Introduction

At this point in our study, we will leave Genesis 5 and turn to Genesis 6 to study the peculiar episode of the sons of God. We have chosen to defer study of Enoch and Lamech until after determining the identity of the sons of God, as their identity bears upon the pericope of Enoch and Lamech.

The abbreviated narrative of the sons of God has been misunderstood by some and overlooked by many. To this day, it still remains a difficult and contentious passage lacking consensus. Part of the problem rests in the history of interpretation of the passage. From early in the church age until mid-nineteenth century, the identity of the sons of God was ubiquitously accepted as the sons of Seth. More recent study has proposed differing possibilities, but mainstream understanding continues to see the sons of God as the progeny of Seth.

Genesis 6:4 is Not an Isolated Fragment but Integral with Surrounding Scriptures

Before diving into the varied interpretations, the background of the passage will be examined as many expositors have struggled with its fitment into the surrounding material, some concluding it is an isolated fragment. [1] The pericope also includes some new terms such as ויראו בני־האלהים “sons of God”, הנפלים nephilim and הגברים gibborim – words and phrases whose meaning is unclear.

Even the phrase “daughters of man” – the meaning of which seems clear – has been hotly debated. Worse, the sin of the sons of God, the daughters of men, the nephilim and gibborim is unstated. Who sinned and how? We know only that the magnitude of their sin was so great that God determined to destroy his entire earthly creation. It seems as if the author anticipates that the reader is already familiar with the passage and its meaning.

It should be observed that there is a tie from the conclusion of Genesis 5 to the beginning of Genesis 6. Genesis 5 closes the genealogy of Adam through Seth with the introduction of Noah and his three sons. Being the tenth generation, Noah completes a cycle. His name carries significance, meaning “he will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed”. It offers hope at the close of this genealogical cycle. Its introduction at the close of the genealogy seems to prepare the reader before proceeding to events of a sinister nature. The event is recorded in Genesis 6:

¹ When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, ² the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. ³ Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.” ⁴ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. ⁵ The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. ⁶ The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. ⁷ So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” ⁸ But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. [2]

A first observation is that the narrative ties to the flood judgment and for this reason, it seems unlikely that this is an isolated and unrelated fragment. The second observation in the opening, “when human beings began to increase in number on the earth”, references back to the blessing of Genesis 1:28. Human beings were reproducing in large numbers according to God’s plan and blessing, and this introduction anticipates an unnecessary and wrongful set of actions to follow in the pericope.

Further connections to Genesis 5 have been noted by Van Gemeren including the phrases האדמה פני על “on the face of the earth” (Genesis 6:1) and האדם בנות “daughter”/”the daughters of men” (Genesis 6:1, 2, 4). These phrases tie to האדמה מן “ground” in Genesis 5:29 and בנות “daughters” in Genesis 5:4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 26 30. [3]

Genesis 5:29 adds a link to the flood narrative in the naming of Noah, the one who “will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed”, as does Genesis 6:1 with humans increasing in numbers, which summarizes the genealogy of Genesis 5 with its frequent references to “daughters” as well as sons being born.

All of these connections enhance that the pericope is not an isolated and dismembered fragment improperly inserted into the text. The connections establish a link with the blessing at creation and more specifically to Genesis 5. [4] The link with Genesis 5 suggests its placement at the beginning of Genesis 6 is intended.

A Link with Other Judgment Passages

A conceptual link has also been noted by Van Gemeren between the flood judgment and other judgments in Genesis, linking the nephilim/gibborim into the flood judgment. [5] In the judgments of the Fall, the flood, the tower of Babel and Sodom, God makes an assessment of what man is doing before pronouncing judgment.

In the Fall, God walked in the garden and asked Adam “where are you” (Genesis 3:9). At Babel, “the Lord came down to see” (Genesis 11:5). With Sodom and Gomorrah, God determined to “go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me”. With the flood judgment, the same pattern is followed – “the Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5).

In the judgments of the Fall, man rebelled through disobedience. With the tower of Babel, man rebelled in building a tower for his own name, refusing to obey God’s mandate to fill the earth. With Sodom and Gomorrah, the residents sought inappropriate sexual relations with angels. With the flood judgment, the sin was “violence” (Genesis 6:11, 13) corrupting the earth (Genesis 6:12).

What Caused the Violence and Corruption?

We are not told how the violence and corruption began however it seems conceptually and structurally tied to the nephilim/gibborim and the intermarriage of the sons of God with the daughters of humans. In each of these judgment pericopes, God comes to see what has happened, to make an assessment of the situation. In the “sons of God” incident, vs 4 introduces the nephilim/gibborim, which is immediately followed by God “saw” (vs 5), tying the nephilim/gibborim to the evil of man.

It suggests that the actions of the sons of God brought God’s judgment and the nephilim/gibborim brought the violence that drove the flood judgment. If the nephilim/gibborim are not related to the judgment, then the flood judgment does not follow the pattern established in the other judgments mentioned – it is unique. This seems unlikely and untenable. As Van Gemeren argues, the consistency of the judgment models established in Genesis supports that the sons of God serve as prologue to the flood.

Given the pattern, it is plausible to conclude that the actions of the sons of God brought the violence and corruption upon the earth. The nephilim/gibborim were somehow involved, if not the perpetrators of violence and corruption that caused God to come and see the situation, assess it for Himself, and then pronounce judgment. There appear to be multiple causes leading up to the flood judgment: the marriages of the sons of God and the emergence of the nephilim/gibborim, the corruption of mankind if not “all flesh”, the wickedness of man’s imaginations and evil thoughts and the violence done.

The judgment that God pronounces is shocking. He has determined to “wipe from the face of the earth the human race . . . and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground”. The entire earth and every living creature will be destroyed. The judgment is disproportionate when compared against the other three early judgment pericopes. Man’s disobedience in Eden brought death and banishment from the garden. Man’s disobedience at Babel brought confusion of languages. The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were “so grievous” that they “reached” God. Yet their judgment was limited to the destruction of those cities.

In the flood narrative, the sins were so much worse that God determined to destroy His entire earthly creation – not just the human race whose “wickedness” had become “great” and about whom “every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time”, but also all creation.

It is a striking judgment often overlooked by those seeking to understand the meaning of this passage. Whatever the sins were that led to violence and corruption, they warranted complete destruction of God’s earthly creation. This is the background of Genesis 6:1-4. The sons of God intermarried with the daughters of humans because of their beauty, the nephilim/gibborim emerge during this time and what results is a corruption of mankind and unacceptable levels of violence. The corruption and violence were so horrendous that God determined to bring a total destruction to the earth and all flesh upon the earth. [6]

But who are the sons of God, who are the nephilim/gibborim, what is their relationship to the sons of God and to the corruption and violence that resulted? How did the intermarriage of the sons of God to the beautiful daughters of man contribute to the violence, corruption and evil hearts of all mankind? The first step to answering these questions lies in uncovering the identity of the sons of God.

The Interpretation of the Sons of God

There are a variety of proposals for the identity of the sons of God. From these, three primary interpretations have emerged. [7] The first interpretation has dominated Christian belief since the third century A.D., contending that the sons of God are the “righteous” sons of Seth. The argument is made that the seed of righteous Seth were the sons of God who intermarried with the “unrighteous” daughters of Cain.

A second proposition is that the sons of God are a royal line of kings who abusively intermarried with the daughters of commoners. The argument is made that the royal line inappropriately intermarried many “daughters”, with the sin of polygamy resulting.

The third proposition is that the sons of God are angels that descended to earth and intermarried with the daughters of men. The argument is made that the intermarriage resulted in nephilim/gibborim, hybrid species that were considered giants upon the earth. [8]

The Sons of God are the Righteous Line of Seth

This first proposition continues as the dominant interpretation among most congregants and pastors.[9] In this interpretation, it is argued that the genealogy of the line of Cain in Genesis 4 and the line of Seth in Genesis 5 form the basis for arguing that the sons of God are the line of Seth, and the daughters of men are the line of Cain. The righteous line of Seth was the line given the promise of the Protevangelium and the intermarriage with the unrighteous line of Cain resulted in corruption of the earth from the children who did not fear God.

The corruption of the righteous line brought corruption of the promise (the Protevangelium). The phrase “and they married any of them they chose” is claimed to apply to legal marriage, not unnatural sexual relationships of angels with humans. The judgment is claimed to fit the crime, the judgment inflicted upon men, not upon angels. It is then argued that the nephilim/gibborim cannot be confirmed to be the children of these marriages.

This interpretation has the advantage of believability as intermarriage is between humans and eliminates the issues associated with whether angels or demons are sexual beings. The disadvantages include the exegesis of the phrase “daughters of man”, which does not justify an interpretation limited to the line of Cain and the exegesis of the phrase “sons of God” which in its other uses does not refer to the righteous line of Seth or to righteous humans. [10]

The comparison between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of man” as meaning “the sons of some men” marrying “the daughters of other men” seems a strained and obtuse way of expressing this idea. Further, “man” in Genesis 6:1 applies to all mankind, making the claimed contrast even less likely. Why wouldn’t one expect “daughters of man” to have an equally broad definition? For that matter, why are only the daughters of Cain beautiful?

A second disadvantage is seen in the argument that the nephilim/gibborim are not the children of these marriages. If the nephilim/gibborim are not the children of these marriages, who are they and how do they fit into the narrative? If they are not the children of these marriages, then vs 4 is a fragment that stands alone, offering no relation to the text. Further, vs 4 makes clear that the sons of God bore children who were the nephilim/gibborim.  This is intended from אשר יבאו בני “that when the sons”. [11] 

The final problem with this interpretation is in the severity of the judgment. Why would the intermarriage of the righteous line of Seth with the unrighteous line of Cain require the complete destruction not just of humans but of every living thing? The judgment seems disproportionate with the crime. [12] These objections and others have led scholars to search for alternative meaning.

The Sons of God are Sacral Kings who Practiced Polygamy & Tyranny

The second major position posits that the sons of God were a royal line of kings who intermarried with women who were not of the royal line. This position refers to the practice of sacral kingship common among ancient Near Eastern kingdoms. Pagan kings were frequently considered sons of their “god”, the representative of their god on earth. Their chief god was considered to be their father and as such, they were a son of the gods. 

Ugaritic tales and Sumerian/Babylonian flood narratives are often quoted that show kings or heroes as sons of the gods. Those advancing this position note that אלהים ‘elohiym can be interpreted as judges (Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9; Psalm 82:6) or as kings (Exodus 21:28; Psalm 138:1). Old Testament verses that reference Israel as Yahweh’s firstborn, Israel’s sonship and the community of Israel as the children of God are quoted in support of this position (Exodus 4:22-23; Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:5, 6). This view has Jewish support dating back to at least the third century A.D. including Targum Onkelos. [13]

This line of argumentation typically follows the Babylonian flood narratives or begins with the activities of the line of Cain. As an example, Kline contends that Cain, in building a city, initiated the process whereby he and his progeny became rulers of their cities, so called “sons of God”, tyrannizing the populace and covenant breaking through polygamy. [14] Cain’s naming his city in honor of his son also drove his offspring increasingly to make a name for themselves, ultimately leading to the offspring of the “sons of the gods” being called “men of renown” (e.g., men of name). Kline’s penultimate example is Lamech, who was well known for polygamy (Genesis 4:19) and his tyranny, witnessed in his undue use of the sword to exact judgment that was reserved for God (Genesis 4:23-24).

Kline sees similarities between the structure of the account of Lamech and Genesis 6:1ff, seeing in both cases wives being taken, child-bearing and regal exploits. Lamech’s account closes with his taunt – the song of the sword, reserved for those who offend him while Genesis 6:1-4 closes with God’s declaration to the earth that now offends Him (Genesis 6:7).

Kline also suggests that Lamech’s polygamy was the basis for ancient Near Eastern harems. The mighty men were nephilim/gibborim, children born from these harems whose might became the justification of their abuses on the populace. It was the violation of the sacred marriage covenant and the tyrannical distortion of their office as governmental guardians that brought judgment.

Kline sees parallels with the Epic of Gilgamesh, which opens with “the land became wide, the people became numerous, the land bellowed like wild oxen.” [15] He likewise sees a similarity in the 120-year period prefacing the flood in Genesis 6 with the delays before the flood in the Atrahasis Epic, when various plagues were visited upon mankind.

Another point of similarity is the Sumerian King List, showing the long lives of the Sumerian kings (though much longer), paralleling that of the line of Seth. His last parallels are seen in postdiluvian kings such as Nimrod, who is referred to as gibborim. [16] As gibborim, Nimrod and his followers seek to make a name for themselves in parallel with the gibborim of Genesis 6.

The sacral kingship explanation has much to value and certainly provides a possible explanation. It has the advantage of believability, and scriptural support from the redemptive historical pattern. It also has some scriptural references that may hint the identity of the “sons of God”, though the supporting arguments made between men called “Elohim” and the “sons of Elohim” being men is not compelling.

That some men were called Elohim recognizes these men exercise the authority of angels by proxy. Their role is fundamentally angelic as was their authority. The implication is that these men were granted angelic authority by God, and they were to exercise that authority in a godly fashion.

If sacral kingship was prevalent in prediluvian times, God would certainly not grant it to the line of Cain. Such authority was usurped, not granted and evidence supporting assignment of angelic authority in prediluvian times is scripturally lacking. Also, to argue that the “sons of Elohim” were human, seems questionable exegesis. It may be possible, but it does not seem to be supported by other occurrences of “sons of God” in Scripture.

Drawing support from the interpretation of Targum Onkelos (and its antiquity) supports the sacral kingship argument but it is also not compelling as shall be seen in the angel intermarriage position. Further, the arguments regarding the tyranny of the line of Cain (and by implication the line of Seth) seem strained when compared with Scripture. The Song of the Sword reveals only one man that Lamech killed. While not unlikely that his tyranny went beyond that, Scripture documents only this instance as a taunt.

If others after him participated in violence, it is not discussed. Likewise, Genesis 4:19 specifically calls out Lamech as having two wives, not a harem. No one else in Cain’s or Abel’s line is so accused. Lamech is the quintessential example of the end of the unrepentant line of Cain. He is the outcome of unrepentance and as such, the worst in the line. The claim that conditions became worse after Lamech is not supported. Nevertheless, it is possible that Lamech represents his line (if not some in Abel’s line), lending merit to the argument.

Kline’s parallel between the offense taken by Lamech and the offense taken by God is inconsistent with the judgment. If so, shouldn’t Yahweh’s judgment be upon those who offend Him? Why is the entire creation subject to judgment? What is most strange is the failure to acknowledge the possibility that sacral kingship could have roots in angel intermarriage.

Kline’s view is particularly puzzling given that Gilgamesh, the hero of the Epic of Gilgamesh is two-thirds god and one third man. [17] Proponents of the sacral kingship position appear to gloss this point. [18] Here is a clear parallel with Genesis 6:1-4 if one adopts the angel intermarriage position. [19] This parallel in no way disqualifies the other parallels seen in the sacral kingship position.

It is possible that angel intermarriage with the daughters of men resulted in hybrid beings of mighty power (nephilim/gibborim), spirit in that they were part angel and “men” in that they were flesh (part human), who appointed themselves kings, abused humanity (if not all creation), seeking to make a name for themselves. It does not disrupt the redemptive historical pattern noted by Kline. One only need acknowledge that men of differing eras consistently sought to be mighty and make a name for themselves, albeit in different ways.

Further, sacral kingship is not able to address the nephilim of Numbers 13:33 where the Israelites are as grasshoppers in their sight. It is possible that the description is analogy, but one wonders if our translation as giants does not hint at more than mere human greatness.

A final criticism of Kline: If Biblical and extra-biblical sources serve as strong confirmation, how is it that extra-biblical Jewish sources that reference the sons of God as angels are not at least as convincing? How is it that these sources are disqualified? Having completed the analysis of the sacral kingship position, we can now turn to the angelic intermarriage position.

The Sons of God are Angels that Descended to Earth & Intermarried Human Women

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to the angelic intermarriage proposition is that many find it difficult to accept. At the root of the problem is the apparent incredibility of the interpretation, noted by Walton:

That fallen angels intermarried with human women at some point in ancient history is certainly not impossible, but it is incredible. . . . it must be admitted that the incredibility of the whole thing works to its disadvantage. [20]

That said, the appropriate interpretation must be based in the exegesis of the passage, not in its apparent incredibility. Determining the correct interpretation requires an understanding of the phrase “sons of God” ויראו בני־האלהים ויראו bene (ha) ‘elohiym. The term “sons of God” occurs elsewhere in Scripture including Job:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. Job 1:6 (AV)

Again, there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. Job 2:1 (AV)

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:4-7 (AV)

The references in Job favor that the sons of God are angelic beings. [21] It is unlikely that in Job’s day, “men” would present themselves to God with Satan present. Grouping the “sons of God” with Satan connects the two as angelic or supernatural in origin. Job 38 shows that the sons of God were present to laud creation, removing any doubt that the term “sons of God” is best understood as angels. [22]

 While opponents of the angel intermarriage proposition seek to show that the phrase “sons of God” could mean men, Gaebelein argues that references to men as “sons of God” do not occur in the Old Testament. The first occurrence does not occur until the New Testament following the inauguration of the new world order:

The final argument we bring against this view is conclusive. Believers in the Old Testament are never called the sons of God. That believers become by the new birth children of God, and are sons and heirs of God, is an entirely New Testament revelation. This truth was not made known till Christ had died and risen from the dead, ascended on high, and the Spirit was given. . . There are a number of passages in the Old Testament in which the sons of God are mentioned, but in each they are not human beings, but they are supernatural, the angels of God. . . It is evident that sons of God in the Old Testament are beings, not born of others, but directly created. For this reason in Luke’s Gospel, Adam, the first man, is called a son of God (Luke 3:38). Believers in the New Testament are born “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of God.” And therefore they are sons of God, possessing a supernatural life, even the divine nature, eternal life (John 1:12, 13). [23]

Opponents of the angelic interpretation quote Old Testament passages that refer to Israel as the children of God or as Yahweh’s firstborn, arguing the possibility that these phrases are equivalent to bene (ha) ‘elohiym. Despite these arguments, the usage of the phrase “sons of God” in both the Old and New Testament appears to have a more restricted meaning:

Angel interpretation has an exegetical advantage over the prior two proposed solutions. The exact phrase “sons of God” from the Hebrew consistently applies to Yahweh’s angelic host and is further confirmed by the LXX which translates bene (ha) ‘elohiym, angels ἄγγελοι. [24]

Second, the angel interpretation has the advantage of age, being the oldest known belief among Jewish scholars and the Jewish populace, a supporting reason why the bulk of recent scholarship has concluded that the term “sons of God” refers to angels:

The “angel” interpretation is at once the oldest view and that of most modern commentators. It is assumed in the earliest Jewish exegesis (e.g., the books of 1 Enoch 6:2ff; Jubilees 5:1), LXX, Philo (De Gigant 2:358), Josephus (Ant.1.31) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (IQapGen 2:1; CD 2:17-19). The NT (2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6, 7) and the earliest Christian writers (e.g., Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen) also take this line. [25]

Inasmuch as the Sethites were not “the sons of God,” we must see in them supernatural beings, fallen angels. This we believe is the true interpretation for various reasons. In the first place it is the traditional belief of the Jews living before Christ. Turning once more to the book of Enoch we find this tradition very prominent in some fragments which were undoubtedly in existence before Christ, as is conceded by nearly all scholars who have given themselves to the study of Jewish apocalyptic literature.[26]

Tibai adds:

The angelic view was dominant among Jews for three hundred years until R. Simeon b. Yohai cast a dissenting opinion in the middle of the second century. Early Christian sources also favored the angelic view. The writings of Church Fathers Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Commodianus, and Lactanius presumed this view without justification. Julius Africanus was the first Father to move away from the angelic interpretation. With Augustine, the angelic interpretation was put to rest, being supplanted by the Sethite interpretation among Christian exegetes. [27]

While not a compelling rationale on its own, its antiquity provides a solid basis for accepting its accuracy as the oldest documents are generally accepted as most accurate (i.e., least redacted). While dissenters often reference the antiquity of Targum Onkelos in support of the sacral kingship position, Targum Jonathan, which appears to be as old as Targum Onkelos, interprets the “sons of God” as angels.

To this can be added the widespread dissemination of the angel interpretation. This position was widely known throughout ancient Judaism while also the dominant belief of the early church. In fact, certain New Testament passages gain clarity when interpreted against an understanding of the bene (ha) ‘elohiym as angels. These factors further support the angel intermarriage position.

Third, the exegesis of “daughters of man” is best understood as daughters of all men. To argue that the daughters of man represent a subset of men of the line of Cain, while not impossible, is implausible. Those who support this line of argumentation attempt to emphasize the possibility that the phrase can be interpreted as the daughters of some men. In doing so, they inherently acknowledge that this is not its normal or common meaning. Given the context of the passage, detractors must explain the change in meaning for “man” from Genesis 6:1, noted by Wenham:

Modern scholars who accept this view advance three main reasons for supporting it. First, elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g., Psalms 29:1, Job 1:6) “sons of God” refers to heavenly, godlike creatures. Second, in 6:1-4 the contrast is between “the sons of the gods” on the one hand and “the daughters of man” on the other. The alternative interpretations presuppose that what Genesis 6 really meant was that “the sons of some men” married “the daughters of other men.” The present phrase “sons of God” is, to say the least, an obscure way of expressing such an idea. It is made the more implausible by 6:1 where “man” refers to all mankind. It is natural to assume that in vs 2 “daughters of man” has an equally broad reference, not a specific section of the human race. Finally, it is pointed out that in Ugaritic literature “sons of God” refers to members of the divine pantheon, and it is likely that Genesis is using the phrase in a similar sense. [28]

Fourth, as noted above, there is the testimony of pagan Near Eastern literature where “sons of God” or “sons of the gods” consistently refers to the pantheon of gods of the surrounding pagan communities. This is undisputed by the proponents of sacral kingship. Rather, they argue that sacral kingship in pagan literature (e.g., The Epic of Gilgamesh) are compelling, providing additional confirmation of their viewpoint while overlooking the parallels found in Ugaritic, Sumerian and Babylonian literature that reference “sons of the gods” comprising the divine pantheon. [29]

 Whether pagan literature better supports the sacral kingship position or the angel interpretation, let each decide for oneself. The angel interpretation, however, has the additional advantage of the testimony of Jewish tradition and literature.

Extra-Biblical Testimony to Sons of God as Angels

There are a variety of Jewish extra-biblical sources that understand the “sons of God” as angels dating back to at least the first century C.E., some believed to date to the first or second century B.C.E. Josephus, a first century Pharisee and historian, provides the following account of Genesis 6:1-4: [30]

For seven generations these people continued to believe in God as Lord of the universe and in everything to take virtue for their guide; then, in course of time, they abandoned the customs of their fathers for a life of depravity. They no longer rendered to God His due honor, nor took account of justice towards men, but displayed by their actions a zeal for vice twofold greater than they had formerly shown for virtue, and thereby drew upon themselves the enmity of God. For many angels of God now consorted with women and begat sons who were overbearing and disdainful of every virtue, such confidence had they in their strength; in fact, the deeds that tradition ascribes to them resemble the audacious exploits told by the Greeks of the giants. [31]

Josephus’ account of this passage is insightful and reflects a common rabbinical sentiment in the first century C.E., confirming a tradition that the “sons of God” were angels that intermarried with women and that the “sons” of the illicit relations displayed attitudes much like that attributed in Scripture to Lamech. One could easily speculate that Lamech may have been the “son” of such a union. [32]

These “sons of God” who intermarried with the daughters of men were called nephilim in Hebrew, meaning “fallen ones”. Some have suggested that nephilim were “fallen angels” but it is also possible this term applies to their fate – that they fell in battle. [33]

The LXX refers to the sons of these illicit marriages using the Greek term from which we get giants. Most surprisingly, Josephus connects the mythology of the Greeks with that of the nephilim. One could envision that this account in Genesis derives from a common tradition found in diverse pagan mythology of gods and goddesses of the pantheons and their cavorting with humans.

Scripture seems to correct these pagan myths, clarifying that the nephilim were not gods but merely disobedient angels. Philo also understands the “sons of God” to be angels. [34] Other pseudepigraphic and extra-biblical sources understand the “sons of God” to be angels. The Testament of Reuben, urges men not to be beguiled by the external adornment of a woman saying:

Flee, therefore, fornication, my children, and command your wives and your daughters, that they adorn not their heads and faces to deceive the mind: because every woman ⁶ who useth these wiles hath been reserved for eternal punishment. For thus they allured the Watchers who were before the flood; for as these continually beheld them, they lusted after them, and they conceived the act in their mind; for they changed themselves into the shape of men, and ⁷ appeared to them when they were with their husbands. And the women lusting in their minds after their forms, gave birth to giants, for the Watchers appeared to them as reaching even unto heaven. Testament of Reuben 5:5-7

Watchers were angelic beings (cf. Daniel 4:13, 17, 23; 1Enoch 10:7-9, 15; 12:1-4; 13:10; 14:1-3; 15:2, 9; 16:1-2; Jubilees 4:15, 22), one of the lower rank of angels. [35] The Testament of Naphtali also references the descent of the watchers, warning against the sin of the watchers who changed God’s order of nature, much as Sodom sought through their attempts to have sexual relations with angels:

But ye shall not be so, my children, recognizing in the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, and in all created things, the Lord who made all things, that ye become not as Sodom, which ⁵ changed the order of nature. In like manner the Watchers also changed the order of their nature, whom the Lord cursed at the flood, on whose account He made the earth without inhabitants and fruitless. Testament of Naphtali 3:5

The references in the Testament of Reuben and the Testament of Naphtali show dependence upon 1 Enoch and Jubilees. 1 Enoch appears to provide an enlargement upon Genesis 6:1-4. 1 Enoch 6 describes the descent of angels to earth to intermarry human daughters after lusting after them:

¹ And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. ² And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: “Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.”

Similar mention is made in the book of Jubilees:

²² And he testified to the Watchers, who had sinned with the daughters of men; for these had begun to unite themselves, so as to be defiled, with the daughters of men, and Enoch testified against (them) all. Jubilees 4

These traditional sources, together with numerous other references found in Qumran, reveal the angel interpretation was widely known throughout Judaism dating back at least two to three centuries before Christ. The totality of the evidence presented confirms the angel intermarriage proposition to be the most likely. It has the advantages of sound exegesis and was the predominant belief among Jews and early Christians for at least two centuries either side of Christ. It is backed by historians Philo and Josephus, is the oldest known interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 and is backed by pagan and Jewish literature including apocalyptic literature well known to ancient Jews and the early church (1 Enoch and Jubilees). [36]

All these arguments support that the angel interpretation is most likely correct. The disadvantage of the angel interpretation rests in its incredibility. It is difficult to understand why God would allow angels to have sexual relations with men. The primary argument cited in opposition to this view comes from Matthew 22:30 where it is argued from Christ’s words that angels are sexless:

³⁰ At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. (cf. Mark 12:25)

There are two counterarguments that can be raised against this view: First, angelic appearances throughout the Old Testament took the form of a man, suggestive that angels were of the male sex. [37]

Second, Christ was specific in stating that it is the angels in heaven that do not marry nor are given in marriage. Christ’s words do not imply that angels are sexless; on the contrary, His words are a clarification, showing that marriage is a type, reserved for humans during the interim ages between the Fall and restoration of man. When the anti-type is established, the type will fade from view (i.e., when we become like the angels, then the individual institution of marriage will be abolished). The angels that sinned, were not in heaven, but on earth.

In closing, it is possible angels may be more like humans than is generally recognized. Genesis 1:26 states “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule . . .” This verse is often interpreted as a confirmation that God is a trinity. However, ancient Jews interpreted this it as confirmation that we were made in the image of God and His heavenly host, the angels.

Enochian/Jubilean Tradition Favors Angel Intermarriage Interpretation

The Enochic and Jubilean traditions ascribe much of the world’s evil to disobedient angels who taught mankind enchantments, feminine beautification, astrology, warfare and root cutting. Warfare would provide strong reason to bring judgment upon mankind as bloodshed was forbidden.

If the Enochic and Jubilean traditions are correct, much of the bloodshed resulted from the appetites of the nephilim/gibborim who consumed the flesh of men and animals in violation of God’s order, which ordained a diet of fruits, vegetables and grains. Such abuses would require God’s intervention against the nephilim/gibborim and their watcher parents.

This alone would not warrant complete destruction of the earth. Root cutting however, may be particularly significant as it infers reproduction asexually through cloning, something the ancients would see as a violation of God’s stated purposes in creation. Likewise, Jubilees 5:1-3 speaks of all flesh having corrupted its orders, suggestive that hybrid species may have become common through the secret knowledge revealed by the watchers. If true, it would offer a most convincing support for destruction of the entire earth. The corruption of God’s creation order would support an interpretation favoring angel-human intermarriage. 

Later scriptures confirm the prohibition of crossbreeding. These prohibitions are alluded to in Genesis 1, marked by the recurrent statement “according to his/their kind(s).” This statement occurs ten times in Genesis 1 (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). Ten is a number typically associated with order. The implication is that God ordered the species, and man is not to destroy that order.

Root cutting at minimum implies reproduction outside of God’s intended method and could also have involved techniques for creating hybrid plants and species through processes such as grafting. Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9 illustrate the prohibition on crossbreeding:

¹⁹ “‘Keep my decrees. “‘Do not mate different kinds of animals. “‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. “‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.  ⁹ Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled.

Wenham summarizes:

But to Hebrew thinking such ideas [crossbreeding] were utterly abhorrent. Within the earthly realm the creator’s categories must not be transgressed. Each species had been created to propagate itself “according to its type.” Thus, crossbreeding of cattle, intermarriage with foreigners, even plowing with teams of different types of animals or wearing garments of mixed cloth was forbidden by the law. How much worse was this breach of the boundary between the earthly and heavenly realms. [38]

The Hebrew expression for “according to his/their kind(s)” is also echoed in the story of Noah where the same expression appears seven times, completing a cycle of created life to be preserved/spared judgment.

¹⁸ But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. ¹⁹ You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. ²⁰ Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. ²¹ You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.” Genesis 6 [emphasis added]

¹³ On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. ¹⁴ They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. ¹⁵ Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. ¹⁶ The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the Lord shut him in. Genesis 7 [emphasis added]

Though the statement “each according to its kind” is not applied directly to man, it would seem unnecessary as every human is of the same kind, the same seed. The principle would still apply, making the intermarriage with angels an egregious violation of God’s creation principles. That this intermarriage occurred “when men began to increase in number” shows the gratuity of the behavior – God’s blessing to be fruitful and multiply, was in evidence but not satisfactory to man. He wanted more.

Stories of superhuman demigods like Gilgamesh were a commonplace, and intercourse with the divine was regularly sought in the fertility cults of Canaan and the sacred marriage rites of Mesopotamia. Through such procedures men sought to achieve enhanced earthly life and even eternal life. [39]

That man sought eternal life is likewise echoed in the Book of Enoch:

And no request that they (i.e., their fathers) make of thee shall be granted unto their fathers on their behalf; for they hope to live an eternal life, and that each one of them will live five hundred years. 1 Enoch 10:10

If the tradition is true, it indicates that the daughters of men were not forcibly taken in marriage but sought intermarriage in the hope that their offspring would achieve eternal life.[40] This behavior implies that the daughters (likely with the approval of their fathers) were seeking to reverse the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin, in direct violation of God’s plan and purposes.

A Possible Meaning of “All Flesh had Corrupted its Way” & its Implications

In striving for eternal life, like Adam and Eve before them, they were guilty of seeking to be like God. Such actions warrant judgment, a judgment of shortened life in response to efforts to extend life. While the judgment of the Flood appears to be the direct result of the great violence against creation, there seems to be a faint echo of man’s attempts to achieve eternal life in the words “My spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal.” Cassuto translates the passage “My spirit will not abide with man forever, for he is flesh” and then offers the following insight:

The meaning is: My spirit shall not abide forever in the children born of these marriages, who belong, on their mother’s side, to the species of man, in as much as he, too, is flesh, that is, because man, even though he transcends the early creatures, is also flesh like them . . . [41]

Here we see the sons of God as spiritual creatures who in intermarrying with women, have children who are flesh, and will not experience the eternal life of spiritual beings but face death as all flesh must. Thus, despite what appears to be an attempt by man to achieve eternal life, God “numbers” the life of these creatures to only one hundred and twenty more years. Kraeling offers a possible insightful into Yahweh’s statement that His spirit will not strive with mankind forever for he is flesh:

It would seem that the creator’s “spirit” is entirely his own; the sons of God cannot increase the quantity of that spirit in man, though they can transmit some of their own potency (whether this was called “spirit” when thus transmitted by procreation or not). Perhaps the resultant situation involves a contending of forces in this new breed – the “spirit” of the Creator that had been infused from without and the divine nature transmitted by the begetters clashing with one another. This would vindicate the meaning of ירון as “contend” or “strive,” and makes it unnecessary to resort to weaker meanings. In the state of affairs that has been established, Yahweh’s “spirit” has been forced into a situation of contending with the transmitted divine natures and at the same time of upholding that part of man which is flesh and which perishes when he withdraws his “spirit.” It is intolerable to him that his “spirit” should have to be committed indefinitely to such a situation. This is the force of le ^cōlām. It need not refer to the possibility of eternal (deathless) life but may be used in the sense of immensely long life as in the wish, “May the king live forever.” [42]

Kraeling goes on to clarify that “man” referred to in Genesis 6:3 is not mankind as God had created (and referred to in Genesis 6:1), but the new form of mankind sired by the intermarriage of the watchers with the daughters of man. Kraeling’s view supports the contention that mankind was striving to reverse the consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve, again attempting to be like God by having eternal or near-eternal life. While man may have sought a longer life, some have postulated that the motives of the angels may have been different:

The reference in Jude 6 to the angels leaving their own habitation, appears to point to and correspond with these “sons of God” (angels) coming in unto the daughters of men. Apparently, by this means, Satan hoped to destroy the human race (the channel through which the woman’s Seed was to come) by producing a race of monstrosities.How nearly he succeeded is evident from the fact, that with the exception of one family, “all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth” (Gen. 6:12). That monstrosities were produced as the result of this unnatural union between the “sons of God” (angels) and the daughters of men, is evident from the words of Genesis 6:4: “There were giants in the earth in those days.” The Hebrew word for “giants“here is nephilim, which means fallen ones,from “naphal” to fall. The term “men of renoun” in Genesis 6:4 probably finds its historical equivalent in the “heroes“of Grecian mythology. [43]

Tibai adds:

This genetic corruption of the human race is seen as a Satanic conspiracy designed to prevent a purebred human Savior. Thus, the flood is not only God’s judgment on man, but it also destroys the corrupted gene pool. [44]

If correct, the failure of man (and of the angels) is manifest; man’s efforts focused on self-redemption, being like God and removing sin’s consequences rather than acceptance of God’s redemptive plan while the angels’ efforts were focused on derailing God’s plan of redemption, if not also the destruction of God’s creation and prevention of God’s plan for a new creation.

God’s redemptive plan would require a countermeasure as humanity (if not all creation) was in jeopardy with the human line infected by the angelic species. The law of the kinsman-redeemer required the redeemer be kin with mankind, meaning God would need to become human to redeem humanity. Interbreeding humans with angels would systematically eliminate humanity, nullifying the provision in the law of the kinsman-redeemer.

Yet such a view must remain speculative, as it is unsupported by Scripture or Judaic tradition. [45] More likely was the possibility that the blood-violence introduced by the fallen angels and employed by wicked humans, represented a threat to the seed of Seth’s line. The destruction of all except Noah’s family would powerfully make the point against blood-violence. Yet judgment upon evil men guilty of blood-violence would not adequately explain God’s determination to destroy all creation. If there had been crossbreeding of plants and potentially animals as well (where some support is found in Jewish tradition), that reality together with the blood-violence would seem adequate justification for God’s pronouncement to destroy all creation.

In a broader sense, man’s failure as overseer of God’s earthly creation may also have resulted in the corruption of “all flesh” if not also plant-life. [46] The reasons for God’s judgment become clear though a remnant of creation would be spared destruction to serve as seed of a new creation. Incredible as angel-human intermarriage may seem, the sum total of the evidence in support of angel-human intermarriage provides the most credible explanation for Yahweh’s determination to destroy the entire earth. Neither sacral kingship or the line of Seth as the sons of God adequately explains the breadth of God’s earthly destruction or His need to “re-seed” the earth according to His creative order.

The arguments may leave some readers uncomfortable, particularly where we have supplemented Biblical exegesis with extant Jewish texts and pagan mythology. We believe our arguments are sound and agree with Cassuto’s conclusion that the Torah seeks to clarify and correct pagan mythology and show that the pagan pantheons of “gods” were not gods at all but “sons of God” – God’s angelic ranks, part of God’s divine counsel:

The explanation it offers contradicts the gentile legends we have mentioned. Following its usual practice, Scripture does not engage in any polemic or argument here; it merely explains, in harmony with its outlook, the origin of the titans, and from the affirmations one may deduce the negations. These colossi are in no way related – Heaven forfend! – to the Deity, but only to “the sons of God”, that is, to the members of the Divine household, to God’s ministers, more particularly to the lowest orders among them. . . The declaration in v. 3, My spirit shall not abide in man, etc. implies: Do not believe the heathen tales about human beings of divine origin, who were rendered immortal; this is untrue, for in the end every man must die, in as much as he, too, is flesh. The sons that were born from the intercourse of the sons of God with the daughters of men were, in truth, gigantic and mighty, yet they did not live forever . . . And when they lived, it is on the earth, and were never translated to heaven. They were the men of renown; indeed, men of renown, but even so they were men, not more than men. [47]

While modern man may be uncomfortable with the concept of angel-human intermarriage, it did not seem odd or foreign to its ancient audience:

The angel story seems bizarre to us, and we may wonder why anyone would have believed it. Whatever our reactions may be today, a surprisingly large number of Jewish and Christian writers did take it seriously and found it to be a convincing explanation of scriptural passages and of the human situation. [48]

If this passage is viewed historically, it is tempting to dismiss angelic-human intermarriage as it seems to add little but controversy and hold to the more traditional interpretation that the intermarriages occurred between humans, whether of the lines of Cain and Seth or through sacral kingship of both lines. If angel-human intermarriage is viewed typologically however, renewed importance is seen, particularly bearing on prophecies of the end of the age. Our discussion will proceed along these lines in the hope of uncovering some prophetic insights relevant to the end-times.

New Testament Insights Regarding the “Sons of God”

Jewish Extra-Biblical Background

Before embarking on a review of New Testament allusions to angel intermarriage, the background of Jewish extra-biblical tradition must be provided. Two sources of particular importance are 1 Enoch and Jubilees. The book of 1 Enoch gives an expanded account of Genesis 6:1-4, documenting the descent of the watchers from the heavens to earth in 1 Enoch 6:1-8:2:

¹ And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. ² And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: “Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.” ³ And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: “I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.” ⁴ And they all answered him and said: “Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.” ⁵ Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. ⁶ And they were in all two hundred; who descended [in the days] of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. ⁷ And these are the names of their leaders: Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. ⁸ These are their chiefs of tens. ¹ And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. ² And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: ³ Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, ⁴ the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. ⁵ And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another’s flesh, and drink the blood. ⁶ Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones. ¹ And Azâzêl taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals (of the earth) and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures. ² And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjâzâ taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, Armârôs the resolving of enchantments, Barâqîjâl (taught) astrology, Kôkabêl the constellations, Ezêqêêltheknowledgeoftheclouds, (Araqiêl the signs of the earth, Shamsiêl the signs of the sun), and Sariêl the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven . . . [49]

The book of 1 Enoch relates a Jewish tradition that the sons of God were angels that left their positions of authority in the heavens and intermarried with human women (cf. Jubilees 5:1; 1 Enoch 86). It would seem that the 1 Enoch and the book of Jubilees draw upon the same tradition as Genesis, though both contain a substantial enlargement of the story. The account in 1 Enoch begins much like Genesis 6:1 but offers a reason for the descent of the watchers, something Genesis 6 does not elaborate upon: the watchers lusted after the beautiful daughters of man and two hundred of them descended from the heavens, apparently took on human form and intermarried the daughters of men. 1 Enoch relates that these angels descended during the days of Jared, Jared’s name offering a clue regarding this antediluvian event:

Each of the antediluvian patriarchs from Jared (the sixth in the list of ten forefathers in Genesis 5) to Noah (the tenth in the list) is brought into connection with this story, and each of their names provides a clue to the story or describes a stage in it. Jared’s name signifies the angels’ descent; . . . [50]

That Jared means “descent” [51] and is the sixth in the line of patriarchs (six often considered a number associated with man and man’s failure or sin), points to an angelic descent and man’s complicity with the angelic intermarriages.

New Testament Allusions to Women’s Adornment

The first New Testament allusions to angel intermarriage hint that the watcher-angels lusted after the daughters of men. Paul seems to allude to this event in 1 Corinthians 11:

¹⁰ For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

In 1 Corinthians 11 (and the companion passage in 1 Timothy 2:9), Paul lays out the guidelines in worship between men and women based upon God’s order in creation and the respective roles God expects believers to model. The crux of the passage seems to be that women are to have their heads covered when praying or prophesying. The passage is often dismissed as having cultural significance only. Vs 10 suggests however, that the covering is a sign of authority placed upon women “because of the angels.”  R.A. Stewart relates this to the fallen angels, more specifically back to the intermarriage of women with angels:

There is a strange undertone of hostility or suspicion towards angels in certain passages. This has interesting though unconnected parallels in the rabbinic literature. Romans 8:38 refers to fallen angels, and this explains also the puzzling passage 1 Corinthians 11:10, which should be read in the light of Genesis 6:1 ff. [52]

If Stewart is correct, it suggests that Paul’s instructions on head covering are not presented to respect local custom, but as a sign among godly women that they are in submission to the authorities placed over them by God. This sign may also contrast with those in local assemblies in the end-times who do not view themselves under the authority of angels and have accepted the libertine doctrines of false teachers that Jude and Peter both prophesy will infiltrate the body of believers. Those women who do not consider themselves under the authority of angels, and the men who support their views, insult angels with their insubordinate behaviors.[53] A further insight on 1 Corinthians 11:10 is offered by Barker:

The command in 1 Corinthians 11:10 that women should wear hats in church is based on a fear of the angels. Why? When the sons of God looked down from heaven and saw the daughters of men, they would have seen their beautiful hair. To avoid any further disasters, women had to keep their hair covered! (Notice the characteristic stance of Paul: the very existence of the woman’s beauty invites disaster, and she has to do something about it. [54]

If one accepts that the “Sons of God” were angels that intermarried with women, the instructions given in 1 Corinthians 11:10 find a credible explanation: godly women should exercise modesty in dress as an end-time sign to the world, and particularly to those in their local assembly. The focus of godly women should be on their inner spirit, not upon external beautification brought by cosmetics or ornamentation that may have contributed to the watchers’ lust. Loader has suggested that ornamentation and beautification of women was taught by the angels and embraced by women, making them share culpability in their intermarriage with angels as they deliberately sought to enhance their beauty, making them even more desirable to the angels. [55] Surprisingly, the instructions of 1 Corinthians 11:10 almost hint the possibility of future angelic descents if women are not modest or if they repeat the mistakes of the prediluvian daughters of man. [56] It may be that Paul warns of the power of heavenly secrets taught by the angels or ungodly teachings spread by demons that promote lust in the congregation:

Enoch describes how Asael, a powerful angel who knew the secrets of the creation, came to earth and taught humankind some of those secrets. This heavenly knowledge gave men godlike powers, and thus they corrupted the earth. They learnt how to extract metals from rock, and to use them to make weapons of war and ornaments for seduction. (A later version of this story says that it was the beautifully adorned women who lured still more angels to the earth.) [57]

Paul’s instruction most likely points to spiritual reinterpretation. In the new creation, godly men should shun external beauty recognizing in the end-times ungodly women may lure godly men into sexual sin or marriages not sanctioned by God. Importantly, godly men should place a premium upon a woman’s spiritual qualities over her physical qualities. Similarly, modesty among godly women would be a sign pointing to their understanding that spiritual beauty is their priority rather than external physical beautification (1 Timothy 2:9-10).

Tradition of Demonic Teachings & its Relation to the Imprisoned Angels of Jude 6

1 Enoch claims however, that the sin of the watchers was not restricted to human-angel intermarriage. The nephilim caused great violence against men and all creatures, devoured much flesh and drank blood – all egregious sins in God’s eyes. Men were not permitted to eat flesh, only fruits and vegetables (cf. Genesis 1:29). Later Scripture confirms that the life was in the blood and eating or drinking the blood was not permitted (cf. Genesis 9:4). [58] The watchers also taught men forbidden knowledge including teaching not limited to female beautification but also sinful practices such as root cutting and warfare. Godlessness resulted including fornication and corruption of the populace. The result was that “the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones” and “as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven” as is seen in 1 Enoch 9:

⁶ Thou seest what Azâzêl hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were (preserved) in heaven, which men were striving to learn: ⁷ And Semjâzâ, to whom Thou hast given authority to bear rule over his associates. ⁸ And they have gone to the daughters of men upon the earth, and have slept with the women, and have defiled themselves, and revealed to them all kinds of sins. ⁹ And the women have borne giants, and the whole earth has thereby been filled with blood and unrighteousness. ¹⁰ And now, behold, the souls of those who have died are crying and making their suit to the gates of heaven, and their lamentations have ascended: and cannot cease because of the lawless deeds which are wrought on the earth.

Azâzêl figures prominently in this tradition, as the angel credited with teaching warfare via metalworking (if not also idolatry via molten images). The accusation is seen to center on Azâzêl. There is much speculation regarding his behavior. [59] Some scholars see Azâzêl as the first angel that descended to earth prior to the descent of the two hundred recorded in 1 Enoch 6 (cf. 1 Enoch86:1-6). The judgment on Azâzêl enhances this possibility:

⁴ And again the Lord said to Raphael: “Bind Azâzêl hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dûdâêl, and cast him therein. ⁵ And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. 1 Enoch 10:4-5 [60]

Judgment upon the other watchers followed:

¹¹ And the Lord said unto Michael: “Go, bind Semjâzâ and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them in all their uncleanness. ¹² And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgment and of their consummation, till the judgment that is for ever and ever is consummated. ¹³ In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: (and) to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. ¹⁴ And whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound together with them to the end of all generations. ¹⁵ And destroy all the spirits of the reprobate and the children of the Watchers, because they have wronged mankind. Destroy all wrong from the face of the earth and let every evil work come to an end . . . 1 Enoch 10 [61]

⁶ And against the angels whom He had sent upon the earth, He was exceedingly wroth, and He gave commandment to root them out of all their dominion, and He bade us to bind them in the depths of the earth, and behold they are bound in the midst of them, and are (kept) separate. Jubilees 5:6 [62]

The judgment described in 1 Enoch imprisons the fallen watchers in the abyss (“in the depths of the earth” Jubilees). It provides insight into a problematic reference in Jude:

⁶ And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home–these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

Jude 6 suggests the angels that abandoned their positions of authority in the heavens and descended to earth are the watchers of 1 Enoch and Jubilees andhave been placed in eternal chains awaiting the Great Day of Judgment. It was the sin of departing from their heavenly positions that resulted in judgment. Concerning Jude, Bauckham states:

Άγγέλους are the angels (known as the Watchers) who, according to Jewish tradition, descended from heaven to marry human wives and corrupt the human race in the period before the Flood. This was how the account of the “sons of God” in Gen 6:1-4 was universally understood (so far as our evidence goes) until the mid-second century A.D.  (1Enoch 6-19; 21; 86-88; 106:13-15, 17; Jubiless. 4:15, 22; 5:1; CD 2:17-19; 1QapGen 2:1; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Genesis 6:1-4; Testament of Reuben 5:6-7; Testament of Naphtali 3:5; 2 Apocalypse of Baruch 56:10-14), though the tradition took several varying forms. From the time of R. Simeon b. Yohai in the mid-second century A.D., the traditional exegesis was replaced in Judaism by an insistence that the “sons of God” were not angels but men. In Christianity, however, the traditional exegesis had a longer life, questioned only in the third century and disappearing in the fifth century. [63]

Without the light that 1 Enoch and Jubilees shed upon the abbreviated pericope of Genesis 6:1-4, the exegesis of Jude 6 remains shrouded in uncertainty. Against the backdrop of 1 Enoch and Jubilees, Jude 6 comes to clarity. The allusion of Jude 6 to Genesis 6:1-4 is dependent upon 1 Enoch and Jubilees. 

Tradition of Evil Spirits and Relation to New Testament Demonic Activities

The books of 1 Enoch and Jubilees portray much of the evil found in our world has its source in improper human-angelic interactions. Together, these books attempt to explain much of the extraordinary evil present in our cosmos. In the judgment pronounced by God upon the watchers and their nephilim/gibborim children, Jubilees relates another tradition that attempts to explain the presence of evil spirits and demonic activity in the world.

From the book of 1 Enoch 12:4-6; 14:5-6 and Jubilees, we learn that God caused the nephilim to violently destroy each other. However, their deaths only destroyed the physical aspect of these beings. They were part spiritual and their spirits persisted on earth, barred from heaven due to their nature part physical:

¹  And He answered and said to me, and I heard His voice: “Fear not, Enoch, thou righteous man and scribe of righteousness: approach hither and hear my voice. ² And go, say to [the Watchers of heaven], who have sent thee to intercede [for them: ‘You should intercede’] for men, and not men for you: ³ Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons? ⁴ And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those [also] do who die and perish. ⁵ Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. ⁶ But you were [formerly] spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. ⁷ And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling. ⁸ And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. ⁹ Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men, [and] from the holy Watchers is their beginning and primal origin; [they shall be evil spirits on earth, and] evil spirits shall they be called. [¹⁰ As for the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall be their dwelling, but as for the spirits of the earth which were born upon the earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling.] ¹¹ And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food, [but nevertheless hunger] and thirst, and cause offences. And these spirits shall rise up against the children of men and against the women, because they have proceeded [from them]. 1 Enoch 15 [64]

This account in 1 Enoch was designed to show the origin of evil spirits and demonic activity on earth. It was the result of the disembodied spirits of the nephilim/gibborim that were barred from heaven and left to “cause trouble” for the children of men. Though their watcher-parents have been imprisoned in the abyss and the bodies of the Nephilim/gibborim put to death, the spirits of the nephilim/gibborim children remain on earth to torment men.

Thus, the author of 1 Enoch reveals the source of evil spirits while also providing a moral lesson on the impact of the sins of the sons of God and the daughters of man. Jubilees 10:1-13 claims that these evil spirits began to lead Noah’s offspring astray and his sons requested that Noah intercede with God:

¹ And in the third week of this jubilee the unclean demons began to lead astray the children of the sons of Noah; and to make to err and destroy them. ² And the sons of Noah came to Noah their father, and they told him concerning the demons which were, leading astray and blinding and slaying his sons’ sons. ³ And he prayed before the Lord his God, and said: “God of the spirits of all flesh, who hast shown mercy unto me, And hast saved me and my sons from the waters of the flood, And hast not caused me to perish as Thou didst the sons of perdition; For Thy grace hath been great towards me, And great hath been Thy mercy to my soul; Let Thy grace be lift up upon my sons, And let not wicked spirits rule over them
Lest they should destroy them from the earth. ⁴ But do Thou bless me and my sons, that we may increase and multiply and replenish the earth. ⁵ And Thou knowest how Thy Watchers, the fathers of these spirits, acted in my day: and as for these spirits which are living, imprison them and hold them fast in the place of condemnation, and let them not bring destruction on the sons of thy servant, my God; for these are malignant, and created in order to destroy. ⁶ And let them not rule over the spirits of the living; for Thou alone canst exercise dominion over them. And let them not have power over the sons of the righteous from henceforth and for evermore.” ⁷ And the Lord our God bade us to bind all. ⁸ And the chief of the spirits, Mastêmâ, came and said: “Lord, Creator, let some of them remain before me, and let them hearken to my voice, and do all that I shall say unto them; for if some of them are not left to me, I shall not be able to execute the power of my will on the sons of men; for these are for corruption and leading astray before my judgment, for great is the wickedness of the sons of men.” ⁹ And He said: “Let the tenth part of them remain before him, and let nine parts descend into the place of condemnation.” ¹⁰ And one of us He commanded that we should teach Noah all their medicines; for He knew that they would not walk in uprightness, nor strive in righteousness. ¹¹ And we did according to all His words: all the malignant evil ones we bound in the place of condemnation, and a tenth part of them we left that they might be subject before Satan on the earth. ¹² And we explained to Noah all the medicines of their diseases, together with their seductions, how he might heal them with herbs of the earth. ¹³ And Noah wrote down all things in a book as we instructed him concerning every kind of medicine. Thus the evil spirits were precluded from (hurting) the sons of Noah. [65]

As a result of Noah’s intercession, ninety percent of the evil spirits were locked into the abyss along with their watcher parents, but ten percent were left upon the earth to test men’s hearts. From 1 Enoch 10:12and Jubilees 5:10, the implication seems to be that like their watcher parents, all the evil spirits – both those in prison and those left to roam the earth – will be brought to judgment at the end of the age.

The Demon-Possessed of the Gadarenes

While the veracity of this tradition cannot be confirmed, we note two New Testament allusions to this tradition, suggestive that the authors of the New Testament were familiar with these traditions and wove them into their accounts. The first allusion is found in the story of the demoniac(s) from the region of the Gadarenes. The account in Matthew 8 includes an interesting allusion to this tradition:

²⁸ When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. ²⁹ “What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”

The allusion found in the statement of the demons “have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?” appears to have been carefully included by Matthew. “Before the appointed time” appears to be an allusion to the Enochian tradition that the watchers and the spirits of their children (demons/evil spirits) would in fact be judged at the end of the age. In their question, they recognize the sovereignty of Christ to judge them before the appointed time. The inclusion of this question establishes Matthew’s dependence upon this Enochian tradition. [66]

The Parallel Lukan Account

Likewise, an important allusion to the Enochian tradition is found in the parallel account of Luke 8:

³⁰ Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” “Legion,” he replied, because many demons had gone into him. ³¹ And they begged Jesus repeatedly not to order them to go into the Abyss.

Luke includes an important detail that the legion of demons begged Jesus not to order them to go into the Abyss, the place where their watcher-parents were imprisoned along with ninety percent of the evil spirits. The evil spirits again recognized the absolute authority of Jesus to imprison them in the abyss until the final judgment.

The inclusion of this small detail makes Luke’s account dependent upon the Enochian and Jubileean traditions. Without these traditions, these small details would go largely unappreciated and the meaning unknown. However, these allusions to the Enochian and Jubileean tradition support that the correct interpretation of the sons of God is angels that intermarried with women.

Revelation 9

A third allusion is found in Revelation 9, in the events surrounding a star that had fallen to the earth releasing strange composite creatures upon the kingdom of the beast:

¹ The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss. ² When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss. ³ And out of the smoke locusts came down upon the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. ⁴ They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. ⁵ They were not given power to kill them, but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes a man. ⁶ During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them. ⁷ The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. ⁸ Their hair was like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. ⁹ They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. ¹⁰ They had tails and stings like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months. ¹¹ They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon. [67]

There is a parallel passage in 1 Enoch 86 of a “star” falling from heaven:

¹ And again I saw with mine eyes as I slept, and I saw the heaven above, and behold a star fell from heaven, and it arose and ate and pastured amongst those oxen. ² And after that I saw the large and the black oxen, and behold they all changed their stalls and pastures and their cattle, and began to live with each other. ³ And again I saw in the vision, and looked towards the heaven, and behold I saw many stars descend and cast themselves down from heaven to that first star, and they became bulls amongst those cattle and pastured with them [amongst them]. ⁴ And I looked at them and saw, and behold they all let out their privy members, like horses, and began to cover the cows of the oxen, and they all became pregnant and bare elephants, camels, and asses. ⁵ And all the oxen feared them and were affrighted at them, and began to bite with their teeth and to devour, and to gore with their horns. ⁶ And they began, moreover, to devour those oxen; and behold all the children of the earth began to tremble and quake before them and to flee from them. [68]

The first “star” of 1 Enoch 86 that fell from heaven likely was Azazel and the “stars” that followed were the other angels who later intermarried with the human race. [69] This tradition suggests that Azazel was the initiator of all the angelic evil that followed in the subsequent descent. Returning to Revelation 9, the “star” “had fallen” to earth, unlocking the abyss. It is unclear when that “star” fell, John sees it only as fallen, but one would expect sometime during the inter-advent age.

The “star” is given the key to unlock the abyss, the place where Jewish tradition states the fallen angels and 90% of the spirits of the nephilim (demons/evil spirits) of Genesis 6 were chained. [70] Their release darkens the sun, symbolism suggesting these demonic forces from the abyss intend to bring great spiritual darkness to the earth and its inhabitants. [71] These creatures are described as locusts but with the power of scorpions, having the appearance of horses, with women’s hair, lion’s teeth and scorpion’s tails, the composite features of multiple beasts indicative of demons in antiquity. Similar composite beasts are spoken of in Daniel 7 about which Goldingay notes:

The first three, at least, are anomalous creatures, resembling one kind of animal but also having the features of another or being deformed in some other way.  In Babylonian lore such actual or theoretical anomalies were believed to portend specific historical events (Porter, Metaphors, 15-29). In Old Testament law, such hybrids implied a contravention of the prohibition on mating members of different species, behind which lay the emphasis on species being created “after their kind” (Gen 1). In Hellenistic Palestine, hybrid creatures on charms and amulets symbolize demonic forces. [72]

Budge also notes that Babylonian evil spirits were symbolized in the Ancient Near East as hybrid beasts:

The evil spirits had hideous forms, part animal, part bird, part reptile and part human; the good spirits were in the image of men. [73]

The composite features of these beings are indicative of demonic beings who have been locked in the abyss until released by an angel (the star). The description of Revelation 9 suggests that composite beasts unlocked from the abyss are the spirits of the watchers and the spirits of their nephilim/gibborim children imprisoned in the abyss awaiting the final judgment (Jubilees 10). Their release from the abyss signals the start of the final judgment.

John is careful in his vision to include the detail of the star that had fallen, drawing from the Enochian tradition of Azazel who also as a star, fell from heaven, initiating the improper human-angelic relations of the prediluvian times. John’s vision signals the reemergence of the watchers and the spirits of their nephilim/gibborim children. The tenth part left on earth to trouble men have now been joined with the nine parts who will now trouble those in the kingdom of the beast.

Their composite description signal that these beasts are demonic, their composite features of various species draw from the Enochian/Jubileean tradition that all flesh was corrupted (Jubilees 5:1-4). [74] Revelation 9 appear to be the spirits of these nephilim, released at the end of the age at the time of judgment. It explains the composite description of these demonic forces loosed from the abyss.

This army of “locusts”, these captured and imprisoned spirits of the nephilim are conscripted as part of the forces of God to carry out His judgment upon the kingdom of the beast. Likely accompanying the release of the spirits of the nephilim are the release of their watcher parents also imprisoned in the abyss before the flood.

Fallen Angels in 2 Peter 2

There is a further allusion to this Enochian/Jubileean tradition found in 2 Peter 2, which refers back to the imprisonment of the watcher-parents of the pre-diluvian times:

⁴ For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; ⁵ if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; ⁶ if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; ⁷ and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men ⁸ (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)– ⁹ if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.

2 Peter reveals the judgment pronounced on the angels who sexually sinned by intermarrying with human women. Their sin is contrasted against the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. [75] In each incident there was a threat of inappropriate human-angel sexual interactions. The sexual relations of the watchers with women are contrasted against the desire of the residents of Sodom to have inappropriate sexual relations with angels.  Though Peter is not explicit in naming the sins of the angels, the context of Peter’s warnings on apostasy makes clear that their sin was sexual:

No significance should be seen in the fact that 2 Peter omits to specify the sin of the angels (the sexual aspect of which even Jude only alludes to: Jude 7). Those who (later) objected to the idea that angels could have mated with women did not suggest that the angels sinned in some other way, but that “the sons of God” in Genesis 6:1 were not angels at all, but men. If the author of 2 Peter and his readers knew the story of the fall of the Watchers at all, they must have known it as an interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 and have known that the angels sinned by taking human wives. [76]

2 Peter 2 supports that the “Sons of God” were angels intermarrying with women while Revelation 9 confirms that Genesis 6 should be interpreted typologically. The re-introduction of the nephilim/gibborim in Revelation 9 links to Genesis 6, yet also to Jubilees 10:5-9. [77]

Implications of These Passages

In the type of Jubilees only one tenth of the spirits of the nephilim are loose. In Revelation 9 a heightening over the type occurs with the tenth part being joined by the nine parts prior held in chains. In the type these beings exercised their will on men, having power over them (Jubilees 10:5-9). In Revelation 9, they exercise power over those who are members of the kingdom of the beast.

In the type of Genesis 6 we have the nephilim/gibborim as composite earthly physical beings with heavenly spirits involved in a campaign of violence and bloodshed against all creation. They brought death contrasted with the antitype, where the spirits of the nephilim/gibborim cannot bring death. In the type they are destroying all creation. In the antitype, their campaign is limited to torture of persons who are members of the kingdom of the beast, torture with such severity that men will seek death. [78]

The length of their campaign at the end of the age is also limited to 5 months, a significant reduction from the type which may have lasted one hundred twenty years. [79] Despite these reductions, the release of these spirits from the Abyss darkens the sky and the sun suggesting a period of coming spiritual darkness and godlessness resulting from their re-introduction, a heightening over the pre-diluvian times where no darkening is recorded.

The reintroduction of the spirits of the nephilim in Revelation 9 also preserves chiasmus with the pre-diluvian writings (Genesis 6; 1 Enoch, Jubilees). As the beginning-times were marked with improper angel-human interactions that produced nephilim, the end-times will see a large-scale re-introduction of the spirits of the nephilim to torment those in the kingdom of the beast. Their sphere of activity chiastically parallels that of pre-diluvian times, uniquely focused on the earthly realm and human affairs. [80] The chiasmus shows Revelation 9 recapitulating the theme of Genesis 6 and Jubilees 10 but with spiritual reinterpretation of the nephilim.

Relevance to Christians Today

The various New Testament allusions support that the angel intermarriage interpretation was widely known in ancient Judaism and was the accepted interpretation of the authors of the New Testament. Yet what significance should this carry for the believer? To become embroiled in a historical controversy provides little benefit.

Some insights however are formative, despite limited treatment of the subject. First, some light has been shed upon passages historically poorly understood, often relegated to cultural irrelevance. Is a woman to have her head covered in church? While uncommon, there are still churches with this practice in evidence.

The arguments presented favor that Paul had the Genesis 6 angel-human pericope in view in 1 Corinthians 11:10. It suggests that while women in antiquity may have borne culpability for the sexual interactions with angels – either through their physical beauty or through applying techniques to enhance physical beauty.

Paul’s approach seems to favor the latter view. If correct, central to Paul is not covering one’s head, but a focus of godly women upon spiritual beautification over physical beautification. Such an approach honors God by showing what is of eternal value while avoiding the appearance of elevating carnal desires of weaker members of the assembly. It brings practical meaning to Paul’s teaching while defusing a potential controversy within the church.

Second, enhanced meaning can be realized in Christ’s miraculous deliverances from demonic possession. An exceptionally high level of demonic activity is seen during Christ’s ministry when compared with the Old Testament, suggestive that unseen spiritual powers were marshalled from all creation to oppose Christ and His Kingdom.

That he defeated them and empowered His church to defeat them, highlights that the true battles to be fought by the church, are not physical battles (in contrast to Israel’s battles which were primarily against physical human kingdoms), but spiritual battles against a more powerful unseen foe.

While God imprisoned many of these powers until the judgment, those remaining free within our world are under the authority of Christ and His church. There is no need to fear, as Christ’s victories are a sign of the reversal of the curse of the powers of the evil spirits in our world. Judgment has begun.

Third, meaning has been given to the cryptic passage of Revelation 9. It is now understood who the peculiar residents of the Abyss are, how they came to be resident there and we can even perceive a purpose in their release from the Abyss.

The residents are now understood to be spiritual powers that “fell” into sin, behaving in rebellion to God and His authority. They are released to torment only those who did not have the seal of God upon their head. It reveals their purpose. Those who corrupted all flesh in the old-world order, now attack all who seek to spiritually corrupt God’s people.

Revelation 12 reveals an assault upon God’s people in the form of false teaching, and it would seem that God has conscripted these captives (in Ancient Near Eastern fashion) to fight in His army, delivering a counterattack against those who attempt to spiritually corrupt the church through false teaching.

The analysis does not allow firm answers to other aspects of these passages. We are unable to determine when the counterattack begins or exactly how long it lasts – is it a literal five months or should the five months be viewed symbolically.

What can be said, is that much insight has been gained regarding cryptic and troubling passages. We can further state the basis for the insight comes from a recognition of the chiastic structure that provides a New Testament eschatological countermeasure that seems intended to counter-balance an Old Testament protological incident. The eschatological countermeasure(s) offer spiritual correctives for their related protological physical incidents, illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Fallen Angels and their Impact on Both Ages

---

[1] See Van Gemeren, Willem A.,  The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4, An Example of Evangelical Demythologization?, Westminister Theological Journal 43 (Spring 1981), p. 320 available @ http://www.godawa.com/chronicles_of_the_nephilim/Articles_By_Others/Van%20Gemeren%20-%20The%20Sons%20of%20God%20in%20Gen%206.1-4-Evangelical%20Demythologization.pdf who documents a number of scholars who have argued that the sons of God episode does not belong to the surrounding materials, treating it as a mythological fragment. p. 324

[2] One sees the latest NIV translation attempts to clarify terms such as “daughters of man” from earlier translations. By translating it “daughters of humans”, interpretive possibilities for the daughters are not restricted to Cain’s line alone but applied to the daughters of all men.

[3] Van Gemeren, Willem A., The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4, An Example of Evangelical Demythologization?, Westminister Theological Journal 43 (Spring 1981), p. 325-326, 329. Available @ http://www.godawa.com/chronicles_of_the_nephilim/Articles_By_Others/Van%20Gemeren%20-%20The%20Sons%20of%20God%20in%20Gen%206.1-4-Evangelical%20Demythologization.pdf. To these Van Gemeren adds אדם ‘adam,  “man” or “Adam” (Genesis 5:1; 6:1, 2,3,4), אדמה ‘adamah “land”, “earth” (Genesis 5:29; 6:1), ילדו yuldu “were born” (Genesis 6:1) and ילד yalad “to bear” (Genesis 5:26, 28, 30, 32) from the root ויולד wayyoled “and he begat” and האדם ha-adam “man” Genesis 6:5,6,7).

[4] It is often argued that Genesis 6 is linked with Genesis 2-4, but this is unnecessary given the connections established by Van Gemeren. Likewise, it has been argued that the presentation of Cain’s genealogy in Genesis 4 followed by Seth’s genealogy in Genesis 5 sets the stage for defining the sons of God as Seth’s descendants and Genesis 4 for defining the daughters of men as Cain’s descendants. Yet the presence of so many references to daughters in Genesis 5 suggests that the daughters of men include the line of Seth (where the bulk of the references to daughters occur). The order of Cain’s line before Seth’s line is typical of the failed before the called line and the proposed connections to the sons of God pericope seem unlikely.

[5] Van Gemeren, Willem A., The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4, An Example of Evangelical Demythologization?, Westminister Theological Journal 43 (Spring 1981), p. 327-328. Available @ http://www.godawa.com/chronicles_of_the_nephilim/Articles_By_Others/Van%20Gemeren%20-%20The%20Sons%20of%20God%20in%20Gen%206.1-4-Evangelical%20Demythologization.pdf

[6] All creation is to be destroyed except Noah and his sons, bringing an interesting end to the passage. It brings an overall connection between Genesis 5:29 and this entire passage which ends with “but Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 6:8). These two passages form an inclusion supporting the argument that the sons of God are in fact an integral part of the flood narrative.

[7] These three main lines of interpretation exclude those scholars who argue that this pericope is borrowed from pagan myth. While demythologization remains popular with many scholars, it offers no eschatological, typological or theological insights and is thus dropped from consideration. Our position is that the text does not contain mythological pagan fragments but includes this troubling pericope for what it can teach regarding eschatology and theology.

[8] There are other variants advanced by scholars. An example is the contextual argument of Gage who gives three reasons the sons of God are men: 1) context as distinguishing the faithful from the unfaithful line, 2) the fundamental context of the Adamic seed in enmity with Satan’s seed and 3) the use of women to tempt men. This argument does not explain the exegesis of “sons of God”. Further, our argument will show the adequate involvement of faithful from unfaithful men, though the unfaithful are supported by angelic powers. That women should contextually tempt men (based upon the pattern supported in other scriptures) does not limit women to tempting only men. It could be argued that they tempt the “godly” into ungodly acts.

[9] See Wickham, L. R., The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men: Genesis 6: 2 in Early Christian Exegesis, published by Van Der Woude, A. S., Language and Meaning, Studies in Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis, Leiden, E.J. Brill Publishing, 1974, p. 135-147 for insights into early church interpretation of this passage. Wickham relates a monk, Tiberius, requesting clarification from Cyril in the fifth century, hoping to dsipell a church belief in the exegesis that fallen angels intermarried with men. His paper shows the controversy and provides insight into the likely acceptance of the Cainite/Sethite interpretation via Cyril and Augustine.

[10] We will argue the exegesis of the expression “sons of God” is best interpreted angels. The proponents of the position that the sons of God refer to humans often quote Exodus 21:6, 22:8-9 and Psalm 82:6. In these passages, it is argued that “Elohim” means humans, not angels and therefore “sons of Elohim” could possibly mean humans as well. In response, it is clear that Elohim seems to describe humans who hold proxy positions on earth of angelic functions. While this opens the possibility that Elohim can occasionally refer to humans accomplishing angelic functions, it does not follow that the “sons of God” must be human. The exegesis of “sons of God” will in fact show otherwise.

[11] Kline argues that Genesis 6:4 can be translated “the nephilim arose in the earth in those days . . . when” noting the similar structure in Genesis 7:6, 10; 15:17. He is convinced that the nephilim/gibborim are the children of these marriages and concludes that the interpretation of the intermarriage of the Sethite line with the Cainite line must be abandoned without an explanation of the nephilim/gibborim. Kline further argues against claiming that the בני האלהים “sons of God” are the members of the covenant community, the righteous line of Seth, noting that its occurrence in Genesis would be isolated and “remarkable as to demand a more plausible explanation for its appearance there than can be readily discovered.” Kline, Meredith G., Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4, cf. Childs, Brevard S., Myth and Reality in the Old Testament, Naperville, Alec R., Allenson, 1960, p. 190-191

[12] See other instances in Israel’s history where Israel or Judah took wives of the Canaanites (e.g. Ezra 9:1-10:44). If the sin was the same, why the dramatic difference in judgment?

[13] Kline also quotes from the Greek translation of Symmachus.

[14] Kline posits that the term “sons of God” was not appropriated from pagan practice but was a self-proclaimed title for those reigning, holding a role indicative of their god(s), referencing Romans 13:6-7. He thus postulates Cain’s rulership became a dynasty.   

[15] Kline, Meredith G., Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4, Westminster Theological Journal, Volume WTJ 24:2; 1962, p. 197

[16] Kline documents the redemptive historical pattern of kingship from Lamech through Nimrod, contrasting them with Yahweh’s choice of Noah and Abraham in whose seed the Protevangelium is seen to be preserved, arguing that the repeated pattern supports his argument.

[17] See column 2, line 1 of the first tablet per Walton. Walton, John H., Are the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6 Angels?, from Youngblood, Ronald, Editor, The Genesis Debate, Persistent Questions About Creation and the Flood, New York, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986, p. 196

[18] Walton does acknowledge the shared divinity-humanity but argues that these men were considered “sons” of their god but not necessarily part deity. This despite admitting the shared deity-humanity was common in ancient inscriptions!  Walton, John H., Are the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6 Angels?, from Youngblood, Ronald, Editor, The Genesis Debate, Persistent Questions About Creation and the Flood, New York, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986, p. 196-197

[19] It affirms the possibility that angels established sacral kingship. An angelic kingship intermarrying with women could also explain the long lifespans of the Sumerian king list. Kline leans toward a less literal interpretation that somehow the assignment of men to this kingship came from heaven. Kline, Meredith G., Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4, Westminster Theological Journal, Volume WTJ 24:2; 1962, p. 201

[20] Walton, John H., Are the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6 Angels?, from Youngblood, Ronald, Editor, The Genesis Debate, Persistent Questions About Creation and the Flood, New York, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986, p. 195

[21] The quoted references are AV as the NIV translates בני־האלהים ויראו “angels,” as does the LXX (ἄγγελοι).

[22] The opponents to the proposition that angels intermarried humans do not argue the exegesis of bene (ha) ‘elohiym as angels. It is incontravertable. Rather the argument is made that it could also mean men. Such a position adds credibility that the angel interpretation as the basis of the passage’s meaning.

[23] Gaebelein, Arno Clemens, As It Was – So Shall It Be, Sunset and Sunrise, A Study of the First Age and our Present Age, New York NY, Loizeaux Brothers, Bible Truth Depot,  1937, p. 98

[24] Alexander has noted that the Cambridge LXX shows Genesis 6:2 as angels in the Greek but vs 4 translates בני־האלהים as οί νίοὶ τοΰ Θεοΰ. He concludes that the LXX originally read οί νίοὶ τοΰ Θεοΰ and was modified later for clarity. Alexander, Philip S., The Targumim and Early Exegesis of “Sons of God” in Genesis 6, Journal of Jewish Studies, 1972, p. 63. While noting this inconsistency, he also notes that the earliest datable expositions of Genesis 6:1-4 (the Noah Fragment of 1 Enoch 6-11) is understood as angels and that this interpretation was dominant for the next three hundred years (he dates the Noah Fragment to the first half of the second century B.C.E. He states “in fact, all  our surviving sources, though differing, of course, in detail, are unanimous on this point [that the sons of God were angels]. So widely diffused in the body of popular thought was this interpretation and its associated ideas that it was possible to make remote and fleeting allusions to it, with every chance, it would seem, of being understood.” P. 60-61. Cassuto, highly conservative and an ardent defender of Torah, offers one of the more comprehensive exegetical arguments and concludes that “All the expositions, both ancient and modern, that regard the sons of God as a distinct group of human beings are unsatisfactory.” U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Vol 1, Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1964, p. 291

[25] Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary 1, Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas, Word Books, 1987, p. 139. See also Alexander, Philip S., The Targumim and Early Exegesis of “Sons of God” in Genesis 6, Journal of Jewish Studies, 1972, for a history of Jewish interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4.

[26] Gaebelein, Arno Clemens, As It Was – So Shall It Be, Sunset and Sunrise, A Study of the First Age and our Present Age, New York NY, Loizeaux Brothers, Bible Truth Depot,  1937, p. 99

[27] Tibai, John A., A Study of the Viability of the Angelic Interpretation of the Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4, Thesis Paper Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002, p. 31-32

[28] Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary 1, Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas, Word Books, 1987, p. 139

[29] Though pagan literature asserts that the “sons of the gods” were gods or lower level gods, Cassuto correctly observes that the Genesis 6:1-4 pericope is a warning against these pagan myths. These “sons of the gods” are not gods at all, only angels, part of Yahweh’s heavenly host. Cassuto, Umberto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Vol 1, Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1964, p. 300

[30] Josephus seems careful to be politically correct, skipping entirely the account of Moses’ killing the Egyptian and referring to Jesus as a man some believed to be the Messiah. It is unlikely he would take a politically or religiously unpopular view of the sons of God. His view they are angels is significant, suggestive that the view was widely known and accepted.

[31] Thackeray, H. St. J., M.A., English Translation of The Complete Works of Josephus,Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1978 p. 33-35

[32] Cain’s genealogy makes clear that Cain begat his son and his son begat his son (and so forth), making the line on the father’s side seem human. However, it is possible that there were additional generations not listed (only seven generations are listed for symbolism). It is also possible that Lamech’s mother, grandmother, etc was the product of human/angel sexual relations.

[33] There is some speculation that the term nephilim should be applied to mean fallen in battle, a fate declared on these illicit “children” (cf. 1 Enoch 10:9 and Jubilees 7). It is possible that the nephilim is a term for a specific group of human-angelic offspring, who were known for an extreme level of violence. Jubilees 7:22 refers to three different “beings” resulting from the sexual relations of the Watchers with humans (the nephilim, the giants and the Eljo) but further detail is lacking, complicating determination.

[34] http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Genesis-6-Sons-of-God. Philo’s interpretation of Genesis 6 is also quoted @ http://www.genesis6giants.com/index.php?s=390

[35] Cassuto argues the terms benē (hā) ělōhīm or benē’ēlim (“sons of God” or “the mighty”) always refer to angels and then goes on to offer an explanation how these “sons of God” could intermarry with humans claiming differing ranks of angels, with the higher order angels (“ministering angels”) closer to the Lord and the lower order angels often called “demons” or “destroying angels” further from His presence. To Cassuto, it was these lower ranks of angels who sinned, not the ministering angels who represent God’s presence. Cassuto states “The Talmudic sages also held (B. Hagaga 16a), that, although the ministering angels do not beget offspring, the demons do procreate.’ U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Vol 1, Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1964, p. 292-294

[36] Particularly 1 Enoch which is quoted in Jude 1:14-15.

[37] If one examines the story of Sodom, it is clear that the townspeople, who sought to have sex with them, did not  consider them sexless! (Genesis 19:5)

[38] Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary 1, Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas, Word Books, 1987, p. 146

[39] Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary 1, Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas, Word Books, 1987, p. 146

[40] There is a diversity of views on the meaning of the Scripture vs “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.” Perhaps the simplest explanation is that this was a judgment upon mankind in response to the sin of seeking eternal life. The life spans of the antediluvians were lengthy, but apparently unsatisfactory as mankind sought eternal life. God’s judgment of talion fits the crime – those seeking to lengthen their lives (the lifespan of those seeking eternal life – the nephilim) have their lifespans shortened. Whether mankind was successful in extending their lifespan via intermarriage with angels can only be conjectured. It is interesting to note that Scripture is silent on this point, choosing not to record the age at death of Cain’s progeny, likely the line with whom intermarriage was most prevalent. The failure to record their life spans may be suggestive that they had some success, as suggested by Cain’s progeny having seven generations measured against Abel’s progeny having ten generations.

[41] Cassuto, U., A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Vol 1, Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1964, p.297

[42] Kraeling, Emil, The Significance of the “Sons of God” Episode (Gen 6:1-4) in the Context of the “Primeval History”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 13, p. 198

[43] Pink, Arthur W., Gleanings in Genesis, Volumes 1 and 2, Chicago, Illinois, Moody Press, 1922, p. 94 also available @ www.pbministries.org/books/pink/pink_archive.htm. Whether or not the angels sought to destroy Yahweh’s redemptive plan, let each of us decide for ourselves given the silence of both Scripture and extent Jewish works.

[44] Tibai, John A., A Study of the Viability of the Angelic Interpretation of the Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4, Thesis Paper Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002, p. 13

[45] The Book of the Watchers as well as the Book of the Jubilees reports that the giants/nephilim destroyed themselves in battle. The Book of the Dream Visions (1 Enoch 89:6) suggests some of the giants/nephilim were destroyed in the flood. Genesis 6:4 suggests some nephilim/giants existed after the deluge, suggesting either some survivors or a recurrence of angel-human sexual intercourse. The destruction of the nephilim in battle may have been the primary method of destruction as the nephilim comes from the word naphal meaning to fall (as in battle). Cf. Ezekiel 32:20. How they were destroyed, does not seem important to the author of Genesis.

[46] While root-cutting and grafting were prohibited, the flood would not seem to address this. The main point of the flood narrative was that all flesh had corrupted its way, not that man or angels had corrupted plant-life.

[47] Cassuto, U., A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Vol 1, Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1964, p. 300

[48] Flint, Peter W., Editor, The Bible at Qumran, Text, Shape, and Interpretation, VanderKam, James C., The Interpretation of Genesis in 1 Enoch, Grand Rapids, MI, William B. Eerdsmans Publishing Co., 2001, p. 146

[49] Charles, R.H., The Book of Enoch, translated by R.H. Charles, available @ www.sacred-texts.com

[50] Vanderkam, James C., The Interpretation of Genesis in 1 Enoch, published in Flint, Peter W. Editor, The Bible at Qumran, Text, Shape, and Interpretation, Grand Rapids MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001, p. 138

[50] Davidson, Maxwell J., Angels at Qumran A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1-36, 72-108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran, Sheffield UK, JSOT Press, 1992, p. 144-145

[51] Young’s concordance, Strong’s concordance, Gesenius’ Lexicon and the etymology all confirm the meaning to be descent, descending (ref. www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3381&t=KJV)

[52] Stewart, R.A., The Illustrated Bible Dictionary Part 1, Angels, Wheaton, IL, Inter-Varsity Press, Tyndale House Publishers, 1980,p. 51

[53] One could argue that the very act of marrying angels demonstrates that such women do not consider themselves under the authority of angels, rather equal partners with, and sharing the same rights as angels, with their children being heirs of the authority granted to angels.

[54] Barker, Margaret, The Lost Prophet, The Book of Enoch and its Influence on Christianity, Nashville, TN, Abingdon Press, 1988, p. 42 While Barker is incredulous that Paul would display such an attitude, it is the position of the author of The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs – see The Testament of Reuben, 5:1-7.

[55] Loader, William, Enoch, Levi and Jubilees on Sexuality, Grand Rapids MI, William B Eerdmans Publishing, 2007, p. 10

[56] Consider Numbers 13:33 which may have been only rumor. Or if true, then either some of the nephilim/gibborim survived the flood or a secondary descent followed post-flood.

[57] Barker, Margaret, The Lost Prophet, The Book of Enoch and its Influence on Christianity, Nashville, TN, Abingdon Press, 1988, p. 38

[58] The tradition of great violence among the nephilim appears to be violence brought against mankind and the animals, echoing Cain’s murder of his brother Abel, again emphasizing the later harvest of this early sin of bloodshed by Cain. Cain’s violent, unrepentant nature was the seed that brought a harvest of far greater violence against all creation. Josephus records a Jewish tradition that Cain became a man of substantial violence, despite a warning from God that Cain’s judgment would be postponed until the seventh generation. Josephus records, “His punishment, however, far from being taken as a warning, only served to increase his vice. He indulged in every bodily pleasure, even if it entailed outraging his companions; he increased his substance with wealth amassed by rapine and violence; he incited to luxury and pillage all whom he met, and became their instructor in wicked practices.” H. St. J. Thackeray, M.A., English Translation of The Complete Works of Josephus, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1978, p. 29

[59] Though not explicitly stated, one could speculate that the tradition would link Azâzêl with Tubal-Cain, a blacksmith, and to Lamech the bloodthirsty murderer and slayer with the sword.

[60] Charles, R.H., The Book of Enoch, translated by R.H. Charles, available @ www.sacred-texts.com

[61] Charles, R.H., The Book of Enoch, translated by R.H. Charles, available @ www.sacred-texts.com

[62] Charles, R.H., The Book of the Jubilees, translated by R.H. Charles, available @ www.sacred-texts.com

[63] Bauckham, Richard J., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 50, Jude, 2 Peter, Waco TX, Word Books, Publisher, 1983, p. 50-51

[64] Charles, R.H., The Book of Enoch, translated by R.H. Charles, available @ www.sacred-texts.com

[65] Charles, R.H., The Book of the Jubilees, translated by R.H. Charles, available @ www.sacred-texts.com. It is difficult to sort out the diverse legions of angels with their names and possible equivalences. Davidson calls Mastema “the accusing angel. Like Satan, he works for God as tempter and executioner. He is prince of evil, injustice, and condemnation.” He also claims that it was Mastema who attempted to kill Moses (Exodus 4:24), hardened Pharaoh’s heart and assisted Pharaoh’s magicians in performing tricks before Moses and Aaron. Davidson, Gustav, A Dictionary of Angels including the Fallen Angels, NY, The Free Press, 1967, p. 185 [Mastema]. He compares Mastema with Belial and of Belial he states “. . . this great fallen angel, often equated with Satan . . .” (p. 73). Of Satan he states: “Other names for Satan include Mastema, Beliar or Beliel, Duma, Gadreel, Azazel, Sammael, angel of Edom.” (p. 261). The difficulties are apparent. We do not see Satan equivalent with Azazel as Scripture is clear Satan is not isolated and imprisoned as Azazel seems to be. All these names may represent high ranking fallen angels (possibly even demons) who like Satan oppose God and are thus God’s adversary, hence the title “the Satan”.

[66] Two things are noteworthy in this pericope: first, their question is not surprising as Christ’s coming signaled the end of the ages, which for the demons would imply a time of judgment was approaching. Second, note their description “so violent that no one could pass”. Such a description is consistent with the Enochian and Jubilean traditions concerning the great violence that marked the era when the sons of God sinned!

[67] That John envisions these spirits as corrupted species/corrupted flesh, may signal that those who in ages past corrupted “all” flesh, are to be released to torment those who would corrupt “all” spiritually.

[68] Charles, R.H., The Book of Enoch, translated by R.H. Charles, available @ www.sacred-texts.com

[69] It is not clear from Scripture when this first star fell (or even if this tradition is true). The targums have a surprising interpretation of Genesis 4:26, seeing the start of idolatry in the Hebrew חלל chalal, “pollute” or “profane” (niphal). Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary Volume 1 Genesis 1-15, Waco, TX, Word Books, 1987, p. 96. While we tend to favor the interpretation “at that time, men began to call on the name of the Lord” we leave open the possibility that the interpretation could be “at that time men began to profane the name of the Lord” with idolatry. Could this be the time at which the first “star” (Azazel) descended and was Azazel the one who introduced idolatry in the form of angel worship?

[70] See the Book of Jubilees 10:1-9, Charles, R.H., The Book of the Jubilees, translated by R.H. Charles, available @ www.sacred-texts.com 

[71] Note that these creatures have “something like” crowns of gold or what appeared to be crowns of gold, suggesting high rank, positions of honor or possibly symbolizing false rank/honor (e.g. something like crowns but debased or debilitated). Does this suggest merely that these demonic forces are high ranking fallen angels or does it infer that they once held positions of rank or honor on earth? These captured and imprisoned demonic forces are now now conscripted into the Yahweh’s spiritual army to torment the ungodly (those lacking the seal of God on their foreheads).

[72] Goldingay, John E., Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary Volume 30, Dallas TX, Word Books Publisher, 1989 p. 161

[73] Budge, Amulets and Talismans, New York NY, First Carol Publishing, 1968, p. 4

[74] The wording of Jubilees 5:1-3 is striking, stating that “all flesh corrupted its way, alike men and cattle and beasts and birds and everything that walketh on the earth – all of them corrupted their ways and their orders” and “all flesh had corrupted its orders”. Jubilees provides a clear enlargement of Genesis 6:12, showing the corrupting of “all flesh” to mean a change from God’s order of creation “each according to their kind” (Genesis 1:24).

[75] Note the description of lawless men in Sodom, an important feature given the judgment that befell the city, which Peter uses to remind his readers that certain judgment will fall in the future upon those who are lawless. It contrasts with the description of  the Nephilim of 1 Enoch 6 as “lawless ones”. The released evil spirits of the Abyss in Revelation 9 may signal the coming of the lawless one (2 Thessalonians 2:8-9) who John states comes from the Abyss (Revelation 11:7)!

[76] Bauckham, Richard J., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 50, Jude, 2 Peter, Waco TX, Word Books, Publisher, 1983, p. 248

[77] There may be a double type here, the first being the antediluvian nephilim (physical yet also spiritual beings) conducting excessive pre-flood violence against all creation, shedding blood contrasted against their spirits torturing the members of the kingdom of the beast but without blood-violence. The second type being the spirits of the nephilim post-flood. These spirits seem to be called by the name ‘δαιμονίζομαι daimonizomai’ and ‘δαιμόνιον daimonionin’ in the LXX and New Testament. There are many accounts in the gospels of Jesus casting out ‘δαιμονίζομαι daimonizomai’ and ‘δαιμόνιον daimonionin’, confirming His power over these demonic spirits of the nephilim. It had to be an amazing sign to the Jews – a sign that Jesus was the Messiah, seeing the reversal of this pre-diluvian judgment brought upon the earth with the spirits of the nephilim. It likewise had to be a powerful sign to unbelievers when Jesus’ disciples also cast out demons (cf. Luke 9:1; Luke 10:17).

[78] Ironically, that they seek death but do not find it, preserves the seed of Satan through the age for the conflict with the righteous seed (Genesis 3:15) while also preserving those in the harlot community of Babylon,whose destruction God has also postponed to the end of the age so that it may test men’s hearts. There may be a further dependence upon Jewish tradition regarding the effects of idolatry as Targum Neofiti Deuteronomy 32:24 “they shall be possessed by evil spirits” and Targum Onqelos Deuteronomy 32:24 “they shall be afflicted by evil spirits” suggests an ironic judgment upon idolators becoming like the evil spirits behind the idols. In this case, there is a possible implication that those who worship the beast, may be afflicted or possessed by the demonic forces that Jewish tradition held had introduced idolatry into the world. If so, the agony experienced by the followers of the beast would be the infliction of judgment upon them for their idolatry. There may be a further measure of irony that those who sought to bring agony to those with the mark of God become the target of demonic agonies in retribution. Finally, if idolatry is in John’s view, “seeking death” may have a double meaning in that those who worship the beast seek spiritual death, having permanently separated themselves from God in taking the mark of the beast. Credit to Beale for pointing out the Targumic traditions surrounding Deuteronomy 32.  Beale, G. K., We Become What we Worship, A Biblical Theology of Idolatry, Downers Grove IL, IVP Academic Press, 2008, p. 156

[79] Unless John uses the 5 months mystically rather than literally. If so, one must question why, as John would have been more than familiar with the 120 years of Genesis 6. It is possible that John uses the 5 month period to parallel the periods of 150 days of the flood, drawing a typological parallel between the judgment by water on the world and the judgment by fire to come upon the kingdom of the beast.

[80] Much of the angelic activity of apocalyptic prophecy is in the heavenly realm. These spirits of the nephilim remain uniquely associated with the earth which follows the proclamation of 1 Enoch 15:4-11.