Tim Chaffey on the Sons of God and the Nephilim: A Biblically Sound Approach
Tim Chaffey, a respected Christian apologist and theologian, brings needed clarity and restraint to one of the Bible’s most debated passages: Genesis 6:1–4.
His book Fallen: The Sons of God and the Nephilim and recent interviews, including two in-depth episodes on the Digging for Truth show, offer one of the most thorough, biblically grounded explanations available today. Chaffey’s approach is refreshingly careful, rooted in Scripture, and free from the sensationalism that has plagued this topic in recent decades.
The Genesis 6 Puzzle
Genesis 6:1–4 states:
“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose…” (ESV)
This brief passage introduces the mysterious “sons of God,” the “daughters of men,” and a group called the Nephilim, often translated as “giants.” For centuries, scholars have debated the identities and actions of these figures. Chaffey addresses each of these elements with precision, tracing their historical interpretation, linguistic roots, and theological implications.
Affirming the Angelic Interpretation
Chaffey strongly affirms what he calls the “Fallen Angel” view—the idea that the sons of God were angelic beings who took human women as wives. He notes that this view “is clearly the earliest position that we know of,” held by Jewish writers before Christ and by early church fathers until the 3rd or 4th century.
He explains:
“The Hebrew term ‘bene ha’elohim’ is only used three other times in the Bible—all in the book of Job. In each of those cases, it clearly refers to heavenly beings.”
These passages (Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7) all describe divine beings in the presence of God. In Job 38:7, for example, the sons of God are described as present at the foundation of the world—clearly a reference to angelic beings, since humans did not yet exist.
Tim also points out that in Deuteronomy 32:8, based on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, the correct reading is:
“He fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.”
This, again, points to angelic beings and supports the notion that the biblical writers used this term consistently for non-human entities.
Refuting the Sethite and Royalty Views
Chaffey carefully walks through the Sethite interpretation, which sees the sons of God as descendants of Seth and the daughters of men as descendants of Cain. He shows how this view arose much later in church history, gaining prominence through Augustine. It requires arbitrary shifts in how words are used across just a few verses:
“You have to keep switching the meaning of the term ‘adam.’ In verse 1 it means mankind in general, then suddenly in verse 2, ‘daughters of men’ supposedly refers only to Cainite women. That’s not consistent interpretation.”
Chaffey also addresses the so-called Royalty view, which claims that “sons of God” were kings or rulers who forced women into polygamous marriages. He dismisses this as a later invention lacking solid linguistic or cultural support. The Hebrew phrase translated “they took wives of whomever they chose” is a common idiom for marriage, used throughout the Old Testament with no negative connotation (e.g., Abraham taking Keturah as a wife).
Understanding the Nephilim
One of Chaffey’s major contributions is clarifying the meaning of the term “Nephilim.” Many modern teachers link it to the Hebrew verb “naphal” (to fall), rendering it “fallen ones.” But Chaffey shows this is linguistically incorrect:
“The word ‘Nephilim’ is most likely not Hebrew at all. It’s the plural of the Aramaic word ‘naphil,’ which means ‘giant.’ This is why the Septuagint translated it as ‘gigantes’ and why most ancient readers understood these as giants.”
He references academic lexicons such as BDB and HALOT to back this up, as well as Dr. Michael Heiser, who similarly emphasized that the linguistic evidence supports “giant,” not “fallen.”
Giants Before and After the Flood
Genesis 6:4 says:
“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward…”
Chaffey explains that this phrase has confused many. But he points out that the key Hebrew term should be translated as “whenever” the sons of God came to the daughters of men, Nephilim appeared. Thus, the text is not suggesting that Nephilim survived the Flood, but that the same sin happened again after the Flood:
“There were giants in Canaan because this event happened again. That’s how you get the Anakim, the Rephaim, and other giants mentioned during the conquest of Canaan.”
Chaffey points to Moses’ own record in Numbers 13:33, where the spies refer to the Nephilim and say, “we seemed like grasshoppers in their eyes.” Critics often claim the spies were lying or exaggerating, but Chaffey shows the text itself, and Moses’ narration, affirms that these beings existed.
Addressing Common Objections
Many object to the angelic view by citing Jesus’ words in Matthew 22:30, where He says angels do not marry. But as Chaffey rightly notes:
“Jesus said angels in heaven do not marry. He didn’t say what fallen angels can or cannot do.”
He also explains how angels in the Bible often take on human form. The angels who visited Abraham ate and drank. The men of Sodom mistook them for human visitors. Thus, it’s not far-fetched to believe these beings could interact with humans physically.
Why Did the Angels Do This?
Chaffey offers a sobering theological explanation:
“This was likely an attempt to corrupt the human bloodline and thwart God’s promise of a coming Redeemer.”
Genesis 3:15 promised a seed of the woman who would crush the serpent. Satan’s strategy throughout Scripture seems aimed at corrupting that seed. The Nephilim event fits into that larger narrative.
Connecting to Later Scripture
Both 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6-7 reference angels who sinned and are now bound in chains. Chaffey believes these passages directly reference Genesis 6:
“They are described as leaving their proper domain and going after ‘strange flesh’ just like Sodom and Gomorrah. That connection shows this was a sexual sin by angelic beings.”
1 Peter 3:19–20 also mentions spirits from Noah’s time, reinforcing this interpretation.
A Caution Against Sensationalism
Chaffey emphasizes that this topic should not distract from the Gospel or become a side obsession. He is clear:
“This isn’t a salvation issue. And we need to show grace to believers who disagree. But we also need to let the text say what it says.”
He warns against reading too much into the text or chasing after conspiracies. His aim is to call believers back to careful study and trust in Scripture.
Conclusion
Tim Chaffey’s work is a model of biblical fidelity, historical awareness, and theological care. His research shows that understanding Genesis 6 requires both humility and seriousness. Far from being fringe or fantastical, the Genesis 6 story is a foundational part of the biblical worldview—and one that points us back to God’s justice, redemption, and plan to defeat evil through the promised Messiah.
Chaffey’s book Fallen and his teaching remind us that truth is not found in YouTube myths or speculative documentaries, but in the Word rightly understood. As we continue to explore this fascinating topic, Chaffey’s voice serves as a trustworthy guide.
For readers hungry to go deeper, we recommend Tim Chaffey’s book Fallen: The Sons of God and the Nephilim and his appearances on Associates for Biblical Research’s show, Digging for Truth. You can also watch Part 1 and Part 2 on YouTube.
