This discussion invites participants to explore the origins and purpose of the Nephilim, drawing from biblical references and various interpretations. It encourages reflection on how these mysterious figures fit into the broader context of Scripture.
The Nephilim are a mysterious and intriguing group mentioned in the Bible, often sparking questions and discussions. Genesis 6:4 states, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.” This verse opens the door to various interpretations about who these figures were and what role they played in biblical history.
What do you think about the origins and purpose of the Nephilim? How should we understand their mention in Scripture?
For those interested in diving deeper into this topic, check out this article:
Rational answer: Like virtually all of Genesis, the myth of the Nephilim reflects some ancient historical memory borrowed from some culture that predated the authors of Genesis by many thousands of years.
Many of the Genesis themes, including the Nephilim, are found in the Sumerian/Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh himself may have served as a model for the Nephilim.
A wonderful description I found says that the Bible “demythologizes, historicizes,and moralizes the literature it inherited from its cultural context in the Ancient Near East." Ancient myths become history in a literalist interpretation of Genesis.
Ah yes, the Nephilim—because nothing says “serious Bible study” like resurrecting ancient conspiracy theories with angel-human hybrid babies.
Let’s set the record straight before we all sprout wings and start ghost-hunting.
Genesis 6:2 says, “the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive.” And right there, folks hit the gas pedal and dive straight into spiritual fan fiction. But newsflash: the “sons of God” in this context are not fallen angels. They’re the godly line of Seth intermarrying with the ungodly line of Cain. That’s not supernatural lust—it’s spiritual compromise. And that’s what brought judgment.
“But wait, angels!” someone cries. Let’s hit that with Matthew 22:30, where Jesus says angels “neither marry nor are given in marriage.” Translation: they don’t date, they don’t mate, and they don’t procreate. So unless fallen angels got a Tinder upgrade post-rebellion, they weren’t making babies.
The Nephilim? The Hebrew root means “fallen ones.” Not “glow-in-the-dark titans with demon DNA.” These were likely violent warriors or tyrants—think thugs, not titans. And when they pop up again in Numbers 13:33? That’s the cowardly spies talking, exaggerating like kids who saw a shadow and called it Bigfoot.
This passage is not a cryptid case file. It’s a warning: when God’s people cozy up with wickedness, giants fall—but so do you.
Let’s not turn Genesis into Greek mythology. Stick with the Word. Not the weird.
—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.
@SincereSeeker, here is what I feel, although u have put the perfect answer, i agree with it, but’s lets go deep my brother
THe term Nephilim appears in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33 sparking debate about their natures. Genesis 6:4 reads
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God (בְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים, bənē hāʾĕlōhīm) went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old (gibbōrīm), men of renown.
Numbers 13:33 associates them with the Anakim.
The hebrew root naphal means to fall, suggesting interpretations like “fallen ones” or “those who cause others to fall”. Robert Baker Girdlestone and Adam Clarke ague for a causative (Hiphil) or passive form, implying the Nephilim as those who “cause others to fall”) (e.g violent warriors) or “fallen ones” (apostates or morally corrupt ones). Hendel however interprets Nephilim in Ezekiel 32:27 as reffering to “warriors, the Nephilim.” connecting them to ancient heros who descended to sheal with their weapons emphasizing their martial prowess over supernatual origins, BR Doak propses that Ezekiel 32:27 uses a related term, nophlim (“fallen”) not Nephilim, but deliberately evokes Nephilim traditions to critque heroic tropes common in ancient Near Eastern Cultures.
Coming to “sons of God”, this phrase is pivotal. In the Second temple Jewish Texts like 1 Enoch and Jubilees, its often understood as angels (mal’akhim). Ancient translations like LXX render it as hoi huioi tou theou (“sons of God”) supporting an angelic interpretation. However acc to rabbinic scholars like Rashi and Nachmanides, along with Christian figures like Sextus Julius Africanus (amazing guy) interpret bənē hāʾĕlōhīm as human elites, the righteous descendants of Seth who intermarried with corrupt daughters of Cain. This aligns with Matthew 22:30 where Jesus states angels neither marry nor are given in marriage.
Second temple Judaism
The book of enoch ( 1 Enoch 6-11, the book of the watchers) elaborates on Genesis 6:1-4, describing 200 angels led by Semyaza and Azazel, who descend to earth to marry human woman and produce the Nephilim, a race of giants (gigantes in the LXX) and their offspring causing violence, promoting flood as divine judgement. Jubilees similarly links Nephilim to giants bron of angelic-human unions reinforces this etiology of evil.
Now we can see this as dissatisfaction with Jerusalem’s priestly establishment allegorically equating fallen angels with corrupt priests who defiled themselves by illicit marriages (refer Leviticus 21:1-15)
BR Doak argues that Nephilim lore critique the heroic ideals of neighboring cultures such as Sumerian Apkallu tradition, where old sages were celebrated for wisdom. The Hebrew narrative inverts this, portraying Nephilim as destructive rather than beneficent. Thats what Doak says, not me. THen Hendel said that Nephilim reflect a polemic against Cannanite warrior myths with their “great size and strength” tied to Hebrews’ awe of Transjordian megalithic structures, though archaeological evidence shows cannanites were not that tall. Then what did Christians say
Early Christian apologists like Justin Martyr embrached the Enochic view seeing fallen angels as corrupters of humanity aligning with Greco-Roman converts familiarity with divine-human myths, however by the 3rd century Augustine of Hippo’s Civitas Dei rejected the Enochic literature, attributing the fall of angels solely to Satan’s rebellion not procreation. Sethite-Cainte intermarriage
Rabbinic tradition
Rashi and Nachmanides interpret bənē hāʾĕlōhīm as human judges or nobles emphasising moral corruption over supernatural events. Rashi describes these “sons of power” forcibly taking women, even those betrothed, contributing to the depravity that necessitated the Flood. Shimon bar Yochai, a second-century rabbi, cursed those who taught the angelic interpretation, reflecting a rabbinic push to demythologise the text and align with montheistic anthropology, as Abraham Joshua Heschel notes: The Bible is not [humanity’s] theology but God’s anthropology Early Christians
Julius Africanus and later figures like Augustine and John Calvin supported the Sethite view, arguing that the “sons of God” were righteous humans who rebelled by marrying the unrighteous daughters of Cain. THis interpretation is appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q417 (U can get it in amazon or buy it, its truly amazing, and matches with the old testament of the bible, it shows how the bible has been preserved over the centuries over centuries) and the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible, shits the orgin of evil to human sin aligning with Matthew 24:38’s focus on human behaviour before the flood.
This view emphasises human agency in moral failure, avoiding the problematic notion of divine beings assuming mortal proportions. It frames the Nephilim as violent tyrants (“fallen warriors”) whose actions reflect Societal decay. Return of the Repressed
The supernatural interpretation flourished during the Second Temple period (516 BCE - 70 AD) particularly in apocalyptic texts like 1 Enoch and Jubilees, which saught to explain evil’s origins through external cosmic forces. Rachel Adelman (again, an amazing scholar) notes that these narratives are suppressed by later rabbinic Judaism due to their association with sectarianism and theological challenges to monotheism, such as the idea that angels could procreate. However, in the 8th century midrash Pirkei de, Rabbi Eliezer revives the fallen angels myth, describing Cain’s descendants’ immorality, alluring angels to produce giants, a “return of the repressed” from the Second Temple Traditions.
So Hendel says that in Ezekiel 32:27, it links Nephilim to ancient warrior traditions, suggesting the term evokes mythic heroes buried with weapons, a motif common in Near Eastern epic literature. His reading of gibbōrīm nephilim as “warriors, the Nephilim” underscores their human, albeit legendary, status.
BR Doak’s works highlight the Nephilim as a critique of heroic tropes, contrasting with the Sumerian Apkallu tradition. He sees Numbers 13:33’s depiction of giants as an exaggerated fear response, reflecting Israelite anxiety about Canaanite strength rather than literal giants.
Rashi and Nachmanides have their rejection of the angelic view aligns with a broader rabbini trend to demythologise biblical texts, emphasising human sin. Rashi’s focus on judges and Nachmanides’ on moral corruption reflect a practical theology rooted in societal ethics.
Julius Africanus has his human-centric interpretation, preserved in early Christian chronography, makes the bridge between Jewish and Christian exegesis, emphasising Sethite rebellion as the cause of the Nephilim’s emergence.
Samuel_23, I appreciate the scholarship—you brought the scrolls, the sages, and the Second Temple receipts. But now let’s bring it to the altar and ask: What does the actual, God-breathed Word teach, not just what ancient interpreters speculated?
First—Enoch ain’t canon. Let’s just say that louder for the folks in the apocryphal section. Yes, 1 Enoch and Jubilees existed. So did Greek myths. Influence ≠ inspiration. The Holy Spirit preserved Scripture, not side literature. Jesus, Paul, and Peter never treated Enoch as authoritative. That matters.
Second—Matthew 22:30 should slam the lid shut. “They neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” Angels don’t marry. Don’t procreate. Don’t make babies. Period. Jesus didn’t leave room for “well, fallen angels are different.” He said what He said.
Third—the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis 6? Context rules interpretation. It fits the pattern of godly men (Seth’s line) compromising with ungodly women (Cain’s line). That’s the theme: spiritual rebellion, not supernatural biology. God didn’t judge the world because angels got romantic—He judged it because man’s heart was evil continually (Gen. 6:5). That’s the key.
Fourth—Nephilim doesn’t mean half-angel mutants. It means “fallen ones,” likely referring to violent warriors or corrupt tyrants. Goliath was big. He wasn’t half-demon. Numbers 13:33 is the scared spies talking, not a theology textbook. They exaggerated out of fear, not doctrine.
Fifth—your own list of Jewish and Christian heavyweights like Rashi, Nachmanides, Julius Africanus, Augustine, and Calvin? They all went Sethite. Why? Because they understood Genesis interprets itself. This isn’t mythology—it’s moral theology. The flood came because of human sin, not angelic genetics.
So sure, ancient texts offer cultural color. But only Scripture gives divine light. Let’s not trade biblical clarity for mystical complexity.
Stick with the Book. Not the buzz.
—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.
yes brother i agree with what you said, amazing post..it will help me and many others
@sincereseeker, i agree with this view which is similar to what you have said, i just added some more for cultural context and the history of the topic on “Nephilim”, it gives me goosebump learning abt Second temple tradition, was it enochic rebellion, Nephilim as Nophlim, Cannanite Megaliths or Rashi’s Demythologization, NAchmanides says Nephilim as tyrants, Rabbinic Midrash, etc i just included it to give the other side of the argument
But ultimately Matthew 22:30 shuts all arguments, but its interesting to know abt it, abt what great thinkers, rabbis and theologians thought, but we ought be careful to avoid mis-interpretation and always put God’s word foremost, and follow the bible.
Brother, you know when i read your message, a thought comes into my mind
Your view is more in line with Maimonides (another great guy, his books are amazing)
Mainmonides, in his book , In Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides insists that angels are incorporeal, making their procreation impossible. He likely saw the Nephilim as human elites driven by lust and power, thus dismiss angelic unions
Also with Nachmanides (Ramban)
Nachmanides views the sons of God as seth lineage intermarrying with Cain, producing Nephilim as corrupt tyrants which lead to societal decay leading to flood, this was caused due to sin.
But lets look into a sensitive one:
Saadiah Gaon in his Book of Beliefs and Opinions, Saadiah, a rationalist Jewish Philosopher rejects supernatural interpretation of Genesis 6:4, He interprets bənē hāʾĕlōhīm as human nobles or leaders, arguing that angels, as non-physical beings, cannot engage in physical acts like marriage. The Nephilim, in his view, are powerful but corrupt whose actions reflect yetzer hara (evil inclination).
Anohter intresting one, I think you would like, sincereseeker is
Rashbam: Samuel ben Meir (Rashi’s grandson, I must say Rashi is amazing, his commentary is top-notch, thats the beginning point to study bible) focuses on the plain meaning of Scripture. I found out that in his Genesis commentary, he suggest bənē hāʾĕlōhīm refers to men of high status, possible judges or Seth’s descendants who abused their authority. THe Nephilim are might men whose violence led to divine judgement.
Next is Shimon bar Yochai:
This tannaitic rabbi, cited in midrash, cursed those who saw bənē hāʾĕlōhīm as angels, reflecting rabbinic efforts to suppress Second Temple apocalypticism.
Coming to Christianity
Origen in his Contra Celsum , Origen catiously engages the Enochic tradition, noting that some Christians viewed the Nephilim as offspring of fallen angels. However he prioritezes allegorical interpretation, suggesting the “sons of God” are spiritual beings (human or angelic) corrupted by earthly desires.
But Jerome in his latin vulgate and commentaries translates bənē hāʾĕlōhīm as filii Dei (sons of God) but leans toward human interpretation, see Nephilim as powerful men (viri fortes) this aligns with Augustine’s view which aligns with what you have said, brother SincereSeeker.
Augustine of Hippo, in Augustine’s City of God rejects angelic procreation, as you have said SincereSeeker, citing Matthew 22:30. He interprets bənē hāʾĕlōhīm as Seth’s descendants with Nephilim as mighty but sinful.
Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologiae, Aquinas asserts angels are pure spiritual beings, cannot engage in physical acts like procreation. He views (likely) Nephilim as human warrior or nobles, thus rejecting angelic hybrids and focusing more on human sin as Brother SincereSeeker has said correctly.
Walter Brueggemann in his genesis commentary, Brueggemann sees Genesis 6:4 as a mythic fragment reflecting human rebellion against divine boundaries. He leans toward the Setithe view but at the same time acknowledges Second Temple influences as well, so we gotta me careful. It has a balanced perspective that partially supports what you have said brother but also recognizes the cultural context.
Meredith Kline in Kingdom Prologue (These are all great books, its a must read) Kline interprets bənē hāʾĕlōhīm as covenantal Sethites who violates God’s order by intermarrying with Cainites. The Nephilim, as “fallen ones” represent collapse of covenantal difelity.
Matthew 22:30 is a comparison to Angels not marrying; procreating isn’t mentioned.
It is not blasphemous to believe in Angels or that there were fallen Angels.
Genesis 6 is a pivotal section, dealing with wickedness (after previous section dealt with genesis/genealogy) and should be interpeted as a whole. Gen 6 is plain in listing the single reason for utter desruction; Having Fallen Babies (hybrid or mutant are problematic to God’s plan) would probably warrant utter destruction, ergo the “Flood.”
Numbers 13:33 is simple and doesn’t require drawing conclusions different than stated. [It is important to remember that the flood should have wiped away the Nephilim, some survived or more were created-also see Gen 6:4 “and also afterward”]
Re-reading scripture of various versions, the Crosswalk article, some Sefaria sheets and a JW article, there is not a consensus on this point.
I will believe in Angels; some were cast down and misbehaved badly enough for warranting God to push the reset .
One day we will find out; pretty confident getting this one wrong won’t cost entry.
Brother Samuel_23, you’re stacking sources like a theological tower of Babel—and I mean that as a compliment. You’ve got Maimonides, Nachmanides, Saadiah, Rashbam, Shimon bar Yochai, Jerome, Augustine, Aquinas, Kline—and somehow, you still kept it more coherent than most seminary footnotes. Respect.
But let’s not just name-drop—let’s name truth.
Yes, you’re absolutely right that your take runs parallel to Maimonides and the classical Jewish rationalist tradition. And what do they all have in common? They slam the door shut on the angelic baby-daddy theory with one simple theological sledgehammer: Angels. Don’t. Procreate.
From Saadiah Gaon’s philosophical clarity to Rashbam’s plain-sense exegesis, from Rashi’s laser focus on the text to Shimon bar Yochai literally cursing angel-hybrid interpreters—they’re not playing. The Sethite view wasn’t just their preference—it was their defense against theological pollution creeping in from pagan mythos.
And Christian tradition? Same tune, second verse. Augustine, Jerome, Aquinas—they didn’t flirt with fallen-angel fan fiction. They grounded their theology in the authority of Scripture and the nature of angels as spiritual beings. Matthew 22:30 wasn’t ambiguous to them. It was final.
Even Origen—who could allegorize a grocery list—didn’t plant a doctrinal flag on angelic unions. He treaded carefully, and still leaned toward moral corruption over mythological hybrids. Brueggemann and Kline? They saw the influence of the surrounding cultures, but they didn’t let the noise override the narrative: this was about covenant collapse, not celestial seduction.
So yes, brother—you’re circling right back to what I said: this passage isn’t about the supernatural mixing with the natural. It’s about the righteous compromising with the wicked. That’s what triggered the flood—not heavenly hormones, but human rebellion.
Let’s not turn Genesis into a theological monster manual. It’s not about giants—it’s about judgment. And the only thing more dangerous than ancient Nephilim is modern Christians who’d rather mythologize than moralize.
Appreciate your deep dive. Let’s stay in the Book and out of the weeds.
—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.
Peace, Sincere Seeker—thank you for your zeal for the Word. But in your admirable drive to avoid “weirdness,” you’ve overshot and ignored what both Scripture and history plainly record.
1**. The “sons of God” are not the line of Seth—Scripture never says that**.
Genesis 6:2 uses the term בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים (bene ha’elohim), a term used elsewhere only for divine beings—never for humans—and always in the plural form (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7).
It is exegetically dishonest to suddenly redefine the phrase in Genesis 6 to mean “the godly line of Seth”—a view that originated in the 4th century A.D. as a reaction to the disturbing clarity of the angelic interpretation.
Job 1:6 – “Now there was a day when the sons of God (bene ha’elohim) came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.”
This refers unmistakably to heavenly beings—no commentator disputes this here.
The Sethite view is not found in the text, is foreign to ancient Judaism,and was rejected by the early church Fathers prior to Augustine, including Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian—all of whom affirmed the angelic interpretation.
Second Temple literature is unanimous: the “sons of God” were fallen angels.
The Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 6–7), which is quoted in Jude 14–15, directly teaches that fallen angels took wives from the daughters of men and produced the Nephilim:
1 Enoch 7:2 – “And the women became pregnant and bore great giants… who devoured all the labors of men.”
Jude 6–7 – “And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper dwelling place, these He has kept in eternal restraints… just as Sodom and Gomorrah… indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh.”
Jude is clearly linking the sin of these angels with sexual sin, not merely pride or rebellion. The context of “abandoned their proper dwelling” is rooted in Enoch’s account, which was read and accepted by 1st-century Jews and early Christians.
Matthew 22:30 does not disprove angelic fallibility or capability.
You cite Matthew 22:30 (“they neither marry nor are given in marriage”) to argue angels can’t procreate. But the verse simply states the nature of righteous angels in heaven, not what fallen angels can or cannot do. The angels of Genesis 6 were not obeying God. Jesus doesn’t say angels cannot take human form or cannot rebel—only that those in heaven do not marry.
Hebrews 13:2 – “Do not neglect hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.”
Scripture affirms angels can appear physically—eating, speaking, and acting like men (cf. Genesis 18–19). That they could misuse this capability aligns with their moral agency and explains Genesis 6 more coherently than the Sethite view.
The term “Nephilim” (נְפִילִים) does not mean ‘warriors’—it means ‘fallen ones.’
The root naphal (נפל) means “to fall,” and Nephilim is best understood as “those who have fallen” or “fallen ones.” This term is not used to describe normal human tyrants. The LXX translators rendered Nephilim as gigantes—“giants”—which indicates unusual size or power, not merely corruption.
Numbers 13:33 – “And there we saw the Nephilim… and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight.”
This is not just fear—it is a report of something real, so disturbing it confirmed their worst fears. Even if there was some exaggeration, the name Nephilim is used again—indicating continuity with the Genesis 6 event.
Early Church Fathers affirmed the angelic interpretation.
Justin Martyr (2nd century): “…the angels transgressed, and were captivated by love of women and begat children.” (Second Apology, ch. 5)
Irenaeus: “…the angels transgressed this appointment… and the women brought forth giants.” (Against Heresies 4.36.4)
Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Athenagoras all affirm the same.
Augustine was the turning point—he dismissed this reading on philosophical grounds, not exegetical ones.
In summary, your attempt to demystify Genesis 6 by reducing it to an intermarriage sermon ignores:
The consistent use of bene ha’elohim for heavenly beings,
The uniform testimony of Second Temple literature and Jewish exegesis,
The New Testament witness (especially Jude and 2 Peter 2),
And the entire pre-Augustinian church.
You may be wary of “weirdness,” but Scripture itself doesn’t sanitize the supernatural. Let’s not trade biblical substance for modern simplicity.
Genesis 6 is not mythology—it is the unvarnished record of rebellion, corruption, and divine judgment.
Let’s not strip the Word of its weight because it unsettles our categories.
Let Scripture interpret Scripture. Let the truth speak—even when it thunders.
“Every word of God is pure… Add not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5–6)
Johann, peace to you—and props for bringing a tight case with historical depth and scriptural passion. But let’s crack open this scroll and test every spirit, every scholar, and every syllable against the whole counsel of God—not just the loudest echoes of Second Temple lore or early church consensus. Because as you well know: consensus isn’t canon. Scripture is.
“Bene ha’elohim” Doesn’t Automatically Mean Angels
Yes, the phrase appears in Job, and yes, in that context it refers to divine beings. But here’s the problem: context is king. Genesis 6 isn’t set in the divine courtroom—it’s embedded in a genealogy of humans (Genesis 5 and 6). Jumping from Job’s heavenly council to Genesis’ earthly corruption is not exegesis—it’s a leap of logic.
The Sethite view isn’t some late-stage theological cop-out. It’s a natural fit when reading Genesis 6 as part of Genesis, not isolated from it. You say “Scripture never says ‘sons of God’ are Sethites.” True—but it also never says “sons of God” are fallen angels. That’s read into the text from Enoch, not out of the text from Moses.
Second Temple Literature Isn’t Inspired
Let’s be real: 1 Enoch is interesting—but it ain’t infallible. Jude referencing Enoch doesn’t canonize the book any more than Paul quoting pagan poets in Acts 17 sanctifies their theology. Jude references a prophecy that happened to be preserved in Enoch—not the whole Enochic worldview. Be careful building doctrine on a footnote.
Matthew 22:30 Still Destroys the Hybrid Theory
You say Jesus only refers to angels in heaven—but that’s the point. Angels are heavenly beings. They don’t switch species because they fall. Show me a single place in Scripture where fallen angels reproduce. Show me one demonic genealogical line. You won’t. Because it’s not there. Hebrews 13:2 and Genesis 18 show appearance, not embodiment with biology. Looking human doesn’t mean functioning human.
“Nephilim” Doesn’t Require Supernatural DNA
Yes, the root naphal means “to fall.” But context again: they’re described as “gibborim”—mighty men, men of renown. Men, Johann. Not half-angel hybrids. Not divine monstrosities. Mighty, corrupt, violent men whose notoriety is why God hit the global reset button. As for Numbers 13:33, that’s the report of fearful spies. Are we really going to let Israel’s cowardice drive our theology?
Early Church Fathers Were Not Infallible
Yes, Justin Martyr and others affirmed the angel view. You know what else they affirmed? Prayers for the dead, allegorical hermeneutics, and the perpetual virginity of Mary. Respect the Fathers, yes. But measure them by the Word, not the other way around. Augustine didn’t bail on angels because he was squeamish. He saw what the text actually emphasized: human sin, human corruption, and human judgment.
Bottom Line:
Genesis 6 is not a divine episode of Ancient Aliens. It’s a solemn warning about what happens when the people of God trade holiness for compromise. You say I’m trying to “sanitize the supernatural.” I say I’m trying to prioritize the text over tradition.
The real danger isn’t in believing weird things—it’s in making the Word say what it never actually says. And if we start inserting half-angel giants into our doctrine because it “sounds right” to Enoch and Irenaeus, we’ll soon need a demonic ancestry test for Goliath and a celestial paternity suit for the Flood.
The Word doesn’t need Enoch’s help. It needs faithful reading.
Let’s not elevate tradition above truth. Let the Book speak—without the ghost stories.
—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.
Brother, thank you for your thoughtful response. Iron sharpens iron (Proverbs 27:17), and our mutual aim is fidelity to Scripture–sola scriptura, not sola cultura. But if we are to let “the Book speak,” then we must let all of it speak, with its own vocabulary, context, and literary horizon, not just isolated from the supernatural worldview of its original audience.
“Bene ha’elohim” Doesn’t Automatically Mean Angels?
Your claim that bene ha’elohim cannot mean angels in Genesis 6 because of genealogical context is not supported by linguistic usage across the Hebrew Bible. In all its unambiguous appearances (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psalm 29:1; Psalm 89:6), the term refers to divine beings—not men. There is not one example where bene ha’elohim refers to a line of human descent. The appeal to the “context” of Genesis 5–6 is insufficient to overturn this lexical consistency.
More critically, the LXX translates bene ha’elohim in Genesis 6:2 as οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ (“sons of God”), and Nephilim as γίγαντες (“giants”)—a reading echoed in nearly every extant ancient version. This reflects the prevailing understanding among the Jewish translators long before later theological developments.
You write, “Scripture never says the sons of God are fallen angels.” But likewise, Scripture never says they were Sethites—nor that the daughters of men were Cainites. That theory originates in Julius Africanus (3rd century A.D.) and gains traction in Augustine, not in the biblical text.
Second Temple Literature Isn’t Inspired
Agreed: 1 Enoch is not Scripture. But your framing misrepresents the argument. Jude quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 verbatim, not as a mere cultural allusion (like Acts 17), but as fulfilled prophetic Scripture: “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying…” (Jude 14). The prophecy is not merely preserved in Enoch—it is Enoch’s prophecy. This validates, at minimum, the angelic sin tradition as known and accepted by the earliest Christians.
Peter also affirms this same tradition in 2 Peter 2:4–5 and 1 Peter 3:19–20, referring to a specific rebellion of angels linked to the Flood—not Satan’s fall, not general demonic activity.
Thus, the tradition is neither foreign nor imported—it is deeply embedded in the New Testament worldview.
Matthew 22:30 Does Not Refute Angelic Incursion
You cite Matthew 22:30 (“…they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven”) as a proof-text against angelic reproduction. But Jesus is answering a question about the resurrection—specifically referring to the angels in heaven. Nowhere does He say angels are incapable of material interaction or rebellion. Quite the opposite: Genesis, Job, and the Gospels affirm angelic manifestations in human form.
Moreover, Jude 6 specifies that certain angels “did not keep their proper domain but abandoned their dwelling”—language echoed in the Greek verb ἀπολιπόντας (“having left behind”) and noun οἰκητήριον (“habitation”), which parallels 2 Corinthians 5:2 for the body. This supports the traditional view that these beings abandoned a spiritual estate for something corporeal.
Nephilim Were Not Merely Human
You correctly note that the Nephilim are called gibborim, mighty men—but this does not preclude supernatural origin. The term gibborim is used of Nimrod (Genesis 10:8), but he is not called a Nephilim. Numbers 13:33 provides continuity with Genesis 6 by stating: “And there we saw the Nephilim… the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim…” The spies exaggerate, but they link the post-Flood Anakim to a known tradition of Nephilim, preserved in the oral history of Israel.
The LXX again renders Nephilim as gigantes, which influenced Jewish and Christian interpretation for centuries—well before any supposed medieval “giant myths.”
The Nephilim are not simply “mighty men.” They are described as the mighty ones of old, men of renown (Genesis 6:4)—a phrase the early Jewish world consistently interpreted in the context of hybrid corruption. Philo of Alexandria, Josephus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls all affirm this reading.
Thus, to sum this up–
The issue is not sensationalism—it is faithful exegesis of the text as the original audience would have understood it. Genesis 6 is not “Ancient Aliens”—it is an account of divine rebellion, corruption of human flesh (cf. Genesis 6:12), and judgment. That view is affirmed by Peter, Jude, and all extant Second Temple sources, not to sensationalize the text, but to sober us with its weight.
You said, “The Word doesn’t need Enoch’s help.” Agreed. But the Word does need honest reading–not flattening it with modern discomfort or inherited filters.
Let the Book speak–and let it speak with all the strangeness and gravity its Author intended.
Johann, grace and truth indeed—and iron sharpening iron is right. But let’s keep the blade sharp on both edges: biblical faithfulness and interpretive restraint. Because while you champion “letting the Book speak,” you’re handing it a megaphone borrowed from Second Temple imagination and postbiblical extrapolation.
“Bene ha’elohim” – Context Still Reigns
Yes, bene ha’elohim refers to divine beings in Job and Psalms—when the setting is clearly celestial. But Genesis 6 is not in heaven—it’s pre-flood Earth, mid-genealogy, and leading directly to human wickedness. Your argument treats Hebrew vocabulary like it’s got only one gear. It doesn’t. Words mean what they mean in context. Even elohim is used for human judges (Exodus 21:6, Psalm 82:6). So “bene ha’elohim” being applied to godly men in Genesis 6 isn’t a lexical scandal—it’s a contextual necessity.
You also appeal to the LXX, but let’s not pretend the LXX translators were free of interpretive bias. They rendered nephilim as gigantes, sure—but that’s not a neutral translation; it’s a theological interpretation wrapped in Hellenistic mythos. Same with Philo and Josephus. Interesting? Yes. Inspired? No.
Jude and Enoch – Don’t Confuse Citation with Canonization
Jude quoting Enoch doesn’t validate the whole Enochic mythos. Jude affirms a specific prophecy from a real Enoch. That’s not a blank check endorsement of 200 mating angels and cosmic corruption. Paul quotes pagan poets. Doesn’t mean Zeus is real. And 2 Peter 2 and 1 Peter 3? Yes, they mention fallen angels and judgment—but they say nothing about mating with humans. That’s read into the text, not drawn from it.
Matthew 22:30 – A Sword, Not a Speed Bump
Yes, Jesus is talking about the resurrection—but His point is the nature of angels. “They neither marry nor are given in marriage”—He didn’t say “except when they rebel.” He defined their nature, not just their job description. If fallen angels could swap natures and produce offspring, we’d have chapters explaining it. We don’t. Not in Genesis. Not in Peter. Not in Jude. The silence is deafening. And that is biblical.
The “abandoning their dwelling” in Jude? That refers to forsaking their appointed realm—not putting on a human body suit and starting a family. The “oikētērion” language is metaphysical, not biological. To push that into the territory of procreation is theological gymnastics.
Nephilim – Mighty Men, Not Mythic Mutants
Genesis 6:4 calls them “mighty men of old, men of renown.” That’s not proof of supernatural origin—it’s a warning about famous wickedness. Like Nimrod. Like Goliath. Numbers 13:33 is the fearful exaggeration of a disobedient scouting team. And we’re supposed to use that as doctrinal data? That’s like building eschatology from tabloids.
Early Interpretation Isn’t Infallible
Yes, the early Jewish and Christian interpreters ran with the angelic view. But so did the Gnostics. So did mystics. Church Fathers weren’t prophets—they were pilgrims, same as us. Revered? Yes. Inspired? No. Augustine didn’t “flatten” the text. He brought it back from the cliff of theological absurdity—because he read the text instead of retweeting mythic traditions.
Final Word:
Genesis 6 is strange, yes—but strangeness isn’t a license for sensationalism. Letting the Bible speak doesn’t mean baptizing apocryphal folklore in biblical ink. It means holding the line where God draws it—and no further.
The real thunder of Genesis 6 isn’t celestial corruption—it’s covenantal compromise. God judged human evil. He grieved over human hearts. And He saved Noah, a man found righteous—not a Nephilim hunter in a world of hybrid giants.
We don’t need cosmic horror to feel the gravity. We just need the Word—rightly divided.
—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.
Grace and peace—your appeal for interpretive restraint is heard and respected. Let’s hold the blade true together, but let’s not blunt one side by ignoring the textual, lexical, and intertestamental evidence that Scripture itself invites us to consider. The goal, as you rightly say, is to let the Word speak—but that must include all the places where it speaks, not just the ones that fit our modern discomforts.
“Bene ha’elohim” – Lexical Range Doesn’t Negate Lexical Precision
Yes, bene ha’elohim can refer to human judges (elohim in Exodus 21:6, Psalm 82:6), but its usage in Genesis 6:2 and 6:4 is distinct—grammatically, contextually, and intertextually. Every time bene ha’elohim appears in the Hebrew Bible outside Genesis 6 (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), it without exception refers to celestial beings, not humans. Genesis 6 doesn’t need to be “in heaven” for the term to retain its celestial referent—language doesn’t shift meaning based on geography but based on literary context.
Moreover, the wa·yehi narrative formula in Genesis 6:1 (“And it came to pass…”) signals a break from the Sethite genealogy and marks a new episode, not merely a continuation of chapter 5. You’re importing continuity where the Hebrew narrative signals disjunction. Even the structure of verse 4—“ha·nephilim hayu va·aretz bay·yamim ha·hem”—introduces figures who already existed when the “sons of God” came in to the “daughters of men.” This indicates the Nephilim are not the product of union, but contemporaneous, implying a broader epoch of supernatural-human interaction.
LXX and Second Temple Interpretation – Not Infallible, But Instructive
True, the LXX translators made interpretive decisions, but every translation is an interpretation, including the Masoretic vocalizations. Their rendering of nephilim as gigantes may bear Hellenistic overtones, but their consistency with intertestamental Jewish writings (1 Enoch, Jubilees) and their influence on New Testament usage can’t be dismissed as mythic excess.
Was Philo allegorical? Often. But he preserves a tradition widespread across Judaea and the Diaspora. Josephus, writing to a Roman audience, still reports the tradition of angelic offspring—not as speculative midrash, but as historiographic material. That doesn’t make it canon—but it makes it representative of how Genesis 6 was read by many Second Temple Jews before Christian dogmatics reshaped the conversation.
Jude, Enoch, and Canonical Consistency
You rightly observe that citation is not canonization. But Jude 6–7 doesn’t just quote Enoch—it interprets Genesis 6 through the Enochic lens, by explicitly paralleling the “angels who did not keep their domain” with Sodom and Gomorrah in sexual sin and strange flesh. The Greek phrase sarkos heteras in Jude 7 (cf. 2 Peter 2:4–5) refers not merely to rebellion, but to an unnatural sexual transgression. That’s not speculation—it’s exegesis rooted in lexical precision.
And while Paul quotes pagan poets, he never endorses their cosmology. But Jude doesn’t just quote—he frames his argument through that lens. The issue is not whether Enoch is inspired, but whether Jude understood Genesis 6 in terms of supernatural rebellion. He did.
Matthew 22:30 – Ontology or Economy?
Yes, Jesus says angels “neither marry nor are given in marriage,” but the context is the resurrection. He’s answering a legal question about earthly marriage and Levirate law, not laying down angelology.
The verb tense in οὐτε γαμοῦσιν οὐτε ἐκγαμίζονται reflects functional roles, not ontological incapacity. There is no statement about angels’ ability or inability to assume forms—only about what they do in the heavenly realm. Throughout Scripture, angels appear in human form, eat food (Genesis 18:8), are mistaken for men (Judges 13:6), and physically interact with the world. That doesn’t demand they procreate—but it doesn’t preclude it in the case of rebellion either.
The idea that fallen angels could transgress created order is not “gymnastics”—it’s the very logic of rebellion. That’s what Jude says they did.
“Abandoning Their Proper Abode” – The Oikētērion is a Status, But Not Just That
Yes, oikētērion (Jude 6, 2 Cor. 5:2) refers to a “dwelling place”—a spiritual habitation. But again, the connection with sarkos heteras in Jude 7 shows the nature of their abandonment had sexual dimensions. The passage doesn’t say, “They left heaven.” It says, “They left their assigned domain.” That’s not necessarily metaphysical only—it can be functional, moral, and yes, embodied.
To read Jude 6 apart from Jude 7 is to break the inspired author’s own argument structure.
Nephilim – Not Just “Mighty,” But Othered
The etymology of nephilim from npl (נָפַל – “to fall”) is ancient, and while debated, even the oldest sources (e.g., LXX gigantes, Enoch Watchers’ children) understood them as abnormal. Genesis 6:4 doesn’t merely say they were “mighty men”—it places them in those days (bay·yamim ha·hem) when divine-human interaction occurred. The juxtaposition is not casual.
Numbers 13:33, while framed by fearful scouts, is not dismissed by Moses. He reports their words in the narrative, without contradiction. If their report was wholly fabricated, the editor would have said so. Instead, the term Nephilim reappears, reinforcing that the tradition remained known.
Patristic and Jewish Interpretation – Weighty, Not Binding
You’re right to caution against treating Church Fathers as infallible—but if they all affirm a view that only later theology began resisting (especially post-Augustine), then perhaps we should ask: who moved?
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian—all affirm the angelic view. So did Jewish sources from Qumran and Alexandria. The Sethite view doesn’t show up until much later—and mostly as a response to Gnostic abuse, not as a recovery of original meaning. That doesn’t prove the angelic view is correct, but it does show it’s neither reckless nor mythic.
Final Word
Genesis 6 isn’t about fantasy—it’s about defilement. Yes, God judges human sin. But Genesis 6:1–4 stands as a distinct pericope highlighting a unique corruption that precedes the flood. If it were just about human evil, the text wouldn’t isolate bene ha’elohim and nephilim in a separate literary unit.
To say “we don’t need cosmic horror” may be emotionally comforting—but it doesn’t answer why the early Jewish world, and Jude himself, consistently understood this passage in supernatural terms. The “strangeness” isn’t a license for sensationalism, but it also isn’t an excuse to flatten ancient worldview distinctions in the name of theological decorum. Let the strangeness stand, and let Scripture interpret Scripture.
The gravity of Genesis 6 is precisely in its violation of created boundaries—not just morally, but cosmically. That’s why the flood was global. That’s why Noah was marked as tamim—“blameless in his generations.” And that’s why Jude and Peter both reach for this story when warning about final judgment.
Let us indeed rightly divide the Word—by not smoothing out the edges God intentionally left jagged.
Johann
God remorsed, cried and reduced lifespan of DNA to 120 years to limit mankind’s time to repent, through the Flood, logically.
Peace to all,
Like most other exodus stories, the story of the Flood begins with the righteous being oppressed by the wicked, calling upon the name of the Lord and seeking deliverance.
To me, The Logic of fulfilled logical undefiled intelligence is The Mind of God becoming again in spirit and life in One Body and is of the Nephilim’s demise and stopping the wars and uniting all as One Holy Spirit Family One God in being, Word Order, to me. The Mind of God has “better” and a lot going on and in a good way for all as One.
Nephilim are misplaced souls in bodies through mortal women and was not their designed role in creation from God. Choice became through their souls in a failed way. Some mystics say, they are angels with relations with humans bringing elevated flesh powers and still failed through mortality and souls with spirits defiled and fallible and by God sending the flood, women were no longer available and Nephilim even strong enough living through the flood eventually dies from mortality, no phone, no lights, no motor cars, not a single luxury and not able to reproduce for Noah had all Persons now, safe in the Ark, for 40 days and nights. True Nephilim are strong and can tread water for perhaps a week or two but surly not for four of five and even if they could, maybe some did, there are now no women to reproduce from God’s thinking all on the Ark way far across earthly chasms on top of some mountain Mt. Ararat somewhere safe and then warm, pretty birds singing, doves flying. The logic becomes how long can a Nephilim tread water, for the whole earth was Baptized and at least 40 feel underwater, how long can a Nephilim live without reproduction through women of earth, no longer available to The Nephilim of Earth. Big Nephilim, no big deal.
In generalization only, and we all know I am not preaching and the logic follows the teachings of the Bible, to me, faithfully. If one really looks at the logic I present one can see clearly the Faith of Abraham through logic.
To me not even the Catholics recognized the Personal relationship of Jesus as the Christ, The Holy Family conceived through the flesh of Jesus becoming The Christ in all mankind, logically becoming again One Holy Family and the Miriam presence, The Mother, logically. This is so simple to understand yet the statistics remain 1 out of 11 see the Logic, to me. 5 don’t want to hear it or “silence what I am saying” and 5 just do not understand the logic, to me.
And to me, and if I am not silenced, the “One” who hears, reads and follows the logic I see through the Faith of Abraham, “The One” becomes in understanding the mystical powers from understanding what unites all as one through the common denominator of all faiths which is “The Spirit.” The Fathers of different names share the same “Spirit God, Three Powers and Gods” of the One God in being, Logically, to me. And logically we are all becoming through the same spirit God uniting all as One Family and in Catholicism the spirit is three personal Gods preexisting before creation was ever created was even created coming inside of all mankind and living inside becoming in us our own Personal Holy Family in Our Christ in all mankind for metaphysical hyperstatically unfailing and dynamically fulfilled in again a New Body through His Passion from death through for resurrection powers in two natures spirit and life again becoming One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.
To other faiths’, Satisfaction is limited only faithfully through the Bible in Faith only. And we know to only judge our own soul. To me all faiths are a different Father’s name for the Same Spirit God, to me.
How does God do it even for the child’s mind to understand so perhaps even the child then will be able to explain it to hard headed us all? Logically, through Faith in the Christ becoming again One God in One Holy Spirit Family in being.
He came to remove the contention, stop the wars, making all heirs and brothers and sisters equally to the same kingdom, from One Father through One Mother for One Son becoming The Christ in all mankind becoming again One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.
I sincerely appreciate your scholarship, your attention to detail, and your obvious strong desire for verity. Your submission to allowing plain scripture to reveal obscure scripture is commendable. This is a mark of a true theologian (IMHO) .
You are technically correct, that the exact phrase “bene ha’elohim” is only used a few times in the first testament, and in at least one of the places it seems to be referring to angelic beings, so the inference is passively accepted that the other place must also be speaking of the same beings. Eventhough “bene ha’elohim” can only be found in Genesis and Job, the phrase translated “sons of God” or “Children of God” is not quite so uncommon. SincereSeeker has brought a strong searchlight into this oft misrepresented theme, the searchlight that exposes nonsense (IMHO), and pulls from the entire word of God for definitions of infrequently used Hebrew phrases like “bene ha’elohim”. To name-drop an even more famous witness, the venerable theologian Bill of Ockham (Occam of razor fame) pondering this question while shaving one day declared: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily” or “all things being equal, the simplest solution is usually the best”. (I made that up – apologies) Nonetheless, keeping Bills admonishment in mind, we ask “on whom does the whole of scripture apply the moniker “son” or “child” of “God”?
You suggest:
And you comment:
I disagree, this is neither unmistakable nor universal.
Continuing our search, who else are called “sons of God” in scripture? By what characteristics are they recognized?:
Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God.
Luke 20:34-36
And Jesus answered and said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
John 1:11-13
He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 11:51-52
Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.
Romans 8:14-16
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
Romans 8:19
For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
Galatians 3:26
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Philippians 2:14-15
Do all things without complaining and disputing, that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world,
1 John 3:1-2
Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
1 John 3:10
In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.
1 John 5:2-3
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.
Now, before you say “these are all New Testament! These are all translations from Greek!”, I acknowledge the time gap, but remind us all that all of scripture has a common author, (1Tim. 3:16) and that author speaks in the language we can hear (Acts 2:1-4).
Therefore, of the highlighted descriptors of “Sons of God” (above), how many of those can it be said of angelic beings? Of how many can it be said of human saints? Now, what if we read the rest of Scripture by these definitions, what does the plain scripture teach us about obscure scripture? This is how I arrived at the same conclusion as SincereSeeker and Augustine of Hippo.
I am too pragmatic to “drop a mic”, but I do lay it gently down on the podium for you to take up.
Let’s begin where you began: with the phrase בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים (bene ha’elohim)
You are correct that the exact phrase appears only in Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; and 38:7. The question is not one of frequency but semantic domain and contextual identity.
In Job 1:6 and 2:1, the “sons of God” (bene ha’elohim) come before YHWH, and Satan also comes among them. These beings are not on earth, and the scene is divine council imagery, widely attested in ancient Near Eastern literature (cf. Ugaritic bn ’ilm = sons of El). Nearly all classical Jewish and Christian interpreters, as well as modern scholars (e.g., Michael Heiser, John Walton, and even non-evangelical commentators like Marvin Pope on Job), recognize this as a heavenly scene involving celestial beings.
Your assertion that it’s “neither unmistakable nor universal” is noted, but it should be qualified: the earliest Jewish sources (1 Enoch, Jubilees, Philo, Josephus) and the pre-Augustinian Church Fathers (Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, etc.) unanimously interpreted the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 and Job as angelic beings. This is not merely a New Testament assumption; it is a Jewish one, well attested in Second Temple literature.
Your NT citations about “sons of God” (υἱοὶ θεοῦ / τέκνα θεοῦ)
Yes, the NT uses the term “sons of God” differently—specifically, of those who are born again, resurrected, or led by the Spirit. No disagreement here.
But this is precisely where your case begins to blur a crucial distinction: semantic shift across covenants and covenants of identity.
The term “sons of God” does not carry the same referent in every context. Just because the phrase is applied to glorified, adopted saints in the NT does not mean the same title carries over to Genesis or Job with the same ontology. Lexical parallels do not guarantee referential identity. To quote E.W. Bullinger (in a context where I often disagree with him): “Things that are similar are not the same.”
Let’s return to the question: what is the nature of those called bene ha’elohim in Genesis 6?
Genesis 6:2–4 — “that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose…”
There are only three major views on who the bene ha’elohim are:
The Angelic View (Pre-Augustinian, Jewish, and Patristic consensus):
These are celestial beings who took human wives, leading to a hybrid offspring—the Nephilim. This view is supported by:
1 Enoch 6–10, which directly elaborates Genesis 6.
Jude 6–7, which links the angels who “left their first estate” to sexual immorality and strange flesh.
2 Peter 2:4–6, where the angels who sinned are connected to the days of Noah and Sodom.
LXX use of the word γίγαντες (“giants”) for Nephilim.
Nearly all early Jewish interpreters (cf. Philo, Pseudo-Philo, Josephus) and early Christian theologians (Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Lactantius, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Ambrose, etc.).
The Sethite View (Post-Augustinian innovation):
“Sons of God” are the descendants of Seth; “daughters of men” are Cainites. This view arose in the late 4th century, particularly under Augustine (City of God 15.23), as a reaction against the idea of angels engaging in sexual intercourse.
The Royalty View (also late):
“Sons of God” are tyrannical kings. This view draws on ancient Near Eastern idioms of kings being called “sons of god,” but it lacks exegetical support within the immediate Hebrew text.
You affirm Augustine’s view—but let’s be honest: Augustine changed the consensus, and he did so not because of exegesis, but due to his discomfort with the idea of sexualized angels. His Neoplatonic philosophical commitments led him to allegorize what had been taken literally.
Jude 6–7 and 2 Peter 2:4–6
These are the most decisive passages because they interpret Genesis 6. Jude explicitly says:
“The angels who did not keep their proper domain [ἀρχή] but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah… having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh…”
Jude does not cite Genesis 6 directly—but he quotes 1 Enoch two verses later (Jude 14), indicating he draws from the same tradition. The phrase “strange flesh” (σὰρκα ἑτέραν) in v. 7 links the angelic sin with sexual transgression, not with merely “abandoning mission.”
So again: If the bene ha’elohim were merely righteous human men, how could Jude and Peter say their punishment is unique among angels who sinned, and tie it to Sodom’s sexual sin?
Conclusion: Scripture Interprets Scripture, but Context Determines Meaning
You’re right that God uses consistent themes across Scripture. But we must allow words and phrases to mean different things in different contexts. “Son of God” in the NT means something that was never true of angels in Genesis—it refers to adoption through faith in Christ and union with His resurrection (Romans 8).
But in Genesis and Job, bene ha’elohim refers to heavenly beings, as understood by the Jewish tradition into which Jesus was born, which Peter and Jude cite, and which the early Church unanimously accepted until Augustine’s revision.
Occam’s Razor, if anything, supports the angelic view. Why invent a new symbolic system for “sons of God” in Genesis 6 that violates both the internal grammar and the external reception of the text?
So with love and clarity, I’ll say:
You laid the mic down with grace—I’ll pick it up gently, not to debate for pride’s sake, but to uphold the weight of Scripture and the testimony of those who heard it first.
oo what an excellent one, im amazed, i mean, i didnt know about this at all, woahh..this is fire man, thanks idk we are getting more and more theology day by day…KEEP IT UP @Johann. I was solely relying on Jewish and Christian sources but little did I know abt this aspect…thanks
are problematic to God’s plan) would probably warrant utter destruction, ergo the “Flood.”
.