Nephilim: Biblical Giants?

Yes—giants existed—and it wasn’t just Goliath. Developing a well-rounded view about giants from the Bible requires studying the entire set (and not just a few) of the following Biblical passages: Genesis 6:4, 14:5; Numbers 13:28–33; Deuteronomy 1:28–3:11, 9:2; Joshua 11:21, 13:12, 14:12–15, 15:8–14, 17:15, 18:16; 1 Samuel 17:4, 49–50; 2 Samuel 5:18–25, 21:15–22; Amos 2:9; 1 Chronicles 11:23, 20:4–8; Numbers 13:22; Judges 1:20; Isaiah 17:5; Psalm 82, and Job 4:13–18. Scripture also includes passages that appear to highlight distinct characteristics about the giants/Nephilim, such as in Numbers 13:23-25 where two men are required to carry a “cluster of grapes” (why does the writer need to point this out?) and certain unique characters and family lines that were pursued, engaged in battle, and conquered (such as ‭‭Joshua‬ ‭15:13-14: “Now to Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave a share among the children of Judah, according to the commandment of the LORD to Joshua, namely, Kirjath Arba, which is Hebron (Arba was the father of Anak). Caleb drove out the three sons of Anak from there: Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai, the children of Anak”). The angels that “broke their domain” were punished and judged (Jude 1:6–8 and 2 Peter 2:4–11). The giants/Nephilim and their descendants that were pursued and annihilated after the Flood (e.g., by David and Joshua) were present on earth either by a re-incursion or through the line of Ham’s wife (see Genesis 9:18 and others).

Why does Genesis Apologetics hold firmly to the “angel” view of Genesis 6? What about the other views, such as the Sethite, Royal Tyrant (Kings), Nobles or Mighty Men, Demon Possession, or

Mixed Supernatural-Human Leadership views?

The answer to this is quite simple: The angel view is only perspective that is both historically and Biblically consistent. Let’s explain both.

Historically, the angelic view is the only interpretation that fits the earliest interpretive stream. Genesis 6 says the “sons of God” took women and produced the Nephilim, and Second Temple Jewish literature repeatedly understood this literally as heavenly beings sinning with human women. 1 Enoch 6 says “the angels, the children of heaven” desired women and chose wives from mankind; Jubilees 5 says “the angels of God” took wives and “bare unto them sons and they were giants.” The Book of Giants continues the same Watcher/giant tradition, showing that this was not a fringe reading but a developed Jewish interpretive framework. The same tradition appears in early Christian writers: Justin Martyr said the angels were “captivated by love of women” and begot children, and other early fathers such as Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Lactantius, and Ambrose likewise treated Genesis 6 as angelic rebellion.

Biblically, the Angel view is really the only perspective that fits with the New Testament teaching about the “sins of angels.” Jude writes: “The angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper dwelling… He has kept in eternal chains… just as Sodom and Gomorrah… indulged in sexual immorality and pursued strange flesh…” (Jude 6–7)

Notice the flow:

Rebellious angels
Then Sodom and Gomorrah
The word “just as” (Greek: hōs) links the two examples.

The natural reading is that the angels committed a sin analogous to Sodom’s sexual sin. Verse 7 says Sodom pursued: “strange flesh” (sarkos heteras). This literally means “other” or “different” flesh. In Sodom’s case, the men attempted sexual relations with angels (Genesis 19), crossing the boundary between human and angelic beings. Jude intentionally parallels this with Genesis 6:

Angels crossed their God-appointed boundaries.
Humans crossed theirs.
Both involved illicit sexual behavior.

Why mention the angels “leaving their proper dwelling”? This is another indication: Jude doesn’t simply say they sinned. He says they:

“did not keep their own position”
“abandoned their proper dwelling.”

Those descriptions fit with Genesis 6—angels took human form to have relations with women.

Peter says the SAME thing writing: “God did not spare angels when they sinned… if He did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah…” (2 Peter 2:4–5)

Notice the sequence:

Angels sinned
Noah
Flood
Sodom

That follows Genesis almost exactly.

Peter is referring to the same event as Jude.

So the Angel view is the only view that truly meshes with the historical framework and context as well as the New Testament teaching on the same topic.

What about the “Sethite” View?

Point #	Argument	Why it supports Angel/Hybrid view	Problem for Sethite view
1	“Sons of God” normally denotes heavenly beings in the OT parallels	Hebrew בְּנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים (bene ha’elohim) in Job 1:6 and 2:1 clearly describes heavenly beings appearing before God; Job 38:7 uses essentially the same expression for beings present at creation.	Genesis never calls Seth’s descendants “sons of God.” The Sethite interpretation must assign the expression a meaning not established by the immediate Genesis narrative.
2	“Sons of God” vs. “daughters of man” naturally contrasts heavenly and human beings	Genesis 6 contrasts the sons of God with the daughters of adam—humanity. The simplest reading is two different categories: heavenly beings and human women.	The Sethite view effectively changes “daughters of man” into “daughters of Cain,” although Cain is never mentioned in Genesis 6:1–4.
3	The unions produce the extraordinary Nephilim/mighty men	Genesis specifically connects these unions with the Nephilim and gibborim—the extraordinary “mighty men of old.” A supernatural transgression provides a reason the offspring receive special attention.	Ordinary marriages between Sethite men and Cainite women do not naturally explain extraordinary offspring. Why would spiritually mixed marriages produce Nephilim?
4	Jude describes angels abandoning their proper domain	Jude 6 says angels “did not keep their own domain” but “abandoned their proper dwelling.” That language fits heavenly beings crossing a God-established boundary.	Nothing in the Sethite interpretation explains Jude’s imprisoned angels or their abandonment of a heavenly domain.
5	Jude places the angelic sin beside sexual boundary-crossing at Sodom	Jude 6–7 moves directly from rebellious angels to Sodom and Gomorrah, whose inhabitants pursued “strange/other flesh” (sarkos heteras). This strongly suggests a thematic connection involving illicit boundary-crossing.	Sethite intermarriage doesn’t explain why Jude would use rebellious angels immediately before his example of illicit sexual desire.
6	2 Peter puts the sinning angels immediately before Noah’s Flood	2 Peter 2:4–5 gives the sequence: angels sinned → angels confined → ancient world → Noah → Flood. This closely matches Genesis 6’s sequence.	The Sethite view leaves Peter’s reference to pre-Flood angelic sin without an obvious Genesis event.
7	Jude explicitly uses the Enochic interpretive tradition	Jude 14–15 actually quotes 1 Enoch, while 1 Enoch 6–16 interprets Genesis 6 as heavenly Watchers taking human women and producing giants. Jude therefore demonstrates familiarity with precisely the interpretive tradition that reads Genesis 6 angelically.	There is no comparable evidence that Jude knew or endorsed a Sethite interpretation. The Sethite interpretation is conspicuously absent from this early Jewish interpretive environment.
8	Pre-Christian Jewish sources overwhelmingly preserve the angelic interpretation	1 Enoch, Jubilees, the Book of Giants, and Dead Sea Scroll traditions understand Genesis 6 in terms of rebellious heavenly beings and giants. Modern scholarship recognizes the Watchers tradition as a major Second Temple interpretation of Genesis 6.	There is no similarly early, well-attested pre-Christian Jewish Sethite tradition. That matters because these writers were much closer linguistically and culturally to ancient Genesis than later Christian interpreters. The Sethite view was first introduced by Africanus in AD 220 and Augustine in AD 420.
9	Early Christians also inherited the angelic interpretation	Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Tertullian and other early Christian writers interpreted Genesis 6 through the fallen-angel/Watcher tradition. Recent peer-reviewed work likewise concludes that Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 refer to the Watchers tradition. (Durham Repository)	The Sethite view became influential substantially later. Thus it cannot easily be presented as the original or universally received Christian interpretation.
10	The angelic view explains the most evidence with one coherent event	Genesis 6 gives heavenly “sons of God” + women + unusual offspring + Flood judgment; 2 Peter gives sinning angels + Noah + Flood; Jude gives angels leaving their domain + judgment + sexual boundary imagery; 1 Enoch gives the same elements explicitly. These converge naturally under the angelic interpretation.	The Sethite theory must explain each piece separately—and introduces ideas Genesis 6 never states: that “sons of God” means Sethites, “daughters of men” means Cainites, Seth’s line was uniformly godly, Cain’s women uniquely ungodly, and their marriages somehow explain the Nephilim.

Due to the crowded and controversial content so widely available online and in print on this subject, we advise being careful to stay within biblical boundaries. So many have taken this topic too far. We therefore only recommend two well-done sources for this topic; one short, and one lengthy. The short article can be found here, titled, “Giants in the Land: A Biblical Theology of the Nephilim, Anakim, Rephaim, and Goliath.” The complete treatment on the topic by Tim Chaffey from Answers in Genesis is: “Fallen: The Sons of God and the Nephilim” available here on Amazon. Because of the New Testament connection (Jude 1:6–8 and 2 Peter 2:4–11) with the verses above, we agree with the conclusion in these two sources.