The Nephilim: What Happened in Genesis Six

The subject I want to look at is one that may not be familiar to many Christians, especially if in the past, you have attended a church that did not teach the Word of God, book by book, line upon line as we are admonished to do in Isaiah 10:28. Also, if you are a new Christian, eighty percent or more of what is in the Bible is going to be new to you. A lot of the mainline denominational churches only tap into about maybe twenty percent of what is actually in it.

I can remember when I was a new Christian I was astounded when learning of something that happened along with Jesus' resurrection that I was never taught. It was the fact that when Jesus was resurrected, many saints came out of the graves with Him. It was not just Jesus that came out of the grave. That is kind of an important little fact that has been left out of the "Easter" story in mainline "Christian" churches. How many of you new believers have ever heard that taught along with the "Easter" story? If you want you can look that up in (Matthew 27:52).

The truth is, we have a lack of teaching and a lack of hearing the Word of God, and a lot of what is taught is not interpreted correctly. 2^ndTimothy 2:15 says, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Now if the apostle Paul said here via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to rightly divide the Word of God that means it can be done. Jesus Himself said in John 8:32, "And You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."

God is a loving God. He did not play a cruel joke on us. "Ha ha, let us see if they can decipher the word." The Bible can be properly interpreted if we are historically and intellectually honest, and follow the rules of proper exegesis and do a little digging.

Exegesis is just a fifty-cent word that means the critical explanation and/or analysis of a text. It is when people do not believe, or do not like what the Bible says that they bend it and twist it and force a different meaning on the text. That is why the interpretation of the subject we are going to look at now is one that has been a little controversial.

The historical position from both Rabbinical and Christian literature is the one that I will present to you while also showing you why I believe the alternate interpretations of our text, known as the "Sociologically Mixed view" and the "Sethite View" are incorrect. And just as a side note, it is interesting that many of the ancient cultures which include the American Indians, South Sea Islanders, the Greeks, the Hindus, and the Egyptians have their version of these events. Just like the story of Noah and the worldwide flood of that time period, which are also included in many writings from all parts of the globe in cultures from history's past. While their versions of these events may be some what corrupted and over-embellished, the Bible has the true depiction.

So let us look at Genesis chapter 6 and we will see what the Bible has to say on this subject starting in verse 1. "Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh: yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

So what is going on here? Who are the "sons of God"? There are basically three views on these verses of which I just mentioned two of them. I myself adhere to the historic position that the "sons of God" were fallen angels. Now some may have never read this portion of scripture and it is probably news to you. And because the implications of what is being said here are far reaching, I am thinking that there are a few questions floating through your mind at this time and hopefully I will answer them all by the end of this writing.

The position that the "sons of God" in verses 1-4 were fallen angels is also the position held by the majority of rabbis throughout early history and the translators of the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a translation of the Old Testament into Greek. It was translated by some seventy Hebrew scribes in the third and second century BC in Alexandria, Egypt.

Let us take a look at the second position which we will call the "Sethite View". It claims that the "sons of God" were men in the "godly" bloodline of Seth who failed to keep their line pure and took wives from the "ungodly" line of Cain. This position began to take hold between five and six hundred A.D. It was around that time that the "angel" view began to lose ground. Possibly due to the fact that people may have stopped believing in the supernatural and "The Word of God", "rightly divided" (2^nd Timothy 2:15). Also the skeptics of that day probably used the angel view held by Christians as an angle to ridicule them.

But for whatever the reason, the historic position became increasingly more embarrassing, so some leaders of the Church came up with a more palatable positions. Not unlike other periods in Church history when many people did not believe in the supernatural. The Church at large had probably stopped walking in, and believing in the power of God. In 2^nd Timothy 3:5 Timothy is talking about the characteristics of people in the last days and it says in verse five,"...having a form of godliness, but denying it's power. And from such people turn away!"

Now it is because of this unbelief in the power of God that the world today has turned away from sound doctrine and now looks to other things like the cults, the occult, certain sciences, and psychology for the answers to life's questions.Now I am not knocking science, but when people, in the name of science present theories asthough they are facts such as evolution, (that is based on circular reasoning), then I have a problem. Science, when doneright is awesome because it only continues to prove the Bible. Psychology on the other hand I believe has many issues that contradict God's Word. For the most part it is man's wisdom trying to deal with their sin nature and the guilt that comes from it apart from God. The Bible has much to say about man's wisdom but that is for another time. 1^st Timothy 4:1 says... "Now the Spirit expressly says that in the latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits, and doctrines of demons." And make no mistake about it, anything that turns people away from the truth of God's word and causes unbelief in His power is a "doctrine of demons." The theory of evolution is most definitely in that category. It has turned away untold millions from true faith in God.

Today however we have seen and are seeing a rise of belief in the supernatural. Also belief in extra-terrestrials is becoming quite prevalent. This, I believe, will prove to be just a set up for the events that are coming upon this planet. The lying signs and wonders (2nd Thessalonians 2:9) from the anti-Christ, which I believe are already in process and possibly, a return of the events in Genesis chapter six. We will touch on that further on in this writing.

The third position which is known as the "Sociologically Mixed View" is that the "sons of God" were "fallen princes, aristocrats or great men". In fairness I would point out that this view has roots deeper in antiquity^[i] than the "Sethite View". It also seems to be more popular nowadays than the "Sethite View".

So let us look at the problems that are incorporated in the "Sethite View" and the "Sociologically Mixed View" and also the evidences for the position which I believe is what the Bible teaches. And as we go through the various scriptures and their interpretations keep in mind that the evidence which supports the Fallen Angel View refutes both of the other positions.

1. First of all, you have to twist the literal and normal use of the Hebrew terms to arrive at the "Sethite" position while the "Sociologically Mixed View" has less issues with forcing a meaninginto the text. In Genesis 6:2 it says, "...that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose."

Now when you read this it seems pretty clear to me that the Lord is using a grammatical antithesis between the heavenly and the earthly, angels and man, sons of God and daughters of men. If He was not, why did not He just use the terms "sons of Seth" and "daughters of Cain" as the "Sethite View" purports that the Bible is speaking about? The same goes for the "Sociologically Mixed View". There are better Hebrew words that the Holy Spirit could have used to describe "fallen princes, aristocrats or great men". Is God trying to confuse us? I do not think so. The definitions of the Hebrew words used by the Holy Spirit here are really the heart of the matter. So let us look into this and see what the Scriptures say.

The term "sons of God" is B'nai HaElohim, which is used only five times in the Old Testament. Twice in Genesis chapter six, and three times in Job. Job 1:6-7, 2:1, and 38:7. Here are the verses in Job. Job 1:6-7..."Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. 7 And the Lord said to Satan, Afrom where do you come? So Satan answered the Lord and said, 'From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it."

Job 2:1-2 says exactly the same thing as what we just read and in context Satan came from earth to heaven to appear before the Lord. Now up to this point in time, as far as I know only angels appeared before the Lord in heaven. We also know that Satan is a fallen angel. Any humans that are not on earth at this time are held in Abraham's bosom. It is not until Jesus said, "...it is finished" that man could appear before the Lord in heaven, except for anoccasional prophet. And in Job 38:4-7..."Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6 To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, 7 when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" When you read this passage in Job it is quite obvious in context that the term "sons of God" is talking about angels. When God "...laid the foundations of the earth," man did not even exist.

Now there is a rule concerning proper exegesis of the Bible (...rightly dividing the word of truth, 2^nd Timothy 2:18) which is known as the law of "first mention". The first time a word or principle is mentioned in the Bible it establishes it's definition or use. Most doctrines and subjects are established in the book of Genesis by this law. Once a definition or principle is established it is important that you remain consistent with it's use. When the bible is using symbolic language it will indicate this in the various passages by context and grammar.

There is no reason to believe that in Genesis, the bible is being symbolic when using the term "sons of God" or being descriptive about the sons of Seth, nothing in the text would indicate this. Especially when the only other time the term is used in the Old Testament is in Job where it is obviously talking about angels. At least the ones who did not fall along with Satan; because we are not sure exactly when they fell. The majority of those who hold to the "Sethite View" or the "Sociologically Mixed View" would agree that in Job the Bible is speaking of angels. And if you apply the law of first mention here it would become inconsistent if Genesis 6:2-4 is not talking about fallen angels. There is nothing to indicate that the Bible is using symbolic language here or in Job either. So when studying the Bible it is important that you keep things consistent and literal unless the context indicates otherwise.

2. In the Bible, the term "Sons of God" is only used of those directly created by God. Angels are called sons of God as we just read, Adam is called a son of God in the genealogy in Luke's Gospel (Luke 3:38), and also those born of God who are a new creation in Christ. In 2^nd Corinthians 5:17 it says, "...therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things are passed away; behold, all things have become new."

The word "new" here is kainos {kahee-nos'; S = 2537^[ii]} it means...

1) new:

a) as respects form 1) recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn.

b) as respects substance 1) of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of.

We are literally a new and direct creation of God just as Adam and Eve and the angels were. And as such, those who are born again can be called "sons of God". Therefore God says in John 1:12... "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name." I think in light of the comparison of these verses and the fact that it does stay within the boundaries of the law of first mention; it is only reasonable to conclude that the "sons of God" in Genesis chapter six were fallen angels.

3. Okay, next let us look at Jude 1:4-7... "For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. 5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

The context here in Jude is that of judgment, and mostly for sexual misconduct. If we look in verse 4 the word translated "lewdness" is aselgeia {as-elg'-I-a; S = 766 } and has as it's primary definition 1) unbridled lust. Now let uslook at the comparison the Holy Spirit makes in verses six and seven. Note the word "as" in verse seven, this sets up the comparison. And what is the comparison? It is between what the angels did and what the people of Sodom and Gomorrah did. And what did the people of Sodom and Gomorrah do? They committed grievous sexual transgressions which is the main reason for the judgments of the various groups mentioned here. Also if you note that the particular transgression in Sodom and Gomorrah's case was that they went "after strange flesh".

The Greek word "strange" is heteros {het'-er-os; S = 2087}

b) as to quality:

1) another: i.e. one not of the same nature, form, class, kind, different.

Now as far as I know, a man is a man. So in the case of Sodom where the men were going after men Genesis 19:4-5, why would the Holy Spirit call this strange and worthy of judgment? Because in the case of sexuality; men with men or women with women is strange and "different" from that which God intended. And this is the reason the Holy Spirit is making this connection. It is because this is what that certain group of angels did in Genesis chapter six; they went after "strange flesh"; "not of the same nature". Grammatically and contextually, this is what is being said. And please note that this is a certain subset of angels; not all the fallen angels. There are still fallen angels that are very active in our present time. Ephesians 6:12 says... 12 "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."

Now we will move on and compare the terms the Scripture uses for the body, both terrestrial and extraterrestrial which will help us in further unraveling this topic. In 2^nd Corinthians 5:1-4..."For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, 3 if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. 4 "For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life." The terminology used here is contrasting the difference between the heavenly [extraterrestrial] bodies which angels have and the terrestrial bodies which we dwell in. The term translated into the word "habitation" that the believers long for in verse 2 is oiketerion, {oy-kay-tay'-ree-on; S = 3613}. This is the same word used for the bodies [abode] that the angels who sinned in Genesis chapter six, left according to what we just went over in Jude 1:6. So the angels left their extraterrestrial "abode" for an earthly one in order to cohabitate with women.

In light of these two analysis' alone I think that is reason enough to dismiss the "Sethite and Sociologically Mixed views". However I still have to address the other supporting and main argument for the "Sociologically Mixed View" that is also part of the argument for the "Sethite View" as well. So let us take a look at it.

It is a verse in Matthew which may have come to some of your minds already and since we are on the subject of types of bodies let us see what their capabilities are. Matthew 22:30... "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God in heaven." Now I know what you are thinking, that angels do not get married and I agree; that is what we just read. That is why those who adhere to the other two views use this verse to try and defend their position. They infer that this passage says that angels do not have the capacity for sexual relations, but it does not say that. It just says they do not marry, it never indicates whether or not angels or men have the capacity for sexual relations. And also please note that it is talking about good angels in heaven, not fallen angels manifesting on earth. So now we will go back to Jude for a moment and see what the Scriptures literally to say.

In Jude 1:6 it says, "And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own habitation..."(heavenly bodies; S = 3613). In the Bible there are a several appearances and descriptions of angels. (Genesis 16:8, 22:12, Zechariah 1:9-10,19 and Matthew 28:2-4 etc.) In every instance when we see them in our physical realm they manifest as males and seem to have very human characteristics. Now I do not know how they have the capacity to un-cloak, or why it seems they always appear in a male body, but that is what we find. It also seems that the bodies they manifest in are functioning normally. Let us look in Genesis 19:1-3 for moment. "Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground. 2 And he said, "Here now, my lords, please turn in to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way. "And they said, "No, but we will spend the night in the open square." 3 But he insisted strongly; so they turned in to him and entered his house. Then he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate."

Notice that these angels "ate." Now if they can eat they would also have the capacity to process and digest the food. That would lead to the conclusion that their bodies are fully functional in every aspect as we will see the people of Sodom concluded as we continue in Genesis 19:4-5... " Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." Also Hebrews 13:2 says... "Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels." Entertaining in this sense usually involves eating and seeing to ones physical needs. These two instances in the Bible indicate very strongly that these angels looked like and functioned as a human.

Now we do not seem to have problems with other types of supernatural phenomenon in the Bible so I do not see why we cannot accept this for what it is. These angels left there heavenly bodies and manifested in fully functional male type bodies (suitable for earthly dwelling) and cohabitated with women. As I like to say, and others have said, "the Bible says what it means and means what it says."

That concludes the evidences against the most prominent positions of the "Sociologically Mixed View", so let us continue and see what other things the "Sethite View" purports and see why these do not hold up to serious scrutiny.

4. One assertion that the "Sethite View" makes in trying to build it's case is that the line of Seth was godly. Nowhere in the text does it imply this. There is absolutely no scripture to back this up. As a matter of fact, let us look at the verse they used to support their claim and explore it a little. The verse is Genesis 4:26 which says... "And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord." Well apparently they did not call long enough or loud enough because the people got worse and worse until judgment came via the flood.

There is an alternate translation for that verse which I think makes more logical sense than what is in our English translations. Instead of "began to call upon the name of the Lord", many ancient sources and Rabbis³ agree that the proper translation should read to this effect; "...began to profane the name of the Lord."This makes much more logical sense because as time moved on from creation and the fall the world became more corrupt leading up to the events in Genesis chapter six and the flood. Up until this time people were still very aware of God and the creation of the world and man. If you do a study of the ages of certain Bible characters you will find out that Noah's father Lamech, knew Adam and their lives over-lapped fifty-six years. This would mean that many people at the time of the birth of Enosh had second generation knowledge of God. Here is the word which was translated "call". It is chalal {khaw-lal' ; S = 02490} and it's definition is as follows: 1) to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate, begin. Is it possible that the translators of the King James Bible were swayed by the "wind of doctrine" that was blowing through their time which endorsed the "Sethite View"?

The context of this whole story centers around the flood of Noah's days (Genesis 5:22-24), which was an indictment on the entire race of man accept for Enoch, Noah, his three son's and their wives. They were the only ones to escape the judgment of God. There is no Scripture to indicate that anyone from the lineage of Seth was included among Noah's immediate family and consequently made it on the Ark. As a matter of fact in Genesis 6:9 it indicates that Noah's family had some sort of distinction from the rest of the population. We will get into that more in depth later when we look into who the Nephilim are and the underlying reason for the flood.

5. The term "daughters of men" inGenesis 6:2 does not limit the choice of the "sons of God" to Cain's descendants only as the "Sethite View" purports. The Hebrew term here, which is translated to "men", is the word Adam. This term refers to the first man whose name we know was Adam; but it can also be used to speak of mankind in general which the context would tell us. Whichever definition you use gives the "sons of God" the choice of all females born. Either it refers to the person Adam or mankind in general. So with either definition; the end result is the same. There is no indication [even remotely], in the text, grammatically or contextually to imply that this refers to the daughters of Cain only.

6.Another assertion of the "Sethite View is that the descendants of Cain were ungodly. And the implication seems to be that they were more wicked than any other group of people at that time. I cannot find any Scripture that would support this. First of all, everyone was in the fallen state, just as today we all have the propensity toward transgression. In Genesis 6:12 it says, "...that all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth." There are not any verses in Genesis that say Cain's children were any more ungodly than anyone else. God had cursed Cain (Genesis 4:11), but not his children.

7. The "Sethite View" [that Seth's sons were the "sons of God"], purports that they failed to keep themselves separated from the "ungodly" line of Cain. There is no indication that God wanted them to keep separate. God separated man Himself in Genesis 11:5-9 [Tower of Babel]. But the first time God implies that any particular group should keep themselves separate was when God calls out Abram. At that point He changes his name to Abraham (Genesis 17) and commands that every male in his clan be circumcised. This is the first indication that God wanted any particular group to be distinct and separated to Himself.

The next references to any group keeping themselves separate that I could find were in Exodus 19:5-6 God tells them when they are in the wilderness of Sinai..."Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me' 6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." And in Deuteronomy 7:3... "Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son." God is giving commandments to the children of Israel and tells them not to inter-marry with the inhabitants of the land who will be delivered over to them. So nothing to imply that the descendants of Seth needed to keep themselves separated from the rest of the populace.

8.The next reason why the "Sethite view" fails to hold water the union of the "Sons of God" and the "daughters of men." Let us take a look at those verses again. Genesis 6:1-4. "Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. 3 And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he [is] indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore [children] to them. Those [were] the mighty men who [were] of old, men of renown." So what is the result of the union between the two groups in question? The result is that they produced giants.

Now think about that for a minute. If I as a believer begin to backslide and get to the point where I totally ignore God's word not to marry an unbeliever and do so. Then we decide to have a child; will my child be a giant? The answer is no. Just because a backslidden "godly" person has relations with an "ungodly" person it does not mean that they will have giants as offspring. There has to be something else added to this equation. The answer is that a being other than a pure human is involved. That is, a fallen angel who manifests in a human-like body.

When an angel manifests in a human-like body, that body must have some different genetic qualities and in turn when this fallen angel [in human-like form] procreates with women, it produces what the Bible calls the Nephilim. This would better account for the fact that the union of the Sons of God with the daughters of men resulted in super-sized beings. And just a little side note to this; for some reason just as when angels appear in the Scriptures as men only, so too the Nephilim, when spoken of, are always men.

The following is a list of where the Hebrew words Nephilim [usually translated "giant/s"] and their offspring [the Rapha] are mentioned in the Bible.

a.) Nephilim {nef-eel'-im; S = 5303} def. giants. Genesis 6:4, Numbers 13:33.

b.) Rapha {raw-faw'; S = 07496} def. ghosts of the dead, shades, spirits. Genesis 14:5, 15:20, Deuteronomy 2:11,20, 3:11,13, Joshua 12:4, 13:12, 15:8, 17:15, 18:16, 2^nd Samuel 5:18,22, 21:16,18,2022, 23:13, 1^st Chronicles 11:15, 14:9, 20:4,6,8, and Isaiah 17:5.

9. The next thing I want to look at is why these events in Genesis chapter six were the primary cause for the nearly complete annihilation of the human race except for Enoch and eight people who made it on the ark [Noah and his immediate family]. Let us re-visit Genesis 6:5-9 ... "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every intent of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 9 This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God." So why did God destroy nearly the entire human race? The first and obvious answer is found in verse 5; that man was very wicked and that is true, he was. But why did He not just raise up a bunch of evangelists and cause a world-wide revival. He could have done that, could He not ? I mean, why destroy all of mankind? There has to be another reason than just the fact that transgression was running rampant in man's heart. Outside of a small percentage of true believers today [not sinless, just forgiven], verse five could apply to us today as well as to many prior generations of mankind. So why did God only wipe out this particular group of people in the era of Noah's generations? Let us look at what God's word says back in verse 3. It says, " My Spirit shall not always strive with man forever; for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty."

In context, this verse; is a direct result of what happened in verses one and two which is talking about the sons of God and their dealings with the daughters of men. It is clear that God's decision that judgment must come at this point, is already made. Verse three is like God saying "however because of my grace I am giving man a period of one hundred and twenty years to repent." Verse 5 of chapter six is really just a further detailing of the primary cause for the world-wide flood.

But again, why was the judgment so severe? Why not just bring about a world-wide revival instead? The reason was that as a result of the union of these angels [manifested in human form], with women, a new class of beings were established. And by the time we get to Noah, we find that he and his immediate family were possibly the only ones left who were:

a.) On fire and walking with the Lord. Apparently Noah had been doing his job as the spiritual leader of his family. He trained up his children in the way that they should go, (Proverbs 22:6).

b.) Not tainted with what I believe was actually a physiological change on the genetic level. One that caused the offspring of anyone so effected to be giants and thus they became an entirely new class of beings in more ways than just physically. I will develop this as I go along.

Let us revisit Genesis 6:9 again and examine it a little more closely. It says, "Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations." The word translated "perfect" here is the Hebrew word tamiym {taw-meem'; S = 08549}. This word has a two-fold definition depending on it's context.

1.) It is used 41 times to speak of being entirely in accord with truth, upright, sincere, or full or complete.

2.) It is used 50 times to refer to a sacrifice or object having no physical defects. Exodus 12:5 and Numbers 19:2...et al.

I believe that in Noah's case both definitions can apply, however the second definitions is the one that fits the context better. Noah's bloodline was "perfect in his generations". I think the Bible is saying that his genetic code was unblemished by the results of the co-mingling of the angels with humans. If we look further ahead to verse 12 of Genesis six that says..."So God lookedupon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth." The word for "flesh" in this verse is basar {baw-sawr'; S = 01320}, this word, depending on it's context has more than one meaning also. It was used as a euphemism to refer to the "male organ of generation". Which means that the word flesh was used in a polite way to refer to the male organ in respect to reproduction.

The next word we want to look at is the word "corrupt", which is the Hebrew word shachath {shaw-khath'; S = 07843}, it's primary definition is to destroy, mar, or to ruin in a physical sense. It is not talking about what is in Genesis 6:5..."The wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." However because man was in the downward spiral of transgression it culminated in the inevitable state of sexual depravity. Just like our present society as a whole has arrived at today. It seems that the ultimate sign of complete departure from God is that man winds up in gross sexual transgression; history bears this out. The result of this in Genesis was that all flesh had corrupted itself in a physical way, it was ..." destroyed, marred, ruined in a physical sense" because of the cohabitation of angels with women.

So, putting this all together here is what we have. What these verses are saying in context are that the human race was so thoroughly tainted in a physiological way that God could not allow these events to continue to the point that all mankind was affected; [Noah's line being possibly the only one unaffected at that time]. And for reasons we do not quite understand, in order to save man, God needed a pure bloodline through which He could bring the Messiah. If He did not put a stop to these events and get rid of all the corrupt seed, man, along with the Nephilim would be eternally lost. Because as I said, the Nephilim were a totally new class of beings; part angel, part man, who are subject to a different set of rules and who are already judged with no hope of redemption. We will look at that and touch on something that is going to happen with the seed of men later on in this writing when we get into who these Nephilim were and the evidences for their existence.

And the scenario I just mentioned makes perfect sense with the entire scope of the Bible. Remember how in Genesis 6:4 it says, "...there were giants in the land in those days and also afterwards." Despite God's severe judgment on man and angels, Satan was so bent on man's destruction and on stopping God's plan for redemption that he gets some more of the fallen angels to do that same thing again, after the flood. Maybe some of you picked up on that earlier when I listed all the places that the Nephilim were mentioned; in Genesis 6:4, before the flood, and in Exodus 13:33, after the flood. We will also delve into this later in my next posting.

Incidentally, why would not God have chained up all the fallen angels instead of just a certain subset that,"...left their proper domain"? This was mentioned earlier when we looked at Jude verse six. If His motives were to just get a check on transgressions and sinners as the "Sethite View" states, He should have chained up all the fallen angels including Lucifer, a.k.a. Satan, the Devil? He also should have wiped out the world several more times since then as I dare say we have reached those levels of sin and transgression again and a few times in between the flood and the present. You see when you really start digging into the Word and seek the wisdom of the Holy Spirit the Scriptures interpret themselves without contradiction. Let us not be accused of believing only things that we want to or what we are comfortable with. We need to search ..." the scriptures daily to find out whether these things are true."(Acts 17:11).

Well, we have looked at a lot of Scripture and that is always the best place to get your commentary on the Bible. Deuteronomy 19:15 says..."One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or 2 any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established." Also in Deuteronomy 17:6 it says, "Whoever is worthy of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses, but he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness." Also see Matthew 18:16 and 2^nd Corinthians 13:1. So let us bring in two more witnesses and see if we can finally put this topic to rest.

The first witness we will hear from is the Apostle Peter inspired by the Holy Spirit. Let us look at 2^nd Peter 2:4-6, where it says... "For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly." So here he is talking about the angels who sinned. Notice that it says, ..." but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness...".

There are three things here that I want to call your attention to.

1.) The use of the word "hell" which is the Greek word tartaroo {tar-tar-o'-o; S = 5020}. This is the only time that this word translated "hell" here is used in the New Testament. The other times you see the word "hell" they are different Greek words. So this is a special place just for these angels, not for people or the other fallen angels, only for the ones who sinned in this instance.

2.) Notice as we continue in 2^nd Peter 2:5 it says, ..." and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah...". Peter is associating the angels that sinned with the time of Noah and the flood when ..."the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful;.." .

3.) Now I want to consider the fact that the "angels who sinned" were put in chains. What are these "chains" for? Where else do we find chains or bonds in the Bible used in a similar way? Revelation 20:1-3 says... "Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while."

So the angel uses a great chain to bind Satan then shuts him up in a bottomless pit so he cannot deceive the nations anymore. He will not be able influence the minds of men any longer and cannot interact with, or have any effect on the physical realm. That is what happened to the "angels who sinned", they were chained up also but the part about being sealed so they could not interact in the physical realm anymore was left out. So we cannot say whether or not they can influence our realm in any way. However their confinement is probably not a pleasant situation and serves as a warning to the other fallen angels not to engage in that type of sin or they would be chained up as well. Satan was apparently smart enough not to do this himself and he's still free to mingle in the affairs of men

Our next witness is Jude; [the half brother of Jesus], let us see what the Holy Spirit says through him. Jude 1:5-7 says..."But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And theangels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire". The context of Jude's letter is to exhort the believers to remain strong in the faith and to speak out against false teachers. In verse 5 he begins to remind Christians concerning false teachers, that God's judgment on them has come in the past and it will come again. Verses 6 and 7 are also a continuation of examples of judgment.

Earlier we went over verse 6 on how the angels "left their own habitation" and took on human form. But notice that these angels are chained awaiting judgment. This is the same group of angels Peter is speaking about in 2^nd Peter 2:4 which we just tied back to the events in Genesis chapter six.

Now let us look at verse 7 a little more closely. Notice here that the word "as" is used which means it is further explaining verse 6. So what is it saying about the angels who "left their own habitation"? Remember the context here is judgment and these angels were judged for what they did. So by the use of the adverb "as" , verse 7 is saying that what the angels did is like what the people of Sodom and Gomorrah did that got them judged. And what were the transgressions of Sodom and Gomorrah? They were rampant sexual transgressions including homosexuality, the people went after strange flesh. The people did what was outside of God's natural parameters. In the case of these angels, they also did that which was outside of what God intended and their transgression was also of a sexual nature.

Now I do not know about you, but in my mind there is just no way that an honest thinking person could read these verses and come to any other conclusion except that:

a). these verses are referring to the events in Genesis chapter six .

b). and that what the Bible is calling the "sons of God" were angels.

c). that they did procreate with women.

d). that the results of their union were a new class of beings known as the Nephilim, who were of giant stature.

In light of these final verses, I feel that the "Sociologically Mixed View and the Sethite View" are not valid as interpretations of Genesis chapter six.

So to conclude this portion, it is my prayer that you have now come to a true understanding of the events in Genesis chapter six which will help you in your overall comprehension of the Bible and other events closely related to this subject.

Also I would like to remind you that although this subject and others like it are very intriguing, do not let the study of it take away from your normal and necessary devotional time. I have found that one can get so caught up in studies of this nature that they neglect the rest of their Christian walk. And if you have not yet committed your life to the Lord for your salvation, I pray that you would consider accepting Jesus as your Savior. Knowing the above information will not help you if you do not know Jesus. Isaiah 45:22 says... "Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other."

God loves us so much and has provided for our salvation through His son and apart from Him there is no salvation. Some two thousand years ago Jesus came to pay the price for our sins so that we could be restored to a relationship with our Father. That price, [Jesus dying the death that sin requires], was paid, the ransom was accepted, God raising Him from the dead. And Jesus has been preparing heaven ever since for those who will receive His free gift of eternal life. Give your heart to Jesus today.

Copyright Information:

Written by: Mark D. Everett © 2006. All rights reserved.

All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the New King James Version 7. Copyright 8 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

^[i] The Targums of Onkelos rendered the term "son's of God" as "sons of nobles" and the Greek translation of Symmachus reads "the sons of the kings or lords"

^[ii] The capital "S" denotes the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance reference number for that definition.

³http://www.tulane.edu/~ntcs/pj/pjgen1-6.htm Section IV-18,

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=8168&showrashi=true See commentary for verse 26,

http://www.tulane.edu/~ntcs/onk/Gen1_6.htm See #27.