Having outlined the beginning of the biblical conflict between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman, let’s tackle one of the weirdest questions in Genesis so far: who are the Nephilim? Are they the half-demon, half-human offspring of fallen angels? Or are they natural, though quite exceptional, human beings after all?

The Nephilim According to Moses

The first biblical mention of the Nephilim occurs in Genesis 6:4, during a description of the prevailing conditions on the earth right before the Flood.

Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then YHWH said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (Gen. 6:1–4)

We should note that Genesis 6:1 begins an interlude on Noah and the Flood without formally closing out the genealogical entry on Noah that began at the end of Genesis 5. Noah’s entry does not close out until Genesis 9:29—“So all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years, and he died.” Right after this, Moses picks up his genealogy again in Genesis 10 with the sons of Noah, right where he had left off at the end of Genesis 5. At the very least, this should indicate that Moses intends the Flood story and its background to function as a natural narrative interlude in his genealogy.

So what do we know about these Nephilim? Their name probably derives from the Hebrew verb meaning “to fall.” Various commentators, ancient and contemporary, have offered their ideas on what that means. Fallen from heaven? Falling upon their enemies? Causing others to fall in battle? Having fallen in Adam in sin? Having fallen in battle? It’s not clear. The LXX translates “the Nephilim” as “the giants [Gr.: οἱ γίγαντες, hoi gigantes],” which has led many to think that this is a designation for “the great ones” either in stature or reputation, as Genesis 6:4 already indicated—“men of renown.”

Does Nephilim refer specifically to a biological tribe—a bloodline? Probably not. Moses mentions the Nephilim again in Numbers (13:33), when the faithless spies give a report concerning the “giants in the land.” It is unlikely these people they called Nephilim biologically descended from the Nephilim of Genesis 6. Presumably, those Nephilim would have perished in the Flood. So, it seems Nephilim probably does refer categorically to either giants or people of great stature, valor, or strength. This explains the LXX translation, at least.

It also counts as some evidence against, for the most part, the idea that we’re meant to think of the Nephilim of Genesis 6 as the half-demon, half-human progeny of human women and lustful demons. But there are even more compelling biblical and theological reasons to reject this interpretation of the Nephilim.

The Genealogies of the Serpent and the Woman

In Genesis 5, Moses expresses the enmity of the lines of Cain and Seth in their genealogies. While in strictly biological terms, Cain and Abel (and Seth who replaced Abel) all proceed from Adam and Eve, their familial correspondence ends there. God set up spiritual battle lines in His curse of the serpent (Gen. 3:14–15), and we don’t have to wait very long to see the promised enmity evince itself. After the story of the mortal conflict between Cain, a seed of the serpent, and Abel, the seed of the woman, we read about the line proceeding from each seed. Clearly, Cain and his children represent the seed of the serpent—the “evil” line. Seth and his children, on the other hand, represent the seed of the woman—the “good” line.

We can confirm this in numerous ways. For instance, the “seventh” from Adam in both lines—Lamech in the line of Cain and Enoch in the line of Seth—represent the fulfillment and “perfection” of their respective lines. Note that Lamech, a city-dwelling polygamist murderer, affirms his essential identity with Cain when he writes, “If Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.” On the other hand, Enoch, the seventh from Adam in the line of Seth (Jude 14), lived before God so blamelessly that “he was not.” 

We know that Abel, and the line following in his faith, found favor with God. One of the defining features of Enoch, as explained in Hebrews 11:5, is that “he was pleasing to God.” This favor of God correlates to the name of God resting upon these people. Moses tells us that the line of Seth also began to call upon, or to be called by, the name of God (Gen. 4:26). That they, the sons of Seth, could be said to be called by the name of YHWH has significance, in the sense that the line of Seth could then be called sons of God. We see no such reality in connection with the sons of Cain.

The Lines Mix

More can be gleaned from the genealogy. For instance, Methuselah, the grandson of Enoch the blameless, named his son Lamech. Quite odd. Having a father as gentle and blameless and God-pleasing as Enoch, why would you name your son after a then certainly world-famous murderer and power broker? A possible explanation, and one that makes very much sense in the context, is that Methuselah married the daughter of Lamech—Naamah. Naamah, in the same generation as Methuselah, has the dubious honor of being one of the only women mentioned in the whole genealogy, other than Lamech’s wives, Adah and Zillah. Why mention her if she had no other significance? Perhaps because she, a beautiful woman in the line of Cain, ended up marrying Methuselah. Perhaps they named their son Lamech II after his grandfather. This implied union would have had profound consequences for the enmity God had promised to preserve between the seeds of the woman and the serpent (Gen. 3:15).

This fits the text neatly. Genesis 6 likens the daughters of Adam to the forbidden fruit. Moses describes the temptation of Eve in exactly the same Hebrew words actually. Woodenly, Genesis 3:6a reads, “And the woman saw that the tree was good…” Genesis 6:2 reads, again woodenly, “And the sons of God saw that the daughters of Adam were good…” 

Fairly obviously, throughout the Scriptures, we can see biblical authors likening the seduction of sin to the seduction of the “strange” or immoral woman (e.g., Prov. 2:16). Even from the beginning, Adam displayed loyalty to his beautiful woman over loyalty to God. And “spiritual adultery” figures as one of the most important images of idolatry throughout the Old Testament (Ezek. 16:32). Among a large number of examples, when Balaam could not curse Israel, he instead recommended adulterating the sons of Israel with the allure of Midianite women and their debauched and orgiastic worship practices (Num. 31:16). It makes sense that the sons of Seth (the seed of the woman and sons of God) would be tempted by the corrupt daughters of Adam.

Seth’s Long Line of “Losers”

We must also consider that, though the Scriptural authors favorably portray the line of Seth, they and their peers would not necessarily have viewed themselves favorably. Especially not in comparison to the powerful line of Cain. One of the first things Cain did after beginning his exile was build a city (Gen. 4:17).  Lamech I, himself an obviously formidable and powerful man, had children that invented metallurgy, instrumental music, and animal husbandry (Gen. 4:20–22). Cain’s children sought and secured power through violence, cleverness, and domination. They had worldly ambition far beyond the sons of Seth.

On the other hand, what did Seth’s line have going for them? The greatest of them all, Enoch, became famous for his godliness. So godly, in fact, that he ceased to be. Abel, their spiritual forefather, became known as the first murder victim and martyr. So, would not the promise of power and pleasure and prestige not weigh heavily against the best-case scenario of obscurity, weakness, and non-existence? Do these temptations not continue to plunder the ranks of the faithful?

The Consequences of Blurring the Lines

So, with this in mind, we can see more clearly what Moses lays out for us in his genealogy. He clearly delineates the opposing lines of the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. And then he shows them mixing. The mixing of the lines threatens to destroy the enmity and antithesis between the lines.

But note what occurs because of this intermixing of the lines: evil abounds on the face of the earth.

Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. (Gen. 6:10–11) 

The “good” and godly line of Seth and Abel, the seed of the vulnerable woman, having no protection from violence, had turned to violence as well. For none but Noah at this point sought after peace. “The earth was filled with violence”—the very violence that marked the sons of Cain, the seed of the serpent. The serpent had corrupted even the sons of the woman, the very sons of God. And in this, they threatened to destroy the faithful on the earth in their flood of violence.

The Flood Undoes the Blurring

This then means that the Flood of God did not destroy, but preserved, life. Without the destruction of the flood, the evil of the seed of the serpent at this point in history would have overwhelmed the peaceful and the meek. The flood might look like evil against evil. In a sense, it was. Not at all unrighteous, I hope you understand. (If you need clarification on that, I recommend you listen to and read my other work distinguishing evil from wickedness in the Bible.) But albeit righteous, the Flood definitely functioned as a prevention of total destruction by near total destruction—like divine chemotherapy. And God swore never to do it again (Gen. 8:21–22).

He would not have promised such if He had not found another way to conquer evil through covenant and the victory of life over death—resurrection. You might wonder why He did not simply inaugurate the first way from the outset—good overcoming evil rather than evil against evil. I can not say for sure, but knowing what I know about God, no other way presented itself. He wanted to show something to us. We needed to see both the triumph of violence prevailing among humankind and the destruction of the Flood. I can think of many reasons why this proved necessary, but I’ll leave you to explore that on your own for now.

So Who Were the Nephilim?

Let’s return to the main question of this article. Based on the groundwork we’ve laid, the Nephilim were the violent and powerful men of war and renown who made names for themselves like Lamech. The initial success stories of a doomed hybridization, they inherited and exploited both the shrewdness and integrity of Seth and the violence and ambition of Cain. Though seeds of the devil, and thereby evil in spirit and demonically-empowered, they remained disappointingly human.

Perhaps I need to make a case against the half-demon theory that has grown in popularity (to my great puzzlement, I must admit) even among usually circumspect scholars. I can do so in a few ways. For one, angelic spirits neither marry nor give in marriage (Matt. 22:30). This would contradict any possibility that “they took wives for themselves” from among the daughters of Adam. Their reproduction, as we’ve discussed in previous articles, is not and cannot ever be according to the flesh. Again, as Jesus says elsewhere, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (Jn. 3:6). Demons can possess flesh, but they cannot generate flesh. Demons can and do, however, procreate spiritually. This is not meaningless or insignificant. The Nephilim and all the sons of Cain are, in this sense, indeed the children of Satan.

The origin of the half-stone demon giant theory should have already given its contemporary proponents pause. It comes from the clearly Platonic, even Gnostic, interpretation of Genesis found in an apocryphal apocalyptic book, 1 Enoch. That the book drew from earlier sources, and contained even some of Enoch’s actual prophecies (i.e., 1 Enoch 1:9), is confirmed by its quotation in the book of Jude (1:14–15). This does not, however, necessitate that we should receive everything in the book as canonical. The worldwide church, with only minor exceptions, has excluded 1 Enoch on the whole from the canon for very good and apparent reasons. Much of this exclusion comes from its superstitious and heretically Gnostic understanding of body and spirit, which deeply influenced its exposition of demons and the Nephilim.

So Why did Moses Use “Sons of God”?

Many commentators will say that “sons of God” usually refers to angels in the Old Testament, and therefore these same commentators believe we have some warrant claiming that angels can and did interbreed with human women. Further, they will say, if Moses intended to refer to the sons of Seth, why did he not just say that?

On the first point, “sons of God” could also refer to human beings, as it clearly does in the New Testament (Matt. 5:9; Lk. 20:35–36; Rom. 8:14, 19; etc.). Further, it’s not entirely clear that it means only “heavenly angels” even in the Old Testament, in spite of much evidence that at least some ancient Jewish interpreters and translators believed “sons of God” meant at least “angels.”

One peculiar case that points to potential discrepancies even among the ancient manuscripts and scholars concerning “sons of God” occurs in Deuteronomy 32:8. Here are the two major manuscript witnesses of that text:

Hebrew MT (NASB): “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, / when He separated the sons of man [lit., Adam], / he set the boundaries of the peoples / according to the number of the sons of Israel.” [emphasis mine]

Greek LXX (Brenton): “When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, / when he separated the sons of Adam, / he set the bounds of the people / according to the number of the angels of God.” [emphasis mine]

Let me untangle this a bit for you. The LXX sometimes translates “sons of God” in the Hebrew as “angels of God” (e.g., in Job 1:6 and throughout Job) probably to clarify what the translators believed “sons of God” likely meant in that context—“angels.” I will note that the LXX translators did not do that for “sons of God” in Genesis 6, which means they at least considered it uncertain.

But the case in Deuteronomy 32:8 is curious indeed. At some point, a scribe chose to write or copy “sons of Israel” in his Hebrew manuscript where at least some Hebrew manuscripts almost certainly had “sons of God.” For instance, the Hebrew source text (i.e., Vorlage) of the LXX almost certainly had “sons of God.” This means that at least some ancient scribes believed “sons of God” at least here referred to the covenant or named people of God—humans, not angels. And this Hebrew scribe, and those who copied him, thought this important enough to preserve it in the Hebrew manuscript, which version actually even to this day informs most English translations.

This is illuminating because it indicates that even ancient scribes and translators disagreed on what “sons of God” actually meant, and we do not have to consider the current, mostly apocryphal, consensus on “sons of God=angels” to be certain or even biblical. In fact, even in Job, the “sons of God” that gather to present themselves to God do not need to be angels. The text does not require it. The assembly could very well be human—a worship service. As Satan makes clear, he has been roaming on the earth, and there is no explicit mention that the assembly is in heaven.

All that to say, I think we should not let our assumptions concerning the phrase dictate its use in every context. I think “sons of God” likely refers to any beings, angels or human, who do God’s will and pursue His way. This is confirmed over and over again in the New Testament. Paul makes it explicit in Romans 8:14: “For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” This proves important. For even if Genesis 6 has angels in mind, they would not be called “sons of God” anymore if they had rebelled. The Bible reserves that term for those who live within the will and under the name of God, whether human or angel.

To me, this explains why Moses would use the term here. It makes explicit that a betrayal has occurred. These sons of Seth, named of YHWH and children of His way of peace, betrayed Him for the beautiful daughters of Adam, the original traitor of his sonship. This is made far more poignant by the use of the phrase.

Conclusion

I think we have firm textual, biblical, and theological grounds to reject the idea that demons and human women could ever produce hybrid children together, and such a superficial understanding of the reproduction of evil spirits among human beings proves unnecessary. Moses makes clear that the Nephilim, and indeed all who choose the way of evil (i.e., the way of power), belong to their father, the Serpent. We simply don’t need apocryphal superstitions and salacious grotesqueries to establish that. Further, Moses’ point becomes obscure if we think the violence of the earth that preceded the Flood needed such monstrous and basically unrepeatable aberrations. We might think, in error, that such demon children could never and will never rise again. If the Nephilim had their origin in arcane biology, perhaps they have perished forever. But they did not. We still have the children of Cain among us, and unfortunately, they cannot be distinguished by enormous height or any other superficial mark. Instead, they prove themselves the children of Cain by their spirits, by their deeds. They still seek after lies and murder as tools of domination. And they will always wage war against the peacemaking children of God. Indeed, God guarantees it.