A study of the Nephilim—focusing on Genesis 6:1–4 (and Num 13:33) with related biblical and early Jewish/Christian witnesses. English is ESV; Hebrew/Greek are from MT and NA28/UBS5 given in transliteration. I avoid conjecture beyond the text, label extra-biblical material, and summarize the principal current views with their exegetical supports and objections.

Text, scope, occurrences

• Hebrew term: nĕfîlîm (נְפִילִים). Occurs only in Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33.

• Core passage (ESV):
  “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men (gibbōrîm) who were of old, men of renown.” (Gen 6:4)

• Related terms/groups: gibbōrîm (“mighty men,” Gen 6:4); Rephaim/Anakim/Emim/Zamzummim (Deut 2–3; 9:2); Goliath (1 Sam 17; height textual issue: MT vs LXX/DSS).

• Elsewhere: Num 13:33—faithless spies report: “we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim)….” Note this is their report, not necessarily an endorsed genealogy.

Exegesis of Genesis 6:1–4

Key Hebrew lexemes & syntax

• “sons of God” (bĕnê hāʾĕlōhîm, Gen 6:2, 4): elsewhere in the OT this expression, or its close parallels, most commonly denotes heavenly beings (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; cf. Ps 29:1; 89:6 [Heb. bĕnê ēlîm]).

• “daughters of man” (bĕnôt hāʾādām): generic for human women.

• “took wives” / “came in to” (lāqaḥ… nāšîm / bōʾ ʾel): standard marital/sexual language.

• “Nephilim”: etymology uncertain. Often connected to n-p-l (“fall”) → “fallen ones,” but this is not certain; the ancient LXX renders gigantes (“giants”), which shaped later tradition.

• “also afterward” (wĕgam ʾaḥarē-kēn): parenthetical marker; either (a) anticipates later claims (Num 13:33), or (b) indicates the phenomenon spanned more than a single moment prior to the Flood. The syntax does not require post-Flood survival; it can function as a narrator’s aside.

• “These were the mighty men… men of renown”: the demonstrative (hēmmâ) likely points to the offspring of the unions just mentioned, identifying them as gibbōrîm with public “name” (cf. Gen 11:4 “let us make a name”).

Literary & theological context

Genesis 6:1–8 closes the primeval history’s “spiral of violence” (cf. 6:11–13, ḥāmās “violence”) and directly precedes the Flood. Whatever the exact identity of “sons of God,” the emphasis is transgressive boundary crossing, sexualized hubris, and name-seeking elites, provoking divine judgment.

Numbers 13:33 (post-Flood mention)

• The spies assert: “we saw the Nephilim … the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim.”

• Important: This is in the mouth of frightened, unbelieving scouts who exaggerate (Num 13:31–33; 14:36–37). Moses neither confirms nor develops their Nephilim genealogy. Options:

  1. “Nephilim” used generically by the spies for very tall/terrifying warriors (esp. the Anakim).

  2. Hyperbolic/panic rhetoric (“we were like grasshoppers”).

  3. If taken at face value, some propose a second “incursion” after the Flood—but the text does not assert this.

“Elsewhere in the Bible” (giant clans; divine beings)

• Rephaim/Anakim et al.: Deut 2:10–11, 20–21; 3:11 (Og’s bed ~ 9×4 cubits; likely royal display size). Deut 9:2; Josh 11:21–22. These texts witness exceptional height among certain Canaanite groups without naming them “Nephilim.”

• “sons of God” in Job 1–2; 38:7 = heavenly council. Psalm 82 (ʾelōhîm in council) is debated (divine beings vs. human judges); many conservative scholars read it as heavenly beings under judgment, aligning with the angelic sense in Job.

The major views today (with supports & objections)

Bottom line: Within conservative exegesis, (1) Angelic cohabitation and (3) Sethite intermarriage remain the two most defended options. Many complement (1) with modest ANE royal background, or recast it as (2) to avoid biological hybrid claims.

My weighed judgment (text-first, conservative):

• The lexical pattern of bĕnê hāʾĕlōhîm (Job; Ps 29; 89), the sexual language in Gen 6, and the Noahic anchoring of Jude 6–7; 2 Pet 2:4–5 together most naturally support an angelic transgression in the days of Noah, producing extraordinary warrior elites (whether gigantism was physical or reputational is secondary).

• Num 13:33 is best read as fear-laden hyperbole or generic “giants” language by the spies, not a firm claim of post-Flood Nephilim lineage.

New Testament connections (used carefully)

• 1 Pet 3:19–20 (spirits in prison, days of Noah), 2 Pet 2:4–5 (angels cast into “Tartarus”), Jude 6–7 (angels left their domain; “in like manner… indulged in sexual immorality”) form a triad often read as recalling Gen 6. This gives canonical traction to an angelic reading without requiring speculative biology.

• [Caution] Later Second-Temple tradition (esp. 1 Enoch) develops a Watchers narrative (angels, forbidden knowledge, giant offspring, and disembodied spirits of giants as “demons”). This influenced vocabulary but goes beyond Scripture; use as background, not as authority.

Text-critical & lexical notes (select)

• Gen 6:3 (“his days shall be 120 years”) most plausibly marks a countdown to the Flood, not a lifespan cap.

• Goliath’s height: MT reads six cubits and a span; 4QSama (DSS) and LXX read four cubits and a span—still very tall. This shows that “giants” language in the OT can be extraordinary but human.

• Nephilim etymology: the “fallen ones” derivation is possible but unproven; meaning must be controlled by context (warrior elites, terror).

Historical context (ANE window)

• Divine kingship ideology: ANE rulers claimed descent from or sonship to deity; building harems (“took wives… any they chose”) and name-seeking glory are well attested.

• Jewish reception: Qumran/Enochic texts retell Gen 6 as angelic transgression, a view widely known in the NT era; the apostles may allude to this background while teaching canonical truth.

Theological synthesis (within conservative bounds)

• Whatever the view, the canonical point is clear: unbounded lust, hubris, and violent power corrupted humanity, precipitating judgment. Gen 6:1–4 is moral-theological, not an invitation to speculative genealogies (cf. 1 Tim 1:4).

• Creation order & boundaries: God imposes creational limits (kinds, vocations, moral laws). Gen 6 narrates a boundary breach (whether from angelic beings or from human rulers usurping divine prerogatives), which Scripture rejects.

Early church & evangelical scholarship (representative; no verbatim quotes)

• Angel-view, many Fathers: e.g., Justin Martyr (Second Apology 5), Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4.36.4), Tertullian (On the Veiling of Virgins 7).

• Sethite-view: Augustine, City of God 15.23; influential in Western tradition; followed by many Reformers.

• Modern conservative resources:

  • Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (WBC; Waco: Word, 1987), on Gen 6:1–4.

  • Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26 (NAC; Nashville: B&H, 1996).

  • Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998).

  • Derek Kidner, Genesis (TOTC; Downers Grove: IVP, 1967).

  • Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990).

  • C. John Collins, Genesis 1–4 (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2006), for divine-council patterns (though 6:1–4 extends beyond his focus).

  • Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm (Bellingham: Lexham, 2015)—use as background; keep conclusions tethered to Scripture.

  • Andrew E. Steinmann, Genesis (Concordia Commentary; St. Louis: CPH, 2019).

Practical implications (succinct)

1. Major on the majors: The text indicts sexualized power, fame-seeking, and violence; it calls for holiness and restraint.

2. Use NT guardrails: Jude/2 Peter anchor Gen 6 in a warning register—avoid speculative lineages and mythic elaborations.

3. Preaching/teaching: Present both leading views fairly; show why conservative interpreters disagree; keep the ethical thrust and judgment theme central.

---

Summary thesis

• Exegesis: In Gen 6:1–4, bĕnê hāʾĕlōhîm most naturally reads as heavenly beings, whose transgression produced renowned warrior elites (gibbōrîm), catalyzing violence and divine judgment; Num 13:33 is best treated as fear-driven language about very tall foes (Anakim), not a firm claim of post-Flood Nephilim descent.

• Alternate conservative reading: The Sethite intermarriage view keeps all actors human and highlights covenantal apostasy; it remains possible but is linguistically weaker in OT usage and must reckon with Jude/2 Peter.

• Canonical point: Whichever view, the passage functions to expose boundary-breaking lust and power and to justify the Flood—not to invite speculative mythology.