I thrill at how you have rendered Genesis 6 with a rare combination of reverence and nerve: reverence for what the text actually says, and nerve enough to refuse the modern addiction to spectacle. You have managed to honor the spiritual, supernatural realm without allowing it to become an escape hatch from the Word's revelatory burden.
What I find so relevant in your study, and frankly prescient for our moment, is your insistence that Scripture’s moral architecture is often more confronting than our Christianized 'mythologies.'
Your expertise in tracing the Torah’s cadence, "they saw," "they desired," "they took," and you showed us how private appetite becomes public policy when power baptizes entitlement. That is not merely an ancient problem. That is a diagnostic of how civilizations collapse when “men of name” become the measure of what is right.
I also love the way you encourage the reader to make certain that the text need not become more entertaining to feel “deep.” In an age where celebrity is treated as moral authority, where might is confused with righteousness, and where desire is routinely recast as virtue, this reading sounds with warning, because it is.
Thank you for encouraging us to read Genesis 6 without fog and fear. You did not shrink from the supernatural; you just refused to let sensationalism eclipse the Holy Spirit’s intended thrust: God is grieved when the world rewards predation, and God will act.
My first comment is to express my gratitude for your clarification of the text, using tovot. This is much more useful in understanding the emotion behind the action.
thank you Sergio for digging into Genesis 6 and focusing on it for its paramount lessons, rather than focusing upon concepts that no one can really know, let alone put into practice in their walk with Christ.
if it turns out that the Nephilim do wind up being some kind of hybrid offspring between fallen angels & humans, i would imagine that this feat could have only occurred through some kind of DNA manipulation in which humans have only begun to scratch the surface in recent biological technology — as it appears in all that's been created, kinds only reproduce after their own kinds.
i'm thankful to read a study on this chapter which doesn't focus upon that which seems to only provide yet another thing to frivolously argue about.
it's odd to me -- I don't quite understand it -- but since I graduated from many happy years of being a Christian, and became an even happier messianic, I have a greater contentment with simply "not knowing" a number of things -- things that Christians have, at times, gravely debated. I did suggest a few possibilities in this thread but am not going to insist that others adopt any of them. There are views I trust more than others, and views i accept and rely on -- but in quite a few aspects of scripture I take the happily unworried view that "when Messiah comes, He will explain everything to us." I think in this life we do the best we can, and expect that each of us will need to be straightened out in at least 1 or 2 things :-)
right now we see-- but through a glass, darkly....❤️
Well said. The Word of our Elohim is really very simple, yet we tend to over-complicate it until it says something totally different from what was intended. Simple, yet profound. It makes a difference when we shut down all of the conspiracy theories attached to these verses! Well said, Sergio!
Keith — thank you for the kind words, brother. I appreciate that!
And yes… great question. I’m curious too.
Sorin, if you’re willing, I’d genuinely like to hear how you frame the “mechanics” piece without drifting into speculation. The text is clear on what happened and what it produced (taking, renown, violence), but it’s pretty quiet on the “how.” [Gen 6:2; Gen 6:4; Gen 6:11–13]
No pressure to over-explain—just interested in how you keep it text-first and beyond reproach.
I have wrestled with these verses back and forth until recently. Through the years I tried hard to see the Nephilim as fallen angels as many of my favorite Bible Teachers and brethren said they were. But I never could. Finally I decided just wait on GOD for the answer that was several years ago.
As we know The Body is so divided over exactly who or what these Nephilim represent.
Thank GOD our knowing or not knowing is not a salvific issue!
Yet GOD has it recorded for us to know.
Born in America English is my native and only language and even that I never mastered grammar and all the rules.
As far as Hebrew and Greek I am at your mercy.
Two weeks ago I woke up from a good night of sleep the very first thought pop in my head was the elitists class are the Nephilim. They have always been among us before and after the flood.
Waking up like that is not my custom I immediately believed GOD had finally answered my pray and was overwhelm with peace and love.
I love how you stated it. I agree! Thank you for taking the time to comment ( and ... you might be onto something bigger - I am thinking bloodlines ) hmmmm
The Bible itself does not support the idea that the Nephilim are extraterrestrial beings. When we interpret passages about the Nephilim, the focus within the tradition has been on understanding them in the context of Genesis and the worldview of the ancient authors, rather than importing modern concepts of aliens.The story of the Nephilim reminds us that human pride and rebellion can have destructive consequences, and that God’s guidance and grace are necessary to navigate a fallen world. It’s a powerful call to reflect on our own choices and the ways we can align our lives with what is good and just.
Dear Sergio, it is so exhilarating to have my categories challenged by your Spirit led rationale. I have studied Gen 6 quite a bit and I think what you wrote here is spot-on what the moral of the story is. But in my humble opinion, even though this may be the main intention of the writer to teach us, I don't think we need to take away the fact that Benei HaElohim are real beings native to the heavenly realm. Pay attention to the "ha", THE Elohim not just elohim as in Exodus 21:6. Afterall, the story does address the physicality of what happened because the flesh is mentioned God is striving against and also the remedy is a flood which destroyed the flesh, not the wickedness of men in power.
The benei haElohim (one category) entered the benot haAdam (human category) and they gave birth to giants. You cannot deny the physical act of extra-human un-natural conception, it's in the text: אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָבֹ֜אוּ בְּנֵ֤י הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־בְּנֹ֣ות הָֽאָדָ֔ם וְיָלְד֖וּ לָהֶ֑ם. This is a breach from one estate (heavenly) into the physical womb of human females and the result was an abomination in the flesh. See Num 13:33. (I personally believe they managed to cross the speed of light frontier from invisible to physical, but this my "modern addiction to spectacle" )
This breach of their estate as both Peter and Jude explain, earned them chains in Tartarus. Also, this breach attempt also goes from humans to malachim as the men of Sodom demonstrated. Then there is the virgin birth which is legal conception.
As doctor Heiser used to say, humanity alone is not capable to corrupt the universe, they had partnered with other fallen spiritual beings represented by the snake in the garden.
So, yes these benei haElohim do come with ideas, mental strongholds (מַחְשָׁבוֹת) and systems of using power (physical and social) to abuse the vulnerable, and any human that "marry" these ideas to make a name for themselves will inherit the same judgment. The moral of the story for us today is just as you have written, and if we follow the Messiah we will use our power to serve not violate, give and not take and allow Him to give us a name as He sees fit.
To your question: what if Genesis is describing not a supernatural invasion, but a moral one?
I propose: what if Genesis is describing a moral invasion using the story of a supernatural one?
Sorin — thank you. I really respect how you’re holding both the moral thrust and the supernatural possibility without turning it into spectacle.
On “ha-” in הָאֱלֹהִים: I agree it matters, but I’m hesitant to treat the article as an airtight ontological lock. Hebrew doesn’t always work that way, and the chapter’s own emphasis leans hard toward moral collapse and violence. [Gen 6:5; Gen 6:11–13]
On “flesh” (בָּשָׂר) and the flood: I’m not denying physicality in the narrative—entering, bearing, offspring is real language. I’m just cautious about jumping from “physical” to “hybrid taxonomy,” because Genesis itself pivots to gibborim / men of name as the social outcome. [Gen 6:4; Gen 6:12–13]
On Num 13:33: relevant, yes—but it’s also a fear-shaped report, so I hold it with a lighter grip as “taxonomy.” [Num 13:32–33]
So your perspective lands with me: however, even if there’s a supernatural backdrop, Torah’s pastoral aim is still to expose how “taking” replaces covenant and violence becomes normal. Either way, the reader should leave more convicted than entertained.
I find that the Benei haElohim is pretty airtight if you look at all the places it is used in the Hebrew bible as members of the heavenly realm as many witnesses declare. They appear in Job 1:6 as well as 38:7 and Deut 32.8LXX. If they are human sons why mention daughters of Adam as if they could take any other wives? Also, gibor is also understood as more than human warrior, a super-geber like Nimrod. But anyways, I do not see what my view takes away from the point you are making, other than strip the bible from it's supernatural nature.
Num 13:33 is fear shaped but that doesn't prove the giants they saw were not real, they also claimed the fruits were giant and they brought some to prove. Also if they were not real, then king Og's bed was not really huge at over 13' nor Goliath was that big of a deal to kill.
If you devalue the supernatural breach between the heavenly beings and human females you also have to devalue the supernatural conception of Yeshua. Think about that.
I do not find that taking the supernatural view of Gen 6 is entertainment. It should convict us to be sober and vigilant because this is the nature of the enemies of our souls.
Sorin — appreciate the pushback. And I hear you: I’m not trying to strip Scripture of the supernatural. I’m trying to keep this paragraph from becoming a mechanics lab when the narrator is pressing a moral indictment.
A couple thoughts to hold side-by-side:
• Yes, b’nei ha’elohim shows up in Job in a heavenly-court setting. Fair point. But Torah also uses elohim language in legal contexts for human authorities/judges, so I’m cautious calling the phrase “airtight” in every context. The question for me is: what does Genesis 6 emphasize as it tells the story—ontology, or the “saw… took… chose” pattern and the resulting violence? [Gen 6:2; Gen 6:11–13]
• On “why mention daughters of Adam?” That’s a good question. But it could function as a status contrast (powerful class vs. ordinary humanity), not only a species contrast. The text can be read either way, which is why I keep the weight on what’s explicit. [Gen 6:1–2]
• On giants/Og/Goliath: agreed—big humans can be real, and Israel faced real enemies. But that still doesn’t settle whether Genesis 6 requires an extra-human procreation mechanism, because the passage itself doesn’t pause to define Nephilim biologically; it pivots to renown/strongmen culture and then to corruption/violence. [Gen 6:4; Gen 6:11–13]
• On your Yeshua point: I don’t follow the “if not Gen 6 supernatural breach, then virgin birth is devalued” move. The virgin birth is explicitly framed as God’s act, not a category of beings crossing estates by default. Genesis 6, whatever it is, is far less explicit about the how. That difference matters. [Luke 1:34–35]
So I’d put it like this: even if your supernatural reading is right, the passage still won’t let us miss the real scandal — men taking, choosing without boundary, building “name,” and filling the earth with violence. That’s the part I’m unwilling to let any interpretation soften. [Gen 6:2; Gen 6:4; Gen 6:11–13]
Thank you Sergio for engaging my points. I agree, in the end nothing is perfectly clear, we can always say that maybe it means this or maybe that about spiritual matters. We only see as through a glass darkly.
I did not try to take anything away from all you said or soften your interpretation. I thought I can add my understanding to yours because you can draw the same conclusions you mentioned.
As far as my "move" goes, I see the virgin conception of Yeshua as the Sprit Elohim entering a favored bat Adam as He chose and conceiving a son, a Gibor (El-Gibor) as a reversal of Gen 6. But what do I know, it's not airtight so I coud be wrong.
remember Tevye, in Fiddler in the Roof, in discussion with a few other men? Tevye comments, "he's right." Another points out a different aspect & Tevye replies, "he's right!" a 3rd protests, "but they can't both be right!" and after a pause, Tevye announces, "you are also right!" 🤣 LOL
that's how I feel here. I also am enjoying the discussion and can see reasons for accepting both understandings. Indeed, I have been wishing for a place, anywhere but preferably on substack, where I could hear scripture in at least 3 if not 4 nof the 4 levels.
I mean no offense, but I wonder if maybe we are seeing different levels of the same passage?
Recall that each part of Torah/ scripture has 4 levels. "PaRDeS" is the acronym i have heard used to help remember them. Pardes means garden, [in Persian???] & Torah is a delightful garden to our souls.
Surface level is "P'shat", "simple", the most obvious meaning that occurs to a reader. Next level of meaning is "resh", pointing to other scripture or eliciting questions or application. Next level is "dresh", i think that's "word" or "story" -- a more prophetic aspect -- deepest is "Sod", which cannot be perceived without God's help. Forgive me if my explanation is wobbly; I have been without a congregation for a few years now. But one rule of understanding is very firm: the different levels in Torah MUST NOT contradict each other, ever. So within this passage the 4 levels can exist, and even complement one another, but must not contradict.
which is why I hesitate to suggest that maybe the Nephilim were angelic/demonic, as i used to think*. Sergio's reasoning is impressive. If they were spiritual in origin, as i had heard, being the Resh level, that could contradict the simpler "P'shat" level, maybe? 🤔
maybe this was an ancient way of referring to humans. In the Chronicles of Narnia, human males are called "sons of Adam", & females are "daughters of Eve".
(the White Witch was not human.)
perhaps, being still so close to Creation, this was how humans called themselves? seeing as how the 1st human was [later] called a son of God, (Luke 3:38). Only after a few days was the first human divided into male and female components.
*there is a fascinating pattern in scripture that I was delighted to perceive a few years ago: the pattern of God working successfully against ever-increasing odds. ❤️ We see this pattern demonstrated in such threads as God visiting mankind : from a voice calling to them, to His (pre incarnate) Son visiting ("the angel of the Lord" at times like the visitation to Gideon), to Yeshua Himself walking among us (yet somewhat disguised, looking rather ordinary), to Yeshua in a temporary glorified state on the mountain (Mathew 17:1-8), to His resurrected state able to walk through a door, etc.
so what had made me think the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 could be supernatural predators, was Yeshua's teaching that the angels of heaven do not marry nor are given in marriage (Mathew 22:30).
He didn't say CANnot -- He said they "DO not", at that time. Maybe they used to ?
the Hebrew word for a spirit was (if I recall correctly) "melech", "messenger", and the ones we call
call langels were "melechim of heaven" because they gladly served and honored YHWH, while the rebellious ones serve haSatan.
We see in scripture that in the beginning of human history, interactions with melechim were more obvious and extended than now -- I think it was Enoch who described how certain entities taught mankind certain skills; which may explain the astounding buildings we can still see in places, & evidence of surgeries on certain mummies....
even during the days of Job our accuser used to freely come and go before God's throne; but that privilege came to an end and he was thrown out (Isaiah 14:12-17, Luke 10:18). Indeed haSatan's freewheeling wickedness began to be hampered even before Messiah's triumph, as Messiah set free many captives of demons and even His students began to do so :-)
we know that from the very beginning, haSatan has tried to eliminate the line of messiah or at least compromise our DNA so messiah was not fully human (& thus could only partly redeem mankind).
so when I read the Genesis 6 passage, I remembered the words of Messiah and wondered if at that time, maybe demons/fallen melechim did seize and ravish human women? and later God forbade it? it could explain the reference to some evil beings that are actually kept in chains because they refused to stay in their assigned lanes (Jude 8).
Kristina, what a great analogy — it made me smile.
Ha, alot to unpack here, just my perspective...
PaRDeS terms: it’s usually P’shat / Remez / Derash / Sod (not “resh/dresh”). And the point you made is the important one: any deeper reading can’t contradict the plain sense — it has to sit on top of it, not erase it.
Mal’akh (מַלְאָךְ) is “messenger” (plural mal’akhim). melekh (מֶלֶךְ) is “king.” Easy mix-up, but it matters if we’re being text-first.
My perspective on your “different levels” question: yes, Genesis 6 can be read with multiple layers as long as p’shat still carries the interpretive weight. And in this chapter the p’shat weight is hard to miss: saw → desired → took, then the fruit: corruption and violence. [Gen 6:2; Gen 6:11–13] So even if someone holds a “heavenly beings” framework at a remez/sod level, it can’t be used to dodge the moral indictment the chapter itself states.
Matthew 22:30: I agree with your caution, “they do not” isn’t the same as “they cannot.” But it’s still a thin reed to build a confident historical claim on. It’s a clue, not a blueprint.
Jude reference: the “kept in chains / did not keep their proper domain” line is Jude 6 (not 8). That does intersect the wider conversation, but it still doesn’t remove our obligation to let Genesis 6 speak in its own voice first. IMO
I’m with you on wanting a space where we can talk p’shat and wrestle with remez/derash carefully — without letting “mystery” replace exegesis.
Your comment is a reminder that reverence isn’t choosing the more spectacular option; reverence is refusing to force the text to carry what we want it to say.
Thank you for this Kristina for this comment, I appreciate you brought such good points to our conversation. The word of God is much too complex for our understanding to capture it's multi-dimensional structures at once. The Jewish sages are content to leave contradicting concepts in tension while Christians reject each other unless in perfect agreement. What a shame.
However, I do think that western Christianity is in error to dismiss the importance of spiritual entities interacting with the physical world. Too many instances where these beings appear physically in the bible, weather eating with Abraham, or stirring sexual desires in Sodom or wrestling with Yaacov, or angels being entertained as human, etc. There are many classes of heavenly beings in the bible: territorial princes (principalities), powers, rulers of darkness, evil spirits, cherubim, seraphim, archangels. They may have physical bodies or transform into them or inhabit (possess) human bodies. We are told that Yeshua is a spiritual being (haElohim) that "tabernacled" into a physical human body, then transformed back into a human/spiritual hybrid who sits on God's throne. There is a natural body and a spiritual body (1Cor 15:44) and we all hope that we will experience the transformation from one to the other. Why can it not be possible for benei haElohim to transform in the opposite direction? Why is this so hard to imagine?
This is not spectacle as it has been insinuated in Sergio's article, or we make little of the public spectacle Yeshua made when He disarmed these wicked powers and authorities triumphing over them by the cross. Col 2:15
Sorin — I appreciate the thoughtful pushback. And just so we’re not talking past each other, please reread my opening disclaimer. I explicitly said this isn’t a “debunk the supernatural” piece and I’m not trying to flatten Scripture into naturalism. [Exod 14; 2 Kgs 6:17]
Where I’m drawing the line is narrower: the fact that spiritual beings appear physically elsewhere doesn’t automatically settle Genesis 6’s specific mechanics. The text doesn’t explain the “how,” and I’m trying to be careful not to speak loudly where Scripture is quiet.
What the chapter does emphasize—repeatedly—is the verbs and the fruit: they saw… they took… whom they chose, and the result is corruption and violence filling the earth. That’s the narrator’s weight. [Gen 6:2; Gen 6:11–13]
So if your supernatural layer is right, I can live with that—but it still has to serve the passage’s moral indictment, not replace it.
Sergio, you mentioned those points ad nauseam. I get it, they saw... they took and all that entails. I'm going to repeat myself also ad nauseum: I'm not taking from the moral indictment you clearly made.
My push back is against the other point you made, that reading Gen 6 as spirits crossing into the physical and procreating giants is: "importing spectacle into the passage" and "sensationalizing it", and all that means is getting an “ancient cosmic thriller” that doesn’t touch your life". I think you are wrong about that, I think is essential to understand the reality of heavenly inhabitants and how they operate.
Then you claimed that benei haElohim are just elohim, human rulers. If you understand Hebrew you should know that every word is critical in the Torah. The author could have said some elohim saw... they took etc. There are many elohim but only one haElohim and He is the only one that has sons in the heavenly realm. There are more than three witnesses in the Tanach of that expression that are explicitly shown to be heavenly beings.
Then you dismissed the super-natural condition of nephilim: hemmah ha-gibborim asher me'olam, anshei ha-shem (המה הגברים אשר מעולם אנשי השם) You conveniently forgot to mention these gibborim are from 'olam so clearly not just humans as you claimed.
None of the things I am pushing against take away from the points you made and I respect you as an elder so I will retire. I have learned a lot from you and look forward to your insights. May the Lord continue to give us wisdom and understanding.
Sergio, thank you for publishing this.
I thrill at how you have rendered Genesis 6 with a rare combination of reverence and nerve: reverence for what the text actually says, and nerve enough to refuse the modern addiction to spectacle. You have managed to honor the spiritual, supernatural realm without allowing it to become an escape hatch from the Word's revelatory burden.
What I find so relevant in your study, and frankly prescient for our moment, is your insistence that Scripture’s moral architecture is often more confronting than our Christianized 'mythologies.'
Your expertise in tracing the Torah’s cadence, "they saw," "they desired," "they took," and you showed us how private appetite becomes public policy when power baptizes entitlement. That is not merely an ancient problem. That is a diagnostic of how civilizations collapse when “men of name” become the measure of what is right.
I also love the way you encourage the reader to make certain that the text need not become more entertaining to feel “deep.” In an age where celebrity is treated as moral authority, where might is confused with righteousness, and where desire is routinely recast as virtue, this reading sounds with warning, because it is.
Thank you for encouraging us to read Genesis 6 without fog and fear. You did not shrink from the supernatural; you just refused to let sensationalism eclipse the Holy Spirit’s intended thrust: God is grieved when the world rewards predation, and God will act.
Shalom v’shalvah, my brother.
Wendell Hutchins II
Doc, I love how you see the depth in this—it genuinely makes my heart smile. Thank you for taking the time to read it. I appreciate you, Doc!
Todah, my friend. Todah..
My first comment is to express my gratitude for your clarification of the text, using tovot. This is much more useful in understanding the emotion behind the action.
Thank you for taking the time to read it, Teresa. I really appreciate you.
Thank you for your great topics and sharing with us.
I so appreciate you and your ability to bring clarity to the Word. Thank you!
Brian, I always appreciate how you encourage people and chime in. It's a beautiful thing. Thank you for taking the time to read.
thank you Sergio for digging into Genesis 6 and focusing on it for its paramount lessons, rather than focusing upon concepts that no one can really know, let alone put into practice in their walk with Christ.
if it turns out that the Nephilim do wind up being some kind of hybrid offspring between fallen angels & humans, i would imagine that this feat could have only occurred through some kind of DNA manipulation in which humans have only begun to scratch the surface in recent biological technology — as it appears in all that's been created, kinds only reproduce after their own kinds.
i'm thankful to read a study on this chapter which doesn't focus upon that which seems to only provide yet another thing to frivolously argue about.
What a beautiful day it will be when all the mysteries are clarified, and we finally see how wrong we were about the things we thought mattered.
I love your perspective, you nailed it 🙏
it's odd to me -- I don't quite understand it -- but since I graduated from many happy years of being a Christian, and became an even happier messianic, I have a greater contentment with simply "not knowing" a number of things -- things that Christians have, at times, gravely debated. I did suggest a few possibilities in this thread but am not going to insist that others adopt any of them. There are views I trust more than others, and views i accept and rely on -- but in quite a few aspects of scripture I take the happily unworried view that "when Messiah comes, He will explain everything to us." I think in this life we do the best we can, and expect that each of us will need to be straightened out in at least 1 or 2 things :-)
right now we see-- but through a glass, darkly....❤️
Well said. The Word of our Elohim is really very simple, yet we tend to over-complicate it until it says something totally different from what was intended. Simple, yet profound. It makes a difference when we shut down all of the conspiracy theories attached to these verses! Well said, Sergio!
Sergio, so grateful to read your take on this passage, which I humbly think is spot on.
I've never believed the sons of god had come from heaven, and although I really appreciate Sorins comment above...
I ask him to explain how a spiritual being automatically becomes a physical being fully equipped to procreate?
that can only come from God, and can only come from being of the human genus.
Beings do not procreate outside of their own genus.
And thank you again, sergio, for the moral clarity that this passage brings, especially in the days in which we find ourselves.
very, very relevant to what we see happening.
God bless
Keith — thank you for the kind words, brother. I appreciate that!
And yes… great question. I’m curious too.
Sorin, if you’re willing, I’d genuinely like to hear how you frame the “mechanics” piece without drifting into speculation. The text is clear on what happened and what it produced (taking, renown, violence), but it’s pretty quiet on the “how.” [Gen 6:2; Gen 6:4; Gen 6:11–13]
No pressure to over-explain—just interested in how you keep it text-first and beyond reproach.
Dear Brother,
Turning 19 in JESUS soon!
I have wrestled with these verses back and forth until recently. Through the years I tried hard to see the Nephilim as fallen angels as many of my favorite Bible Teachers and brethren said they were. But I never could. Finally I decided just wait on GOD for the answer that was several years ago.
As we know The Body is so divided over exactly who or what these Nephilim represent.
Thank GOD our knowing or not knowing is not a salvific issue!
Yet GOD has it recorded for us to know.
Born in America English is my native and only language and even that I never mastered grammar and all the rules.
As far as Hebrew and Greek I am at your mercy.
Two weeks ago I woke up from a good night of sleep the very first thought pop in my head was the elitists class are the Nephilim. They have always been among us before and after the flood.
Waking up like that is not my custom I immediately believed GOD had finally answered my pray and was overwhelm with peace and love.
I love how you stated it. I agree! Thank you for taking the time to comment ( and ... you might be onto something bigger - I am thinking bloodlines ) hmmmm
The Bible itself does not support the idea that the Nephilim are extraterrestrial beings. When we interpret passages about the Nephilim, the focus within the tradition has been on understanding them in the context of Genesis and the worldview of the ancient authors, rather than importing modern concepts of aliens.The story of the Nephilim reminds us that human pride and rebellion can have destructive consequences, and that God’s guidance and grace are necessary to navigate a fallen world. It’s a powerful call to reflect on our own choices and the ways we can align our lives with what is good and just.
Dear Sergio, it is so exhilarating to have my categories challenged by your Spirit led rationale. I have studied Gen 6 quite a bit and I think what you wrote here is spot-on what the moral of the story is. But in my humble opinion, even though this may be the main intention of the writer to teach us, I don't think we need to take away the fact that Benei HaElohim are real beings native to the heavenly realm. Pay attention to the "ha", THE Elohim not just elohim as in Exodus 21:6. Afterall, the story does address the physicality of what happened because the flesh is mentioned God is striving against and also the remedy is a flood which destroyed the flesh, not the wickedness of men in power.
The benei haElohim (one category) entered the benot haAdam (human category) and they gave birth to giants. You cannot deny the physical act of extra-human un-natural conception, it's in the text: אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָבֹ֜אוּ בְּנֵ֤י הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־בְּנֹ֣ות הָֽאָדָ֔ם וְיָלְד֖וּ לָהֶ֑ם. This is a breach from one estate (heavenly) into the physical womb of human females and the result was an abomination in the flesh. See Num 13:33. (I personally believe they managed to cross the speed of light frontier from invisible to physical, but this my "modern addiction to spectacle" )
This breach of their estate as both Peter and Jude explain, earned them chains in Tartarus. Also, this breach attempt also goes from humans to malachim as the men of Sodom demonstrated. Then there is the virgin birth which is legal conception.
As doctor Heiser used to say, humanity alone is not capable to corrupt the universe, they had partnered with other fallen spiritual beings represented by the snake in the garden.
So, yes these benei haElohim do come with ideas, mental strongholds (מַחְשָׁבוֹת) and systems of using power (physical and social) to abuse the vulnerable, and any human that "marry" these ideas to make a name for themselves will inherit the same judgment. The moral of the story for us today is just as you have written, and if we follow the Messiah we will use our power to serve not violate, give and not take and allow Him to give us a name as He sees fit.
To your question: what if Genesis is describing not a supernatural invasion, but a moral one?
I propose: what if Genesis is describing a moral invasion using the story of a supernatural one?
Grace and Peace to you.
Sorin — thank you. I really respect how you’re holding both the moral thrust and the supernatural possibility without turning it into spectacle.
On “ha-” in הָאֱלֹהִים: I agree it matters, but I’m hesitant to treat the article as an airtight ontological lock. Hebrew doesn’t always work that way, and the chapter’s own emphasis leans hard toward moral collapse and violence. [Gen 6:5; Gen 6:11–13]
On “flesh” (בָּשָׂר) and the flood: I’m not denying physicality in the narrative—entering, bearing, offspring is real language. I’m just cautious about jumping from “physical” to “hybrid taxonomy,” because Genesis itself pivots to gibborim / men of name as the social outcome. [Gen 6:4; Gen 6:12–13]
On Num 13:33: relevant, yes—but it’s also a fear-shaped report, so I hold it with a lighter grip as “taxonomy.” [Num 13:32–33]
So your perspective lands with me: however, even if there’s a supernatural backdrop, Torah’s pastoral aim is still to expose how “taking” replaces covenant and violence becomes normal. Either way, the reader should leave more convicted than entertained.
שָׁלוֹם וּבְרָכָה (shalom u’verakhah).
I find that the Benei haElohim is pretty airtight if you look at all the places it is used in the Hebrew bible as members of the heavenly realm as many witnesses declare. They appear in Job 1:6 as well as 38:7 and Deut 32.8LXX. If they are human sons why mention daughters of Adam as if they could take any other wives? Also, gibor is also understood as more than human warrior, a super-geber like Nimrod. But anyways, I do not see what my view takes away from the point you are making, other than strip the bible from it's supernatural nature.
Num 13:33 is fear shaped but that doesn't prove the giants they saw were not real, they also claimed the fruits were giant and they brought some to prove. Also if they were not real, then king Og's bed was not really huge at over 13' nor Goliath was that big of a deal to kill.
If you devalue the supernatural breach between the heavenly beings and human females you also have to devalue the supernatural conception of Yeshua. Think about that.
I do not find that taking the supernatural view of Gen 6 is entertainment. It should convict us to be sober and vigilant because this is the nature of the enemies of our souls.
Sorin — appreciate the pushback. And I hear you: I’m not trying to strip Scripture of the supernatural. I’m trying to keep this paragraph from becoming a mechanics lab when the narrator is pressing a moral indictment.
A couple thoughts to hold side-by-side:
• Yes, b’nei ha’elohim shows up in Job in a heavenly-court setting. Fair point. But Torah also uses elohim language in legal contexts for human authorities/judges, so I’m cautious calling the phrase “airtight” in every context. The question for me is: what does Genesis 6 emphasize as it tells the story—ontology, or the “saw… took… chose” pattern and the resulting violence? [Gen 6:2; Gen 6:11–13]
• On “why mention daughters of Adam?” That’s a good question. But it could function as a status contrast (powerful class vs. ordinary humanity), not only a species contrast. The text can be read either way, which is why I keep the weight on what’s explicit. [Gen 6:1–2]
• On giants/Og/Goliath: agreed—big humans can be real, and Israel faced real enemies. But that still doesn’t settle whether Genesis 6 requires an extra-human procreation mechanism, because the passage itself doesn’t pause to define Nephilim biologically; it pivots to renown/strongmen culture and then to corruption/violence. [Gen 6:4; Gen 6:11–13]
• On your Yeshua point: I don’t follow the “if not Gen 6 supernatural breach, then virgin birth is devalued” move. The virgin birth is explicitly framed as God’s act, not a category of beings crossing estates by default. Genesis 6, whatever it is, is far less explicit about the how. That difference matters. [Luke 1:34–35]
So I’d put it like this: even if your supernatural reading is right, the passage still won’t let us miss the real scandal — men taking, choosing without boundary, building “name,” and filling the earth with violence. That’s the part I’m unwilling to let any interpretation soften. [Gen 6:2; Gen 6:4; Gen 6:11–13]
Thank you Sergio for engaging my points. I agree, in the end nothing is perfectly clear, we can always say that maybe it means this or maybe that about spiritual matters. We only see as through a glass darkly.
I did not try to take anything away from all you said or soften your interpretation. I thought I can add my understanding to yours because you can draw the same conclusions you mentioned.
As far as my "move" goes, I see the virgin conception of Yeshua as the Sprit Elohim entering a favored bat Adam as He chose and conceiving a son, a Gibor (El-Gibor) as a reversal of Gen 6. But what do I know, it's not airtight so I coud be wrong.
This is one of the deepest conversations I’ve had here on Substack, and I love it. Iron sharpens iron!
remember Tevye, in Fiddler in the Roof, in discussion with a few other men? Tevye comments, "he's right." Another points out a different aspect & Tevye replies, "he's right!" a 3rd protests, "but they can't both be right!" and after a pause, Tevye announces, "you are also right!" 🤣 LOL
that's how I feel here. I also am enjoying the discussion and can see reasons for accepting both understandings. Indeed, I have been wishing for a place, anywhere but preferably on substack, where I could hear scripture in at least 3 if not 4 nof the 4 levels.
I mean no offense, but I wonder if maybe we are seeing different levels of the same passage?
Recall that each part of Torah/ scripture has 4 levels. "PaRDeS" is the acronym i have heard used to help remember them. Pardes means garden, [in Persian???] & Torah is a delightful garden to our souls.
Surface level is "P'shat", "simple", the most obvious meaning that occurs to a reader. Next level of meaning is "resh", pointing to other scripture or eliciting questions or application. Next level is "dresh", i think that's "word" or "story" -- a more prophetic aspect -- deepest is "Sod", which cannot be perceived without God's help. Forgive me if my explanation is wobbly; I have been without a congregation for a few years now. But one rule of understanding is very firm: the different levels in Torah MUST NOT contradict each other, ever. So within this passage the 4 levels can exist, and even complement one another, but must not contradict.
which is why I hesitate to suggest that maybe the Nephilim were angelic/demonic, as i used to think*. Sergio's reasoning is impressive. If they were spiritual in origin, as i had heard, being the Resh level, that could contradict the simpler "P'shat" level, maybe? 🤔
maybe this was an ancient way of referring to humans. In the Chronicles of Narnia, human males are called "sons of Adam", & females are "daughters of Eve".
(the White Witch was not human.)
perhaps, being still so close to Creation, this was how humans called themselves? seeing as how the 1st human was [later] called a son of God, (Luke 3:38). Only after a few days was the first human divided into male and female components.
*there is a fascinating pattern in scripture that I was delighted to perceive a few years ago: the pattern of God working successfully against ever-increasing odds. ❤️ We see this pattern demonstrated in such threads as God visiting mankind : from a voice calling to them, to His (pre incarnate) Son visiting ("the angel of the Lord" at times like the visitation to Gideon), to Yeshua Himself walking among us (yet somewhat disguised, looking rather ordinary), to Yeshua in a temporary glorified state on the mountain (Mathew 17:1-8), to His resurrected state able to walk through a door, etc.
so what had made me think the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 could be supernatural predators, was Yeshua's teaching that the angels of heaven do not marry nor are given in marriage (Mathew 22:30).
He didn't say CANnot -- He said they "DO not", at that time. Maybe they used to ?
the Hebrew word for a spirit was (if I recall correctly) "melech", "messenger", and the ones we call
call langels were "melechim of heaven" because they gladly served and honored YHWH, while the rebellious ones serve haSatan.
We see in scripture that in the beginning of human history, interactions with melechim were more obvious and extended than now -- I think it was Enoch who described how certain entities taught mankind certain skills; which may explain the astounding buildings we can still see in places, & evidence of surgeries on certain mummies....
even during the days of Job our accuser used to freely come and go before God's throne; but that privilege came to an end and he was thrown out (Isaiah 14:12-17, Luke 10:18). Indeed haSatan's freewheeling wickedness began to be hampered even before Messiah's triumph, as Messiah set free many captives of demons and even His students began to do so :-)
we know that from the very beginning, haSatan has tried to eliminate the line of messiah or at least compromise our DNA so messiah was not fully human (& thus could only partly redeem mankind).
so when I read the Genesis 6 passage, I remembered the words of Messiah and wondered if at that time, maybe demons/fallen melechim did seize and ravish human women? and later God forbade it? it could explain the reference to some evil beings that are actually kept in chains because they refused to stay in their assigned lanes (Jude 8).
Kristina, what a great analogy — it made me smile.
Ha, alot to unpack here, just my perspective...
PaRDeS terms: it’s usually P’shat / Remez / Derash / Sod (not “resh/dresh”). And the point you made is the important one: any deeper reading can’t contradict the plain sense — it has to sit on top of it, not erase it.
Mal’akh (מַלְאָךְ) is “messenger” (plural mal’akhim). melekh (מֶלֶךְ) is “king.” Easy mix-up, but it matters if we’re being text-first.
My perspective on your “different levels” question: yes, Genesis 6 can be read with multiple layers as long as p’shat still carries the interpretive weight. And in this chapter the p’shat weight is hard to miss: saw → desired → took, then the fruit: corruption and violence. [Gen 6:2; Gen 6:11–13] So even if someone holds a “heavenly beings” framework at a remez/sod level, it can’t be used to dodge the moral indictment the chapter itself states.
Matthew 22:30: I agree with your caution, “they do not” isn’t the same as “they cannot.” But it’s still a thin reed to build a confident historical claim on. It’s a clue, not a blueprint.
Jude reference: the “kept in chains / did not keep their proper domain” line is Jude 6 (not 8). That does intersect the wider conversation, but it still doesn’t remove our obligation to let Genesis 6 speak in its own voice first. IMO
I’m with you on wanting a space where we can talk p’shat and wrestle with remez/derash carefully — without letting “mystery” replace exegesis.
Your comment is a reminder that reverence isn’t choosing the more spectacular option; reverence is refusing to force the text to carry what we want it to say.
Thank you 🙏
Thank you for this Kristina for this comment, I appreciate you brought such good points to our conversation. The word of God is much too complex for our understanding to capture it's multi-dimensional structures at once. The Jewish sages are content to leave contradicting concepts in tension while Christians reject each other unless in perfect agreement. What a shame.
However, I do think that western Christianity is in error to dismiss the importance of spiritual entities interacting with the physical world. Too many instances where these beings appear physically in the bible, weather eating with Abraham, or stirring sexual desires in Sodom or wrestling with Yaacov, or angels being entertained as human, etc. There are many classes of heavenly beings in the bible: territorial princes (principalities), powers, rulers of darkness, evil spirits, cherubim, seraphim, archangels. They may have physical bodies or transform into them or inhabit (possess) human bodies. We are told that Yeshua is a spiritual being (haElohim) that "tabernacled" into a physical human body, then transformed back into a human/spiritual hybrid who sits on God's throne. There is a natural body and a spiritual body (1Cor 15:44) and we all hope that we will experience the transformation from one to the other. Why can it not be possible for benei haElohim to transform in the opposite direction? Why is this so hard to imagine?
This is not spectacle as it has been insinuated in Sergio's article, or we make little of the public spectacle Yeshua made when He disarmed these wicked powers and authorities triumphing over them by the cross. Col 2:15
Sorin — I appreciate the thoughtful pushback. And just so we’re not talking past each other, please reread my opening disclaimer. I explicitly said this isn’t a “debunk the supernatural” piece and I’m not trying to flatten Scripture into naturalism. [Exod 14; 2 Kgs 6:17]
Where I’m drawing the line is narrower: the fact that spiritual beings appear physically elsewhere doesn’t automatically settle Genesis 6’s specific mechanics. The text doesn’t explain the “how,” and I’m trying to be careful not to speak loudly where Scripture is quiet.
What the chapter does emphasize—repeatedly—is the verbs and the fruit: they saw… they took… whom they chose, and the result is corruption and violence filling the earth. That’s the narrator’s weight. [Gen 6:2; Gen 6:11–13]
So if your supernatural layer is right, I can live with that—but it still has to serve the passage’s moral indictment, not replace it.
Sergio, you mentioned those points ad nauseam. I get it, they saw... they took and all that entails. I'm going to repeat myself also ad nauseum: I'm not taking from the moral indictment you clearly made.
My push back is against the other point you made, that reading Gen 6 as spirits crossing into the physical and procreating giants is: "importing spectacle into the passage" and "sensationalizing it", and all that means is getting an “ancient cosmic thriller” that doesn’t touch your life". I think you are wrong about that, I think is essential to understand the reality of heavenly inhabitants and how they operate.
Then you claimed that benei haElohim are just elohim, human rulers. If you understand Hebrew you should know that every word is critical in the Torah. The author could have said some elohim saw... they took etc. There are many elohim but only one haElohim and He is the only one that has sons in the heavenly realm. There are more than three witnesses in the Tanach of that expression that are explicitly shown to be heavenly beings.
Then you dismissed the super-natural condition of nephilim: hemmah ha-gibborim asher me'olam, anshei ha-shem (המה הגברים אשר מעולם אנשי השם) You conveniently forgot to mention these gibborim are from 'olam so clearly not just humans as you claimed.
None of the things I am pushing against take away from the points you made and I respect you as an elder so I will retire. I have learned a lot from you and look forward to your insights. May the Lord continue to give us wisdom and understanding.