In Genesis 6 we find the curious introduction to a group of people (?) called the Nephilim. In verse 4, the ESV reads, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”

Thus concludes one of the strangest passages in all the Bible. For centuries, the four verses that begin Genesis 6 have occasioned debate on whom the Nephilim are, who the sons of God are, who the daughters of man are, who the mighty men of old were, the men of renown, and how these characters all fit together. Are these all descriptions of human beings, sons and daughters of Adam? Or, is something more nefarious afoot? Are the sons of God fallen angels? And if so, who are their offspring?

To these questions and more, I will attempt to give an answer in this post and three more to come. Below, I will consider what it means for Christians to use extra-biblical sources, and how we can properly benefit from reading 1 Enoch. In the next post, I will lay out the options for reading Genesis 6, and explain the strengths and weaknesses of various positions. Then third, I will make a canonical argument for understanding the sons of God as fallen angels and the Nephilim/mighty men as giants. Fourth, I will draw some theological conclusions related to Genesis 6 but also to Christ and his rule over the cosmos.

Always Begin with the Bible

Whenever evangelicals read the Bible, we do so as heirs of a great tradition. Among other things, that tradition is summarized in two words: Sola Scriptura.

Going back to the Reformation, the Protestant heritage has prioritized the Word of God as the only inspired and authoritative revelation of God. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church which put the Apocrypha on the same level at the other sixty-six books of the Bible, Protestant confessions always set Scripture apart from the other books. As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, after delimiting the canon to sixty-six books,

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings. (WCF 1.3)

This statement articulated in various ways by other Protestant confessions makes it clear that the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) is the source for all doctrine and the substance for all that God has revealed to his covenant people. And accordingly, when we study the Bible and formulate doctrine, the Bible has a special place. While studies investigating the language, history, and customs of the people surrounding God’s people, whether the Ancient Near East or Second Temple Judaism in the Greco-Roman world, Scripture itself is the first and final authority.

By consequence, we should strive to understand the Bible on its own terms. As Andy Naselli has framed it with respect to history and culture,

I can’t overstate how important this is. You can discover so much about the historical-cultural context by simply reading the text carefully. Never lose your anchor to this one text: the Bible. Everything else is supplementary. So in your zeal to understand the historical-cultural context, don’t neglect the one text that matters most. Give it preeminence. Read the text more often than you read any other. Let this text be supreme over all others.[1]

On this basis when we consider the various views related to Genesis 6, we should make our case for a given interpretation based upon what we find in text of Scripture, not outside of Scripture. That being said, there are ways that extra-biblical resources, understood to be non-inspired human writings, provide help in understanding the biblical text. As the Belgic Confession, Article 6, notes concerning the Apocrypha.

The church may certainly read these books and learn from them as far as they agree with the canonical books. But they do not have such power and virtue that one could confirm from their testimony any point of faith or of the Christian religion. Much less can they detract from the authority of the other holy books.[2]

While these statement does not directly apply to 1 Enoch, its sentiments do. The church has long recognized the importance of extra-biblical books that “agree with the canonical books.” And in fact, this point actually coheres with Naselli’s point above when read in the context of his own argument.

To speak personally for a minute, I found Naselli’s quotation when Graham Cole cited it in his book Against the Darkness: The Doctrine of Angels, Satan, and Demons.[3]Ironically, in a section describing evangelical theology and its engagement with extra-biblical resources, Cole only cited Naselli’s argument for the Bible; he said nothing of Naselli’s ongoing argument for other literature too. If he had, Cole would have found arguments for a wise and selective use of ancient literature that would be included in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.

Benefitting from Extra-Biblical Sources

To be sure, the faithful student of Scripture does not read the Bible alone, even if the Bible alone has magisterial authority. Rather, students of Scripture will also “use primary (extracanonical) Jewish sources,” as Naselli notes. That is to say, the man who is committed to Sola Scriptura does not read the Bible only, he reads everything else—including ancient sources—through the lens of God’s inspired word. This is the point that Andy was making when he prioritized Scripture among all the other ancient documents.[4]

Critically, Naselli states, “With that exhortation [to use the Bible] ringing in your ears, let’s survey two other categories of resources to understand the historical-cultural context.”[5] In light of Cole’s appropriation of Naselli to argue against the application of 1 Enoch to Genesis 6, the first “other category” includes the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, which is the classification where one finds 1 Enoch. Listing “six bodies of Jewish literature for New Testament studies” (e.g., OT Apocrypha, OT Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus, and Targums and Rabbinic Literature), Naselli makes this entry on the pseudepigrapha,

In a handful of cases, New Testament writers apparently display direct dependence on sources belonging to early Judaism and their handling of the Old Testament (e.g., Jude). What is to be inferred from such dependence?[6]

Interestingly, Naselli cites Jude, because of the epistle’s dependence on 1 Enoch. Continued in a footnote, he writes,

In addition to several possible allusions, Jude refers to two stories not taught in the Bible: the story of Michael’s dispute with the devil over Moses body in v. 9 (apparently from The Assumption of Moses, OT pseudepigrapha) and the prophecy of Enoch in v. 14-15 (from 1 Enoch 1:9, a Jewish writing from the OT pseudepigrapha). Some wrongly conclude from this that the standard set of OT books (i.e., the OT ‘canon’) was not fixed in Jude’s day. Yet Jude cites neither of these books as ‘Scripture, nor does he use traditional formulas to introduce them. He implies nothing about his view of the books in which the stories are found. He may cite them simply because they are well-known to his audience.”[7]

In Naselli’s assessment he leaves open the question for how the New Testament authors might be influenced by the OT Pseudepigrapha, but in a personal correspondence regarding Jude and 2 Peter, he told me that he follows the approach of Tom Schreiner who sees these two epistles as depending on the backstory of 1 Enoch. As Schreiner comments on Jude 14–15, “Jude probably cited a part of 1 Enoch that he considered to be a genuine prophecy.”^[8] Likewise, with respect to the earlier allusion Genesis 6 and 1 Enoch, Schreiner offers three reasons for reading Jude with the grain of Jewish tradition. He writes,

The sin the angels committed, according to the Jewish tradition, was sexual intercourse with the daughters of men. Apparently Jude also understood Gen 6:1–4 in the same way. Three reasons support such a conclusion. First, Jewish tradition consistently understood Gen 6:1–4 in this way (1 En. 6–19; 21; 86–88; 106:13–17; Jub. 4:15, 22; 5:1; CD 2:17–19; 1QapGen 2:1; T. Reu. 5:6–7; T. Naph. 3:5; 2 Bar. 56:10–14; cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.73). Second, we know from vv. 14–15 that Jude was influenced by 1 Enoch, and 1 Enoch goes into great detail about the sin and punishment of these angels. Jude almost certainly would need to explain that he departed from the customary Jewish view of Gen 6:1–4 if he disagreed with Jewish tradition. The brevity of the verse supports the idea that he concurred with Jewish tradition. Third, the text forges a parallel between the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah and the angels (“In a similar way,” v. 7; hōs and ton homoion tropon toutois). The implication is that sexual sin was prominent in both instances.^[9]

Schreiner’s position is very reasonable. While some in the early church (e.g., Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian) understood Enoch to be inspired, and others rejected Jude because he cited 1 Enoch (e.g., Jerome),^[10] Schreiner rightly argues, “It is better to conclude that Jude quoted the pseudepigrapichal 1 Enoch and that he also believed that the portion he quoted represented God’s truth.”^[11] Stated more broadly, Schreiner takes a position that affirms Jude’s use of extra-biblical books, because Jude took their testimony as reliable, without assigning inspiration to the entire book in question.

Learning to Read from the Apostles

This approach to extra-biblical books is a good model for us too, in that it looks to Apostles for learning how to read ancient texts. Specifically, with respect to 1 Enoch, Jude points to two places in 1 Enoch. First, and most explicitly, when Jude quotes from 1 Enoch 1:9, he uses this ancient text to further his argument against those who invite the judgment of God (Jude 14–15). He writes,

It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, ¹⁵ to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Importantly, he cites Enoch to speak about a coming judgment, complete with an angelic retinue. In this way, he is not creating a new doctrine from Enoch, nor authorizing everything in the Enochian corpus. Rather, in speaking to an audience who was informed by or interested in Enoch’s prophesies, he pronounces the biblical doctrine of God’s judgment with material that comes from 1 Enoch but that coheres with the rest of the Bible. In this way, Jude points to the passage in Enoch which matches his argument.

Learning from Jude, we might say that he respects the content of 1 Enoch enough to cite his text. He is not ashamed to use this source, as some might be today. Equally, however, he also has a truer sense of the book than most do today. And for that reason, we should learn from him.                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Interestingly, this is not the only place where Jude cites an extrabiblical source. In verses 8–10, he introduces the idea of Michael and the devil fighting over Moses body. What makes this passage unique is the fact that the assumption of Moses is wholly foreign to the Old Testament. Nowhere does the Old Testament report this event, but Jude includes it and treats it as historical fact.

Accordingly, we learn from Scripture how to read something outside of Scripture. Indeed, such occurrences are rare in the New Testament, and thus the principle/s to be applied is/are narrow. But because of the way that Jude cites extra-biblical material, and specifically material relevant to Genesis 6, we are on solid ground to say that his description of the fall of the angels in Jude 6–7 is an allusion to either or both Genesis 6 and 1 Enoch 6–7. Let’s read.

And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— ⁷ just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

In these two verses, we discover two events: (1) God’s judgment on angels for leaving their own position of authority and (2) God’s judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah for their sexual sins. While nothing is cited in these verses like in Jude 14–15, the event of Sodom and Gomorrah is clearly found in Genesis 18–19, while the fall of the angels is understood by many to be the events of Genesis 6. Some, like Graham Cole, dispute this point and declare the fall of the angels refers to some other time in world history.[12] As Jude continues to cite passages from Jewish history, however, I am inclined to see this as a reference as directly commenting on Genesis 6:1–4.

Seeing 1 Enoch with the Eyes of Jude

In this way, it is worthwhile to observe how Jude treats the fall of the angels as an historical event without any delineation between the inspired (Jude) and non-inspired (1 Enoch) sources. This is the point that Schreiner makes, when he says, “Jude almost certainly would need to explain that he departed from the customary Jewish view of Gen 6:1–4 if he disagreed with Jewish tradition. The brevity of the verse supports the idea that he concurred with Jewish tradition.”[13]

Without drawing a distinction between the two sources, we can clearly say that Jude is aware of 1 Enoch (cf. Jude 14–15), and that if he has Genesis 6 in mind, which I will argue below, then he likely has the stories of 1 Enoch in mind too. This does not mean he accepts everything 1 Enoch says, but we can make the following observations.

1. Both 1 Enoch and Genesis 6 report the same historical event, albeit 1 Enoch 6–16 has vastly more details.
2. Without making a distinction, it appears that 1 Enoch and Genesis 6 inform Jude. Or at least, both books report how the sons of God fell, if we take sons of God in Genesis 6 to be angels, as the Alexandrian Text of Septuagint did.
3. We do know that Jude relies on both the Old Testament and the pseudepigrapha. In that vein, he doesn’t make any qualifications, nor does he have to qualify one as Scripture and the other not. Instead, he cites these events assuming that his Jewish audience would know both.
4. We don’t know how much 1 Enoch expands Genesis 6 with accurate history. Because 1 Enoch comes much later and is not written by Enoch, it may not be wise to make a direct connection or comparison. But rejecting a direct approach, doesn’t wholly eliminate 1 Enoch from consideration.
5. We know that anything that 1 Enoch says which contradicts Genesis 6 or any other part of Scripture should be rejected. Nevertheless, with the firm boundaries of Genesis 6 in place, we should remember that Jude’s audience, in considering Enoch, would have more than Genesis 5–6 in view.

From all of these observations, I believe the best way forward is to understand 1 Enoch through the boundaries of Genesis 6. That is to say, everything 1 Enoch says about the fall of angels does not get an automatic acceptance, but because 1 Enoch informed the New Testament authors and audience, its contents should be considered when reading 2 Peter and Jude. And by implication, its contents has an indirect reference to Genesis 6, by way of Jude and Peter.

Still, this leaves us with one question: Do Peter and Jude actually think that Genesis 6 relates to the fall of the angels? If this can be proven, then it shores up a connection between Genesis 6 and 1 Enoch. But if it can be proven that these two New Testament authors do not have the events of Genesis 6 in view, then the use of this book for background information is untenable.

Genesis 6 in Jude and 2 Peter

From my reading of Jude, I believe Genesis 6 is in view for at least the seven following reasons.

1. Jude is citing multiple events from the Old Testament. Thus, Genesis 6 would fit his context and method of argumentation.
2. No place else does he list an event that is not found in the Hebrew Bible or Pseudepigrapha.
3. The testimony of angels leaving their heavenly abode matches the language of Genesis 6, when “sons of God” is taken as angels.
4. The testimony of angels leaving their heavenly abode is reinforced by the language of 1 Enoch, which calls them Watchers, who conspired together to leave heaven and come to earth (1 Enoch 6:6).
5. The events of Genesis 6:1-4 invite God’s judgment, which matches the testimony of angels falling and God judging them by sentencing them to Sheol. See 1 Enoch 12–16.
6. Peter speaks of the same fall in 2 Peter 2:4–5, only Peter ties the judgment of angels to Noah and the flood. Thus, the judgment of angels does not stem from an unknown rebellion. It repeats what is found in Genesis 6 and what 1 Enoch elaborates.
7. Jude relates the judgment of angels to the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah, a judgment that falls when men lust after the angels who visit their city.

Altogether, our confidence that Genesis 6 identifies the fall of the angels comes from the inspired testimony of the New Testament, not the book of 1 Enoch. Yet, when we learn from the New Testament that Genesis 6 is about the fall of angels, it gives us fresh confidence to listen carefully to 1 Enoch which speaks of the same event.

In this way, 1 Enoch is not the original source of our interpretation, Jude and Peter are. But because the New Testament points us to an angelic reading of Genesis 6, it alerts us to the fact that many contemporaries of Jude and Peter would have understood their references to angels falling through the more expansive vision of angels rebelling against God at Mount Hermon and descending to take women for themselves. Accordingly, we should read 1 Enoch’s expansion of Genesis 6, not because the former is an inerrant history of the angelic fall, but because it helps us understand the ancient worldview of Israel during the days of Jesus, which in turn informs our reading of Genesis.

With those connections in mind, we will close this post. And in the next installment, I will return to offer the three or four most prominent interpretations of Genesis 6:1–4. While I have forecasted the position I will take, that Genesis 6 describes the fall of the angels, it is worthwhile to know and understand the different positions. In the third post, I will consider the text of Genesis 6 itself, and in the last post I will engage some of the theological implications of this view.

Soli Deo Gloria, ds

Photo by Konrad Hofmann on Unsplash

____________

[1] Andrew David Naselli, How to Understand and Apply the New Testament: Twelve Steps from Exegesis to Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2017), 174.

[2] https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/belgic-confession#toc-article-6-the-difference-between-canonical-and-apocryphal-books

[3] Graham A. Cole, Against the Darkness: The Doctrine of Angels, Satan, and Demons (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 118.

[4] Naselli, How to Understand and Apply the New Testament, 176.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Douglas J. Moo and Andrew David Naselli, “Jude,” in NIV Zondervan Study Bible, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 2576.

^[8] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 469.

^[9] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 448.

^[10] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 469. On the same page, Schreiner “Some church fathers concluded from this that 1 Enoch itself was inspired (Clement of Alexandria, Eccl. Proph. 3; Tertullian, De cultu fem. 1:3), though this judgment never became persuasive to the church at large.” Alternatively, Schreiner notes, “Others in the history of the church drew the same conclusion but then reasoned that Jude itself could not be part of the canon (cf. Jerome, De vir ill. 4).”

^[11] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 469.

[12] Cole, Against the Darkness, 114–17, 138–40.

[13] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 469.