On Facebook, a certain Joshua Gilbert posted the following but didn’t seem interested in discussing it. I will reproduce his post, followed by my comment with which he didn’t interact.
He noted:
The Sons of God, the Daughters of Men, and the Nephilim (Giants)
One of the most discussed passages in the Bible appears just before the Flood:
“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.” (Genesis 6:1–2)
Only a few verses later we read:
“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward…” (Genesis 6:4)
Who were the “sons of God”? Who were the “daughters of men”? Who were the Nephilim (often translated “giants”)?
Faithful Bible students have reached different conclusions for centuries. While we should study the evidence carefully, we must also recognise that Scripture does not answer every question. Where God has chosen to remain silent, we should avoid dogmatism.
👼 View One: The Sons of God Were Fallen, Angels
This is one of the oldest interpretations, widely held by early Jewish writers.
The phrase “sons of God” refers to angels in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7.
Jude 6–7 and 2 Peter 2:4–5 describe angels who sinned before the Flood and are now kept under judgment.
But this view raises hard questions. Jesus taught that angels “neither marry nor are given in marriage” (Matthew 22:30). Hebrews 1:14 describes angels as ministering spirits. Scripture never explains how spiritual beings could produce physical children or giants.
For that reason, while respected scholars hold this view, the Bible leaves the process unexplained. We must avoid building theories where God has chosen silence.
🌱 View Two: The Sons of God Were the Godly Line of Seth
Many Christian theologians, especially in the Reformed tradition, understand the “sons of God” to be the descendants of Seth, while the “daughters of men” were the ungodly descendants of Cain.
Here, Genesis 6 records the collapse of separation between those who worshipped the Lord and those who rejected Him. As the godly line married without regard for faith, corruption spread rapidly.
This view highlights a principle repeated throughout Scripture: God’s people are warned not to compromise spiritually with those who reject Him.
👑 View Three: The Sons of God Were Powerful Kings or Rulers
A third interpretation sees the “sons of God” as rulers who claimed divine authority.
In many ancient cultures, kings described themselves as sons of the gods and abused their power by taking whatever women they desired.
Under this view, Genesis 6 describes tyranny, oppression, violence, and moral corruption. Human power was being used for selfish ambition rather than justice, contributing to the world’s collapse before the Flood.
🪨 Who Were the Nephilim (Giants)?
Genesis simply says:
“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward…” (Genesis 6:4)
The Hebrew word Nephilim is difficult to translate. Some believe they were exceptionally large or powerful warriors, which explains why many English versions use “giants.” Others see them as mighty men, famous warriors, or violent tyrants rather than unusually tall people.
Notice carefully: Genesis never clearly states that the Nephilim were the direct children of the “sons of God” and “daughters of men.” The wording allows for the possibility that they simply lived during the same period.
Because Scripture does not explain further, we must be cautious about making claims beyond what the Bible actually says.
📖 The Witness of Peter and Jude
The New Testament adds perspective:
Peter writes:
“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell… and if He did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah…” (2 Peter 2:4–5)
Jude writes:
“And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, He has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day.” (Jude 6–7)
Both connect rebellious angels with the period before the Flood. But neither explains the mechanics of giants or angelic unions. Their emphasis is clear: rebellion against God always leads to judgment.
🌊 The Main Message of Genesis 6
Although Christians differ over the identity of the “sons of God,” all three interpretations arrive at the same conclusion:
The world had become utterly corrupt.
Human wickedness was increasing.
Violence filled the earth.
God’s created order was being despised.
Mankind had become morally bankrupt.
The Lord declared:
“The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5)
That is the central message of Genesis 6. The passage was not written to satisfy curiosity about mysterious beings. It explains why the Flood became necessary.
✝️ God’s Grace in the Midst of Judgment
Amid universal corruption, one sentence shines with hope:
“But Noah found favour in the eyes of the LORD.” (Genesis 6:8)
God’s judgment was real, but so was His grace. Noah became the means through whom God preserved the human race and continued His promise of redemption.
Ultimately, Noah points us to Jesus Christ—the true Deliverer—who saves all who trust in Him from the coming judgment and gives eternal life through His death and resurrection.
🖋️ Closing Thought — Joshua Gilbert
“The mystery of the Nephilim is not the heart of Genesis 6. The heart of the chapter is that sin corrupts every society, rebellion invites God’s judgment, but His grace provides a way of salvation. Our attention should remain fixed, not on mysteries God has left unexplained, but on the certainty of His holiness and the hope of His grace.”
I, Ken Ammi, replied
Just a technical linguistics note: it’s not “Nephilim (often translated ‘giants’)” but rendered as such—see my linguistics book “Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.”
“The Sons of God Were Fallen, Angels…one of the oldest interpretations” indeed: The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christian commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view as I proved in my book “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”
You actually misrepresented Jesus since He never said, “that angels ‘neither marry nor are given in marriage’” and that’s not in “(Matthew 22:30)” please quote it without cutting off the end to see what He actually said.
Hyper focusing on Hebrews 1:14 is myopic since you need to first look at v. 7 and then Psalm 104:4 which is what’s being quoted: most English versions rightly have it that they are “winds” rather than “spirits” and that’s due to the context of the Psalm and so Heb 1:7 should read “winds” and v. 14 should be consistent with it.
You moved the linguistics goal-post when writing, “ministering spirits. Scripture never explains how spiritual beings could produce physical children or giants” since you jumped from “spirits” to “spiritual”: hu
ns can be spiritual but we have no problem producing physical children.
As for “giants”: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree?
“The Sons of God Were the Godly Line of Seth” is a late-comer of a view based on myth and prejudice such as that there’s no indication of a “Godly Line of Seth” especially when that would mean that the Godly Line of Seth weren’t really Godly since this would actually make them such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood: so, that’s rather odd.
Thus, on this view “those who worshipped the Lord and those who rejected Him” didn’t worship the Lord and there’s no indication that any Cainite “rejected Him.”
The “Powerful Kings or Rulers” view is early but historically barely made a blip on the interpretive radar.
There’s no reliable indication that “Nephilim…were exceptionally large…unusually tall” and that doesn’t in the least bit “explains why many English versions use ‘giants.’”
As for “Genesis never clearly states that the Nephilim were the direct children…”: the Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, their copulation, and their offspring. Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.
Indeed, Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible. So, if they’re not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we’ve no idea to what sin they’re referring.
As for “the mechanics of giants or angelic unions” I’ll have to wait to see to what you’re referring by “giants” and as for those unions: simple, it was the good ol’ fashioned way since Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. We were created “a little lower” (Psa 8:5) than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.” See my book, “What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply