The Difficulty
“When men began to multiply on the face of the ground and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful. And they took as their wives any they chose… The Nephilim were 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. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” This cryptic four-verse passage sits immediately before the Flood narrative and seems to describe some kind of union between heavenly beings and human women producing giant offspring. Who are the “sons of God” (bene elohim)? Who are the Nephilim? Why is this here? And why do Jude and 2 Peter reference this in the New Testament?
Responses
Fallen Angels (The Ancient View)
Summary: The “sons of God” are heavenly beings (angels) who had sexual relations with human women, producing the Nephilim — a corruption that provoked the Flood.
This was the dominant view in Second Temple Judaism and the early church. The book of 1 Enoch (c. 300 BC–100 AD), hugely influential in Jesus’ time, elaborates extensively on this reading: 200 “Watchers” led by Semyaza and Azazel descended to earth, took human wives, taught forbidden arts, and produced giant hybrid offspring. Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 directly reference this tradition, describing angels who “did not stay within their proper domain.” The phrase bene elohim elsewhere in the OT (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) refers to heavenly beings. The Septuagint translates the phrase as “angels of God.” Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and most ante-Nicene fathers held this view. Michael Heiser’s recent work has revived it among evangelicals.
Strengths
The oldest attested interpretation. Supported by Jude, 2 Peter, and 1 Enoch. Bene elohim elsewhere always refers to heavenly beings. Explains the Nephilim (giants) and the connection to the Flood judgment. The New Testament authors clearly knew and used this reading.
Weaknesses
Jesus said angels don’t marry (Matt 22:30). Raises difficult questions about angelic biology and whether angels can reproduce. Feels mythological to modern readers. The Sethite view arose partly to avoid these difficulties.
Further Reading
- 1 Enoch 6–11 — the classic expansion of the tradition (in The Apocryphal Old Testament, ed. H.F.D. Sparks)
- Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm (Lexham, 2015), chs. 12–13 — the best recent evangelical defense
- Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity (Cambridge, 2005) — masterful reception-history study
- Loren Stuckenbruck, The Myth of Rebellious Angels (Eerdmans, 2017)
Sethite Line (The Traditional Christian View)
Summary: The “sons of God” are the godly line of Seth; the “daughters of men” are the corrupt line of Cain; their intermarriage led to the moral collapse that provoked the Flood.
Augustine (City of God 15.23) and subsequent Christian orthodoxy adopted this reading partly in reaction to the fallen-angels view. The “sons of God” are the covenant line of Seth (Gen 4:26 says Seth’s descendants “began to call on the name of the LORD”), and the “daughters of men” are descendants of Cain. When the two lines intermarried, the godly line was corrupted and spiritual/moral degeneration spread, necessitating the Flood. The Nephilim are understood as merely “mighty warriors” — a term of military prowess, not physical giants. This became the standard medieval and Reformation view (Calvin, Luther, Matthew Henry) and remains the majority evangelical position today.
Strengths
Avoids the troubling implications of angelic-human reproduction. Keeps the narrative on a human moral plane. Connects Genesis 6 to the Cain/Seth genealogies of chapters 4–5. Reinforces the biblical theme of not being “unequally yoked.”
Weaknesses
Bene elohim never means “godly humans” elsewhere in the OT. Why would Moses (or the author) use this phrase for Sethites when he uses it consistently for heavenly beings elsewhere? Doesn’t explain the Nephilim as “mighty men of renown.” Doesn’t account for Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4. The Sethite line in Gen 5 is also a genealogy of mortality (“and he died”), not of special godliness.
Further Reading
- Augustine, City of God 15.23 — the foundational Sethite-view text
- John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, on Genesis 6
- Victor Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17 (NICOT, 1990), on Gen 6:1–4 (holds the Sethite view with modifications)
- Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), pp. 413–14
Dynastic Rulers / Divine Kings
Summary: The “sons of God” are human kings or rulers who claimed divine status and exercised their power through violence and polygamy.
Meredith Kline and some ANE scholars propose that “sons of God” refers to human rulers who claimed divine sonship — a well-attested pattern in the ancient Near East, where kings like the pharaohs and Mesopotamian rulers claimed divine parentage. The sin of Gen 6:1–4 is the exercise of royal power to seize women (polygamy, harem-building), echoing later biblical critiques of kings who “multiply wives” (Deut 17:17; cf. David, Solomon). The Nephilim are the offspring of these tyrannical unions — warrior elites whose violence fills the earth (Gen 6:11). This reading connects the passage to a broader biblical critique of abusive political power.
Strengths
Historically grounded in ANE royal ideology. Explains the “took as wives any they chose” language as royal seizure. Connects to later biblical critiques of monarchic excess.
Weaknesses
Bene elohim isn’t attested as a term for human kings in the OT (though “sons of the Most High” appears in Ps 82:6). The Nephilim-as-warriors reading is possible but not compelling. Requires significant background knowledge to communicate in preaching.
Further Reading
- Meredith Kline, “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1–4,” WTJ 24 (1962): 187–204
- John Walton, Genesis (NIVAC, 2001), on Gen 6:1–4
- Robert Gordon, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1–4 in Later Tradition” in From Ur of the Chaldees to Auckland (Sheffield, 2002)