Our review will start with the introduction to the book and then quickly focus on Chapter 1. There is actually a great deal of meat in the introduction and while we don't want to miss it, we don't want to linger, but we do want to tie it together with the content of Chapter 1. So, without further ado.
OVERVIEW:
1. The book of Genesis, specifically Genesis 6:1-4, and 1 Enoch share a strong link with original Mesopotamian tales, wherein the former reference tells of the sons of God marrying human women and bearing powerful, renowned children.
2. The story narrated in 1 Enoch is borrowed and explored thoroughly in the New Testament, especially in the books of Peter and Jude.
3. One of the main goals of studying this context is to dismiss the alternative interpretations of history, such as the Sethite view and the Divine kings view.
4. Understanding the Enochian narrative helps to comprehend the powerful role of the Cross of Christ, which symbolizes the redemption from the sins committed by the Watchers.
5. Christians generally lack knowledge of the importance of the Enochian narrative in the context of biblical interpretation.
6. The canonicity of extra-biblical books and the presentation of this context to modern Christians as it would have been to first-century Christians is a prominent challenge.
7. The influence of the Enochian narrative extends beyond the New Testament and even influences early church fathers.
Supporting Material:
Genesis 6:1-4 and 1 Enoch reveal a narrative where divine beings marry human women to give rise to powerful offspring. 1 Enoch provides a more detailed narrative of these events, which finds prominence in the New Testament. The books of Peter and Jude are evident examples of this. Enoch's narrative helps dismiss alternative historical interpretations like the Sethite and the Divine kings view, paving the way for a more coherent understanding of biblical history and context. Recognizing the importance of the Enochian narrative is a challenge for modern-day Christians, especially reconciling the canonicity of extra-biblical books. Yet, the significance of Enoch extends beyond the New Testament, influencing the teachings of early church fathers.
Introduction
1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 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.
KEY-1.1: 1 Enoch is the back story to Genesis 6 and a host of other scriptures unsystematically scattered over the Old Testament. See: references
KEY-1.2: There is a strong link between Genesis 6:1-4, 1 Enoch, and the original Mesopotamian context and stories.
KEY-1.3: 1 Enoch takes the Mesopotamian stories and the scattered Genesis 6 Flood-era story and fleshes it out with depth and detail.
KEY-1.4: The Enochian story in turn finds its way strongly into the New Testament, most transparently into the books of Peter and Jude.
- Where else in the NT do we find Enochian backstory influence?
- Why isn't the Enochian backstory on more prominent display?
- What is the link between first century paganism and 1 Enoch?
- Is paganism returning? Do we need this Enoch weapon again?
KEY-1.5: One of our goals will be to lay to rest alternative and incoherent notions of history like the Sethite view and the Divine kings view.
- 1 Enoch opposes Sethite and Divine kings view. How?
- What bars acceptance of 1 Enoch view of Genesis 6/10/11; Deut 32; et al?
KEY-1.6: Once grasping the critical role of the Enochian rebuff of the Mesopotamian view, we will want to see how the Cross of Christ is not only a reversal of Genesis 3, but a literal reversing of the sins of the Watchers and their abuse of humanity by their escalation of sin in humanity.
KEY-1.7: The key obstacle for Christians is our lack of knowing the crucial nature of the Enochian back story to the bible as a whole, certainly the New Testament.
KEY-1.8: Another key obstacle is canonicity of extra-biblical books and framing this material in the minds of modern Christians as it would have been in the minds of first century Christians.
KEY-1.9: Finally—the use of the Enochian back story extends beyond Peter and Jude, touching every writer of the New Testament and even church fathers of the second and third centuries.
Section Preview: Part 1
Assertion 1:
- Subject: Ancient Mesopotamian roots
- Assertion: Need to comprehend 1 Enoch and other works as an argument aroused to oppose the lies of Babylon.
Summary: There's an imperative to understand ancient Mesopotamian roots, particularly the vindication found in 1 Enoch and other works, which emerged to challenge the inaccuracies associated with Babylon.
Assertion 2:
- Subject: The preservation of the Mesopotamian rebuttal in 1 Enoch
- Assertion: It necessitates serious attention as early Christians did.
Summary: The fact that the Mesopotamian rebuttal is preserved in 1 Enoch requires that we regard this story with the same seriousness as the early Christians.
KEY-2.1: Ancient Mesopotamian roots. Understand 1 Enoch and other works as a polemic arising to refute the lies of Babylon.
KEY-2.2: The preservation of the Mesopotamian rebuttal in 1 Enoch demands that we take this story seriously, just as early Christians did.
Chapter 1: The Sons of God and the Nephilim
OVERVIEW
Assertion 1: Genesis 6:1-4 has been largely overlooked for the past 1,700 years since texts like 1 Enoch were removed from the scriptural canon. This can be supported by references within the scriptures themselves.
Assertion 2: The Sethite View posits that the sons of God are humans and Nephilim are just larger-than-average individuals, who are sons of Cain and daughters of Seth.
Assertion 3: There are numerous faults with the Sethite View, including assumptions about lineage, lack of explanation for the size of the Nephilim, and additions of language not initially present in the scripture.
Assertion 4: There are also flaws with the Divinized Rulers view, including linguistics issues, contrast of humans and non-human beings, a connection to fallen angels rather than human rulers, and lacking support from other sources.
Assertion 5: The first-century, 2nd Temple, Mesopotamian view aligns more with the supernatural interpretation of scriptures. Church tradition is not always an honest interpretation of the biblical texts and their contexts.
Assertion 6: The term 'Nephilim' is largely seen as translating to 'giants' and this is supported by scripture's descriptions of unusually tall beings.
Assertion 7: A primary argument surrounding the Nephilim involves sexual relations, with some dismissing it as impossible for angels and others suggesting different supernatural interventions.
Assertion 8: The Nephilim are mentioned after the flood, suggesting that these giants could appear at any point in time.
Assertion 9: The use of the term 'when' could be technically translated as 'whenever' in the scripture, suggesting a possible continuous presence of these divine, rebellious beings.
Assertion 10: Non-supernatural interpretations of Genesis 6:1-4 fail to take the text seriously and remove vital insights into the conflict between God and rebellious heavenly beings. A greater understanding of this epic story reinforces the effort God makes to test the loyalty or disloyalty of his creations.
KEY-3.1: The first key thought is that Genesis 6:1-4 has been largely marginalized over the last 1,700 years since material like 1 Enoch was removed from the scripture canon. See: references
KEY-3.2: The Sethite View—sons of God are human and Nephilim are just big kids; sons of Cain and daughters of Seth.
KEY-3.3: The are any number of flaws with the Sethite view. Generally, assertions made are forced or foisted on scripture.
- Falsely assumes men who called on the name of the Lord were only of Seth's lineage.
- Does not explain why human-to-human procreation would produce giants. (see Num 13:33)
- Falsely adds language to say women are the daughters of Cain and not generically humankind.
- Falsely assumes no marriage prohibitions (Jew/Gentile).
- Phrase "sons of God" used elsewhere for divine beings (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1; 89:6; Dan. 3:25)
- Does not fit with God's reasoning for destroying by Flood.
- Does not account for NT supernatural view such as 1 Peter 3:19-20; 2 Peter 2:4-5; Jude 6-7.
- Does not explain post-Flood recurrence of Nephilim (e.g. Num 13;33, Anakim, Rephaim, et al)
- Does not explain a potential end times appearance of Nephilim that Jesus warned about in Matthew 24:37-39.
- Is a less coherent explanation of cultural achievements, such as urbanization, metallurgy, music, and agriculture as opposed to the Enochian story of "secret knowledge".
KEY-3.4: Flaws with Divinized Rulers view.
- The phrase “sons of God” elsewhere in the Old Testament always refers to spirit beings or angels, not humans (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).
- The contrast between “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men” implies a distinction between non-human and human beings, not between godly and ungodly humans or between royal and common humans (Genesis 6:1-2).
- The context of Genesis 6:1-4 is the corruption and violence that filled the earth before the flood, which required a supernatural explanation, not a merely human one (Genesis 6:5-13).
- The term Nephilim is derived from a Hebrew root that means “to fall”, which suggests a connection to the fallen angels, not to human rulers.
- The Nephilim are also mentioned in Numbers 13:33 as giants who made the Israelites feel like grasshoppers, which implies a supernatural origin, not a natural one.
- The Divinized Rulers view does not account for the phrase “and also afterward” in Genesis 6:4, which implies that the phenomenon of the sons of God and the Nephilim continued after the flood.
- The Divinized Rulers view is not supported by any ancient Jewish or Christian sources, but is a modern invention that tries to rationalize the text.
KEY-3.5: Siding with Peter & Jude
- First century/2nd Temple/Mesopotamian view overwhelmingly supernatural.
- "Biblical theology does not derive from church fathers. It derives from the biblical text, framed in its own context."
- Later church tradition is not honest interpretation.
KEY-3.6: Nephilim—as a descriptive in-context word
- Overwhelmingly seen as "giants" (Greek gigas - Septuagint)
- Opposing view: "fallen ones" (i.e., "naphal") as dishonest sidestep of quasi-divine nature of "giants".
- Rendering of "naphal" irrelevant: Scripture still describes as "unusually tall" (giants). See Num 13:33; Deut 2:20-21; 3:1-11
- Hebrew words juxtaposed: nephilim vs nephiylim
- Aramaic word fits very well: naphiyla or "giant" adopted by returning Jews from Babylonian exile.
KEY-3.7: Nephilim—primary argument is sexual
- Modern mind cannot tolerate it. Why?
- Matthew 22:29-30 argument: Angels "cannot have" vs "do not have" sex.
- HINT: Bring in the notion of "angels with feet" (Isaiah 6:2 Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.) (references)
- Spiritual post-resurrection Edenic realm vs Non-spiritual pre-resurrection Edenic realm. Sex in the latter, not the former.
- Angels have true/real corporeality (physical this-realm bodies)
- SUGGESTION: Angels have bodies in both realms, but can transit between. Jesus did it both before and after He resurrected. Why are divine sons of God created as His heavenly imagers any different?
- Alternate sexual euphemism explanation vs intercourse, where divine sons of God use supernatural intervention to impregnate women (e.g., God intervention with Sarah).
- Both approaches are supernatural with supernatural results, but differ in the means by which it happens.
KEY-3.8: Nephilim—after the flood
- Genesis 6:4 includes: "... and also afterward ..." looking forward to Num 13:33, et al.
- Three explanations for post-Flood giants: 1) localized flood and 2) same means/same result as pre-Flood, 3) Noah had Nephilim bloodline.
- DEBUNK: Genesis 6:9 wants to distance Noah as "righteous". Nephilim bloodline would make him "unclean" (mixed bloodline).
- DEBUNK: Geologic/Archeologic evidence does not support localized flood.
- We are left with the "same means/same result" option.
KEY-3.9: Nephilim—"when" vs "whenever"
- ASSERTION: That "when" (אֲשֶׁ֨ר - ’ă·šer) can be technically translated as "whenever" lends better coherence with supernatural continuation (e.g., same means/same results afterward).
- LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE: Divine beings are capable (however likely or unlikely along the timeline) of rebelling at any time.
KEY-3.10: CONCLUSIONS
- Non-supernaturalist views of Genesis 6:1-4 are evasive and unsatisfactory for many reasons.
- They fail to take the passage seriously.
- INTERJECTION: Does the above mean that there is a high probability of fallen sons of God and demonic tactic to remove themselves from the historic equation? If so, what are the consequences to God, them, and humanity?
- The supernatural view of the passage is critical to understanding the epic story of what God is faced with and His response as He seeks to prove the loyalty or disloyalty of both heavenly beings and earthly beings.