Greg Koukl is a Christian apologist and founder of Stand to Reason, and in the STRask September 19, 2016 podcast he briefly tackles a caller’s question about Genesis 6 and the Nephilim. In that episode he treats both the “sons of God” and the “Nephilim” as human, not angelic–human hybrids, and concludes that whatever the Nephilim were, they are best understood as human giants or mighty warriors rather than the offspring of fallen angels. He also says this is not a hill he wants to die on: Genesis 6 is, for him, controversial, ambiguous, and theologically peripheral. This article focuses on that single STRask episode and maps how he frames Genesis 6:1–4, noting how he defines “sons of God” and “Nephilim,” why he objects to angelic procreation, how important he thinks the issue is, and how his views on God and time, prayer, and Sheol sit alongside his brief Genesis 6 comments.
Greg Koukl’s Core Take on Genesis 6
This article summarizes Greg Koukl’s comments in the “Nephilim” segment of the STRask September 19, 2016 podcast, where he answers a listener’s question in a short, conversational format. It is not a comprehensive exposition of everything Koukl has ever said about Genesis 6; it is limited to how he handles this passage in one real-time Q&A setting.
Genesis 6:1–4 introduces three key terms. The “sons of God” (Hebrew: bene elohim) see that the “daughters of man” are attractive and take them as wives. The Nephilim are said to be “on the earth in those days, and also afterward,” described as “mighty men who were of old, the men of renown” (Genesis 6:4). Koukl notes that this is a debated text and opens by stressing the ambiguity: “Genesis 6 is a bit of a controversy about what exactly they were.”
Against that backdrop, he sketches an interpretation many listeners will know: “Some people think these are angelic beings, demons, that came down from heaven and had sexual relations with human women and produced the giants.” He does not spend time critiquing the exegesis of this view; he simply describes it as an option some Christians, including friends of his, affirm.
His own bottom line, however, is that the Nephilim are better read as human giants or “mighty men,” and that the “sons of God” terminology can be handled within a human frame rather than as a literal angel–human coupling. He acknowledges the strangeness of the passage but repeatedly indicates that, for him, its doctrinal stakes are low. As he puts it later, “It’s not that important, and I’m not going to make a big fuss about it, though some friends think these are angelic beings.”
In what follows, we separate three layers:
- What Koukl explicitly says in the episode.
- What can reasonably be inferred from his wording and emphases.
- More speculative connections that go beyond his own remarks; these are clearly marked as such and are included only where they help situate, not evaluate, his approach.
Human Nephilim, Not Angel–Human Hybrids
What Koukl says
When Koukl turns to the identity of the Nephilim in Genesis 6:1–4, he begins with options his listeners may have heard. The first is the angelic-hybrid view: “Some people think these are angelic beings, demons, that came down from heaven and had sexual relations with human women and produced the giants.” That view understands “sons of God” as fallen angels or demons who take visible form, cohabit with human women, and produce a race of giants—the Nephilim—as direct offspring.
He then states his central concern with this reading: “My problem with the idea of them being demons, angelic beings, is they simply do not have the apparatus that can allow them to make babies.” For him, this is the decisive difficulty with taking Genesis 6 as literal angel–human reproduction.
By contrast, he prefers to treat the Nephilim as human figures. In his summary, they are best understood as human giants or mighty warriors already present “in those days,” with the text noting their existence alongside, or loosely connected to, the unions between “sons of God” and “daughters of men.” The phrase “mighty men… men of renown” is, for him, a pointer toward famous, powerful humans in the land. He does not, in this episode, offer a precise label for the “sons of God” (such as “the line of Seth” or “royal figures”), but his overall framing treats them as human rather than angelic.
He also notes that he has friends who hold the angelic view but regards the question as secondary: “It’s not that important, and I’m not going to make a big fuss about it, though some friends think these are angelic beings.”
What we can reasonably infer
From the way he talks, several inferences are fair, even though he does not unpack them in technical terms:
- His preferred reading keeps all the sexual activity in Genesis 6:1–4 within the human sphere. The “sons of God” and “daughters of men” are both understood as human, and the Nephilim are human “mighty men” whose origin does not require a breach between angelic and human realms.
- He is content to let the description “mighty men… men of renown” do most of the work in identifying the Nephilim, without trying to construct a detailed pre-flood mythology around them.
- He is aware that other biblical passages mention very large or formidable human figures; his human reading of the Nephilim leaves room to see at least a broad similarity between those later opponents and the “mighty men” of Genesis 6, without claiming a specific genealogical link.
On this model, Genesis 6:4 is using ancient language for exceptional warriors and leaders rather than introducing a new, ontologically distinct quasi-angelic species.
Speculative extensions (clearly marked)
Some interpreters treat the Nephilim as part of a long-running storyline of spiritual rebellion with implications for later passages about giants and hostile nations. Koukl does not make that move in this episode. Any attempt to plug his human-Nephilim view into those larger “giant” themes therefore goes beyond what he says here and would require additional sources from his broader work.
Why Koukl Finds Angelic Procreation Implausible
What Koukl says
Koukl’s primary objection to the fallen-angel interpretation of Genesis 6 is straightforward: in his view, angels as created by God do not have bodies designed for sexual reproduction. He states: “My problem with the idea of them being demons, angelic beings, is they simply do not have the apparatus that can allow them to make babies.” That single sentence encapsulates his main concern. The issue, as he frames it, is whether angelic manifestations include real reproductive capacity capable of generating viable human offspring, and he answers that in the negative.
He also frames Genesis 6 as a limited, ambiguous passage: “Genesis 6 is a bit of a controversy about what exactly they were.” Combined with his comment that “It’s not that important, and I’m not going to make a big fuss about it, though some friends think these are angelic beings,” this shows both his sense of mystery and his reluctance to turn the text into a battleground.
What we can reasonably infer
From his wording we can infer that:
- He treats angelic beings as non-reproductive by nature. They may appear, speak, and act, but in his view they are not equipped for procreation with humans.
- Any interpretation of Genesis 6 that depends on literal angel–human offspring is, for him, beyond what is metaphysically possible, regardless of how the Hebrew terms could otherwise be parsed.
- Because of this, he is inclined to seek human explanations of the “sons of God” language, even when he does not spell out a single, detailed human identification on air.
Within that framework, the Nephilim remain part of the human story of corruption that leads to the flood, not a separate class of beings whose existence reshapes his understanding of the spiritual world.
Speculative extensions (clearly marked)
Koukl does not, in this episode, bring in other biblical scenes where angels act in physical ways, nor does he appeal to Jesus’ statement that angels in heaven “neither marry nor are given in marriage” (Matthew 22:30). He also does not explore how his view would relate to Second Temple Jewish interpretations of Genesis 6. Any comparison between his stance and those wider traditions is therefore a matter of placing his remarks within broader Christian debates, not something he develops here.
How Important Is Genesis 6 for Koukl?
What Koukl says
Alongside his specific comments about the Nephilim, Koukl signals that the Genesis 6 debate is not a central concern for him. He introduces the topic by noting that “Genesis 6 is a bit of a controversy about what exactly they were,” and after outlining both the angelic and human options, he returns to this theme with his remark: “It’s not that important, and I’m not going to make a big fuss about it, though some friends think these are angelic beings.”
That sentence explicitly ranks the Nephilim question as “not that important” relative to weightier matters of the faith and indicates that disagreement on this point is not, for him, a test of orthodoxy or fellowship.
What we can reasonably infer
From these statements, it is reasonable to infer that:
- He views Genesis 6:1–4 as a genuine biblical puzzle but not as a doctrinal cornerstone.
- He does not see the identity of the Nephilim as closely tied to central Christian teachings about salvation, the nature of God, or the work of Christ.
- Because of this ranking, he is comfortable offering a brief answer and moving on rather than building a detailed interpretive model.
He also does not, in this episode, connect Genesis 6 to New Testament passages that some readers associate with rebellious angels or imprisoned spirits (such as Jude 6 or 2 Peter 2:4). The absence of those links in his discussion suggests that, at least in this setting, he does not treat Genesis 6 as a key interpretive lens for those texts.
Speculative extensions (clearly marked)
Some theological frameworks place Genesis 6 at the center of a larger account of cosmic rebellion and its consequences. Koukl neither affirms nor rejects such frameworks here; he simply does not address them. Any attempt to map his brief Genesis 6 comments onto those larger systems would go beyond the evidence of this specific podcast segment.
How the Main Options Line Up in His Episode
To clarify how Koukl presents the main views and where he draws his lines, the table below summarizes the options he mentions and his stated or implied stance toward each.
| Interpretive option (as mentioned in the episode) | How Greg Koukl characterizes or approaches it |
|---|---|
| Angelic / demon view: “sons of God” as angelic beings or demons who come down, have sexual relations with human women, and produce giants. | He summarizes this view with the words “Some people think these are angelic beings, demons, that came down from heaven and had sexual relations with human women and produced the giants.” He says some of his friends hold it. His stated difficulty is that angelic beings do not, in his understanding, have reproductive capacity: “My problem with the idea of them being demons, angelic beings, is they simply do not have the apparatus that can allow them to make babies.” |
| Human-giant / mighty-men view: Nephilim as human figures (giants or warriors) already present in the land; “sons of God” and “daughters of men” understood in human terms. | This is his preferred reading. He treats the description “mighty men… men of renown” as sufficient to identify the Nephilim as notable humans and regards the passage as describing human unions and human corruption in the run-up to the flood. |
| Hybrid or more mythic readings beyond these two poles. | He does not develop such views in detail. Instead, he notes that “Genesis 6 is a bit of a controversy about what exactly they were” and emphasizes the limited information the text provides. |
| Koukl’s boundary line: any view requiring literal angel–human offspring. | He is explicit that he cannot affirm that angels have the physical capacity to procreate with humans, stating that angelic beings do not have the apparatus that can allow them to make babies. Any interpretation that depends on such offspring lies beyond what he is willing to affirm. |
This comparison highlights that, for Koukl, the decisive issue is not a specific human identification of the “sons of God” but the rejection of a reading that involves literal angel–human reproduction.
Other Doctrinal Topics in the Same Episode
The same STRask episode that touches on the Nephilim also moves through three other questions: God and time, prayer and causation, and the fate of Old Testament believers. These topics are not directly tied to Genesis 6 in his conversation, but summarizing them helps round out what else he is teaching in the same setting.
God and Time
What Koukl says
On the question of whether God is “outside of time,” Koukl says, “I don’t think that God is outside of time, and I have particular reasons for thinking that.” He then argues that “If there is no time, there are no happenings. If God is atemporal, outside of time, then he can’t do anything.” For him, divine action—creating the world, entering history in the incarnation, answering prayers—requires some real sense of temporal sequence.
What we can reasonably infer
From these statements, we can infer that:
- He understands God as genuinely acting in “before and after” relations, rather than existing in a way that entirely transcends temporal sequence.
- He sees talk of God being completely “outside of time” as potentially undermining the Bible’s portrayal of God doing things in history.
Speculative extensions (clearly marked)
He does not, in this episode, link his view of divine temporality to Genesis 6 or to other specific Old Testament narratives. Any claim that his time view directly controls his reading of the Nephilim would therefore be conjectural.
Prayer and Causation
What Koukl says
On prayer, Koukl offers a concise definition: “Prayer is not an event which causes another event; it is a request which God may answer, and he can begin his response before the prayer is prayed.” He then adds, “Knowing the request will be made, God can begin answering beforehand; this is not backwards causation.”
In these remarks, he distinguishes between the act of praying and the divine response. Prayer is a request, and God, knowing that request in advance, may shape events even before the prayer occurs, without the prayer itself reaching backward in time.
What we can reasonably infer
These comments suggest that:
- He wants to affirm both God’s foreknowledge and the meaningfulness of petitionary prayer.
- He resists models that picture prayer as changing the past; instead, God’s prior knowledge of future prayers factors into how he orders events.
Speculative extensions (clearly marked)
Koukl does not tie this view of prayer to his reading of mysterious passages like Genesis 6 in the episode. Any attempt to relate his reluctance to posit “backwards causation” to his reluctance to affirm angelic procreation would be a thematic comparison rather than a link he himself makes.
Sheol and Old Testament Believers
What Koukl says
When asked about the fate of Old Testament believers after death, Koukl begins with a caution: “It’s speculative because we have no information except that they go to Sheol, which is a general term for the grave.” He then offers a picture of their condition: “I think Old Testament saints were in a place of comfort, but they weren’t in the presence of the Lord because their salvation, sanctification, justification had not yet been accomplished.” He contrasts this with the New Testament affirmation that, for believers after Christ, “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.”
What we can reasonably infer
From these statements, it is fair to infer that:
- He distinguishes between the Old Testament use of “Sheol” as a general term and the more specific New Testament description of being with the Lord after death.
- He sees Old Testament believers as experiencing a real, but not yet fully realized, comfort until Christ’s work is complete, after which believers are said to be present with the Lord at death.
Speculative extensions (clearly marked)
He does not connect this view of Sheol and the intermediate state to his understanding of Genesis 6 or the Nephilim in the episode. Some traditions associate Genesis 6 with later ideas about imprisoned spirits or the underworld, but those connections are not part of his on-air answer here.
How These Topics Sit Beside His Genesis 6 Comments
Koukl does not explicitly relate his views on time, prayer, or Sheol to his interpretation of Genesis 6 in this STRask episode. Still, they appear in the same conversation and show the kinds of questions he is answering alongside the Nephilim question.
The table below summarizes what he says on each of these topics and notes, in a descriptive way, how each stance tends to shape his handling of biblical material more generally, including obscure passages like Genesis 6.
| Doctrinal topic from the episode | Koukl’s key claims and their general implications |
|---|---|
| God and time | He says “I don’t think that God is outside of time, and I have particular reasons for thinking that” and argues that “If there is no time, there are no happenings. If God is atemporal, outside of time, then he can’t do anything.” This portrays God as acting in real sequences. It reflects a preference for descriptions of God that emphasize concrete action in history. |
| Prayer and causation | He defines prayer as a request rather than an event that itself causes other events: “Prayer is not an event which causes another event; it is a request which God may answer, and he can begin his response before the prayer is prayed,” adding that “Knowing the request will be made, God can begin answering beforehand; this is not backwards causation.” This preserves both divine foreknowledge and the meaningfulness of prayer without introducing “backwards causation.” |
| Sheol and Old Testament saints | He acknowledges that “It’s speculative because we have no information except that they go to Sheol, which is a general term for the grave,” and proposes that “I think Old Testament saints were in a place of comfort, but they weren’t in the presence of the Lord because their salvation, sanctification, justification had not yet been accomplished,” contrasting this with the New Testament’s “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” This combines an admission of limited data with a moderate, pastoral description of the intermediate state. |
These additional topics show that, in the same episode where he briefly addresses the Nephilim, Koukl is also concerned with how God acts in time, how prayer relates to God’s causality, and what Scripture does and does not say about the state of believers after death. They provide context for his broader theological interests but do not, in this recording, function as arguments for his Genesis 6 position.
Conclusion
In the STRask September 19, 2016 episode, Greg Koukl treats Genesis 6:1–4 as a real but limited puzzle. He acknowledges that “Genesis 6 is a bit of a controversy about what exactly they were” and outlines the familiar angelic interpretation in which fallen angels have sexual relations with women and produce giants. He then states his difficulty with that view in concrete terms—“My problem with the idea of them being demons, angelic beings, is they simply do not have the apparatus that can allow them to make babies”—and therefore prefers to see the Nephilim as human giants or mighty warriors, with the “sons of God” understood as human rather than angelic. He adds that “It’s not that important, and I’m not going to make a big fuss about it, though some friends think these are angelic beings,” indicating that he regards the identity of the Nephilim as secondary to core Christian doctrine.
Placed alongside the rest of the episode, his Genesis 6 comments appear as one brief answer among others about God’s relation to time, the nature of prayer, and the fate of Old Testament believers. On those topics he affirms that God acts in real temporal sequences, that prayer is a request God may answer in light of his foreknowledge, and that Old Testament saints experienced a form of comfort prior to the completed work of Christ, in contrast to the New Testament promise that “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.”
Takeaways
- Koukl sees Genesis 6:1–4 as a controversial and ambiguous passage whose doctrinal weight is modest in his overall theology.
- He summarizes but does not adopt the view that the Nephilim are angel–human hybrids, objecting that angels lack reproductive “apparatus.”
- He prefers to identify the Nephilim as human giants or “mighty men” and to read both “sons of God” and “daughters of men” as human.
- He is comfortable with differing views among Christians on this question and does not treat it as a test of orthodoxy.
- In the same episode he articulates views of God and time, prayer, and Sheol that emphasize divine action in history, God’s foreknowledge, and a cautious approach to what Scripture says about the afterlife.
This article was written by Jake Mooney, a storyteller and researcher who has spent over two decades studying Genesis 6, the Nephilim, and related ancient literature. For this piece he reviewed the STRask podcast segment in full, checked quotations against the published transcript, and limited conclusions to what Koukl explicitly states or clearly implies in that recording. If you’d like more sourced studies of difficult passages and modern commentators, you’re invited to subscribe to the free monthly Chasing the Giants newsletter.
