This is a commentary to "Were the Sons of God Fallen Angels?" by Don Stewart. Don does a good job at presenting both sides of the argument, tho he ultimately sides on the gross sins of humans and not angels caused the flood. I want to comment on his article and interject my own thoughts. The article itself is lengthy so I will only post snippets, you can read the full article here. My responses will be in blue.
1.Ancient View
The angelic view fell into disrepute among Christian interpreters from the fourth to the eighteenth century. Saint Augustine's rejection of the angel interpretation (De Civitate Dei 15, written between A.D. 413-426, had enormous influence. Those who rejected the supernatural angelic reading did so because of theological objections that arose to angels cohabiting with humans.
Augustine was not perfect, some would argue he never fully converted from his pagan roots and introduced many heresies into the church. Agustine did not believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and allegorized Genesis. He attempted to de-mythologize the bible. Prior to Augustine all the Jewish and early Christian commentators took the angelic view of Genesis 6.
The Bible-believers who hold to the angelic view do so because they feel it best fits all the evidence of Scripture. They strongly reject the idea that any part of Scripture is mythological. Furthermore many of them believe that the later myths that arose concerning angels and women producing
monstrous offspring may have been derived from the actual occurrence as recorded in Genesis.
This is the view that I hold. I believe the Sons of God were fallen angels that commingled with human woman and produced a hybrid race of giants called Nephilim.
2. Septuagint
Though the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6 was an ancient view, it was not the only view in antiquity. Therefore the angel view was not the only position held in the ancient world.
Correct, but those interpretations that do should not be so easily dismissed. Generally speaking the angel view is older than the non-angelic views of Genesis 6.
Only one manuscript (Codex Alexandrinus) reads angels of God. The critical editions of the Septuagint (as well as two other ancient Greek translations) read sons of God not angels of God in Genesis 6:2,4. Therefore one cannot appeal to the Septuagint to support the idea of angels.
The Hebrew word for Sons of God is "Ben elohiym". According to Strong's Lexicon Elohiym can refer to God, gods, goddesses, angels, anything supernatural but there is no mention of it ever applying to mankind in any way. The Book of Job most definitely uses Sons of God (ben elohiym) to refer to angels.
3. Apocryphal Books
How much credence do we give any of the apocryphal books? Though they are ancient interpretations they not on the same level as inspired Scripture.
Many non-canonical books are referenced in the bible, such as the Book of Jasher mentioned in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18. Both Jude (Jude 4,6,13,14-15) and Peter (2 Peter 2:4;3:13) quote from the Book of Enoch. In fact Jude paraphrases and alludes to the Book of Enoch extensively. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain a fragment of the Book of Giants, which is thought to be based on the Book of Enoch. The ancient Hebrews obviously regarded The Book of Enoch highly enough to quote from it and preserve it within the caves of Qumran.
4. Obvious Reading
Why didn't Moses say angels if he meant angels? There are fifteen references to angels in the Pentateuch and each time it refers to angels it calls them angels—never the sons of God. The only exception is Genesis 3:24 when he calls them cherubim. Therefore calling them angels here is anything but obvious. To the contrary, the angel view would seem more inconsistent in this context of Genesis where angels are never specifically mentioned.
A counter question would be why didn't Moses say Sons of men if he meant human beings? Sons of men or Sons of Adam always refer to men. Sons of God refer to those that belong to God and have been linked to angels in the Book of Job. The Book of Job is considered the oldest Book in the bible. Is it possible that Mosses used the term "Sons of God" to refer to angels because Job used it first?
5. Technical Phrase
First, there are only two places in the entire Old Testament where the exact phrase is used (Job 1:6, 2:1). In Job 38:7 the definite article Ha is missing. Therefore to say that the term is used consistently for angels is misleading since there are only two other verses in the entire Old Testament where the exact the phrase is used. The fact that these two places refer to angels is clear from the context, not from the phrase itself.
Furthermore, the Old Testament does contain references to the sons of God as being human beings.
While it's true the sons of God can refer to humans, it doesn't refer to all human beings just those that belong to God (Such as the Jews or those whole follow Christ). The fact that is also referred to angels in the Book of Job, if only two places, means the term is not used consistently for human beings either.
Interesting to note here that according to the Book of Enoch and Jubilees, the angels original mission was to teach law and justice to mankind. This may have been Gods way of teaching man before He gave us the Torah and the prophets. Somewhere along the way these angels decided to rebel against God, commingle with women, and teach man about warfare, astrology, and other forbidden knowledge. This may have been where mystery religions originated.
6. Consistent Interpretation
The contrast between sons of God and daughters of men do not have to be between human and non-human entities. Those who reject the angel view do not feel their interpretation is inconsistent.
It is interesting that sons of God was chosen instead of Sons of Men, one has to wonder why was this seeming distinction made? If the contrast is not between human and non-human entities than what else can it be?
7. Took Wives
The phrase took wives is a standing expression for marriage relationship with only these two exceptions. There is nothing in the context that would indicate these are other than real marriages. The sin was not fornication, the Hebrew makes this clear.
Rather they took wives or they fornicated it's really irrelevant, the important point is there was a physical union and giants were produced.
8. Not a Mythological story
While it is true that simplistic parallels from other cultures does not make the story mythological, it could explain why some ancient interpreters believed the angelic explanation.
It really shouldn't be so hard to believe. As Christians we believe in talking snakes and donkeys, men walking on water, men rising from the dead, invisible entities known as angels and demons. What then is so difficult about believing angels co-habited with women?
I tend to believe that the Nephilim later inspired Greek Mythology and not vice versa. In Greek Mythology, Titans were a powerful race of deities descended from Gaia (earth) and Uranus (sky). Similarly the angelic view of the Nephilim were said to have a maternal linage from earth and a fraternal lineage from the sky.
In 2 Peter 2:4 it says "For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast [them] down to hell and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment". The word for "hell" is tartaroĊ which means "throw to Tartarus". It's only used once in the New Testament and in Greek Mythology Tartarus is where the Titans and the giant Hekatonkheires were imprisoned.
Another interesting comparison between the Nephilim and the Greek Gods is found in the Book of Enoch. According to the Book of Enoch, a sect of 200 fallen angels led by fallen angel named Semyaza descended on Mount Hermon. In exchange for human females they taught mankind magic, conjuring, weaponry, and cosmetics. One of these chief fallen angels was named Azazel. Azazel is the Hebrew word used for scapegoat. Azazel closely resembled the Greek god Pan who who was half goat/half man creature that lusted after females and whose father was Hermes. Hermes is phonetically similar to Mount Hermon, where the fallen angels supposedly first descended. It is interesting then that Jesus went to Caesarea Philippi to preach at Mount Hermon, the location of Pan's Grotto and a spring which was called the Gates of Hell. It was here that Jesus said "..and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Mat 16:13-20). Jesus and his disciples were no doubt well aware of the apocryphal teachings about the Nephilim.
9. Satan And Seed Of Woman
Scripture records that Satan does make several attempts to defile the promised seed, but all other attempts are done by men, not angels. Also the Old Testament frequently warns against intermarriage of God's covenant people with those outside of His covenant (Exodus 34:16). In addition, Scripture speaks of unwarranted marriages within their own people (Genesis 24; 27:46; 28:1).
We can't rule out the possibility that Satan uses a multi-pronged approach in attempting to defile the promised seed. Could it be the frequent warning about intermarriage to those outside His covenant stem from angles co-mingling with women?
Some people believe the giants in the land of Canaan were another attempt of Satan to destroy God's chosen people. As Chuck Missler has said, Satan had over 400 years to plant his "mine field" of Nephilim in his attempt to thwart the plan of God. When David killed the giant Goliath of Gath he kept his sword and his head. Goliath's head was later buried several miles away in Jerusalem at Golgotha. Golgotha means place of [the] skull and may have been named so because Goliath's skull was buried there. Also Golgotha may be a combination of GOLiath and GATH (GOL-GATH-A). Golgotha was the place where Christ was crucified, which we call Calvary. As Jesus was crucified with nails in hands and feet and the blood running down his body onto the place where this giant's skull was buried one can not ignore the similarities to Genesis 3:15 "And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."
10. Judgement Of Flood
Why else would he totally destroy the human race except for eight people? Merely the intermarriage between humans, whether the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain, or between kings and common people, would not be sufficient reason for God to wipe out the entire race.
Some believe Seth descendants were the godly line and Cain's descendants were the wicked line. However both Cain and Seth had the same sin nature. Noah's son Ham is even cursed because of some sin against his father (some believe it was incest) . Noah's great-grandson Nimrod became the world's first dictator. So the Seth line was not so pure. Moreover Seth had many children besides Enosh (Gen 5:7), as did all of Noah's forefathers, yet only Noah and his family were the only descendants of Seth that were saved.
It would appear shortly after Enosh is born all men began to profane the name of the Lord. Genesis 4:26 says "Then [men] began to call on the name of the LORD." However the Hebrew word for "began" (chalal) can also mean to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate.
The context of Genesis 6 emphasizes the sin of humans, not angels as the reason for the Flood (verses 3-7,12,13). The sons of God were the ones who initiated this sin. Why weren't they mentioned in the judgment if they were angels? This leads us to conclude that only humankind was involved in the sin.
I believe the judgement of the angels invovled are mentioned in Jude 1:6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Certainly all mankind began to sin after the fall of Adam. But if this was the reason for the flood what did it really accomplish? It did not wash away the sin nature of man. Men resumed sinning after the flood. Our sins today are no less than those of the days of Noah.
11.The Nephilim (Giants)
The fact that Nephilim are mentioned in Scripture as existing after the Flood (Numbers 13:33) does not imply they survived the Flood but rather that their name lived on of men of great stature.
There appears to be a second outcropping of Giants after the flood as both the giants in Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33 are called Nephilim. There is no indication of where these giants come from, tho it's conceivable another batch of fallen angels could have co-mingled with women as in Genesis 6:4.
The Nephilim or mighty ones were on earth both before and after the marriages—they did not arise after them.
Gen 6:4 says "There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore [children] to them. Those [were] the mighty men who [were] of old, men of renown." There's two ways this can be interpreted. One is that there were giants already on earth before and after the the Sons of God came unto the daughters of men. The second interpretation is there were giants in those days (before the flood) and then after (the flood). I believe it is the latter interpretation as Genesis was written by Mosses. From Mosses perspective there would have been giants before the flood and there were giants in the land of Canaan. The spies reported that they were like grasshoppers in there sight (Num 13:33).
In addition, Nephilim does not necessarily mean giants. The word may be derived from the Hebrew naphal meaning fall upon others (Joshua 11:7; Job 1:15; Jeremiah 46:16). Therefore it could refer to those who attack others.
According to bible scholar Michael S. Heiser, naphal is not the root word of Nephilim and does not mean "those who fall" or "those who fall upon". If the word nephilim came from Hebrew naphal, it would not be spelled as we find it. The form nephilim cannot mean "fallen ones" (the spelling would then be nephulim). Likewise nephilim does not mean "those who fall" or "those who fall away" (that would be nophelim). Nephilim comes from the Aramaic noun naphil which means giants. In fact the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) translates nephilim as "gigantes”.
Furthermore, Numbers 13:33 uses Nephilim twice to describe sons of human parents not angels. The human father is Anak (Numbers 13:22,28,33). If Nephilim denotes offspring of human parents in Numbers 13:33, then why not in Genesis 6:4?
Numbers 13:33 clearly states that the descendants of Anak came from giants (nephilim).
Furthermore, the Nephilim, contrary to many opinions, were not the offspring of sons of God...
In a parenthetical phrase we are told that the Nephilim were present during this scenario.... Almost all modern versions of the Bible put these five passages in parentheses. Such frame-brakes supply extra information from the narrator... Therefore it is more proper to understand the statement about the Nephilim as an explanatory parenthesis—it was during the time the Nephilim were on earth that the sons of God married the daughters of men. Thus neither the sons of God, nor the mighty men, had anything to do with the Nephilim. When it says, they were mighty men, the they refers back to the sons of God, not the Nephilim.
Of course the original Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament) texts have no parentheses, periods, commas, quotation or interrogation marks etc. These were added later and can greatly effect the meaning of a sentence.
12. Jesus' Statement
Angelic cohabitation with earthly women does not seem to be a possibility... There is no reference in Scripture to fallen angels ever having a body.
But there are references to angels having physical bodies. The angels that visited Abraham ate (Gen 18:1-18), as did Jesus in his resurrected body (Luk 24:41-43). If they could eat what else could they do? The angels they visited Lot could be seen and felt (Gen 19). By every indication they were corporeal. Likewise Hebrews 13:2 says "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." Jesus himself could be considered a hybrid, his mother was a human but his father was not.
My supposition is this, if it's possible to change from mortal to immortal (1 Corinthians 15:52-53), such as with Enoch (Hbr 11:5), then is the reserve also plausable? To change from immortal to temporal physical bodies? I believe the possibility exists.
13. New Testament Evidence
These New Testament passages do not link perversion with angels. Many interpreters feel it is fanciful to assume that these verses refer to angels that sinned before the Flood... Furthermore, the angels who visited Sodom were good angels. There is no example in Scripture of evil angels ever assuming a body.
As previously noted there are examples in Scripture of angels assuming a physical body (Gen 18-19). Rather they were good angels or not is irrelevant. It means a precedence can be found in Scriptures for angels assuming a body.
This evidence is none the less helpful in showing that one simply cannot assume that the readers of 1 Peter had an 'angelic' interpretation of Genesis 6:2,4 in their minds. Indeed, Peter would not have assumed an 'angelic' interpretation in his readers' minds either, for no uniform interpretation of this passage can be demonstrated for the first century AD (Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter, Tyndale, 1988, pp. 212, 213).
Generally speaking all the Jews and early Christians held the angelic view before Augustine's influence. Those scriptures in Peter and Jude are paraphrased from the Book of Enoch which makes it clear that the Sons of God were angels and there sin was co-mingling with women. We should bear in mind that the New Testament writers were influenced by many extra-biblical sources, The Book of Enoch was one of those sources. There are three versions of the Book of Enoch today tho these are not the original Book of Enoch. However, it is possible to cross reference many of the Enochian sources to one another, Biblical sources, and historical sources to establish that there are, indeed, portions of the original record of Enoch that have survived in the greatly adulterated versions discovered in the East.
14. Angels Not Exempt From Judgement
Because there is no mention of angelic judgment in the Genesis passage it seems to be clear that it is the judgment of humanity that is in view. The judgment of the angels in 1 and 2 Peter and Jude more likely refers to their original sin, rather than their sin immediately before the Flood.
Clearly not all of the fallen angels are imprisoned. Satan, the leader of the angelic rebellion against God, is not imprisoned. Why would God allow the rebel leader to remain free, but then confine the angels who followed Satan in the rebellion? No, it makes more sense to understand the “spirits in prison” as the fallen angels who participated in an additional rebellion, e.g., the sons of God / daughters of men incident. The fallen angels who mated with human females are the ones who are imprisoned.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]. (Eph 6:12)"
Other Problems With The Angelic View
1. Immediate Context Of Passage
There is nothing in the context that would identify the sons of God with the angelic host. Angels have not been mentioned in the Book of Genesis to this point and certainly nothing in the story demands we understand the sons of God as angels... from beginning to end, 6:1-8 concerns humanity and its outcome, not angels and their punishment.
While it's true if we look solely at Genesis 6:1-8 and nothing more than we would conclude it is solely about the sins of humanity. However if examine all of scripture, explore extra-biblical sources and commentary of Genesis than we can conclude the culpability of angels also.
2.Phrase Sons of God Is Unclear As we have noted, the phrase sons of God is not a clear reference to angels. The three references to the phrase sons of God in Scripture is an insufficient data base to understand the meaning of the term. Though it is possible the phrase means angels in Genesis 6, it is by no means certain... Elohim can be rendered a genitive of quality, meaning godly sons, referring to the heritage of the Sethites.
According to this view, the Sons of God were the godly decedents of Seth, while the daughters of men were descended from the ungodly Cain. If that is the case the Sethites were not so godly if they were marrying the ungodly Canaanite women. And what was wrong with the Sethite women? Where they that ugly?
3.Cryptic Reference
If the sons of God refer to angels in Genesis 6, then the reference is cryptic. Angels have not been mentioned thus far in Genesis. Later they will be mentioned a number times but every other time they are spoken of, they are specifically called angels. Why not here if they were angels?
4.Different Context Than Job
Though angels are in view in Job 1 with the phrase sons of God, it is the context that makes it clear. The context is different in Job and Genesis. In Job, there is a heavenly court that it identified. There is no such heavenly court or any hint of angels in this context.
It is said that Job is the oldest book in the bible, older than Genesis. Since Job used Sons of God to refer to angels it is possible that's why this reference was used in Genesis. The reverse questions is why not just call the Sons of God men if they were men?
5.Angels Do Not Have Physical Form
A major problem with the angel view is that they are ministering spirits—they do not have corporeal form. Though good angels at times assumed some physical form, it is not the case with evil angels. There is not one biblical example of angels taking on a physical form. God would have to grant them that ability.
Rather they are good angels or evil angels is of no consequence, they are same type of being. As previously noted in Genesis 18 & 19 the angels can appear in corporal form, presumingly for special assignments. It's possible they were granted this ability before the flood to instruct man as the Book of Enoch and Jubilees suggests. Or perhaps they have always had this ability but only a few have dared to abuse it as the judgement from God would be swift and severe. In any case there is a presidence for angels having corporal forms in the body. We do not know the extent of these corporal bodies.
6. Demons Are Limited By God's Control and Have Limited Power
However great their power may be, it is nevertheless subject to all the limitations that belong to creatures. Angels, therefore, cannot create, they cannot change substances, they cannot alter the laws of nature, they cannot perform miracles, cannot act without means, and they cannot search the heart; for all these are, in Scripture, declared to be prerogatives peculiar to God.
Some believe that demons are actually the disembodied spirits of Nephilim. I will not go into all the details here, but if it's true then demons and fallen angels are not the same thing or subject to the same limitations.
Since this is the case, God would have to have allowed these angels to assume human bodies to be able to produce this race of half-angel, half-human. This is inconsistent with the character of God as revealed in Scripture—He does not participate in sin.
By that logic man should not be able to sin either since God created us and he does not participate in sin. However God has given his creation free will to choose right from wrong. It's possible the angels original mission on earth was noble and just but they chose to sin. It would not mean God participated in their sin.
1.Ancient View
The angelic view fell into disrepute among Christian interpreters from the fourth to the eighteenth century. Saint Augustine's rejection of the angel interpretation (De Civitate Dei 15, written between A.D. 413-426, had enormous influence. Those who rejected the supernatural angelic reading did so because of theological objections that arose to angels cohabiting with humans.
Augustine was not perfect, some would argue he never fully converted from his pagan roots and introduced many heresies into the church. Agustine did not believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and allegorized Genesis. He attempted to de-mythologize the bible. Prior to Augustine all the Jewish and early Christian commentators took the angelic view of Genesis 6.
The Bible-believers who hold to the angelic view do so because they feel it best fits all the evidence of Scripture. They strongly reject the idea that any part of Scripture is mythological. Furthermore many of them believe that the later myths that arose concerning angels and women producing
monstrous offspring may have been derived from the actual occurrence as recorded in Genesis.
This is the view that I hold. I believe the Sons of God were fallen angels that commingled with human woman and produced a hybrid race of giants called Nephilim.
2. Septuagint
Though the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6 was an ancient view, it was not the only view in antiquity. Therefore the angel view was not the only position held in the ancient world.
Correct, but those interpretations that do should not be so easily dismissed. Generally speaking the angel view is older than the non-angelic views of Genesis 6.
Only one manuscript (Codex Alexandrinus) reads angels of God. The critical editions of the Septuagint (as well as two other ancient Greek translations) read sons of God not angels of God in Genesis 6:2,4. Therefore one cannot appeal to the Septuagint to support the idea of angels.
The Hebrew word for Sons of God is "Ben elohiym". According to Strong's Lexicon Elohiym can refer to God, gods, goddesses, angels, anything supernatural but there is no mention of it ever applying to mankind in any way. The Book of Job most definitely uses Sons of God (ben elohiym) to refer to angels.
3. Apocryphal Books
How much credence do we give any of the apocryphal books? Though they are ancient interpretations they not on the same level as inspired Scripture.
Many non-canonical books are referenced in the bible, such as the Book of Jasher mentioned in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18. Both Jude (Jude 4,6,13,14-15) and Peter (2 Peter 2:4;3:13) quote from the Book of Enoch. In fact Jude paraphrases and alludes to the Book of Enoch extensively. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain a fragment of the Book of Giants, which is thought to be based on the Book of Enoch. The ancient Hebrews obviously regarded The Book of Enoch highly enough to quote from it and preserve it within the caves of Qumran.
4. Obvious Reading
Why didn't Moses say angels if he meant angels? There are fifteen references to angels in the Pentateuch and each time it refers to angels it calls them angels—never the sons of God. The only exception is Genesis 3:24 when he calls them cherubim. Therefore calling them angels here is anything but obvious. To the contrary, the angel view would seem more inconsistent in this context of Genesis where angels are never specifically mentioned.
A counter question would be why didn't Moses say Sons of men if he meant human beings? Sons of men or Sons of Adam always refer to men. Sons of God refer to those that belong to God and have been linked to angels in the Book of Job. The Book of Job is considered the oldest Book in the bible. Is it possible that Mosses used the term "Sons of God" to refer to angels because Job used it first?
5. Technical Phrase
First, there are only two places in the entire Old Testament where the exact phrase is used (Job 1:6, 2:1). In Job 38:7 the definite article Ha is missing. Therefore to say that the term is used consistently for angels is misleading since there are only two other verses in the entire Old Testament where the exact the phrase is used. The fact that these two places refer to angels is clear from the context, not from the phrase itself.
Furthermore, the Old Testament does contain references to the sons of God as being human beings.
While it's true the sons of God can refer to humans, it doesn't refer to all human beings just those that belong to God (Such as the Jews or those whole follow Christ). The fact that is also referred to angels in the Book of Job, if only two places, means the term is not used consistently for human beings either.
Interesting to note here that according to the Book of Enoch and Jubilees, the angels original mission was to teach law and justice to mankind. This may have been Gods way of teaching man before He gave us the Torah and the prophets. Somewhere along the way these angels decided to rebel against God, commingle with women, and teach man about warfare, astrology, and other forbidden knowledge. This may have been where mystery religions originated.
6. Consistent Interpretation
The contrast between sons of God and daughters of men do not have to be between human and non-human entities. Those who reject the angel view do not feel their interpretation is inconsistent.
It is interesting that sons of God was chosen instead of Sons of Men, one has to wonder why was this seeming distinction made? If the contrast is not between human and non-human entities than what else can it be?
7. Took Wives
The phrase took wives is a standing expression for marriage relationship with only these two exceptions. There is nothing in the context that would indicate these are other than real marriages. The sin was not fornication, the Hebrew makes this clear.
Rather they took wives or they fornicated it's really irrelevant, the important point is there was a physical union and giants were produced.
8. Not a Mythological story
While it is true that simplistic parallels from other cultures does not make the story mythological, it could explain why some ancient interpreters believed the angelic explanation.
It really shouldn't be so hard to believe. As Christians we believe in talking snakes and donkeys, men walking on water, men rising from the dead, invisible entities known as angels and demons. What then is so difficult about believing angels co-habited with women?
I tend to believe that the Nephilim later inspired Greek Mythology and not vice versa. In Greek Mythology, Titans were a powerful race of deities descended from Gaia (earth) and Uranus (sky). Similarly the angelic view of the Nephilim were said to have a maternal linage from earth and a fraternal lineage from the sky.
In 2 Peter 2:4 it says "For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast [them] down to hell and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment". The word for "hell" is tartaroĊ which means "throw to Tartarus". It's only used once in the New Testament and in Greek Mythology Tartarus is where the Titans and the giant Hekatonkheires were imprisoned.
Another interesting comparison between the Nephilim and the Greek Gods is found in the Book of Enoch. According to the Book of Enoch, a sect of 200 fallen angels led by fallen angel named Semyaza descended on Mount Hermon. In exchange for human females they taught mankind magic, conjuring, weaponry, and cosmetics. One of these chief fallen angels was named Azazel. Azazel is the Hebrew word used for scapegoat. Azazel closely resembled the Greek god Pan who who was half goat/half man creature that lusted after females and whose father was Hermes. Hermes is phonetically similar to Mount Hermon, where the fallen angels supposedly first descended. It is interesting then that Jesus went to Caesarea Philippi to preach at Mount Hermon, the location of Pan's Grotto and a spring which was called the Gates of Hell. It was here that Jesus said "..and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Mat 16:13-20). Jesus and his disciples were no doubt well aware of the apocryphal teachings about the Nephilim.
9. Satan And Seed Of Woman
Scripture records that Satan does make several attempts to defile the promised seed, but all other attempts are done by men, not angels. Also the Old Testament frequently warns against intermarriage of God's covenant people with those outside of His covenant (Exodus 34:16). In addition, Scripture speaks of unwarranted marriages within their own people (Genesis 24; 27:46; 28:1).
We can't rule out the possibility that Satan uses a multi-pronged approach in attempting to defile the promised seed. Could it be the frequent warning about intermarriage to those outside His covenant stem from angles co-mingling with women?
Some people believe the giants in the land of Canaan were another attempt of Satan to destroy God's chosen people. As Chuck Missler has said, Satan had over 400 years to plant his "mine field" of Nephilim in his attempt to thwart the plan of God. When David killed the giant Goliath of Gath he kept his sword and his head. Goliath's head was later buried several miles away in Jerusalem at Golgotha. Golgotha means place of [the] skull and may have been named so because Goliath's skull was buried there. Also Golgotha may be a combination of GOLiath and GATH (GOL-GATH-A). Golgotha was the place where Christ was crucified, which we call Calvary. As Jesus was crucified with nails in hands and feet and the blood running down his body onto the place where this giant's skull was buried one can not ignore the similarities to Genesis 3:15 "And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."
10. Judgement Of Flood
Why else would he totally destroy the human race except for eight people? Merely the intermarriage between humans, whether the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain, or between kings and common people, would not be sufficient reason for God to wipe out the entire race.
Some believe Seth descendants were the godly line and Cain's descendants were the wicked line. However both Cain and Seth had the same sin nature. Noah's son Ham is even cursed because of some sin against his father (some believe it was incest) . Noah's great-grandson Nimrod became the world's first dictator. So the Seth line was not so pure. Moreover Seth had many children besides Enosh (Gen 5:7), as did all of Noah's forefathers, yet only Noah and his family were the only descendants of Seth that were saved.
It would appear shortly after Enosh is born all men began to profane the name of the Lord. Genesis 4:26 says "Then [men] began to call on the name of the LORD." However the Hebrew word for "began" (chalal) can also mean to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate.
The context of Genesis 6 emphasizes the sin of humans, not angels as the reason for the Flood (verses 3-7,12,13). The sons of God were the ones who initiated this sin. Why weren't they mentioned in the judgment if they were angels? This leads us to conclude that only humankind was involved in the sin.
I believe the judgement of the angels invovled are mentioned in Jude 1:6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Certainly all mankind began to sin after the fall of Adam. But if this was the reason for the flood what did it really accomplish? It did not wash away the sin nature of man. Men resumed sinning after the flood. Our sins today are no less than those of the days of Noah.
11.The Nephilim (Giants)
The fact that Nephilim are mentioned in Scripture as existing after the Flood (Numbers 13:33) does not imply they survived the Flood but rather that their name lived on of men of great stature.
There appears to be a second outcropping of Giants after the flood as both the giants in Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33 are called Nephilim. There is no indication of where these giants come from, tho it's conceivable another batch of fallen angels could have co-mingled with women as in Genesis 6:4.
The Nephilim or mighty ones were on earth both before and after the marriages—they did not arise after them.
Gen 6:4 says "There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore [children] to them. Those [were] the mighty men who [were] of old, men of renown." There's two ways this can be interpreted. One is that there were giants already on earth before and after the the Sons of God came unto the daughters of men. The second interpretation is there were giants in those days (before the flood) and then after (the flood). I believe it is the latter interpretation as Genesis was written by Mosses. From Mosses perspective there would have been giants before the flood and there were giants in the land of Canaan. The spies reported that they were like grasshoppers in there sight (Num 13:33).
In addition, Nephilim does not necessarily mean giants. The word may be derived from the Hebrew naphal meaning fall upon others (Joshua 11:7; Job 1:15; Jeremiah 46:16). Therefore it could refer to those who attack others.
According to bible scholar Michael S. Heiser, naphal is not the root word of Nephilim and does not mean "those who fall" or "those who fall upon". If the word nephilim came from Hebrew naphal, it would not be spelled as we find it. The form nephilim cannot mean "fallen ones" (the spelling would then be nephulim). Likewise nephilim does not mean "those who fall" or "those who fall away" (that would be nophelim). Nephilim comes from the Aramaic noun naphil which means giants. In fact the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) translates nephilim as "gigantes”.
Furthermore, Numbers 13:33 uses Nephilim twice to describe sons of human parents not angels. The human father is Anak (Numbers 13:22,28,33). If Nephilim denotes offspring of human parents in Numbers 13:33, then why not in Genesis 6:4?
Numbers 13:33 clearly states that the descendants of Anak came from giants (nephilim).
Furthermore, the Nephilim, contrary to many opinions, were not the offspring of sons of God...
In a parenthetical phrase we are told that the Nephilim were present during this scenario.... Almost all modern versions of the Bible put these five passages in parentheses. Such frame-brakes supply extra information from the narrator... Therefore it is more proper to understand the statement about the Nephilim as an explanatory parenthesis—it was during the time the Nephilim were on earth that the sons of God married the daughters of men. Thus neither the sons of God, nor the mighty men, had anything to do with the Nephilim. When it says, they were mighty men, the they refers back to the sons of God, not the Nephilim.
Of course the original Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament) texts have no parentheses, periods, commas, quotation or interrogation marks etc. These were added later and can greatly effect the meaning of a sentence.
12. Jesus' Statement
Angelic cohabitation with earthly women does not seem to be a possibility... There is no reference in Scripture to fallen angels ever having a body.
But there are references to angels having physical bodies. The angels that visited Abraham ate (Gen 18:1-18), as did Jesus in his resurrected body (Luk 24:41-43). If they could eat what else could they do? The angels they visited Lot could be seen and felt (Gen 19). By every indication they were corporeal. Likewise Hebrews 13:2 says "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." Jesus himself could be considered a hybrid, his mother was a human but his father was not.
My supposition is this, if it's possible to change from mortal to immortal (1 Corinthians 15:52-53), such as with Enoch (Hbr 11:5), then is the reserve also plausable? To change from immortal to temporal physical bodies? I believe the possibility exists.
13. New Testament Evidence
These New Testament passages do not link perversion with angels. Many interpreters feel it is fanciful to assume that these verses refer to angels that sinned before the Flood... Furthermore, the angels who visited Sodom were good angels. There is no example in Scripture of evil angels ever assuming a body.
As previously noted there are examples in Scripture of angels assuming a physical body (Gen 18-19). Rather they were good angels or not is irrelevant. It means a precedence can be found in Scriptures for angels assuming a body.
This evidence is none the less helpful in showing that one simply cannot assume that the readers of 1 Peter had an 'angelic' interpretation of Genesis 6:2,4 in their minds. Indeed, Peter would not have assumed an 'angelic' interpretation in his readers' minds either, for no uniform interpretation of this passage can be demonstrated for the first century AD (Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter, Tyndale, 1988, pp. 212, 213).
Generally speaking all the Jews and early Christians held the angelic view before Augustine's influence. Those scriptures in Peter and Jude are paraphrased from the Book of Enoch which makes it clear that the Sons of God were angels and there sin was co-mingling with women. We should bear in mind that the New Testament writers were influenced by many extra-biblical sources, The Book of Enoch was one of those sources. There are three versions of the Book of Enoch today tho these are not the original Book of Enoch. However, it is possible to cross reference many of the Enochian sources to one another, Biblical sources, and historical sources to establish that there are, indeed, portions of the original record of Enoch that have survived in the greatly adulterated versions discovered in the East.
14. Angels Not Exempt From Judgement
Because there is no mention of angelic judgment in the Genesis passage it seems to be clear that it is the judgment of humanity that is in view. The judgment of the angels in 1 and 2 Peter and Jude more likely refers to their original sin, rather than their sin immediately before the Flood.
Clearly not all of the fallen angels are imprisoned. Satan, the leader of the angelic rebellion against God, is not imprisoned. Why would God allow the rebel leader to remain free, but then confine the angels who followed Satan in the rebellion? No, it makes more sense to understand the “spirits in prison” as the fallen angels who participated in an additional rebellion, e.g., the sons of God / daughters of men incident. The fallen angels who mated with human females are the ones who are imprisoned.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]. (Eph 6:12)"
Other Problems With The Angelic View
1. Immediate Context Of Passage
There is nothing in the context that would identify the sons of God with the angelic host. Angels have not been mentioned in the Book of Genesis to this point and certainly nothing in the story demands we understand the sons of God as angels... from beginning to end, 6:1-8 concerns humanity and its outcome, not angels and their punishment.
While it's true if we look solely at Genesis 6:1-8 and nothing more than we would conclude it is solely about the sins of humanity. However if examine all of scripture, explore extra-biblical sources and commentary of Genesis than we can conclude the culpability of angels also.
2.Phrase Sons of God Is Unclear As we have noted, the phrase sons of God is not a clear reference to angels. The three references to the phrase sons of God in Scripture is an insufficient data base to understand the meaning of the term. Though it is possible the phrase means angels in Genesis 6, it is by no means certain... Elohim can be rendered a genitive of quality, meaning godly sons, referring to the heritage of the Sethites.
According to this view, the Sons of God were the godly decedents of Seth, while the daughters of men were descended from the ungodly Cain. If that is the case the Sethites were not so godly if they were marrying the ungodly Canaanite women. And what was wrong with the Sethite women? Where they that ugly?
3.Cryptic Reference
If the sons of God refer to angels in Genesis 6, then the reference is cryptic. Angels have not been mentioned thus far in Genesis. Later they will be mentioned a number times but every other time they are spoken of, they are specifically called angels. Why not here if they were angels?
4.Different Context Than Job
Though angels are in view in Job 1 with the phrase sons of God, it is the context that makes it clear. The context is different in Job and Genesis. In Job, there is a heavenly court that it identified. There is no such heavenly court or any hint of angels in this context.
It is said that Job is the oldest book in the bible, older than Genesis. Since Job used Sons of God to refer to angels it is possible that's why this reference was used in Genesis. The reverse questions is why not just call the Sons of God men if they were men?
5.Angels Do Not Have Physical Form
A major problem with the angel view is that they are ministering spirits—they do not have corporeal form. Though good angels at times assumed some physical form, it is not the case with evil angels. There is not one biblical example of angels taking on a physical form. God would have to grant them that ability.
Rather they are good angels or evil angels is of no consequence, they are same type of being. As previously noted in Genesis 18 & 19 the angels can appear in corporal form, presumingly for special assignments. It's possible they were granted this ability before the flood to instruct man as the Book of Enoch and Jubilees suggests. Or perhaps they have always had this ability but only a few have dared to abuse it as the judgement from God would be swift and severe. In any case there is a presidence for angels having corporal forms in the body. We do not know the extent of these corporal bodies.
6. Demons Are Limited By God's Control and Have Limited Power
However great their power may be, it is nevertheless subject to all the limitations that belong to creatures. Angels, therefore, cannot create, they cannot change substances, they cannot alter the laws of nature, they cannot perform miracles, cannot act without means, and they cannot search the heart; for all these are, in Scripture, declared to be prerogatives peculiar to God.
Some believe that demons are actually the disembodied spirits of Nephilim. I will not go into all the details here, but if it's true then demons and fallen angels are not the same thing or subject to the same limitations.
Since this is the case, God would have to have allowed these angels to assume human bodies to be able to produce this race of half-angel, half-human. This is inconsistent with the character of God as revealed in Scripture—He does not participate in sin.
By that logic man should not be able to sin either since God created us and he does not participate in sin. However God has given his creation free will to choose right from wrong. It's possible the angels original mission on earth was noble and just but they chose to sin. It would not mean God participated in their sin.
