Who Were the Nephilim and the Sons of God in Genesis 6 and Numbers 13?
[Editor’s note: As a point of discussion, this article was written many years ago and is being republished because it is a staple for many researching the Nephilim—hence it’s value. When I first researched and wrote on this subject with this article, I actually changed my view and started leaning in another direction.
I had originally been strongly in the fallen angels camp but after researching, I found there were some insurmountable problems with that view. Hence, this article gives pros and cons of the popular views and leaves the reader to decide while my new leanings come through.
Since this article, I have researched, refined, and written about this subject in more detail and if accumulated, they could probably be a small book! But I’ve kept all that information available online in Nephilim landing page if you were interested in diving into this subject in more detail. As a point of note, this debate should not be something that someone should go out and start a "new church" over. We can respectfully disagree and show Christian love in doing so.]
Genesis 6:1–6 (NAS)
Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face
of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God [bene
Elohim] saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives
for themselves, whomever they chose.
Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man
forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred
and twenty years.”
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and
also afterward, when the sons of God [bene Elohim] 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. Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on
the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil
continually.
Numbers 13:30–33
Then Caleb quieted the people before Moses and said, “We
should by all means go up and take possession of it, for we will surely
overcome it.” But the men who had gone up with him said, “We are not able to go
up against the people, for they are too strong for us.” So they gave out to the
sons of
Genesis 6 and Numbers 13 (pre-Flood and post-Flood) use
the term Nephilim and it has been the
center of discussion for many years. At this point, the identity of the
Nephilim and the sons of God is still being debated in Christian circles.[1]
There is a popular unbiblical view that the Nephilim are
space aliens. Of course, most creationists rightly reject this particular view
for multiple reasons, but that is not for discussion in this chapter.
Four Major Views
Of the views with some biblical support, some believe that
fallen angels fathered children with women, which resulted in giants called
Nephilim. Some believe the sons of God were the result of fallen angels who
overtook ungodly men to father children with women.
Others believe the term sons of God refers to the Sethites (descendants of Adam’s son
Seth). There are some minor views that are similar. Some use Psalm 82 to
suggest that these sons of God were godly kings, rulers, or heads of leading
family groups. This view has many similarities to the Sethite view but sees the
leaders/kings (as well as some other leaders of other tribes) as the godly ones.
Because these views are similar, I will leave this minor view out and focus on
the Sethite view, which should encompass the minor view for the most part.
Another variation of the Sethite view is that these godly
men had relations with ungodly women, and the offspring followed after other
gods—not the one, true God—and fell away in tremendous ways. We will call this
view the “fallen men” view. There are other minor views as well as other minor
non-biblical views but these four will be discussed here.
This table provides a brief summary of the four popular
views discussed.
|
Name |
View in short |
|
Fallen angels view |
Satan and/or his fallen angels bred with human women and
had offspring that were called Nephilim. |
|
Fallen angels overtook men view |
Fallen angels and/or Satan possessed men and caused them
to breed with women, whose offspring were the Nephilim. |
|
Sethite view |
The sons of God were the godly line from Adam to Seth down
to Noah, and the Nephilim were fallen children who sought after false gods. |
|
Fallen men view |
Godly men (“sons of God”) took ungodly wives, and their
descendants (Nephilim) followed after false gods, rejected God, and fell far
from God in wickedness. |
Nephilim—What Does It Mean?
There is a great deal of confusion over the word Nephilim.
No one today really knows what it means. It is related to the verb series “to
fall” (naphal) in Hebrew, which is why some direct this to fallen angels
or more appropriately, the offspring thereof. However, this also gives strong
support to the view that men had fallen away from God. These two
concepts gave rise to the various views mentioned above.
Many have associated the Nephilim with giants. Giant
traits may not have been limited to Nephilim alone: Goliath, a giant,
was not considered Nephilim. As mentioned, the term Nephilim is unclear
in definition. It is related to the verb “to fall” and the King James Version
translates it as giants from the influence of the Latin Vulgate’s (early
Latin translation by Jerome) term gigantes as well as the context from Numbers
13. The context of Genesis 6 does not reveal they were giants. There may have
been some influence on the Latin Vulgate by the Septuagint’s (Greek translation
of the Old Testament about 200–300 years before Christ) use of Greek word gigentes.
Fallen Angels View
- Sons of God=Fallen angels
- Nephilim=Mix of human and
angel
This is one of the most popular views. Of course, being
one of the more popular views, it also has invited considerable criticism. This
view stems from angels being called “sons of God,” or interpreted as such, in Job
1:6, 2:1, 38:7. In fact, if the Nephilim were indeed half human/half fallen
angel then it would give great understanding to the many ancient religious
views after
Marriage in Heaven
One early argument against this angelic view was that,
according to Jesus, angels don’t marry (Matthew 22:30). This has been responded
to many times and it is rightly pointed out that this is referring to angels in heaven, not fallen angels on earth.
So, the option is left open that fallen angels may very well do this. But there
are other more important issues at stake.
Peter and Jude
Defenders of this view also find support in two key New
Testament passages: 2 Peter 2:1–11 and Jude 4–8.
2 Peter 2:4–6
4For 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; 5and did not spare
the ancient world, but saved Noah, one
of eight people, a
preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6and
turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who
afterward would live ungodly . . .
Jude 4–8
4For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who
long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace
of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. 5But
I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved
the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not
believe. 6And 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; 7as 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. 8Likewise also these
dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.
These verses do not specifically mention the Nephilim, nor
do they clearly state that fallen angels had sexual relations with women.
However, they do place “the angels who sinned” (2 Peter 2:4), “who did not keep
their proper domain, but left their own abode” (Jude 6), in the same context as
Noah. Both passages seem to compare the sin of these angels with the sin of the
people of
It is important to understand that while these verses seem
to lend strong support to the fallen angel view, they do not make a watertight case
for it. For example, expositor Dr. John Gill argues for the contrary with
regard to Jude 6–7.[2] Jude 8
says that these sinners who crept into the church were doing the same things
(defiling the flesh, rejecting authority, and speaking evil of dignitaries) as
the three groups mentioned immediately before this in verses 5–7. So the context reveals that
those in
The context in Jude is discussing ungodly people who have
crept into the Church and a warning about their future. Such sin and
unrighteousness is nothing new. God will destroy those who are ungodly and
creep into the Church, just as He did the other ungodly people and angels
mentioned. Their condemnation will be the same. This type of logical thinking applies
to 2 Peter 2 as well—the angels sinning, the sin of those in Noah’s day, the
sin of
Angelic DNA
One of the prime arguments against this view is that
angels are spiritual and don’t have DNA to combine with a woman’s DNA. Though
this can be argued because angels did take on the appearance of men such as
Gabriel (Daniel 9:21; Luke 1:11–20) and the two angels sent to destroy
The spiritual can produce physical offspring, as
witnessed by the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary. However, the Holy Spirit is
the Creator and has that power (Psalm 104:30). Do fallen angels? The Bible
simply doesn’t reveal this.
Commentaries and Translations: Sons of God
While many commentaries, as well as the Codex Alexandrinus
manuscript of the Septuagint, refer to the sons of God in poetic Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 as angels, this may not be the best
argument for the narrative history in
Genesis 6 for a couple of reasons. Some commentaries leave open the possibility
that these could be referring to godly men and/or magistrates on earth, who
were human.[3]
The author of Job was aware of the term used for angel (Kalm
mal’ak), as Eliphaz the Temanite used it in Job 4:18. So, if the sons of
God were referring to angels, then why not say it? It may be too much to say
for sure that these two verses early in Job are referring to angels, but even
so, it wouldn’t be referring to fallen ones. There are no other instances in Scripture
that refer to fallen angels or demons as sons of God to verify this in Job.
Sometimes we fall into the mistake of assuming one name or
phrase in a portion of Scripture is the same thing/type as another portion of
Scripture. Though this may be the case, one shouldn’t be dogmatic about it. For
example, the Hebrew word for
Regardless though, Job 38:7 is an excellent example of
angels being called sons of God. However, this is referring to angels during
the Creation Week, before any of them fell (which would have to be after God’s
declaration that everything was “very good” in Genesis 1:31). So this doesn’t
give much support to fallen angels being called sons of God.
Another argument in opposition to this view is that godly
men were sometimes called son(s) of God, such as Adam in Luke 3:38. Other
passages also confirm that Christians are called sons of God (Matthew 5:9;
Romans 8:14, 19; Galatians 3:26).
Although each of these is in Greek and the “sons of God”
for Genesis 6 is in Hebrew, they are both rendered correctly as “sons of God.” Luke
6:35 renders the term “sons of the Most High.” Also, Psalm 82:6 has “sons of
the most high.” Hosea 1:10 points out that people will also be called “sons of
the living God” (note the added descriptor living) in Hebrew.
Again, this is not identical to the Hebrew in Genesis or
Job, but still demonstrates that humans can be called sons of God in another
format and another language. So, we have instances where humans are called:
- Sons of God (5 times in
Greek)
- Sons of the Most High (1 time
in Greek; 1 time in Hebrew)
- Sons of the Living God (1
time in Hebrew)
Why is “sons of God” in Hebrew suddenly off-limits to
refer to humans when God has already used similar terms for calling godly men
by such a godly title? It seems unlikely that God would put fallen angels in a class with un-fallen angels, Israelites (God’s
chosen people), and Christians (the bride of Christ). I doubt that God would
want confusion between fallen angels and his bride! Some dismiss the verse in
Hosea out of hand, but it shouldn’t be neglected. Other verses point out that
men can be children of God, such as Psalm 73:15 and Deuteronomy 32:5. Thus
God-fearing men can also rightly be called sons of God.
One response is that the reason Adam and Christians were
called son(s) of God was because they were made directly by God in one fashion
or another—Adam from the dust by God’s hand and Christians are made new
creations (2 Corinthians 5:17). Along with this then, angels, who were directly
created by God during creation week, could also hold to this title.
However, there are other direct creations by God, such as the
original sea creatures, land animals, and so on. Are these also sons of God?
Few would say they are. Also, godly men of the Old Testament would one day be
new creations in Christ and, by the foreknowledge of God, could easily have
been called “sons of God.” So, this argument really doesn’t make a case
exclusively for the angelic view, but could also be used for godly men as well.
To clarify, this is not to be confused with the only begotten son of God, Jesus
Christ, who was the unique and perfect (i.e., only begotten) Son of God.
Theological Problem: An Evil Report
Another theological problem presents itself for the fallen
angels view when we take a closer look at the Anakites (descendants of Anak),
descendants of the Nephilim according to Numbers 13:33. The Anakites were not
completely wiped out by Joshua (Joshua 11:22).
The Bible never records their line ending. Thus, there is
no reason to assume the descendants of Anak are not still living today. In
fact, they have probably interbred with many other people groups since then.
This theological problem has been challenged, though, and
rightly so because Numbers 13:30–33
is part of a bad/evil report spread among the Israelites. But was the
information false about the Anakites being Nephilim? Was the report of the
Anakites being Nephilim accurate or inaccurate, as even falsehoods often
contain some aspects of truth?
For example, we know that Anakites were indeed in the
land, as Joshua went to war with them later. So, which aspects of this report
were false and which were true? We get a clue when Caleb and Joshua answer the
congregation who was grumbling about the bad report in Numbers 14:6–9. The
following table breaks down the bad report and analyzes what was false and what
was not challenged.
|
Bad report
indicates |
Was this
challenged by Joshua and Caleb? |
|
The land devours
its inhabitants. |
Challenged: The
land was exceedingly good, flowing with milk and honey, according to Joshua
and Caleb. |
|
All the men were of
great size; the spies seemed very small in their sight (like grasshoppers). |
Challenged: Joshua
and Caleb told them not be afraid of the people of the land. They didn’t
comment on the size, but many may have been giants, since they do point out
that people were afraid of them. |
|
Anakites were
there. |
Not challenged |
|
Nephilim were
there. |
Not challenged |
|
Anakites were
descendants of the Nephilim. |
Not challenged |
|
Anakites were only
a part of the Nephilim. |
Not challenged |
So, it may not be the best argument to say that the false
report meant that the Anakites were not Nephilim; this point (and other aspects
of the report mentioned above) was never addressed as being false. Thus, the
argument stands that Nephilim were the descendants of Anak and were around
post-Flood. This also reveals that Nephilim can exist without being offspring
of “sons of God,” as they are only listed as being descendants of Anak.
Recall that Moses, who penned Genesis, said in Genesis 6:4
that the Nephilim were on the earth pre-Flood and also afterward. Some
translations say “and after that,” and one could argue that this was still
referring to a pre-Flood time. However, it makes much more sense that this
phrase refers to this post-Flood event, especially since Genesis 6 was penned
by Moses after the Flood.
Acts 17:26 indicates all nations are of “one blood” or
“one man.” If some nations are a combination of angelic blood and Adamic blood,
as the Anakites would have been in this view, as well as the Nephilim
pre-Flood, then there is a major problem—Acts 17:26 would be wrong. The
Anakites were still living and breeding with many other people groups during
Paul’s time. Thus, it presents a problem to say angels bred with women.
Men of Renown . . . and Men in General
Another problem presents itself from the rest of Genesis
6:4 “. . . Those were the mighty men who were of old, men [iysh] of
renown.” In Genesis 6:4, the phrase
“men of renown” uses the Hebrew word iysh. This term is used
consistently as “man” or descendants of Adam—even Adam used it of himself in Genesis
2:23, yet it is never used of fallen angels, demons, or of Satan. It was used
for some unfallen angels when they took the form of a man, though. If
the Nephilim were crossbreeds between men and fallen angels, then why did the
Bible use the term men (iysh) as opposed to something that would lead us
to believe they were not fully men?
If we follow the context of iysh (man) into the
following verses in Genesis 6, we find:
- Verse 4: Nephilim are men
of renown
- Verse 5: wickedness of man
was great
- Verse 6: God was sorry He
made man on earth
- Verse 7: God would blot out man
from earth
- Verse 8/9: Noah found favor
with God and was a righteous man
The context reveals that Noah was compared with and
amongst the men being discussed in
Genesis 6, yet unlike them he was righteous (Genesis 6:9). There is
no mention of Noah being fully human and other men being half-breeds, but
merely that he was righteous among them. Presenting Noah as righteous among his
generation lends support for the view that the sons of God were human.
Jesus and Spirits with Flesh and Bones
Perhaps the most devastating argument against this view
came from Jesus Himself. We have no instance in Scripture where fallen angels
ever materialized as previously stated. This is significant because Christ
offered proof of His resurrection when the disciples questioned Him in Luke
24:37–43. In this context, Jesus said “spirits do not have flesh and bones as
you see that I have.”
If fallen angels or demons, which are spirit, could
materialize, then this calls into question the entire resurrection of Christ.
Christ says spirits do not have flesh and bones, so it would seem these
entities can’t make physical bodies for themselves.
In light of some of these criticisms, this popular view
may not be the best one, though many great scholars hold to it and it should be
at least respected. I encourage deeper study in both the view and the responses
as I am only touching the surface in this chapter.
Fallen Angels Overtook Men View
- Sons of God=Men overtaken by
fallen angels/demons
- Nephilim=100% human
This view has some similarities to the previous view in
that the sons of God have a relationship to fallen angels. The sons of God
would be men who were overtaken (possessed) by fallen angels and/or demons.[4]
Unlike the previous view, this one holds that the offspring were not a mix of
human and angel, but completely human. Of course, some of the arguments against
the sons of God being angels in the previous section apply here as well.
It is possible for men to be overcome by Satan or demons.
Men can easily be overcome or influenced by Satan such as Judas in Luke 22:3.
Demons have often entered into people, such as in Mark 5:15.
The question really is this: would such people who are
overtaken by demons and/or fallen angels warrant the title sons of God? In the gospel
accounts, many people were overtaken by demons, but never were they titled sons
of God. Other biblical passages do not mention people who were overcome by evil
spirits or demons as sons of God either.
In this view, though, there is no problem with Nephilim
appearing pre-Flood, getting wiped out, and then reappearing as this happened
again. According to this view, the offspring/Nephilim are still 100% descendants
of Adam and Eve, thus eligible to receive salvation if they placed their faith
in the Lord Jesus Christ. The children would have been conceived in sin. But
this is nothing new in light of original sin that affects us all since Adam
sinned in the Garden.
One problem associated with this view is this: are
Nephilim still being born today? If not, then why was it no longer mentioned in
the Bible after Moses, especially with the many demon-possessed and Satanic
entrances into men surrounding the time of Christ? So, by this view, any of us
could potentially be Nephilim!
Also, it would seem strange that offspring by this union
would require an entirely different term (Nephilim) to describe them. Although
this may not be one of the better explanations, it is plausible, and shouldn’t
be discounted entirely.
Sethite View
- Sons of God=100% human
- Nephilim=100% human
The Sethite view is probably the second-most-popular view.
It appeals to the context of Genesis 5,
just before the mention of the sons of God and Nephilim. So, it has good
support regarding the literary context.
One variant of the Sethite view is that the sons of God
were kings or rulers. This has some biblical support, such as Psalm 82:1–6. Also,
this would explain why many ancient cultures refer to demigods as well. It also
explains how ancestor worship can arise, even in a post-Flood realm. But both
of these Sethite views still have their problems.
In both of these Sethite views, it is assumed that there
was a godly lineage from Adam to Seth and followed down the line to Noah:
Adam–Seth–Enosh–
In this godly lineage of Sethites, they were called sons
of God in the context of the previous chapter. These sons of God (or their
children) married or began marrying ungodly women (daughters of men), and their
children followed after false gods and rejected the one true God. In other
words, they fell away from God—recall the word Nephilim is related to the verb
series “to fall” in Hebrew. In this view, offspring from these unions had
fallen from God and were termed Nephilim.
Commenting on Genesis in Exposition of Genesis,
H.C. Leupold was one of the leading commentators to promote the view that
Nephilim were Sethites. However, there are still a few problems with equating godly
Sethites and Nephilim.
Were these men and their descendants all godly? Of all of
Adam’s children, Seth was deemed worthy to replace Abel, who was righteous, and
with him, people began to call on the name of Lord (Genesis 4:26). Enoch was
indeed godly without a doubt. In the genealogy listed in Genesis 5, Enoch is
singled out with honors unlike any other from Adam to Noah and ascended without
death. Noah was righteous among his generation and found favor with the Lord (Genesis
6:8–9).
Were other Sethites godly? Perhaps several in the
patriarchal list were righteous, but probably not all Sethite descendants,
which is one of the biggest arguments against this view.
It seems that there would have to be some godly heritage
passed along for Noah to have any teachings to remain righteous when others
weren’t. However, we need to keep in mind the great ages of these patriarchs.
Noah lived 950 years, Seth lived 912 years, and Methuselah lived 969 years (Genesis
5). So, a godly heritage could have been passed from Seth directly to one of
his descendants, such as Enoch or Methuselah, and then directly to Noah! (Many
Bible scholars assume that Methuselah was also godly since his father Enoch,
who walked with God in an incredible faith, would not have erred by failing to
pass on a godly heritage to his son—Genesis 5:24; Hebrews 11:5; Jude 14).
The patriarchs in the lineage from Seth to Noah’s father
Lamech died prior to the Flood, which was a judgment on man’s sin, so they
avoided this judgment. Was this because they were all godly? Perhaps.
Regardless, this doesn’t give any solid biblical evidence that confirms that
the others in the lineage were righteous and godly.
If we look at the descendants of some of these others in
the Sethite lineage, why didn’t they pass a godly heritage to their children?
Remember that the other sons and daughters of Methuselah (Genesis 5:26) and
Lamech (Genesis 5:30) did not make it to the
Another problem presents itself for the Sethite view when
we discuss Numbers 13. Post-Flood, everyone was a Sethite! Where did those
Nephilim come from?
There is another inconsistency with this view. Genesis 6:1
uses the term men to refer to mankind in general, and then in verse 2 men
(daughters of men) is, in this view, inconsistently held as daughters of the
Cainites. In all, this view has fewer problems that the previous one, but is
still speculative in some areas.
Fallen Men View
- Sons of God=100% human
- Nephilim=100% human
This view is similar to the Sethite view, and it could be
considered an “upgrade” to it as well. In this view, not all of Seth’s
descendants are assumed to be godly, but some of them were godly. This view
also eliminates any perceived problem of the Nephilim in Numbers 13 needing to
be Sethites, as there have been godly men both pre-Flood and post-Flood. It
also holds consistency between the use of men
in verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis 6, keeping both as mankind.
In this view, godly
men, such as some of the men listed in the Bible from Seth’s line (perhaps some
on other lineages as well), were called “sons of God” in keeping with literary
context. So, sons of God were merely godly men of the time.
Like the Sethite view, godly men (sons of God) were
marrying women who were not godly (daughters of men), such as Cain’s (or others
of Adam’s) descendants, including ungodly people from Seth’s line, thus
resulting in Nephilim because they fell away from God’s favor. Once
again, the Hebrew word Nephilim is related to the verb series “to fall.”
For example, we know Cain fell away, and Lamech (descendant of Cain) and many
other men and women had fallen away. The Nephilim could easily have been people
who had fallen or turned from God in a severe way. This would also make sense
as to why some of
If you recall,
The Bible indicates that the Anakites were descendants of
the Nephilim, but it couldn’t have been those wiped out in the Flood, since God
destroyed all land-dwelling flesh.
Therefore, it had to be a group of people that were post-Flood. If the
Nephilim had fallen so far pre-Flood that God Himself destroyed the earth as a
result of their sin, then it makes sense that the post-Flood account of a
similar but smaller-scale destruction in
The sinners who died in the Flood and the sinners in
What about the Book of Enoch?
The Book of Enoch is an ancient book that is attributed to
Enoch, who is listed in the lineage from Seth to Noah. The Book of Enoch,
Jewish traditions, and Josephus hold strongly to the idea that the sons of God
were fallen angels and the Nephilim were offspring of such unions.[5] Even
the Jewish translators of the Septuagint, who were known to make errors,
translated the Genesis 6 phrase as “angels of God,” revealing their beliefs.
The Book of Enoch discusses in Chapter 6 and 7 that fallen angels had relations
with women.
However, Paul and Christ warn us about Jewish tradition,
and we need to keep in mind that the Book of Enoch is not the Word of God, but
the words of fallible man (Titus 1:13–14; Mark 7:8–13; Colossians 2:8). What
this passage and the Septuagint do tell us is that people of those days
believed the sons of God to be fallen angels.
It is true that Jude 14–15 quotes from the book of Enoch
(1:9). But that simply means that the quote used by Jude was inspired of God as
Scripture. It gives no credence that any other verse in the book of Enoch is
inspired.
So, is the book we have today really from pre-Flood Enoch?
It wasn’t enough to make the Canon of Scripture—it mentions
“Men of Renown” and “Men of Old”
Do the phrases “men of renown” and “men of old” mean they were
the result of a special union?
Being renowned is simply having fame or being well known.
Some Israelites were also men of renown (Numbers 16:1–2; Ezekiel 23:22–23).
So, saying that men of renown were offspring of special unions may not be wise.
Being “of old” comes from the Hebrew word owlam,
which means of long duration, from
antiquity, ancient, or literally old. It can also mean forever or everlasting. Of course, this makes sense since many of the
patriarchs lived for 900 years (early, pre-Flood factors allowing them to live
long ages[6]). God
may have pointed this out to us for a significant reason—they were sinning for
a long time!
They were likely making a name for themselves in wickedness
(renown) and had been for a long time
with no apparent end in sight (of old).
This very well could have been the final factor to send the Flood to destroy
them for their sin. It also lets us know that although they made a great name
for themselves, it was no longer remembered due to God’s judgment; not one of
their names is remembered—we simply know them by the name Nephilim, which as we’ve seen is difficult to define even today!
Conclusion
Many respected Christians have commented on this topic
over the years, and their work is to be highly regarded. This discussion is not
to impugn their work in any way, but to build on it in an iron-sharpening-iron
fashion (see Proverbs 27:17). In fact, their research has provided great
insights into what I now personally believe about the sons of God and the
Nephilim, and I commend them for their work.
It is not crucial to biblical authority, since each of the
sides in this debate, for the most part, is using the Bible as the authority to
make their case.
After researching this in more detail than anticipated, I
was challenged on many occasions and affirm that this last view, the fallen men
view (a modified Sethite view), may be the best at this point in my studies.
However, there may still be problems that I have not had presented to me so
far. As a fallible human being, dealing with precious little information
regarding the Sons of God and the Nephilim, I may be wrong, but when I am wrong
this does not in any way affect the accuracy of God and His Word.
In fact, there may be problems (or other views) that
simply have not been brought to my attention. Regardless, I want to encourage
readers to carefully study the Scriptures and always maintain the Word of God
as the ultimate authority on all things.
This article was originally published here: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/who-were-the-nephilim/; Reprinted by permission.
1. Due to
the volume of authors, theologians, commentaries, etc. that have written about
the sons of God and the Nephilim, I’ve opted to not reference each argument and
counterargument in detail, or I would have had more references than text. I
have found that many arguments were recapped many times over and decided to
stick with the arguments as the basis for this discussion. A few references are
given that were required, though.
2. John
Gill, Exposition of the Entire Bible,
notes on Jude 6 and 7, http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/jude/gill/jude1.htm.
3. John
Gill, Exposition of the Entire Bible, commentary on Genesis 6:2; http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/genesis/gill/genesis6.htm.
4. Many
hold that fallen angels are demons, and that may well be, but is not for
discussion in this chapter.
