling argument.

Now, to get back to the point.

The phrase “sons of God” (bene ha-elohim) never refers to the line of Seth anywhere in Scripture. Not once. If Moses meant “the descendants of Seth,” he had perfectly good Hebrew vocabulary to say so. He could have written “the sons of Seth” (בְּנֵי שֵׁת, bene Shet) or “the men of the line of Seth.” Instead, he used a technical phrase that everywhere else in the Hebrew Bible refers to divine beings.

Third, the Sethite view requires an artificial and textually unsupported division. Nowhere does Genesis say that Seth’s line was uniformly godly or that Cain’s line was uniformly wicked. Seth’s descendant Lamech (not the Lamech of Cain’s line, but Seth’s Lamech, Noah’s father) named his son Noah with a statement about the difficulty of life under the curse (Genesis 5:29). There’s no indication that Seth’s entire line was a bastion of righteousness. And Cain’s line produced Jubal, who invented musical instruments, and Tubal-Cain, who pioneered metallurgy (Genesis 4:21-22). They weren’t all monsters.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the Sethite interpretation was not the original reading. It was popularized by Augustine of Hippo in the 4th-5th century A.D. Before Augustine, the virtually unanimous testimony of both Jewish and Christian interpreters was that Genesis 6 described divine beings transgressing their proper boundaries by taking human wives.

I say this not to dismiss Augustine. He was one of the greatest theologians in church history and he gave us a great many incredible insights. But on this point, he was reacting against what he perceived as the mythological implications of the supernatural reading, and in doing so, he departed from a tradition that had been all but universal for centuries.

The Ancient Consensus

Let me show you just how universal the supernatural reading was before Augustine.

Jewish sources:

The book of 1 Enoch (3rd-1st century B.C.) devotes chapters 6-16 entirely to this event, expanding it into a detailed narrative of 200 Watchers (עִירִין, Irin, “awake ones” or “vigilant ones”) who descended to Mount Hermon, swore an oath, and took human wives. Their leader Semjaza feared bearing the punishment alone, so the entire group bound themselves with mutual curses.

Their offspring, the giants, grew to enormous size and terrorized humanity. The Watchers also taught humanity forbidden knowledge: Azazel taught metallurgy and weapons-making; others taught sorcery, astrology, and cosmetics. The earth cried out under the weight of the violence, and God sent the Flood in response.

The book of Jubilees (2nd century B.C.) retells the story along similar lines, describing the Watchers as angels sent to instruct humanity who instead corrupted themselves by taking human wives.

It’s worth noting that the term “Watchers” also appears in canonical Scripture. In Daniel 4:13, 17, and 23, Nebuchadnezzar sees “a watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven” who pronounces judgment. The Aramaic word עִיר (ir) is the singular of the same term that 1 Enoch uses for the 200 angels who descended to Mount Hermon.

Daniel uses it for a faithful Watcher, one who is still “holy.”

1 Enoch uses it for Watchers who abandoned their holiness.

The terminology is shared between the canonical and extra-canonical traditions, confirming that “Watcher” was a recognized category of divine being in Second Temple Jewish thought.

Philo of Alexandria (1st century A.D.), writing in Greek for a Jewish audience, interpreted the “sons of God” as angels.

Josephus (1st century A.D.) in his Antiquities of the Jews writes that “many angels of God accompanied with women and begat sons that proved unjust.”

The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan renders bene ha-elohim in Genesis 6:2 as “sons of the great ones” (benei rav’revaya), using a term applied to angelic beings elsewhere.

Christian sources:

Justin Martyr (c. 150 A.D.) explicitly states that angels transgressed their proper order by having sexual relations with women and producing offspring.

Irenaeus (c. 180 A.D.) refers to the fallen angels of Genesis 6 in Against Heresies.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 200 A.D.) identifies the “sons of God” as angels.

Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.) treats the Genesis 6 narrative as describing angelic rebellion.

For three centuries, this was not a controversial reading. It was simply the reading. Jewish and Christian interpreters alike understood bene ha-elohim as referring to divine beings who crossed a boundary they were never meant to cross.

The New Testament Confirms It

If the ancient consensus isn’t enough, the New Testament provides independent confirmation from two different apostolic writers.

Jude 6-7:

“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; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (NKJV)

Read that carefully. Jude describes angels who “did not keep their proper domain” (τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν, tēn heautōn archēn, literally “their own principality” or “their own rule”) but “left their own abode” (τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον, to idion oikētērion, “their own dwelling-place”). They abandoned their proper station. They crossed a boundary.

And then Jude draws a direct parallel: “as Sodom and Gomorrah... in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh.”

The phrase “in a similar manner to these” (τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις, ton homoion tropon toutois) connects the sin of the angels to the sin of Sodom. Both involved sexual transgression across a boundary that was never meant to be crossed. Sodom and the angels both pursued “strange flesh” (ἑτέρας σαρκός, heteras sarkos, “other/different flesh”).

Now, I want to slow down here for a moment because this is important.

Think about what Jude is actually saying here. This term “strange flesh” in the Greek is not a term one would use when simply referring to non-normative gender sexuality. This is indicative of pursuing sexual intimacy with with flesh of a different kind or order than one’s own.

Now let’s think about what that means for Sodom.

It means that the idea that Sodom was destroyed over homosexual activity is thinking far too small. Now, this is neither the time nor the place to discuss the sexuality question. For our purposes here what is germane is that the issue at hand with the destruction of Sodom was much bigger than that. Sodom was destroyed for attempting to combine human and angelic bloodlines. In essence, they were attempting to recreate the fall of the watchers by forcibly creating new Nephilim.

Now, I understand that’s a bold claim and a bit speculative, but consider what Jude is telling us. Because he isn’t just saying that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for sexual immorality. He says it’s for sexual immorality and going after strange flesh. The two are linked. This is not too separate clauses, they are one. And the Greek grammar is clear: the second phrase (going after strange flesh) serves as an explanatory modifier to the first.

So based on the vocabulary and the grammar, it is clear that what Jude is really talking about here is the people of Sodom having intentionally pursued angelic flesh. While it being expressly for the purpose of procreation is speculative, I would argue that it’s the only reasonable conclusion.

Now, this only makes sense if the angels of Jude 6 are the bene ha-elohim of Genesis 6 who took human wives. If their sin was merely pride or generic rebellion, the parallel to Sodom’s sexual sin would be nonsensical. Jude is drawing a specific comparison: both groups transgressed sexual boundaries, pursuing flesh that was of a different kind than themselves.

2 Peter 2:4-5:

“For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell (ταρταρώσας, tartarōsas, literally ‘sent to Tartarus’) and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on a world of the ungodly...” (NKJV)

Peter places the angelic sin immediately before the Flood, in the same chronological sequence as Genesis 6. Angels sinned. God imprisoned them. Then He sent the Flood. The order matches Genesis perfectly: bene ha-elohim transgress (Genesis 6:1-4), God announces judgment (Genesis 6:5-7), the Flood comes (Genesis 7).

Notice also Peter’s word choice: ταρταρώσας (tartarōsas). This is the only time this word appears in the entire New Testament. Tartarus, in Greek cosmology, was the lowest part of the underworld, a place of punishment for defeated titans and gods, not ordinary human dead. Peter reaches for a word from Greek mythology to describe a uniquely severe form of divine imprisonment, a prison reserved for supernatural beings who committed a particularly heinous sin.

Jude 14-15 and 1 Enoch:

And then there’s the passage that should settle any remaining doubt about how the New Testament authors understood Genesis 6. Jude 14-15 directly quotes 1 Enoch 1:9:

“Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.’” (NKJV)

Jude attributes this prophecy to Enoch and treats it as authoritative. He introduces it with “prophesied” (ἐπροφήτευσεν, eprophēteusen), the same verb used for biblical prophets throughout the New Testament. Jude considered 1 Enoch’s account of the Watchers, their sin, and their judgment to be prophetically reliable.

This doesn’t necessarily mean 1 Enoch is canonical Scripture in the same sense as Genesis or Isaiah. But it does mean that the New Testament, written under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, treats the Enochic framework, the framework of fallen Watchers, supernatural transgression, and divine imprisonment, as genuinely authoritative. The early church agreed. 1 Enoch was widely read, respected, and quoted by the church fathers. To this day, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes it in their biblical canon.

I believe 1 Enoch is prophetically authoritative, even if I wouldn’t put it on the same level as the books that all branches of the church have agreed on as canonical. Jude’s endorsement carries weight, and the framework 1 Enoch provides for understanding Genesis 6 is remarkably consistent with the canonical evidence.

If you found this helpful or enlightening, or even challenging, share it with a friend who needs to hear the deeper truths of the divine council.

What This Means for the Divine Council Framework

Now let’s step back and see how Genesis 6 fits into the larger story we’ve been telling across this series.

In Part 1, we established that elohim is a category term for beings possessing divine power and authority.

In Part 2, we saw God judge the corrupt members of His council in Psalm 82 for governing unjustly.

In Part 3, we discovered that God assigned divine beings to govern the nations after the division at Babel (Deuteronomy 32:8-9).

In Part 4, we saw the divine council present at creation, witnessing God’s announcement to make humanity in His image.

And now, having studied Genesis 6, we’ve found it to be the first recorded rebellion of the divine council against God’s established order.

These weren’t demons causing mischief. These were council members, bene ha-elohim, beings of genuine power and authority who sat in God’s presence (as we see in Job 1-2). They witnessed creation. They watched God form humanity. They knew the boundaries. And they crossed them.

The nature of their transgression is significant. They didn’t just rebel in the abstract. They violated the most fundamental boundary in creation: the boundary between the divine realm and the human realm. They took human wives. They produced hybrid offspring. They corrupted the human line that was supposed to carry the promise of the Seed, the Seed of the Woman who would crush the serpent’s head (Genesis 3:15).

And this, I believe, is why God’s response was so severe. The Flood wasn’t merely punishment for human wickedness (though that was part of it). It was a reset of the created order after divine beings had corrupted it. The Nephilim, the hybrid offspring, represented a violation of the order God established in Genesis 1. The “kinds” were mixing in a way that was never intended. The image of God in humanity was being corrupted.

Noah was saved, the text tells us, because he was “perfect in his generations” (תָּמִים... בְּדֹרֹתָיו, tamim... be-dorotav). The word tamim means “complete, whole, without blemish.” Some commentators have argued that this refers not only to Noah’s moral character but to the integrity of his genealogy, that his family line had not been corrupted by the Watchers’ transgression.

Whether or not you accept that specific reading, it’s clear that the corruption introduced by the bene ha-elohim was so severe that God judged it worthy of a global reset.

The Conquest Connection

And Genesis 6 doesn’t end with the Flood.

The text says something remarkable in verse 4: the Nephilim were on the earth “in those days, and also afterward.” After the Flood. The Hebrew is unambiguous: וְגַם אַחֲרֵי כֵן (ve-gam acharei khen), “and also after that.”

This explains something that has puzzled many readers of the Old Testament: why did God command the Israelites to utterly destroy certain populations in Canaan?

The commands of herem (total destruction) in the conquest narratives have troubled Christians for centuries. But look at who the Israelites are fighting: the Anakim (Numbers 13:33, who are explicitly called descendants of the Nephilim), the Rephaim (Deuteronomy 2:11, 20-21), and other giant clans like the Emim and the Zamzummim.

These were not ordinary Canaanite populations. They were the post-Flood remnants of the Nephilim bloodline, the same corrupted hybrid lineage that God had judged with the Flood. Now, you may know that there is a story about a giant having survived the flood. According to the Talmud (specifically in Zevachim 113b, though there are Mishnaic sources as well), it was Og of Bashan, the king, and he survived either by holding onto the ark or by hiding in an underground cave.

However, there is also the possibility that new giants were created by additional angels/watchers coming down to earth to procreate after the flood. Either way, Scripture itself is silent on the matter of how there are giants on the earth “after that.” What is certain, though, is that there were, in fact, giants on the earth after the flood.

So the conquest of Canaan can then be understood as the continuation of God’s campaign to purge the corruption introduced by the fallen Watchers.

I won’t pretend this resolves every ethical question raised by the conquest narratives. There are still open questions there. But it does provide a framework that most modern readers are simply unaware of, a framework that the original audience would have understood instinctively.

A Personal Reflection

I want to pause here and share something personal, because this passage was a turning point for me in my journey into Scripture.

When I first read Genesis 6 as a new believer, I didn’t know what to make of it. The Sethite interpretation was the first one I encountered, and it felt deeply unsatisfying.

Not just unsatisfying, in fact. It felt deeply wrong.

The text was clearly describing something extraordinary, and the idea that it was just about intermarriage between two human family lines seemed to drain all the strangeness out of the passage and naturalize it in a way that modern science would appreciate but that blatantly contradicted my entire world view.

You see, I have always been a deep believer in the supernatural. The unexplainable.

And my immediate question was, why would Moses include this bizarre four-verse narrative if it was just a warning about marrying unbelievers? He could have said that in a sentence. And truth be told, that message comes through clearly later in the prohibitions against the Israelites intermarrying with the nations around them.

It was when I discovered 1 Enoch and read Jude 6-7 with fresh eyes that the pieces clicked into place. I remember sitting at my desk, reading 1 Enoch 6-16 for the first time, and feeling this strange mix of vindication and awe.

Vindication because here was evidence that what I’d felt hadn’t been wrong. That my deep belief in the supernatural was warranted.

Awe at how much the Bible was telling me that I’d been missing. Here was an entire framework for understanding the pre-Flood world, the origins of spiritual corruption, and God’s rationale for the Flood, and most Christians had never even heard of it.

That experience combined with my deep fascination with the specifics of the Septuagint are what led me to create this Substack. They are what drive the both/and approach I take to every passage. Because Genesis 6 taught me that when the Bible says something strange, the right response isn’t to explain it away. It’s to lean in, compare the texts, read the ancient sources, and let the strangeness teach you something.

What This Means for You

Genesis 6 tells us that the spiritual realm is not distant or abstract. It intersects with the physical world in ways that can be devastating. Divine beings crossed a boundary and corrupted the human race so severely that God sent a Flood to start over.

This should shape how you think about spiritual warfare. The conflict between God’s purposes and the forces of darkness is not a metaphor. It’s not a theological abstraction. It’s a real, ongoing struggle that has manifested in the physical world at least once in history, with catastrophic consequences.

But it should also shape how you think about God’s faithfulness. Even after the greatest corruption the world had ever seen, God preserved Noah and his family. He kept the promise of Genesis 3:15 alive. The Seed of the Woman would still come. The serpent’s head would still be crushed. No rebellion, however severe, can derail God’s redemptive plan.

For a deep exploration of the Genesis 6 text from another angle, with full LXX/MT comparison and additional analysis of the manuscript variants, see my earlier standalone post, “The Nephilim: When the Sons of God Came to Earth in Genesis 6:1-4.”

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and it 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 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.

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?