By Chuck Missler
Focus on Jerusalem is always striving to present enlightening and provocative prophecy–related material to its readers. The FOJ Library has been built to house numerous articles by various authors that I think have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. One of the foremost prophecy thinkers of our day is Chuck Missler of Koinnoia House Ministry. His books and articles on the Nephilim and the Days of Noah are interesting and timely reading. (03-14-06) In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus also likens the Last Days, not only to the days of Noah, but also makes a stark comparison to the times of Lot, and the prevailing condition that existed in Sodom. Both of these cultural debaucheries exist today, as in no other time since the days of Noah and Lot.
(Luke 17:26-30 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.)
As The Days of Noah Were
And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man."
The emergence of the "Nephilim" was what brought about the Flood of Noah. Who were they? Is the current interest in the possibility of "alien" involvements somehow of Biblical relevance?
The Nephilim
Genesis 6 indicates that the "sons of God" (B'nai Elohim) took wives of the "daughters of men," which gave birth to the "Nephilim." What on earth was going on? The B'nai Elohim is a term that refers to angels. It occurs four times in the Old Testament and is rendered "Angels of God" in the ancient Septuagin translation. The intrusion of certain angels into the human family resulted in unnatural offspring termed Nephilim, which derives from the Hebrew naphal (to fall), or the Fallen Ones. (The Greek Septuagint renders this term gigantes, which actually means "earth-born." This is often misunderstood to mean "giants," which they also happen to have been, incidentally.)
Line of Seth
The early church viewed the B'nai Elohim as angels up through the late fourth century: Justin, Athenagoras, Cyprian, Eusebius, et al. (also Josephus, Philo, Judeaus, and the Apochrypha regard this view). Celsus and Julian the Apostate exploited the older common belief to attack Christianity. Cyril of Alexandria, in his reply, repudiated the orthodox position. Julius Africanus (a contemporary of Origen) introduced the theory that the "sons of God" simply referred to the genealogical line of Seth, which was committed to preserving the true worship of God.
Seemingly more appealing, the "Sethite theory" prevailed into the Medieval Church, and many still hold this view. This view, however, has several serious problems. There is no indication that the Sethites were distinguished for piety; they were not exempted from the charge of general wickedness which brought on the flood. In fact, Seth's son Enosh was the one who introduced apostasy to that world. This is masked by a mistranslation of Genesis 4:25, which should read:
"...then men began to profane the name of the Lord."
Furthermore, when the faithful marry the unfaithful, they do not give birth to unnatural offspring! And the "daughters of men" were not differentiated with regard to the Flood. All were lost.
(Incidentally, the Nephilim didn't completely end with the flood. Genesis 6:4 mentions, "...and also after that..." We find the sons fo Anak, the Anakim, later in the Old Testament.)
The Reason for the Flood
It was the infusion of these strange beings into the human predicament that brought on the Flood of Noah. The Flood was preceded by four generations of prophets/preachers warning of the coming judgment: Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah. It seems that this was part of Satan's stratagem to corrupt the line of Adam to prevent the fulfillment of the Messianic redemption. Noah was apparently unique in that his genealogy was still uncorrupted.
The strange events which led to the flood are also alluded to in ancient mythologies.8 The legends of the Greek "titans"--partly terrestrial, partly celestial--embrace these same memories. (The Greek titan is linguistically linked to the Chaldean sheitan, and the Hebrew satan.)
The Angels that Sinned
There is a great deal revealed in the Bible about angels. They can appear in human form, they spoke as men, took men by the hand, even ate men's food, are capable of direct physical combat, some are the principal forces behind the world powers. They don't marry (in Heaven), but apparently are (or were) capable of much mischief. The strange events of Genesis Chapter 6 are also referred to in the New Testament. Peter refers to events preceding the flood of Noah:
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment..." 2 Peter 2:4
(Peter uses the term tartarus, here translated as hell. This was a Greek term for "the dark abode of woe, the pit of darkness in the unseen world." Homer's Iliad portrays tartarus "as far below hades as the earth is below Heaven...")
Also, in Jude, it mentions them:
"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. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Jude 6 and 7.
Scripture warns against meddling with the spirit world. The punishment which overtook the angels that sinned was to emphasize the serious nature of apostasy: beings of a higher order than ours have been hurled down into a dark place of confinement where they have remained for thousands of years. God has not changed His attitude toward them; time has not mitigated the seriousness of their sin. False teachers are prewritten into condemnation.
The "Sons of God" Return?
There are many who believe that the recent "alien" involvements are also demonic and are just another precursor to the end-time. Some also believe that the Coming World Leader may boast of an "alien connection." It would be consistent from what else we can infer from Scripture. (The Restrainer of II Thessalonians 2 may be restraining far more than we have any suspicion of! When He is removed, the world is in for some astonishing surprises!)
In the meantime, what are our weapons of protection against such things? We do, indeed, "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." Our armor is well defined in Ephesians 6:10-17.
"Mischievous Angels or Sethites?"
In the above analysis we have explored the importance of understanding Genesis 6. The straightforward presentation of the text seems to clearly portray a strange union of fallen angels with women to produce a hybrid race called the "Nephilim," or fallen ones. We enumerated the reasons we accept the "angel" view and why the liberal "Sethite" view is inadequate. Far beyond simply a misunderstanding of the forthright presentation of the text, the "Sethite" view also obscures apprehension of the prophetic Scriptures.
Post-Flood Occurrences
Regarding the Nephilim, Genesis 6:4 also includes the haunting phrase, "...and also after that...." Apparently these strange events were not confined just to the period before the Flood. We find that there seems to be some recurrence of those things which resulted in unusual "giants" appearing in subsequent periods later in the Old Testament narrative, specifically the giant-races of Canaan.
There were a number of tribes such as the Rephaim, the Emim, the Horim, and Zamsummim, that were giants. The kingdom of Og, the King of Bashan, was the "land of the giants." Later, we also find Arba, Anak, and his seven sons (the "Anakim") also as giants, along with the famed Goliath and his four brothers.
When God had revealed to Abraham that the land of Canaan was to be given to him, Satan had over 400 years to plant his "mine field" of Nephilim! When Moses sent his twelve spies to reconnoiter the Land of Canaan, they came back with the report of giants in the land. (The term used was Nephilim.) Their fear of those terrifying creatures resulted in their being relegated to wandering in the wilderness for 38 years.
When Joshua and the nation Israel later entered the land of Canaan, they were instructed to wipe out every man, woman and child of certain tribes. That strikes us as disturbingly severe. It would seem that in the Land of Canaan, there again was a "gene pool problem."
These Rephaim, Nephilim, and others seem to have been established as an advance guard to obstruct Israel's possession of the Promised Land. Was this also a stratagem of Satan?
The Days of Noah
Perhaps the most direct prophetic reference involving these things was the peculiar warning of our Lord Jesus Himself:
And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luke 17:26
What does that mean? He also warned:
And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
Luke 21:25,26 (emphasis added)
Is it possible that the UFOs - and their occupants - are part of an end-time scenario?
The Miry Clay of Daniel 2
The famous dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel Chapter 2 appears to lay out all of Gentile history until God ultimately intervenes and sets up His own kingdom. The various metals which make up the image in the dream are well known to serious students of prophecy. Even our common expression, "the idol has feet of clay," comes to us from this classic passage. But what is represented by the "miry clay" in this image? It seems to be strangely mixed-but not completely-with the iron in the dream. The term "miry clay" refers to clay made from dust, a Biblical idiom which suggests death. ) When Daniel interprets this for us he makes an especially provocative allusion in verse 43:
And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. (Daniel 2:43)
As he switches to a personal pronoun, they, "shall mingle themselves with the seed of men..." This is extremely suggestive when viewed in light of the warning of our Lord in Luke 17:26, ostensibly directing us to look more closely at Genesis 6. Just what (or who) are "mingling with the seed of men?" These would seem to refer to some beings who are not the seed of men themselves!
Could this be a hint of a return to the mischief of Genesis 6? It staggers the mind to consider the potential significance of Daniel's passage and its implications for the future global governance. Are these "aliens" so prolific that they constitute a political constituency?
Will there be UFO incidents as part of a carefully orchestrated program to lead us toward a political agenda? Or has it started already? Are the UFOs, and the increasingly widespread abductions, part of the preparations for this scenario?
UFO Abductions?
There seems to be a growing concern within the psychiatric community from the strange (and far too frequent) reports from people who claim to have been "abducted" by the occupants of UFOs. These reports are too bizarre to accept, and yet too frequent-and consistent to ignore. What is particularly disturbing is the estimate from some national polls that as much as 3% of the population may be involved! Perhaps the most well-known researcher in this area is Dr. John E. Mack, who is professor of psychiatry at The Cambridge Hospital, Harvard Medical School. A contributor to over 150 articles in professional (peer-reviewed) journals and a former Pulitzer Prize winner, he certainly appears to have impressive credentials. He has been involved in almost a hundred of these cases personally, and has shocked the professional community by declaring that he believes these beings may be real and that they appear to have an agenda to develop a hybrid race!
At a professional conference on abductions at M.I.T., Dr. Mack asked the provocative question, "If what these abductees are saying is happening to them isn't happening, then what is?" Could all this involve a return to the strange events of "the Days of Noah?"
Pinging to others, something you've seen before, but it figures into this thread and it's something that other readers may not know anything about. You can add whatever you want to say to what Missler is saying or what this topic is about ... :-)
by Chuck Missler
Why did God send the judgment of the Flood in the days of Noah? Far more than simply a historical issue, the unique events leading to the Flood are a prerequisite to understanding the prophetic implications of our Lord's predictions regarding His Second Coming.1
The strange events recorded in Genesis 6 were understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, as well as the Septuagint translators, as referring to fallen angels procreating weird hybrid offspring with human women-known as the "Nephilim." So it was also understood by the early church fathers. These bizarre events are also echoed in the legends and myths of every ancient culture upon the earth: the ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the South Sea Islanders, the American Indians, and virtually all the others.
However, many students of the Bible have been taught that this passage in Genesis 6 actually refers to a failure to keep the "faithful" lines of Seth separate from the "worldly" line of Cain. The idea has been advanced that after Cain killed Abel, the line of Seth remained separate and faithful, but the line of Cain turned ungodly and rebellious. The "Sons of God" are deemed to refer to leadership in the line of Seth; the "daughters of men" is deemed restricted to the line of Cain. The resulting marriages ostensibly blurred an inferred separation between them. (Why the resulting offspring are called the "Nephilim" remains without any clear explanation.)
Since Jesus prophesied, "As the days of Noah were, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be,"2 it becomes essential to understand what these days included.
Origin of the Sethite View
It was in the 5th century a.d. that the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)
Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view.
Problems with the Sethite View
Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the "Days of Noah."3 Some of the many problems with the "Sethite View" include the following:
1. The Text Itself
Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.")
The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.5
The "Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain" interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the "angels" and the women of the Earth.
If the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of Seth?" There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)
And how does the "Sethite" interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support.
The Biblical term "Sons of Elohim" (that is, of the Creator Himself), is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order.6 In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a "son of God."7 The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam's initial immortality forfeited. Christ uniquely gives them that receive Him the power to become the sons of God.8 Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation,9 at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God10 and in every respect equal to the angels.11 The very term oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.12
The attempt to apply the term "Sons of Elohim" in a broader sense has no textual basis and obscures the precision of its denotative usage. This proves to be an assumption which is antagonistic to the uniform Biblical usage of the term.
2. The Daughters of Cain
The "Daughters of Adam" also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens:
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:1,2
It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the Benoth Adam, "the daughters of Adam." There is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain? All of Adam's female descendants seem to have been involved. (And what about the "sons of Adam?" Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in?)
Furthermore, the line of Cain was not necessarily known for its ungodliness. From a study of the naming of Cain's children, many of which included the name of God,13 it is not clear that they were all necessarily unfaithful.
3. The Inferred Lines of Separation
The concept of separate "lines" itself is suspect and contrary to Scripture.14 National and racial distinctions were plainly the result of the subsequent intervention of God in Genesis 11, five chapters later. There is no intimation that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves separate nor were even instructed to. The injunction to remain separate was given much later.15 Genesis 6:12 confirms that all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth.
4. The Inferred Godliness of Seth
There is no evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Seth was godly. Only one person was translated from the judgment to come (Enoch) and only eight were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah's immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others. (There is no evidence that the wives of Noah's sons were from the line of Seth.) Even so, Gaebelein observes, "The designation 'Sons of God' is never applied in the Old Testament to believers," whose sonship is "distinctly a New Testament revelation."16
The "Sons of Elohim" saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them wives of all that they chose. It appears that the women had little say in the matter. The domineering implication hardly suggests a godly approach to the union. Even the mention that they saw that they were attractive seems out of place if only normal biology was involved. (And were the daughters of Seth so unattractive?)
It should also be pointed out that the son of Seth himself was Enosh, and there is textual evidence that, rather than a reputation for piety, he seems to have initiated the profaning of the name of God.17
If the lines of Seth were so faithful, why did they perish in the flood?
5. The Unnatural Offspring
The most fatal flaw in the specious "Sethite" view is the emergence of the Nephilim as a result of the unions. (Bending the translation to "giants" does not resolve the difficulties.) It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which seems to be cited as a primary cause for the Flood.
Procreation by parents of differing religious views do not produce unnatural offspring. Believers marrying unbelievers may produce "monsters," but hardly superhuman, or unnatural, children! It was this unnatural procreation and the resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood.
The very absence of any such adulteration of the human genealogy in Noah's case is also documented in Genesis 6:9: Noah's family tree was distinctively unblemished. The term used, tamiym, is used for physical blemishes.18
Why were the offspring uniquely designated "mighty" and "men of reknown?" This description characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merely men, even if godly.
A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no "women of reknown" are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only "Y" chromosomes available in this line?)19
6. New Testament Confirmations
"In the mouths of two or three witnesses every word shall be established."20 In Biblical matters, it is essential to always compare Scripture with Scripture. The New Testament confirmations in Jude and 2 Peter are impossible to ignore.21
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5
Peter's comments even establishes the time of the fall of these angels to the days of the Flood of Noah.
Even Peter's vocabulary is provocative. Peter uses the term Tartarus, here translated "hell." This is the only place that this Greek term appears in the Bible. Tartarus is a Greek term for "dark abode of woe"; "the pit of darkness in the unseen world." As used in Homer's Iliad, it is "...as far beneath hades as the earth is below heaven`."22 In Greek mythology, some of the demigods, Chronos and the rebel Titans, were said to have rebelled against their father, Uranus, and after a prolonged contest they were defeated by Zeus and were condemned into Tartarus.
The Epistle of Jude23 also alludes to the strange episodes when these "alien" creatures intruded themselves into the human reproductive process:
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. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 6,7
The allusions to "going after strange flesh," keeping "not their first estate," having "left their own habitation," and "giving themselves over to fornication," seem to clearly fit the alien intrusions of Genesis 6. (The term for habitation, oivkhth,rion, refers to their heavenly bodies from which they had disrobed.24)
These allusions from the New Testament would seem to be fatal to the "Sethite" alternative in interpreting Genesis 6. If the intercourse between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were merely marriage between Sethites and Cainites, it seems impossible to explain these passages, and the reason why some fallen angels are imprisoned and others are free to roam the heavenlies.
7. Post-Flood Implications
The strange offspring also continued after the flood: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days, and also after that..."25 The "Sethite" view fails to meaningfully address the prevailing conditions "also after that." It offers no insight into the presence of the subsequent "giants" in the land of Canaan.
One of the disturbing aspects of the Old Testament record was God's instructions, upon entering the land of Canaan, to wipe out every man, woman, and child of certain tribes inhabiting the land. This is difficult to justify without the insight of a "gene pool problem" from the remaining Nephilim, Rephaim, et al., which seems to illuminate the difficulty.
8. Prophetic Implications
Another reason that an understanding of Genesis 6 is so essential is that it also is a prerequisite to understanding (and anticipating) Satan's devices26 and, in particular, the specific delusions to come upon the whole earth as a major feature of end-time prophecy.27 We will take up these topics in Part 2, "The Return Of The Nephilim.")
In Summary
If one takes an integrated view of the Scripture, then everything in it should "tie together." It is the author's view that the "Angel View," however disturbing, is the clear, direct presentation of the Biblical text, corroborated by multiple New Testament references and was so understood by both early Jewish and Christian scholarship; the "Sethite View" is a contrivance of convenience from a network of unjustified assumptions antagonistic to the remainder of the Biblical record.
It should also be pointed out that most conservative Bible scholars accept the "angel" view.28 Among those supporting the "angel" view are: G. H. Pember, M. R. DeHaan, C. H. McIntosh, F. Delitzsch, A. C. Gaebelein, A. W. Pink, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Henry Morris, Merril F. Unger, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Hal Lindsey, and Chuck Smith, being among the best known.
For those who take the Bible seriously, the arguments supporting the "Angel View" appear compelling. For those who indulge in a willingness to take liberties with the straightforward presentation of the text, no defense can prove final. (And greater dangers than the implications attending these issues await them!)
For further exploration of this critical topic, see the following:
Endnotes