“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 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 who were of old, the men of renown.
5 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. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.”Chapter 6 begins with one of the most puzzling statements in all of Scripture. But, before we get to the puzzling portion of it, let’s set the foundation with what’s clear. What’s clear is that mankind has taken the command “be fruitful and multiply” very seriously. They have begun to “multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them.” And as these daughters were born, the sons of God took notice of their beauty, leading them to take them as their wives, “any that they should choose.”
This is, in no way, shape, or form a good thing. It is painted in a negative light, not a positive one. Marriage is a good and beautiful thing, but what was taking place here is sinfully wicked, an abomination to the LORD. In the same way that Eve saw the fruit, desired the fruit, and took the fruit, the sons of God saw the women, desired the women, and took the women.
Friends and family, listen to me. Allowing your desires to dictate your life is a perilous path to follow.
Jesus, in Matthew 6:22-23, says, “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness.” So, Jesus is saying that what we take in through our eyes affects our whole being. Things that catch your eye will quickly grab your heart, and things that grab your heart will eventually steer your actions.
The phrase, “I can look but not touch,” is a lie straight from the enemy himself! The fall of David— the king after God’s own heart— began with an unguarded look from a rooftop. Jesus says, “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell (Matt. 5:29).”
This is why the Bible consistently calls us to be careful with our gaze.
- “Let your eyes look directly forward, and your gaze be straight before you. Ponder the path of your feet; then all your ways will be sure.” — Proverbs 4:25-27
- “I will not set before my eyes anything that is worthless. I hate the work of those who fall away; it shall not cling to me.” — Psalm 101:3
- “I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?” — Job 31:1
May we avoid looking at what defiles and tempts, and may we focus on what is honorable, just, pure and true (Phil 4:8), fixing our gaze on Christ and his ways (Heb 12:2).
Now, that’s the birds-eye view of what’s going on here. But let’s get into the weeds for a moment. Here in the weeds, we will discover one of the more controversial portions of the book of Genesis. And the controversy centers around the question, “Who is the Nephilim here?” And to answer that question, we have to first answer the question, “Who are the sons of God?”
This is one of those questions many people have wrestled with over the years, and as I’ve wrestled with it myself, I’ve found there are three primary interpretations worth discussing. For the next few minutes, I would like us to explore these three different interpretations.
THE FALLEN ANGEL VIEW.
According to this view, the “sons of God” are fallen angelic beings who saw the daughters of men as attractive, took on human form or possessed a human, and took them as wives. The Nephilim, then, were the offspring of these unions. They were beings of unusual strength or size.
Now, if this is your first time hearing this, that may really sound far-fetched. But before you dismiss it as crazy, let’s look at some of the reasons many scholars come to this conclusion. I think there are four arguments worth exploring around this view:
The Hebrew phrase “bēn ĕlōhîm” (sons of God) is used six times in Scripture, all in reference to heavenly beings (Job 1:6, job 2:1, job 38:4-7, Ps. 29:1, Ps. 89:6).
The extraordinary nature of their offspring.
Angels seem to possess an ability to appear in human form (Gen. 19, Heb 13:2).
The New Testament DESCRIBES the fall of angels (Jude 6-7, 2 Pt. 2:4-5)
The first set of evidence that supports this view is the biblical usage of the phrase “sons of God.” This direct phrase (bēn ĕlōhîm: “sons of God”) is used six times in Scripture, all in reference to heavenly beings.
Job 1:6 and 2:1, for example, describe the “sons of God” presenting themselves before the LORD, with Satan among them.
- “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.” — Job 1:6
- “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD.” — Job 2:1
So, as the heavenly beings come before the LORD to give account for their activities or receive their divine assignment from God, Satan comes along.
Likewise, Job 38:4-7 refers to angelic beings rejoicing at creation. It says, “[4] Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. [5] Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? [6] On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, [7] when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
If you’re reading from the ESV, HSCB, NIV, or NRSV, your Bible will translate this phrase as “heavenly beings” in Psalm 29:1– “[1] Ascribe to the LORD, O heavenly beings, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength. [2] Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; worship the LORD in the splendor of holiness.” Likewise, Psalm 89:6 says, “[6] For who in the skies can be compared to the LORD? Who among the heavenly beings is like the LORD, [7] a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him?” Therefore, if we want to interpret this phrase in harmony with how the rest of the Bible applies it, we would conclude that the sons of God here are angelic beings.
In addition to this, one could also point to the extraordinary nature of their offspring as further support forthe notion that the sons of God are fallen angelic beings. The Nephilim are described as “mighty men of old, men of renown,” implying that they were uniquely great among men. They were known as mighty and great. No one didn’t know about the mighty Nephilim. Later in Number 13:33, we see the spies come back with a bad report regarding Canaan, “The land through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.” I don’t think the spies here are literally saying that they saw Nephilim. Instead, I think they’re speaking in a hyperbolic manner, signifying the massive stature of the people in Canaan. These were big and scary men who resembled the folklore stories they’ve heard told over the years.
The third argument that supports this idea is that angels appear to possess the ability to take on human form throughout Scripture. They’re able to walk, talk, and even eat with people.
We see a clear example of this in Genesis 19. Look at the language used here.
“[1] The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth [2] and said, “My lords, please turn aside to your servant’s house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the town square.” [3] But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
[4] But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. [5] And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” [6] Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, [7] and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.”
So, here we see two angels able to walk. They had feet that needed to be washed. They apparently were able to sleep and eat, just like us. And they were mistaken as men by the men of Sodom. And Abraham and Lot were so adamant that the men of Sodom not lie with them because it was such a wicked act. It was an act so evil that they were willing to give up their own virgin daughters to them.
Similarly, Hebrews 13:2 calls us not to neglect to show hospitality because in doing so, some have “entertained angels unawares.”
There appears to be evidence throughout Scripture that some angels may resemble humans or take on human form for a period of time. And if they’re able to eat, walk, talk, and sleep, then you would assume they could also do the activity described here in Genesis 6.
Next, you find other allusions in the New Testament that seem to allude to the sons of God being angelic beings. Both Jude 6–7 and 2 Peter 2:4–5 describe fallen angels who left their proper dwelling and were judged, connecting their rebellion with the days of Noah.
Jude says, “[6] 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—[7] just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. So, Jude implies that there are angels who have been bound in chains because they left the position God had placed them in. And the phrase “likewise” used by Jude seems to link the angel's actions to the unnatural actions of those in Sodom and Gomorrah. He seems to be suggesting that they both crossed moral and natural boundaries.
Similarly, 2 Peter 2:4-5 also says, “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly...” Here, Peter is telling us that the angels have sinned, leading to them being cast into chains of gloomy darkness until the final judgment. So, like Jude, he’s speaking of angels' sin. However, as Peter recounts this account, he seems to link it closely to Noah. God knows how to rescue the godly from trials. And he knows how to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment.
So, based on these four things, some would say that the sons of God here are fallen angels. But that’s not the only interpretation.
SETHITE VIEW
The second option would be that the sons of God are the sons who have descended from the line of Seth. The “sons of God” are the descendants of Seth who took the daughters of Cain as wives. The Nephilim are the offspring of this intermarriage, representing a corrupted or diluted line of godly descent. The Nephilim are their descendants. They are the fallen and mighty men of old, the prominent leaders of this time. The most considerable support for this view is context and language.
Contextually, it would make sense for us to link this encounter with the genealogies previously mentioned.
Moses just got done contrasting Seth’s line with Cain’s line, God’s chosen line with God’s rejected line, a line of those who called upon the name of the LORD, and a line that boasts in their wickedness. So, if context is key, it makes sense for Moses to begin describing Seth’s line as “the sons of God.” It makes sense to describe Cain’s daughters as “daughters of man.” However, the context also suggests that God’s frustration centers on humanity. In the immediate context, God’s focus is centered on angelic wickedness, but also on human wickedness. After all, verse 5 says that the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth.” Thus, the narrative appears to center on human sin and humanity’s moral decline.
The root of the word Nephilim means “to fall,” which reinforces the idea that the Nephilim are the fallen ones or those who cause others to fall. These were the fallen, mixed line of Seth and Cain.
Additionally, although the phrasing varies, God’s chosen people are consistently described as “sons” or “children” of God throughout Scripture.
- “You are the sons of the LORD your God (bēn yᵊhōvâ ĕlōhîm). You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead.” — Deuteronomy 14:1
- “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: “Children have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me.” — Isaiah 1:2
- “Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,” it shall be said to them, “Children of the living God (bēn ēl ḥay ēl).” — Hosea 1:10
The most significant pushback here, though, is that the Hebrew phrase used in Genesis 6 is different from the language used in these verses. In Genesis 6, the phrasing is bēn ĕlōhîm. In the other passages, it is bēn yᵊhōvâ ĕlōhîm or bēn ēl ḥay ēl.
ANCIENT RULER VIEW
The third option would be that the sons of God are ancient kings and rulers of this time who claimed divine status and took women forcibly, which would have created a class of violent and oppressive “mighty men” called Nephilim.
I don’t know if I need to rehash this. But, like the previously described view, the immediate context would support the idea that the sons of God are humans, not angelic beings.
Additionally, it’s believed that during this time, kings and rulers often referred to themselves as ‘sons of God,’ which could help support this idea.
Those who advocate for this view would point to how the word “elohim” is sometimes used in reference to powerful beings or judges, as seen in passages like Exodus 21:6 and Psalm 82:6.
- “then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.” — Exodus 21:6
- “I said, ‘You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.’” — Psalm 82:6
If that’s what Moses is conveying here, then it would be read as, “the sons of the mighty ones or earthly rulers.” If that’s the case, then the Nephilim would be powerful warrior-kings, not necessarily giant offspring of angels. They were the fallen ones, those who cause others to fall. They were ancient warriors or rulers, symbols of violence and power.
DISAGREE WITH GRACE
Putting my cards on the table, I fall into the first camp here. I believe the sons of God were fallen angels who took human form, and the Nephilim were their offspring. Now, I understand that this is likely something foreign to many of us, leading us to squirm a little. However, it appears that the most biblical support is centered around this view.
Some of you will disagree with me. And I’m ok with you disagreeing with me here as long as your disagreement is rooted in your best attempt to reconcile the Scriptures. If we disagree with this stance because we don’t thinkangels could do that, then we need to reevaluate our thoughts. If we disagree with the stance because it seems unusual, then we need to reevaluate our thoughts.
I’m ok with you disagreeing with me as long as your disagreement is rooted in your best attempt to interpret Scripture, and as long as we agree with the main point of this paragraph.
What’s the main point of this paragraph? The main point is that the actions described here are dreadfully wicked. As man has grown, so too has their wickedness. As they filled the earth, they filled it with sinners who sought to go against God’s good design for creation.
Verse 5 says, “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. And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.”
Before we dig into the word “regret,” let's not overlook the first part of this verse.
Notice what God saw here:
the wickedness filling the earth and
the intentions of man’s heart.
What does this teach us about God? It teaches us that God sees everything. There is nothing hidden from his sight. He sees what we do in secret, and He also weighs the motives behind what we do. The God who sees all things cares just as much about the why as He does the what.
It’s possible to hide selfish motives behind seemingly selfless actions. We might volunteer at a homeless shelter because it looks good on a résumé. We might give to charity because it helps reduce our tax burden. We might pray publicly because it makes us look spiritual. The list could go on and on. However, this is why God says, “There is no one good, not even one,” and our good deeds are likened to “filthy garments.”
So, if the first half of this verse teaches that God sees all things, the second half shows us that God feels deeplyabout what He sees— “And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.”
We might understand this word to mean “I feel bad about a mistake I’ve made,” like saying, “I regret smacking my brother in the face because I got in trouble.” But that is not what is happening with God here.
The Hebrew word for regret here is “nāḥam.” It means to be sorry, to relent, to comfort oneself, or to change one’s course of action in response to a circumstance. We see this word elsewhere in Scripture to convey a change in action toward someone because of a change in their behavior. Exodus 32:14, for example, says, “God relented(nāham)” from the disaster he threatened after Moses interceded for Israel. So God isn’t expressing disappointment because He thinks He made a mistake in creating humanity. He is expressing deep sorrow over the sinfulness of his creation, which has led him to act differently toward them. God was grieved to his heart because of the corruption of his creation, which led him to declare, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
But here’s a vital paradox found in Scripture.
In this passage, God “regrets” creating man and changes how He acts toward them. Yet elsewhere, Scripture teaches that God does not change.
- “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind (nāham).” — Num 23:19
- “The glory of Israel will not lie or have regret (nāham), for he is not a man.” — 1 Sam 15:29
So, how do we reconcile these things? God’s will and character never change, but his actions can change in response to human sin and repentance. Just as God “regretted” making Saul king because of Saul’s disobedience, He “regretted” making man because of humanity’s rebellion. In both cases, His response was consistent with His holy and redemptive nature.
As we close today, I want us to let this reality sink into our souls. God feels genuine sorrow over our sin, and he will always respond rightly with both judgment and mercy. Our sin grieves God. So may we never grieve the Holy Spirit!