The Sons of God and Nephilim are Human Beings in Genesis 6:1-4 (and Numbers 13:33)
Guest post, Commentary by Mr. Todd Morrell on Genesis 6:1-13
Introduction:
In the garden, a clear boundary had been placed for man’s
protection. After Adam and Eve were put out of the garden, no prohibition was
given. God warns Cain of the direction he is heading, but does not restrain his
choice.
After Cain kills his brother, God declares what he will face
as a result of his actions. Cain expresses fear, and God promises protection.
Cain leaves His presence, and the text is silent on any further interaction.
While
God does not bless Cain’s efforts, He does not hold back Cain’s ability to
prosper naturally. The physical accomplishments of Cain’s line are evident, but
the cost of that development has not yet been exposed. Genesis 6
explores that cost for both lines.
Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to
multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Opening with the phrase “and it came to pass” can
give the impression of a simple continuation of the previous chapter. Genesis
does not progress exclusively by time. It advances through the development of
themes. It traces the movement from Adam to the flood by following the progression
of two lines independently. Thematic development unfolds within each generation
group. Overlap is evident, but the narrative does not always arrange them into
a single, continuous timeline. Presented independently, the directional theme
of each line becomes more visible.
“Men began to multiply” and “daughters were born unto them,”
should create
pause. The mention of daughters does not add to the mechanics of
multiplication. It is already implied. It narrows the focus from humanity as a
whole to a specific aspect
within it that will become central to what follows.
While the increase is numerical, it is the increase that
occurs עַל־פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה “on
the face of the adamah” that is the focus. Adamah and erets are both
translated as ‘earth,’ but adamah refers more specifically to the cultivatable
ground.
God creates all animals from the adamah (Genesis 1:25).
Plants do not yet grow because there is no rain from above and no man to work
it (Genesis 2:5). It is first watered by the waters below (Genesis 2:6),
establishing it as a dependent environment. Man is then formed from the adamah
(Genesis 2:7), and the trees are caused to grow out of it (Genesis 2:9).
The
adamah is later affected by man’s actions. It is cursed for man’s sake[VS1]
when Adam listens to his wife (Genesis 3:17). What once produced freely now resists him. In
sorrow, man will eat of the adamah all the days of his life. He is sent from
the garden to work the ground from which he was taken (Genesis 3:23). The
adamah becomes the place where man’s life is worked out.
The adamah then receives the blood of Abel, and it becomes
the place where this blood cries out (Genesis 4:10-11). God tells Cain that the adamah will not yield its
strength when Cain tries to work it (Genesis 4:12). Cain sees this as being driven from the face/presence
of the adamah and from the face/presence of God (Genesis 4:14). All of these
developments of the adamah build to this point where man is expanding on its face.
The pattern in Genesis 4, where the genealogy of Cain
transitions from Cain to Lamech, establishes the direction his line pursued. No
ages are given for births or deaths, so the text offers no means of calculating
how long this lineage unfolds. It is
more concerned with what it produces.
The direction of Cain’s lineage shaped the pre-flood world. It
had firsthand witness of God’s presence, yet chose independence.
Lamech’s lineage is not given beyond his children. The narrative has displayed the
technological development and hardened disposition that Cain’s line had
produced. If it were traced to the flood, it would become more
chronological. It stops here because there is more that it can produce. Naamah
is the final named figure, marking the completion of that line’s expression.
Her name means “pleasant.”
Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men
that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
This
verse has accumulated interpretations far beyond what is stated. While an
angelic reading is ancient and widespread, it is not required by the Genesis
context and introduces more problems than it solves. Those problems are never
resolved in the story.
The language is restrained and deliberately human. They saw
that the daughters of men were good. They took wives. This is standard marital language used elsewhere in
Genesis. Nothing in the verse suggests a metaphysical violation or a celestial
descent.
Genesis
provides the immediate context for how sonship is being framed. It has already been
established that sonship is tied to likeness and image. Adam is made in God’s image and
likeness. Seth, Adam’s son, is born in Adam’s likeness and image. Sonship in Genesis focuses on
relation and direction. Cain is from Adam, but he is not included in the
lineage that describes alignment. Within that narrative, Adam’s line is framed to fit the
description “sons of God” when it appears.
Cain is Adam’s firstborn. Yet Cain becomes the beginning of
a different traced line that is not traced back to Adam. That line moves away from dependence
on God toward self-autonomy. Adam has many sons and daughters, but Seth
is the line Scripture follows to the flood. By tracing Cain’s line alongside
Seth’s, Genesis displays
two opposing directions. One turns toward God, the other turns inward toward
man.
These
two directions are categorical. A person is either expressing alignment toward
God or turning away from it. The emphasis is not “sons” or “daughters,”
but “of God” or “of man.”
The
expression “sons of God” functions as a categorical description. It
identifies those oriented toward God rather than defining a biological class.
The emphasis on alignment is consistent throughout the Scriptures. “You are
the sons of the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1). “Israel is My son, My
firstborn” (Exodus 4:22). “There it shall be said to them, ‘You are sons
of the living God’” (Hosea 1:10). Viewed in this way, it is a title for the
direction pursued by the line of Adam through Seth.
When God expresses His frustration at the condition of the
earth, it is directed at
humanity. That includes both the “sons of God” and “daughters of men.” It is the tension between
dependence on God and self-reliance that has been present since the beginning.
These
two categories move past genealogies, showing that bloodline does not determine
orientation, as all are from Adam. The movement from one orientation to the
other is by choice.
The
Garden of Eden is where the pattern first appeared. Eve saw, she desired, and she took. Here, they saw that the daughters of
men were good, and they took wives from all
they chose (desired).
The issue is not the legality of marriage. It is the removal of discernment and boundaries in the
choosing. [VS3]
The angelic
interpretation weakens the narrative focus on human responsibility. It
diminishes the problem created by men abandoning their orientation toward God
and choosing according to impulse. (In the angelic
view) Man would no longer be the sole source of the tension.
The
term angel is never used. They are never condemned or held accountable . They are not referred to as corrupting
their ways. God does not address them at all, and that is inconsistent with the
established narrative style. Even the snake in Genesis 3 is addressed
for its actions.
Genesis 6:3 And the LORD
said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh:
yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
The use of YHWH signals relational tension rather than
procedural. The breath of God is synonymous with God’s spirit, but it is the
aspect of life-giving. God’s life-giving spirit was to be the bond of that
union. It was something to be valued, yet man had viewed it as an entitlement.
Angels
are absent from this tension. It is man that God is contending with.
The first part of the verse has layered meaning. “Strive” is
translated from the Hebrew word יָדֹון (yādon). It has no clear root and
appears only once in Scripture, making confirmation by comparison impossible.
If it is related to דּוּן or דִּין, then striving or contending in a legal
sense would be appropriate.
The contrast with “for he is also flesh” shifts the
statement away from a dispute and toward God’s sustaining presence. Yādon can mean both remaining
with man or contending with him. That ambiguity reflects the tension of God’s Spirit
giving life to man while opposing the direction man has chosen. “My
spirit shall not always remain with man” shows that while God’s Spirit
sustains life, it was not
intended to sustain independence eternally.
This echoes the separation of the waters as a picture of God
sustaining man, while having no relational influence. God’s Spirit gives man existence, symbolized by the
waters below. The influence of God’s Spirit is symbolized by the waters
above. Both are from God, but man can exist without the relational aspect of
the waters above. The tension arises when man continues to exist by God’s
Spirit while rejecting relational
dependence on Him. That condition cannot persist indefinitely .
The statement that man’s days would be one hundred and
twenty years is not addressed to an individual within the scene, suggesting it
functions as an interpretive marker rather than a direct warning. Man’s lifespan
is recorded to exceed one hundred and twenty years after the flood. That number
cannot be used to describe a universal shortening of life. The flow of the
passage marks it as a defined window before judgment. The emphasis is on restraint. God does not act
immediately. He allows time to pass before judging the existing order.
Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days;
and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,
and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old,
men of renown.
Genesis 6:4 is the first place that the Nephilim appear. The
following is a literal translation of this verse.
הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם
“The giants (Nephilim) were in the earth in those days,”
וְגַם אַחֲרֵי־כֵן
“and also afterward.”
Only
after this does the verse introduce a relative clause describing a period in
which the sons of God came to the daughters of men, and children were born to
them.
אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָבֹ֜אוּ בְּנֵ֤י הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־בְּנ֣וֹת הָֽאָדָ֔ם וְיָלְד֖וּ לָהֶ֑ם
“When they came, sons of God to daughters of man, they
bore children to them.”
The
clause does not identify the Nephilim as the result of the union.
הֵ֧מָּה הַגִּבֹּרִ֛ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר מֵעוֹלָ֖ם אַנְשֵׁ֥י הַשֵּֽׁם
“They were the mighty men of old, men of name.”
The
result of the union is mighty men. The grammar identifies association, not origin.
The closing description focuses not on physical
size but on status and reputation.
The giants
(Nephilim) do exist in the same era. Men described as giants and mighty men place
them in the realm of recognized power and reputation within the culture.
Placing the Nephilim in the same era as the Sons of God
invites comparison.
In the first verse, the man was increasing on the
face/presence of the ground. Among those
expansions were men who
dominated the culture, such as Lamech. The union of the sons of God with
the daughters of great men would have produced men of great name.
Those
oriented toward God began to drift into the cultural currents. The text
does not describe the product of the sons of God as pursuing a corporate name,
nor as invoking God’s Name. They become men of the name, a recognized designation of authority that functions independently from God. As reputation and influence
gather around them, identity begins to rest in status rather than orientation.
That kind of influence
cultivates, subtly drawing away from that which comes from above.
The union of the sons of God and the daughters of men is
literal, just as their offspring are. Still, a deeper concept is being exposed.
Those who were oriented
toward God began to choose what was desirable rather than what was spiritually
aligned. Orientation may still have been present, but beauty was
elevated in the process. What was produced appealed to both the natural and the
spiritual, yet the spiritual was no longer the center. Even though the language of God remained,
dependence shifted from God Himself to what appeared attractive and elevated.
People naturally seek stability, protection, and order. When confidence becomes
centralized in men, they are viewed as giants. Their stature increases
because others arrange their lives around them. When they accept that role,
confidence becomes rooted in their ability to direct.
This
condition is more subtle than open rebellion. Rebellion creates visible
division and invites correction. Misplaced dependence feels safe and justified. Authority appears
earned. Influence seems
righteous. The structure remains intact while quietly replacing the role God is meant to occupy
in the life of the community.
The
passage does not describe the creation of giants but confirms their existence.
It does not depict the loss of faith but the loss of orientation. Men who depend on God become objects of dependence.
In doing so, they unintentionally displace God as the center .
Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and
that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
The use of Elohim signals that the perspective is one of justice. “God saw” echoes the
pattern established in creation, where observation precedes declaration. Only
upon completion did God see that it was good. This pattern is repeated in
connection with God’s judgment. The observation is allowed to stand before the declaration
is made.
Eve saw the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as good,
even though she had no experience to draw from. In the previous verse, the sons
of God saw the daughters of men as good, so they took them without
understanding the resulting produce. God’s judgment is different. He allows
what man forms to come to full expression, and then declares its state.
God saw that the wickedness (רָעַת, raʿat) of man was great in the
earth, and that every imagination (יֵצֶר, yēṣer) of the thoughts of his heart
was only evil (רַע) continually. Translating רָעַת as “wickedness” and יֵצֶר as
“imagination” is not incorrect, but these renderings often frame the verse
almost entirely in moral terms. The resulting impression is that humanity’s
destruction was due to excessive wicked behavior, as though the problem could
have been resolved by better choices alone.
The Hebrew presents a deeper diagnosis. It describes a
formative faculty that had lost its proper ordering, producing a continual state of harm. The
issue was that man had become unable to form thoughts in alignment with God.
The word רָעַת belongs to the ר־ע semantic family, which
describes harm, ruin, or damage rather than abstract moral evil. The related
root רָעַע carries the sense of breaking or shattering, reinforcing the picture
of deterioration. Humanity
is portrayed as continually producing what is spoiled and harmful, rather than
what God had envisioned for it.
The Hebrew word יֵצֶר refers to the forming or shaping of what is produced, not to
the voluntary creation of mental images. The emphasis is therefore not
on the invention of evil ideas, but on a distorted process that continually
produces harmful outcomes.
Taken together, the verse may be rendered as follows:
“And Elohim saw that the ruinous condition of man had become
great in the earth, and that every formative shaping of the thoughts of his
heart resulted only in harm, continually.”
This presents humanity not merely as morally corrupt, but as internally
misaligned in a way that solidified independence from God. The condition
described leaves no space for genuine alignment with God.
Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man
on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
The use of YHWH signals that God’s expressions are
relationally motivated. Nothing in the narrative suggests that God was
surprised by what had developed. Repentance, as it is often understood, would
imply regret over the act of creation itself. God, “declaring the end from the
beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done,” (Isaiah
46:10) would be a contradiction.
The word “repented” is at the center of the tension. It is
derived from (נָחַם, nāḥam). The challenge with this word is that there is no
English word that carries the exact meaning. The common Hebrew word for
repentance is (שׁוּב, shuv), which describes moral turning. The text does not
use that term here. It is reserved for human expression.
Nāḥam is translated variously throughout the scriptures as
to be sorry, to repent, to regret, to be comforted, or to comfort. Each is
dictated by context because they express the result of nāḥam. In Ezekiel 5:13,
“Thus shall mine anger be accomplished, and I will cause my fury to rest upon
them, and I will be comforted,” God’s anger is brought to completion and then
comes to rest, and He is said to nāḥam. In Psalms 90:13, “Return, O Lord, how
long? and let it repent thee concerning thy servants,” the request that YHWH
“repent” concerns the ending of an endured condition. Used in both directions,
the word does not describe a fixed emotional state, but marks the resolution of
what has been endured.
Noah’s name anticipates that same resolution. “And he called
his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil
of our hands, because of the ground which YHWH hath cursed.” The comfort spoken
of is from the same root. Lamech seeks resolution from the tension of the
cursed ground. His desire echoes the rest man was given in the garden before it
was cursed.
God cursed the ground, yet He did not restrain the ability
He had given man to cultivate it. Life continued with longevity and continuity. Man advanced without recognizing God’s
involvement, functioning as though he could exist in complete independence from
God. The generations of Adam embraced this illusion. Genesis 6 reveals that
this condition could not yield what was intended. The use of נָחַם marks the
turning point where what had been allowed to continue had reached its end.
“And it grieved Him at His heart” expresses the cost of that
resolution. God’s purpose does not change, but the means by which it is
preserved change. As in the garden, where access to the tree of life was
restricted, the limitation was not to hinder man, but to preserve what he was
intended to become. If the condition is left unchanged, it becomes fixed.
Resolving that tension was necessary, but not without cost.
The grief does not reflect regret over the goal, but the weight of what must be
done to preserve it.
Genesis 6:7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created
from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and
the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Man was given dominion, and the corruption of all flesh
reflects the condition of the order under which it existed. God resolves to
wipe man and beast from the face of the ground, not merely to kill them. The focus is on cleansing the
ground itself of the influence that fills it. The ground that had
produced through man’s cultivation now bears the imprint of his independence, and that
imprint must be removed.
This is the same ground from which man was formed, and even Noah and his family must be
removed during the cleansing process. It comes only through separation
from the ground, either by being lifted above it in the ark or by being swept
away by it.
The reason for this removal is stated: “For it repenteth me
that I have made them,” כִּ֥י נִחַ֖מְתִּי כִּ֥י עֲשִׂיתִֽם. A functional
rendering without importing emotional regret would be, “because I have reached
resolution, because I have made them.” This emphasizes purpose, not emotion.
As one
direction became dominant, the capacity to move in the other diminished. Man
came to rely on the ground’s production as life-sustaining, diminishing
dependence on God as the true source of life.
As that formation intensified, genuine choice narrowed. The
imagination of man’s heart became fixed in a single direction. What God had
allowed to develop reached a point where reversal was no longer possible.
That condition required resolution, and resolution comes by
removing the old system and establishing a new one.
This follows the pattern already seen in Eden, where God
answered man’s inward shift not with warning alone, but by removing the system of protection under
which he lived. Just as that was for mankind’s protection, the
generations of Adam are brought to an end so that mankind could progress
beyond.
Genesis 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
Grace is from the Hebrew word חֵן (ḥēn), which
refers to favor arising from perception. It is not owed or
covenantal, and it is not presented as a response to prior actions. It is expressed
as found in someone’s eyes. While this kind of favor may be sought, it is not
entitled. The text does not explain why Noah found it. It simply states that he
did. This statement is made before any account of Noah’s generations is
introduced, placing him within the scope of Adam’s generations when favor is
shown.
Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a
just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
This verse can feel like a continuation of the previous one,
as if Noah received favor because he was just, perfect, and walked with God. That
is not what the text is saying. “These are the generations of Noah”
functions as a heading, not a continuation. The toledot formula started
with the generations of the heavens and the earth, and it is repeated here. Each
time it is used, it establishes a new narrative structure in God’s interaction
with man.
Noah’s generations will only include those who go through
the flood with him. It starts with Noah, who is called to build the Ark, and includes
his sons as they journey through the flood with him. A new relational system
begins as God issues direct commands to Noah, and favor gives rise to
obligation. As God directs, Noah responds in obedience.
Noah is described as just צַדִּיק (ṣaddîq). Just
is an acceptable translation, but “righteous” is more accurate. “Just” can
sound legal or abstract. Saddîq describes one who is rightly aligned in conduct
and orientation, not merely a verdict.
And he is perfect תָּמִים (tāmîm), which means whole,
intact, complete, without fracture. " Perfect" can be
misleading when read morally rather than structurally.
Grace is described in relational language before Noah’s
generations are introduced. With that introduction, the focus shifts to his
conduct and alignment. The narrative now presents his righteousness and
wholeness within the structure of his own generational system.
Genesis 6:10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and
Japheth.
The text returns to Noah and his three sons, reiterating
their names. Throughout Genesis, naming is rarely incidental. Names often
express direction or expectation for what will unfold in the generations that
follow. This pattern begins with the earliest births and continues through
Noah. As a man who stands at the end of Adam’s generations, it is reasonable
that Noah would carry forward that same practice in the naming of his sons.
Noah’s naming of his sons should be read in the Genesis
pattern, where names carry meaning and often anticipate themes that emerge
later in the narrative. The text does not explain Noah’s motives, but it
presents the names as meaningful within the developing tension of name,
intensity, and expansion that will resurface after the flood.
The name Shem means “name.” The meaning is unusual until it
is viewed against the tension already introduced in the narrative. Earlier in
the chapter, we were told of men who had become “men of the name,” figures of
reputation and authority. Adam’s line had been identified with the sons of God,
but they possessed no distinct identity in the culture. In that sense, they
lacked a name. This unresolved tension will later surface openly at Babel,
where the people say, “let us make us a name” (Genesis 11:4). Noah himself will
still be alive at that time. The naming of Shem mirrors the issue of identity.
The contrast appears later with Abram, the first man whom God explicitly
renames: “I will bless thee, and make thy name great” (Genesis 12:2). What
humanity attempts to secure for itself at Babel is later bestowed by God.
Ham חָם is related to the Hebrew word חֹם, meaning heat.
Heat in Scripture often reflects inner intensity. Cain’s anger toward God is
described as burning, an inward force that drove him away from alignment. Yet
heat itself is not negative. “My heart was hot within me; while I was musing
the fire burned” (Psalms 39:3). The same imagery describes a heart stirred
toward God rather than against Him. Heat reveals intensity, but the direction
of that intensity determines its outcome.
Japheth’s name יֶפֶת points forward as well. Its meaning
becomes explicit later in the narrative when the verb form appears directly: יַפְתְּ
אֱלֹהִים לְיֶפֶת, “May God enlarge Japheth” (Genesis 9:27). The blessing does
not create the meaning of the name; it draws it out. The connection between the
verb and the name is unmistakable. Japheth carries the idea of enlargement and
expansion, pointing to what will unfold from his descendants.
Expansion naturally follows when identity is joined with
intensity. Yet when identity turns inward to preserve itself, expansion is
resisted. This tension becomes visible at Babel, where the people seek first to
secure a name for themselves before allowing themselves to spread across the
earth: “lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth” (Genesis
11:4).
Noah stands at the turning point between two generations. He
finds grace while still within the generations of Adam, yet the narrative
introduces a new structure: “These are the generations of Noah.” Within that
setting, he is described as righteous, complete in his generations, and one who
walks with God. The system that shaped Adam’s world cannot continue, yet the
next order has not fully appeared. Through Noah’s line identity, intensity, and
expansion will carry forward into the post-flood world, though how those forces
will unfold is not yet understood.
Genesis 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and
the earth was filled with violence.
The language of this verse is spatial. The phrase לִפְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים,
“to the face of God,” presents corruption as standing in His presence.
It is not hidden; it is emboldened, occupying the complete sphere in which man
lives and moves.
The second clause intensifies the condition: “the earth
was filled with violence.” This is not isolated evil; it is saturation. The
available domain has been overtaken.
When self-reliance produces something pleasant, it will pull
the culture in that direction. Successful men become powerful men. Seeking dependence
becomes more than a battle with instinct; it is a fight with the culture.
As hierarchies harden, influence becomes entrenched in
personalities and power consolidates around them. That kind of power seeks
protection. Dependence on God threatens that system. Violence becomes justified
as a form of preservation. Examining the story of Cain and Abel shows the
struggle in its infancy, but the creation revealed this tension from the
beginning.
God had to gather the waters before dry ground could appear.
It was always there, but while it remained covered by the waters below, it was
unreachable to the waters above. By exposing the dry ground, God made it
accessible to each. It was not chaos subdued, but opportunity established.
Now that same ground is described as filled. The problem is
no longer individual failure within a functioning space. The space itself no
longer supports turning. The realm meant for choosing alignment has become
fixed in self-direction.
When violence fills the earth, and all flesh corrupts its
way, the defined ground of decision collapses. The waters do not immediately
appear in this verse, but the movement is already implied. The saturation of
the dry ground prepares for its reversal. The boundaries that once held the
waters back will no longer serve their purpose.
The flood is therefore not chaos invading order. It is the
convergence of the waters to cover a ground that has lost its function.
The earth being corrupt before God signals that the sphere
reserved for movement toward Him has been overtaken. The system cannot produce
alignment. The waters will gather again.
Genesis 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold,
it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
The phrase “And God saw the earth” follows the
pattern established in Genesis 1:4, “And God saw the light.” Throughout the
first chapter, the pattern is repeated in “And God saw that it was good.”
God is shown to evaluate through observation and to declare based on what can
be observed.
God does not bring judgment prematurely from foreknowledge.
While He knows what the result will be, He allows man’s choices to play out so
the results can be seen. Judgment comes when that purpose is established. The
process is called long-suffering, but when something has run its course,
judgment can be swift and final.
Man’s corruption has become so obvious that it must be
judged. The earth and the framework in which it operates are brought into
question. “And behold,” begins the declaration of his conclusion. It is saying, see the result.
In Genesis 1:31, “And God saw everything that he had made,
and, behold, it was very good,” highlighting that creation should be observed
as very good.
Now the emphasis is on what man has created. As God reveals
the result of man’s ability when left alone, how that is viewed reveals one’s
alignment.
The earth is corrupt because “all flesh has corrupted his
way.” God has already stated that man and beast must be destroyed, and the
term “all flesh” will be expanded in meaning to cover both. The Hebrew
word for way is דֶּרֶך
(derek). In a literal sense, it refers to a path worn by continual
walking. In a metaphorical sense, it refers to actions and behavior. “For
the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: But the way of the ungodly shall
perish.” (Psalms 1:6) For all flesh to corrupt his way, is to no longer
function in the way God had intended. This is not moral failure alone, but an
established path in life that leads to it.
“For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again:
But the wicked shall fall into mischief.” (Proverbs 24:16) Mischief (רָעָה) here is a negative function. A just, or more accurately,
righteous man is not defined by failure but by his turning from it.
Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh
is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and,
behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
It is through man that violence has filled the earth,
showing the extent of man’s influence.
Dominion is not established by persuasion or cohesion, but
by the ability to shape what exists. This is not the dominion God had in mind,
in which man participates by governing in God’s image through alignment with
His authority, wisdom, and judgment. Instead, the earth is reshaped according
to human will.
Violence and destruction begin with the universal defiance of
God’s sovereignty and judgment. Men elevate themselves to God-like authority,
as if they are equal to God. The earth itself becomes hostile to the purpose
for which it was formed. That disregard for God turns on itself. Each man can
carry his own image of authority and judgment. Just as man rejects God’s image,
he will reject anything that does not align with his own. What starts as
violence in a vertical direction advances horizontally. Conflict of authority
promotes violence. This pattern has existed from the beginning and is called
out in Psalms 2:1–3.
“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain
thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel
together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break
their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.” (Psalm 2:1–3)
[VS1]“cursed
for man’s sake” The idea is, that man won’t seek God or realize his dependence
upon God without toil and eventually death.
If everything were rosy and provided, man feels independent of God. Israel had no rivers that provided water.
Israel had to depend on God for water from heaven.
[VS2]The
vocabulary echos Genesis 3:6. Eve:
וַתֵּ֣רֶא - saw
כִּ֣י טוֹב֩ - good
וַתִּקַּ֥ח - took
וַיִּרְא֤וּ
כִּ֥י טֹבֹ֖ת
וַיִּקְח֤וּ
Genesis 6:2 is about human beings, the sons of God, who
acted like Eve.
[VS3]See
above comment, 2nd paragraph of commentary on Gen. 6:2.
The vocabulary echos Genesis 3:6. Eve:
וַתֵּ֣רֶא - saw
כִּ֣י טוֹב֩ - good
וַתִּקַּ֥ח - took
וַיִּרְא֤וּ
כִּ֥י טֹבֹ֖ת
וַיִּקְח֤וּ
Genesis 6:2 is about human beings, the sons of God, who
acted like Eve.
[VS4]Could
be added here by Bill for podcast: Exodus/Conquest context of the writing of the
Torah. Israel called “Son/s of God” and
were not to become entangled with the “daughters of men”, i.e., the foreigners
who were not oriented toward God.
Exodus 34:15–16
After the incident of the golden calf, Israel is warned
about the peoples of Canaan:
14 For you must not worship any other god,
for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
15 Be
careful not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, for when they
prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to their gods, and someone
invites you, you will eat from his sacrifice;
16
and you then take his daughters for your sons, and when his daughters
prostitute themselves to their gods, they will make your sons prostitute
themselves to their gods as well.
Deut. 7:1-4
When the LORD your God brings you to the land that you
are going to occupy and forces out many nations before you– Hittites,
Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven
nations more numerous and powerful than you–
2 and
he delivers them over to you and you attack them, you must utterly annihilate
them. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy!
3 You
must not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take
their daughters for your sons,
4 for
they will turn your sons away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of
the LORD will erupt against you and he will quickly destroy you.
Already in Genesis: Genesis 24:3–4
Abraham instructs his servant not to get a Canaanite
wife for Isaac:
“Thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the
daughters of the Canaanites…”
Judges 3:5–6
“And they took their daughters to be their wives, and
gave their daughters to their sons, and served their gods.”
1 Kings 11:1–8, Solomon
[VS5]What
does "the grammar identifies association not origin"?
Pb.: Association
between the Nephilim and the ones born to the Sons of God and daughters of men,
the mighty men of old, men of name" is not one of origin, but similarity.
The birth of these mighty men of old were not the
Nephilim, but they were on earth at the same time.
[VS6]This
sentence from previous edition. I think it is good. The point being:
Do you Israel (and all humans be extension) want to be like the Nefilim, or
like the sons of God who were supposed to be oriented to God?
[VS7]"men
of the name" "designation of
authority that functions independentlyfrom God."
Comments
Second, the “saw…good…took” echo of Genesis 3:6 shows rebellion and illicit desire, not that the sinners must be human. Angels can also rebel and transgress God-given boundaries. Likewise, the phrase “they took wives” does not rule out a supernatural event; biblical narrative can use ordinary language to describe extraordinary acts.
Third, the objection that Genesis 6 does not use the word “angels” is weak, since it also never uses the words “Sethites” or “Cainites.” Genesis 6 focuses on mankind because the Flood judgment falls on the earthly order, but the New Testament identifies angels who sinned in connection with the flood story. 2 Peter 2:4-5 says God “did not spare angels when they sinned,” then immediately mentions Noah and the ancient world. Jude 6 speaks of angels who “did not keep their own domain,” and Jude 7 compares their sin with Sodom’s pursuit of “strange flesh.”
Fourth, Genesis 6:4 naturally connects the Nephilim with the unions between the sons of God and the daughters of men. The Nephilim are introduced precisely in that context, and “those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown” most naturally refers to the offspring of those unions. The “association, not origin” reading is simply awkward and not natural to the narrative.
Fifth, the human-only view minimizes the abnormality of the Nephilim. Numbers 13:33 associates them with the Anakim, and even if the spies exaggerated out of fear, that does not mean they invented the existence of supernatural Giants in the land. Deuteronomy 9:2 calls the Anakim “a people great and tall,” and Joshua 11:21-22 treats them as real tribes whom Joshua fought.
Sixth, the Sethite view can explain moral compromise, but it does not adequately explain the Nephilim, the “mighty men of old,” the later memory of Giant tribes, or the New Testament references to angels who sinned and left their proper domain. Ordinary intermarriage between two human lines does not account for the way the story is described from the old to the new testament.
Seventh, the supernatural reading does not weaken human responsibility. Genesis 6:5 says mankind was corrupt and rightly judged. Scripture can hold human and angelic sin together, as it does in Genesis 3 and throughout Revelation with both the Devil and his angels judged for their sins.
Lastly, any interpretation of Genesis 6 must seriously account for 2 Peter 2 and Jude 6-7. A reading that ignores those New Testament commentaries is incomplete at best.
The 'might men of old' is simply a description of warlords and strongmen, aka imperialists, conquerors, and tyrants. It is not a supernatural designation of any sort.
An angel is just a mailman or letter carrier, or someone who brings news. It is not a supernatural designation. It means a messenger.
The churches are the messengers. A church in apostasy is fallen. A church joined to the state is a nephilim giant, or tyrant.
I began a comment in response to this subject of the Nephilim but it quickly became a long rant so I won't post all of it here. Instead I'll post a short excerpt and it you want to read the rest look for my blog.
Congregations of people are the 'nephilim'. Nephilim is used as a corporate term for groups. Nephilim is not a biological identity. Nephilim are the produce of a spiritual union of different corporate bodies, not a hybrid organism as claimed by Jewish fables.
Nephilim is described as 'giants' because in this context and nuance it is groups of tyrants or 'mighty men', aka imperialists who want to use religion and politics to rule over others, often for ill. The imperial model is the 'mighty man' or tyrant, or the big tall tree in Eden (the Assyrian as a cedar).
The Christian churches and Christian nations are the fallen angels or nephilim. They started out as 'sons of god' and 'took wives' of the daughters of men (kings, nations) and produced 'offspring' of the Holy Roman Empire variety. The Papacy is the King of Assyria, and Nebuchadnezzar, and the King of Tyre, and the Pharaoh of Egypt. The Nephilim are the many imperial nations produced by the union of church and state, church and corporation, and corporation and state, as these forms of governance are the 'living creatures' in the 'garden' of Eden.
The Church denominations and the many political organizations in bed with them and the societies they engender are the 'nephilim' families.
In the Greek 'creature' is sometime rendered by 'ktisis' which means an institution, or court, or body of a government of a nation.
"Preach the gospel to every living creature (nation)."
This is connected with Israel’s fear of entering the land, not merely fear of political institutions. Numbers 13:32-33 says the spies saw men of “great size,” and then adds, “we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.” The text itself presents physical stature as part of the issue. “Great and tall” may imply power, but it cannot be reduced to political symbolism.
Second, “mighty men” can include warlords or tyrants, but Genesis 6:4 says more than that. The text connects them with the time “when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them.” The issue is not whether they became violent rulers; the issue is their origin in the abnormal union described immediately before.
Third, “angel” can mean “messenger,” but context determines the kind of messenger. Human messengers exist, but Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7, 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6 are not talking about postal workers, pastors, or church denominations. Job’s “sons of God” present themselves before Yahweh in the heavenly court. Job 38:7 speaks of “sons of God” shouting for joy when the foundations of the earth were laid, before human churches or nations existed.
Fourth, 2 Peter 2:4-5 and Jude 6-7 cannot be made to mean apostate churches without importing a later allegory into the text. Peter says God “did not spare angels when they sinned,” then immediately mentions Noah and the ancient world. Jude says these angels “did not keep their own domain, but deserted their proper dwelling place.” That is not a description of church-state relations. It is a description of beings abandoning their appointed sphere.
Fifth, the claim that Nephilim are “church denominations” or “corporate bodies” is anachronistic. Genesis 6, Numbers 13, Deuteronomy 9, and Joshua 11 are not discussing the Holy Roman Empire, the Papacy, corporations, or modern nation-states. Those ideas are being read back into the text thousands of years later.
Sixth, Mark 16:15 does not support this corporate reading. “Preach the gospel to every creature” does not mean “preach to every government institution.” In the New Testament, ktisis can mean creation, creature, or created order depending on context. Mark 16:15 means the gospel is to be proclaimed universally among mankind, not to abstract political bodies.
Lastly, this interpretation replaces exegesis with allegory. It takes concrete biblical terms—sons of God, daughters of men, angels, Nephilim, Anakim—and turns them into symbols for churches, empires, corporations, and political systems. That may be imaginative, but it is not what Genesis 6, Numbers 13, 2 Peter 2, or Jude actually say. The more natural reading remains that Genesis 6 describes a real transgression by heavenly beings, producing extraordinary offspring associated with the Nephilim and mighty men of old.
I agree that the Nephilim that the Israelites saw were large in stature, like Og. But not 450 feet, or 4500 feet tall. Do you have a preferred text there in 1 Enoch, or how do you deal with those figures?
Just like there is no biblical god-man, I don't think the Bible presents that there are/were angel men. People are getting that from about 4 less clear verses. But big exegetical claims require big, clear (not assemble from a clue here and there) biblical evidence.
On Job, allow me to repost this comment by Todd Morrell:
Do the sons of God in Job 1, 2, and 38 have to be angels?
God asks Job, “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth... When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4,7). The language is symbolic and directional. The text does not say that all the stars sang together, but specifically the morning stars. Morning stars are viewed from the perspective of the earth. They are the final bright stars visible before the full light of day appears. The imagery points toward those anticipating greater light.
The angel in Daniel uses the same heavenly imagery to describe men: “And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.” (Daniel 12:3). Scripture already establishes that stars can symbolize those who guide others toward God. The language does not require angels.
The sons of God in Job 38 are more likely those seeking alignment with God after creation. Wisdom coming from God would have been a source of rejoicing. The context of Job 38 is not focused on the material construction of the universe, but on the wisdom, order, and boundaries established within it. The rejoicing fits those recognizing and embracing that order.
The phrase “sons of God” itself does not automatically mean angels. Throughout scripture, “son” language often identifies likeness, direction, or alignment. “Sons of Belial,” “children of wisdom,” and “sons of the prophets” are not statements of biology. They identify what a person is joined to and reflects.
This becomes important in Job 1 and 2. “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.” (Job 1:6). The wording separates Satan from the sons of God category. The text does not present him as one of the sons of God, but as one coming among them. If the gathering were simply a meeting of angels, there would be no reason to distinguish him this way.
The phrase “present themselves before the Lord” also reflects covenantal and judicial language. Israel was commanded to appear before the Lord at appointed times. The scene resembles accountability and presentation before a king rather than a description of angelic beings assembled in heaven. Satan enters among the assembly, but remains distinct from it.
This also explains why the adversary’s role in Job is primarily accusatory. He stands in opposition to the purpose of the gathering itself. Rather than being presented as a faithful servant among equals, he appears as one intruding into an assembly ordered toward God.
Job itself repeatedly uses symbolic and directional imagery when God speaks. Leviathan is called “king over all the children of pride.” (Job 41:34). Yet no proud man literally calls Leviathan his king. The statement functions symbolically, identifying Leviathan as representing the governing nature of pride itself. The same pattern appears throughout Job. Natural imagery is used to express spiritual realities, authority structures, and conditions within man. Because of this, the presence of heavenly imagery in Job does not require the subjects being described to be angels.
The Nephilim/Anakim need only be understood as unusually large and formidable, not mythical skyscraper-sized beings.
Second, I agree that “big exegetical claims require clear biblical evidence.” But the Sethite view is not built on clearer evidence. Genesis 6 never says “sons of Seth,” “daughters of Cain,” “godly line,” or “covenant community.” Those categories are imported into the text. By contrast, the exact phrase “sons of God” in Job is naturally heavenly-court language, and Genesis 6 uses the same kind of terminology.
Third, Job 38:7 is very difficult to make human. God asks Job:
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth… when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
The scene is at Genesis creation itself. Humans did not yet exist.
Daniel 12:3 says righteous people will shine “like the brightness of the expanse,” but that does not mean Job 38 is about human beings. Symbolic star-language can be used for humans in one context and heavenly beings in another. Context decides.
Fourth, Job 1–2 also reads most naturally as a heavenly council scene. The “sons of God” present themselves before Yahweh, and Satan comes among them. The fact that Satan, or an adversary is distinguished from them does not prove they are human; it simply marks him as the adversarial figure in the assembly. The scene moves immediately from that heavenly presentation to events on earth involving Job. That is not the normal language of Israelites gathering at a feast or temple assembly.
Fifth, “angel” can mean “messenger,” but context determines whether the messenger is human or heavenly. In 2 Peter 2:4, the angels who sinned are cast into gloomy restraint. In Jude 6, they “did not keep their own domain, but deserted their proper dwelling place.” That does not sound like human preachers, churches, or political institutions. Jude then compares the sin with Sodom’s pursuit of “strange flesh,” which strongly suggests a transgression of proper created boundaries.
Sixth, I am not arguing for “god-men” in the Trinitarian sense, nor for a divine-human incarnation parallel. There is no biblical God-man. Jesus is the one human Messiah, the Son of God, not Yahweh Himself. But that does not rule out a separate category of rebellious heavenly beings transgressing boundaries in Genesis 6. Scripture already teaches heavenly beings exist and can rebel.
Seventh, the political/typological reading may have some application when speaking about empires, tyrants, or corrupt religious systems, but it should not replace the original meaning of Genesis 6. Turning the Nephilim into church denominations, corporations, or church-state unions is anachronistic. Genesis 6 is not about the Holy Roman Empire or modern institutions. Those may be later analogies, but they are not the text’s original referent.
By this logic then every prophecy of Christ and his Church is also anachronistic. The earliest mentions of God's final kingdom in the end of the ages would be many centuries *more* anachronistic than the romish church-state world order.
By definition prophecy is anachronism. It is a mention of a thing or event long before the thing or event exists. When done by uninspired men it is fraud or false imagination. When done by true prophets it is prophecy. How does casting anachronim at the subject of prophecy bolster your claims?
You treat Genesis as a literal history of visible things. Paul counters this interpretation a bit caustically:
Paul on mishandling the creation story
https://blog.nightbulb.net/nephilim-giants-no-the-apostle-paul-condemns-teachers-who-interpret-genesis-creation-and-nephilim-literally/
The following article examines the symbolic usages in the book of Genesis.
Nephilim as Giant Monsters and other Jewish Fables that Turn from the Truth
https://blog.nightbulb.net/nephilim-as-giant-monsters-and-other-jewish-fables-that-turn-from-the-truth/
What say you of heavenly humans, then? Are they not messengers sent from heaven?
" And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:" [Ephesians 2:6]
Prophecy is when Scripture itself points forward to a later fulfillment. Typology is when later inspired Scripture identifies earlier people/events as patterns fulfilled later. But saying Genesis 6 is really about churches, corporations, the Papacy, the Holy Roman Empire, or church-state unions is not the same thing. Genesis 6 itself does not say that, and no later biblical writer identifies the Nephilim that way.
By that method, almost anything in Genesis can be made to mean almost anything later in history. That is not exegesis; it is uncontrolled allegory.
The articles you linked explicitly claim that Genesis is not primordial history, that Genesis 1:3 is about Jesus entering the world, that the creation began at the cross, and that Nephilim are churches, nations, governments, corporations, and institutions. Those are enormous claims, but they are asserted rather than demonstrated from the text. 
Ephesians 2:6 does not solve this. Believers are seated “in the heavenly places in Messiah Jesus,” but that does not make them the “sons of God” in Job 38:7 who rejoiced when God laid the foundation of the earth. Job 38 is about the creation of the world; humans were not there. Spiritual status in Christ does not retroactively put the Church at creation.
The same applies to “angel.” Yes, angelos can mean messenger, and context determines whether the messenger is human or heavenly. But Jude 6 says these angels “did not keep their own domain, but deserted their proper dwelling place.” 2 Peter 2:4 says God did not spare angels when they sinned, and then immediately refers to Noah and the ancient world. That context is not about church denominations or political institutions.
Also, Romans 1 does not “condemn teachers who interpret Genesis literally.” Paul says God’s invisible attributes are perceived through the things made, and that idolaters exchanged the glory of God for images of creatures. That is a condemnation of idolatry, not of believing Genesis describes real creation, real people, or real events.
So yes, Scripture contains prophecy and typology. But prophecy must be grounded in the text or in inspired interpretation. Without that control, “Nephilim = church-state corporations” is simply a private allegory imposed on Genesis 6. The more natural reading remains that Genesis 6 describes a real pre-Flood transgression involving the “sons of God,” connected by Peter and Jude with angels who sinned and abandoned their proper domain.