The Sons of God and the Nephilim—Part 1

Fake pictures of giant skeletons like this one have been circulating on the web. Although the photos look realistic, several websites have debunked them. Nevertheless, the Bible describes real giants, but they probably were not as large as the one portrayed here.

[NOTE: This article offers an introduction to my thesis on the sons of God and the Nephilim. If you came here looking for information on the Ancient Alien hypothesis, check out my Q & A article on that topic.]

Readers of this blog probably know that I have been very busy over the past eight months working on my thesis, and that I promised to write about it once I finished. Well, that day has finally come. I successfully completed and defended the thesis and earned a Th.M. in Church History and Theology. [As of 11/5/11 my thesis is now available in print or for Amazon Kindle.]

Obviously, I won’t be able to share all of the details of a 135 page thesis on this blog, but I will summarize some of my findings and conclusions over the next few weeks. For this first article, I will explain the subject of my thesis and give the reader an overview of the major views on the topic within the church.

One of the difficulties in writing my paper is the lack of scholarly work on the subject. There is a great deal of popular level literature on the sons of God and the Nephilim, and these often go off on bizarre “rabbit trails.” Since a thesis can only rely on scholarly work, it was difficult to find appropriate resources (somehow I still managed to find enough resources to have a ten page bibliography).

My thesis focused on two of the mysterious groups of beings discussed in Genesis 6.

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 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 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. (Genesis 6:1–4)

So who were the “sons of God” (vs. 2, 4) and the giants (v. 4)? The word “giants” in v. 4 is transliterated in some Bibles as “Nephilim.” This word is only found in one other verse in the Bible (Numbers 13:33) where it appears twice. The precise wording translated as “sons of God” shows up only three other times in Scripture, all in the book of Job (although similar Hebrew phrases are found in a few other places).

Genesis 6:1–4 is definitely one of the strangest passages in the Bible, and Christians are far from united on how to properly interpret these verses. There are three major views that conservative Christians have held concerning the identity of the sons of God, along with some derivatives of these positions.

The earliest surviving position is that the sons of God were fallen angels or some other heavenly beings. According to this position these angels materialized (or possessed men), married women, and sired children by them. This was the dominant view until the fourth century AD, and it is becoming more and more popular in modern times.

From the fourth century until the twentieth century, the most popular interpretation held that the sons of God were the male descendants of Adam’s son Seth, while the daughters of men were the female descendants of Cain. Known as the Sethite view, this position is not nearly as popular as it once was, but is still held by some scholars. A few people have switched this position around by claiming the sons of God were descendants of Cain and the daughters of men were female descendants of Seth.

The third view was promoted by some Jewish rabbis in the second century AD, but not really by any Christian scholars until the twentieth century. This interpretation views the sons of God as kings or despots who forcefully took common women to be a part of their harems.

One’s understanding of the identity of the sons of God usually determines how they view the Nephilim. The Nephilim may be the offspring of the unions of the sons of God and the daughters of men, but the text does not explicitly state this. As a result, some people from within each camp believe the Nephilim were already on the earth when these marriages took place.

Were the Nephilim giants? They are described this way in Numbers 13:33, and if they were the offspring of the ungodly marriages described in Genesis 6, then they are called “mighty men of old, men of renown.”

So which view is the right or best one? I believe the fallen angel view does the best job of explaining the actual text. Yet, this interpretation also brings some of the strongest objections. Nevertheless, it is the position I defended in my paper. Here is my thesis statement:

This thesis will demonstrate that the interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4 which views the “sons of God” as fallen angels and the Nephilim as the resultant progeny of illicit unions between these angels and women is superior to the alternate views and is consistent with both the immediate context in Genesis and the overall context of Scripture.

In the coming weeks, I will provide some of the reasons why I believe this is the proper view. In my paper I show why those who hold the alternate views do not adequately account for all of the details in the text. Also, I will explain how plausible solutions can be given for every argument against the fallen angel position. My paper also included a survey of how people have interpreted this passage since the days of the early church.

I hope to rewrite the thesis as a popular level book in the next year. I guarantee it will make a fascinating read for anyone interested in this topic.

Thanks for reading.

[Click here for Part 2 of The Sons of God and the Nephilim—critique of Sethite view]

[Click here for Part 3 of The Sons of God and the Nephilim—critique of Royalty view]

[Click here for Part 4 of The Sons of God and the Nephilim—biblical support for Fallen Angel view]

[Click here for Part 5 of The Sons of God and the Nephilim—theological and historical support for Fallen Angel view]

[Click here for my thoughts on the Ancient Alien hypothesis and how it may be related to this issue.]

About Tim Chaffey

I am the founder of Midwest Apologetics and work as the Content Manager with the Attractions Division of Answers in Genesis. I have written (or co-authored) several books, including In Defense of Easter, God and Cancer, The Sons of God and the Nephilim, and The Truth Chronicles Series (see the publications page for more details). Please note: the opinions expressed on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Answers in Genesis.


The Sons of God and the Nephilim—Part 1 — 13 Comments

  1. Tim, may God bless you @ continue to use you to speak the Biblical truth on such matters. May the Spirit of God lead & guide you into ALL truth. Stay encouraged brother.

  2. This concept of angels prodiucing an offspring is not possible in common science or in the scriptures , they do not carry a Human seed or DNA , Jesus mentioned that angels cannot be married and Paul said in Acts that God made all men from the same bloodline, this concept is not support by biblical theology only by natural or carnal reasoning ignoring key verses in the scriptures and science, if Angels have that ability than satan will be able to plant his seed in many wicked women today remember Angels were created once with a limit number humans will reach their limit by reproducing .

    • Hi Willie,
      How do you know what angels can or cannot do in this realm? Jesus did not say that these angels cannot do this. He said that the angels “in heaven” do not do this. Concerning this claim, I’ve already addressed it elsewhere, such as this post
      In fact, Jesus may have even given support to the fallen angel view. See my recent post on His words here:

      • Jesus did not say that these angels cannot do this. He said that the angels “in heaven” do not do this. God doesn’t change . there is no shaddow of change in him. if he has one rule for heaven he has the same rule for everywhere else. assuming that God is two-faced is implying that God is: liar’ deceitful, insincere, double-dealing, hypocritical, back-stabbing, false, untrustworthy, duplicitous, Janus-faced, deceiving, dissembling, dishonest. disloyal, treacherous, perfidious, faithless. lying, untruthful, mendacious. try Hebrews 1:12. Hebrews 13:8. Psalm 89:2.2 Timothy 2:13. 1 Samuel 15:29.Proverbs 19:21.Psalm 119:89.Matthew 5:18. etc . etc..and last but not least, Hebrews 6:17 In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose… So how can you say that god has one rule for thew angels in heaven but a different one for them on earth. You obviously don’t really understand God at all. instead of trying to read between the lines try reading the lines first. God is not a double talker. if he says something you can bet he mean it in all cases. he is not in the habit of saying half truths. I think you should reconsider your position. I know you spent many months researching this and writing a thesis but that’s just an opinion based on the information you obtained at the time. it doesn’t mean you can’t possibly be wrong. I have had to change many of my views over the years about many important things because God forced me to see things a different way when i was sure my original views were supported but I was wrong. dead wrong. For exactly: justice and mercy don’t exactly go hand in hand in human understanding.

        • Sam,
          Thanks for reading, but you’ve missed the entire point. What these angelic beings did was in rebellion to God—meaning that they went against His commands, just like we do when we sin. So even if God has a law in heaven about angels not marrying (again, the Bible doesn’t say there is a law like this—Jesus just said that it did not happen in heaven), it does not mean that rebellious angelic must follow that law when they are in the midst of rebelling against Him on earth. So this would not in any way indicate that God was lying or being hypocritical. It would simply mean that some angels sinned against Him.
          Let’s look at a counterexample to demonstrate my point. The Israelites were instructed not to covet (one of the Ten Commandments). Yet, after conquering Jericho, Achan coveted some of the spoil that he found there and kept it for himself. He was executed for his sin. Does Achan’s sin make God a liar, hypocrite, false, duplicitous, etc.? Of course not, but if we were using the same “logic” you were following, it would. What it really means is that a man rebelled against God’s command and was punished for it. The same thing is true with the fallen angel view except that we are speaking of angelic beings instead of a person.
          I have continued to examine my position over the past eight years since posting this article and written extensively on it, and I am more convinced than ever before that the fallen angel view offers the correct interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4.

  3. Do you have this in book form where I can purchase this? I am very interested in the topic and in any insight you have on it. Thank-you

  4. Hello tim,
    Thanks for your great work. I am posting this just to let people know that there is a place in Uganda where large footprints are. May be you will want to check them out if you ever visit This country.

  5. Hey Tim

    Can’t wait to see your thesis. I have some very strong held theological opinions on why I think they weren’t angels so I am looking forward to see if your research can answers my questions. Hope to see you in July at the conference.

    • Hi Jonathan! I’d be happy to send you a PDF version of the paper. If your objections are echoed in scholarly sources then I probably addressed them. There were a couple of objections I wanted to address, but I couldn’t find a scholar who raised them. I was only allowed to quote popular-level resources a few times. If I didn’t address the objections in the paper then I’d be happy to add that for the book.
      While I’m fairly confident of my view, I definitely allow for other positions on this topic. It is certainly not a salvation issue, but certain portions of the research were quite fascinating. I learned some things that I had never even heard about before and discovered something very intriguing that I’ve never read anywhere else. I’m looking forward to sharing all of this in the future.
      If you’ve done a good amount of research on the subject I’d be glad to hear your critiques, comments, suggestions, etc. on the paper.

  6. Great stuff, Tim, thanks. It was a real highlight to have met you at the big homeschool conference.
    And thanks for the Truth Chronicles. We are reading them during our dinnertime, and my kids are riveted (and learning).

    • Thanks for the kind words Brian. I’m glad that your kids are enjoying the Truth Chronicles and learning from them. We had a lot of fun with the story and pray they will be great teaching tools.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *