Source: Michael S. Heiser, Reversing Hermon: Enoch, The Watchers & The Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2017), 9–22.
THE SONS OF GOD AND THE NEPHILIM.wav
This podcast argues for a literal, supernatural interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4, a passage the author contends is often marginalized. It challenges common "safe" readings, such as the Sethite interpretation (viewing "sons of God" as righteous human men), arguing they are textually flawed. Instead, it proposes that the "sons of God" are divine beings who had offspring with human women, resulting in the Nephilim, understood as giants, a view supported by Second Temple Jewish tradition and the New Testament writers Peter and Jude. The piece also explores how the Nephilim could exist after the Flood, suggesting either a regional flood or a repetition of the supernatural event.
The Significance and Interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4: The source highlights that Genesis 6:1-4 is a passage often avoided or marginalized in biblical interpretation, with many opting for interpretations that allow it to be set aside. However, the source argues that this passage is actually one of the most important in the Bible, serving a crucial role in biblical theology. It asserts that the passage deserves the prominent, almost central, status it held in Second Temple Judaism for understanding God's activity in history. Consequently, understanding how this passage should be interpreted is presented as a necessary starting point. The passage itself is quoted, describing how humanity multiplied, daughters were born, the sons of God saw they were attractive and took them as wives, and the Nephilim were on the earth then and afterward, born from these unions, being mighty men of old, men of renown. The text poses fundamental questions about the identity of the "sons of God" (divine or human) and the "Nephilim" before delving into different interpretations.
Critique of Human-Based Interpretations of "Sons of God": The source dedicates significant attention to dismantling interpretations that view the "sons of God" as merely human beings. One such view, the Sethite interpretation, is presented as the consensus Christian position since the late fourth century AD and still predominant in modern evangelical churches. This view posits that "sons of God" refers to godly men from the lineage of Seth, and "daughters of humankind" refers to ungodly women from the line of Cain, with the passage describing forbidden intermarriage between these lines, leading to God's wrath in the Flood. The source deems this view "deeply flawed," arguing that the idea that only Seth's line "called on the name of the Lord" is imposed on the text, the view fails to explain the Nephilim, the text does not call the women "daughters of Cain" but "daughters of humankind," there is no command against such marriages in the text, and nowhere else in the Bible are people from Seth's line called "sons of God." This connection is seen as a pure assumption. Another human-based approach discussed is the Divinized Human Rulers view, which suggests the "sons of God" are human rulers considered divine offspring, with the condemned marriages being their polygamy. The source also rejects this, stating Genesis 6 never says the marriages were polygamous, ancient parallels for "divine sonship" language are restricted to individual kings, not a group, and the precise plural phrase "sons of God" refers to divine beings elsewhere in the Old Testament (Job, Psalm), not kings. Furthermore, reading ideas of ancient kingship or the glorification of believers back into Genesis 6 is considered flawed hermeneutics because the marriages in Genesis 6 corrupt the earth, whereas biblical theology of divinized human rulership in a restored Eden would not be corruptive.
Advocacy for a Supernatural Interpretation of "Sons of God": In contrast to the human-based views, the source strongly advocates for a supernatural interpretation, taking the passage "at face value." This view understands the "sons of God" as divine beings or angels. A close reading of Genesis 6:1-4 is seen to establish a contrast between two classes: human (represented by "daughters of humankind") and divine ("sons of God"). The source argues that the phrase "sons of God," particularly in its plural form, and its usage in heavenly contexts elsewhere in the Old Testament (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; Psalm 29:1, 82:6, 89:6) provide no exegetical reason to exclude the occurrences in Genesis 6:2, 4 from referring to supernatural beings. The preference for human interpretations is attributed to an apprehension about the supernatural alternative rather than textual evidence.
The Identity and Meaning of the Nephilim: A major point of debate addressed is the identity of the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6:4, which is closely tied to the meaning of the term. While the Septuagint translates the Hebrew term as "giants," many commentators resist this, arguing it should mean "fallen ones" or "those who fall upon," based on the Hebrew verb naphal ("to fall"). This resistance to "giants" is often motivated by a desire to avoid the quasi-divine nature of the Nephilim, which would support the idea that the sons of God who produced them were human. However, the source argues forcefully against the "fallen ones" translation. It points out that even if translated as "fallen ones," the Nephilim and their descendants (Anakim/Rephaim in Numbers and Deuteronomy) are still described as unusually tall, making the meaning "fallen" useless for avoiding a supernaturalist interpretation. Furthermore, using Hebrew morphology, specifically the presence of a long 'i' sound (indicated by the letter 'y' or yod) in one spelling of the word (nephiylim), the source demonstrates that the word is unlikely to come from the verb naphal in a way that would mean "fallen." A word meaning "those who fall" would be spelled nophelim, and a passive "fallen" from naphal would likely be nephulim. The source proposes that the spelling nephiylim, especially the long 'i', is best explained by the term being adopted from an Aramaic noun, naphiyla, which means "giant." When pluralized in Hebrew, this becomes nephiylim, matching the spelling found in Numbers 13:33. This explanation is presented as the only one that accounts for the spelling, the ancient Mesopotamian context (which Jewish thinkers recognized), the connection to Anakim giants, and the consistent translation as "giants" by translators like the Septuagint.
Support from Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Writers (Peter and Jude): The source highlights that the supernatural interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 is not a modern invention but was the dominant view in Jewish tradition before the New Testament era, particularly during the Second Temple Period. This tradition is shown to have understood the passage's original Mesopotamian context and consistently viewed the Nephilim of divine sons of God as giants. Crucially, the source points to the New Testament writers Peter and Jude as endorsing this supernatural view. It discusses 2 Peter 2:1-10 and Jude 5-7, passages which scholars agree describe the same event: angels who sinned by not keeping to their own domain but deserting their proper dwelling place. This sin is identified as sexual in nature, placed in the same category as Sodom and Gomorrah's sin, and understood as despising authority and boundaries. The source argues there is no other sin in the Old Testament that matches these specific details about angelic transgression except the event in Genesis 6:1-4. Although Genesis 6 doesn't mention the punishment, Peter and Jude's description of these angels being held captive in Tartarus or eternal bonds for judgment is shown to derive from Second Temple Jewish literature like 1 Enoch, which retold the Genesis 6 episode. The source emphasizes that inspired New Testament writers were comfortable referencing content from 1 Enoch and other Jewish books to articulate their theology. Interpreting Genesis 6:1-4 "in context" therefore means considering its Mesopotamian background and the understanding reflected in 2 Peter and Jude, which drew on these Jewish traditions, rather than filtering it through later Christian traditions that arose centuries after the New Testament period.
The Origin of the Nephilim and Their Post-Flood Presence: The source discusses two main supernaturalist approaches to how the Nephilim originated in Genesis 6:1-4. The most direct approach is that divine beings literally came to earth, assumed human form, cohabited with human women, and produced the unusual offspring known as Nephilim. This view naturally implies that the giant clans encountered later in the conquest narratives (like the Anakim) were physical descendants of these Nephilim. A primary objection to this is the idea of angels having sexual intercourse, often citing Matthew 22:30 where Jesus says people in the resurrection "are like angels in heaven" who neither marry nor are given in marriage. The source refutes this objection by explaining that Matthew 22:30 does not say angels cannot have sex, but that they do not because procreation is unnecessary in the spiritual realm or the perfected afterlife, unlike the context of Genesis 6. Furthermore, the source points to biblical examples like Genesis 18-19 (Yahweh and two divine beings eating with Abraham, angels physically grabbing Lot), Genesis 32 (Jacob wrestling with a divine being), and various New Testament instances of angels interacting physically (ministering to Jesus, opening doors, hitting Peter) as evidence that angels, and even God, can assume true corporeality. A second supernaturalist approach views the sexual language in Genesis 6:1-4 as euphemistic, not literal. In this view, the language of cohabitation signifies that divine beings who are rivals to Yahweh were responsible for producing the Nephilim, perhaps in analogy to how Yahweh fathered Israel through supernatural intervention without literal sexual cohabitation. Both supernaturalist approaches agree that the Nephilim and subsequent giant clans had a supernatural origin but differ on the precise means. Finally, the source addresses the puzzle of the Nephilim's presence after the Flood, as stated in Genesis 6:4 and confirmed by the existence of giant clans like the Anakim who are linked to them in Numbers 13:33. It dismisses the idea that Noah himself was a Nephilim giant as inconsistent with Genesis 6:9. Two alternatives are presented: (1) the Flood was a regional catastrophe, allowing human and Nephilim survival outside the affected area known to the biblical authors, or (2) the same kind of divine-human union that produced the original Nephilim happened again after the Flood, creating new Nephilim from whom the later giant clans descended. The source notes that the wording "and also afterward, when the sons of God went into the daughters of humankind" in Genesis 6:4 could be translated "whenever," suggesting a repetition of these events after the Flood.