The Angels of Jude 6
Bill Fortenberry
There are primarily two different interpretations of Jude 6 and II Peter 2:4. The first of these is that the angels mentioned in these two passages are synonymous with the sons of God mentioned in Genesis chapter six. There is much evidence presented as support for this interpretation, and many godly men have proclaimed its veracity; however, it is my belief that the evidence has been falsified and the men led astray. As proof of my assertion, I present the following arguments.
First, allow me to review the evidence given in support of this interpretation. S. D. F. Salmond stated this interpretation as follows:
The sin suggested by the context is not the sin of pride, but a sin against nature. The reference, therefore, is taken to be to the Jewish idea that amatory passion is not limited to the creatures of earth, and that some angels, yielding to the spell of the beauty of the daughters of men, forsook their own kingdom, and entered unto unnatural relations with them.”[1]
Henry Morris, in his book, The Genesis Record, also supported this view, stating that…
Satan and his angels must have feared that their opportunities for victory in this cosmic conflict were in imminent danger. Desiring reinforcements for a coming battle against the host of heaven, and also desiring, if possible, to completely corrupt mankind before the promised Seed could accomplish Satan’s defeat, they seem to have decided to utilize the marvelous power of procreation which God had given the human family and to corrupt it to their own ends. Men now were rapidly multiplying on the earth and by implanting their own “seed” in humanity they might be able to enlist in only one generation a vast multitude as allies against God. So these “sons of God saw the daughters of men and took them wives of all which they chose.”[2]
Immediately, we can see a contradiction between the two interpretations in that Salmond claims that the angels were seduced by the daughters of men whereas Morris saw the cohabitation to be the result of satanic planning, however let us examine the supporting arguments for these two propositions before we critique their weaknesses.
There are basically two arguments presented in defense of the Genesis position, namely that of association and that of etymology. The argument of association is that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrha mentioned in verse seven of Jude and verse six of II Peter chapter two is the same sin that was committed by the angels, namely that of fornication and the desire for “strange flesh.” The etymological argument consists of studies of the phrase “the sons of God” and the word “giants” both found in chapter six of Genesis.
In explaining the association of the sin of Sodom with that of the angels, commentators claim that the phrases “even as” and “in like manner” refer to the sin of these two groups of people rather than their punishment.
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 Gomorrha, and 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.
Also in support of this association is the use of the word “angels” by the Septuagint in place of the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis six verse two. It is then claimed that it was this translation of the Scriptures to which Jude and Peter were alluding. [3]
A Third bit of evidence that is frequently used in support of the argument of association is the reference made by Jude to the prophecy of Enoch. This reference is taken by many to be a “stamp of approval” by the New Testament writers on at least part of the psuedopigraphal book of I Enoch which is said to have been extant at the time.[4]
This book elaborates much on the cohabitation of angels with humans and the resulting judgment upon the two races. It is quoted to say…
And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' They were in all two hundred. [They] took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments…And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells…And there was much godlessness, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways.” (Chapters 6-8)
These three evidences make up the argument of association used by proponents of the Genesis interpretation. Of the three, the supposed association of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrha with that of the angels through an interpretation of the phrase “Even as” to be referring to the sins of the two groups is the strongest and is referred to the most often.
Though the argument of association is a strong one the etymological argument is much more so. Its supporting evidence is more sound and it is referred to much more often and with greater confidence. This argument takes the opposite approach to the previous one in that it argues from Genesis to Jude rather than from Jude to Genesis.
Those utilizing this argument usually begin at the point of greatest significance, that of the true meaning of the term, “the sons of God” found in verses two and four of Genesis chapter six. They are usually quick to point out that this phrase is only found in three other places in the Old Testament, all in the book of Job.
The first is in verse six of Job chapter one. “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.” The second is found in verse one of the following chapter. “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.” The final use of this phrase in the Old Testament is found at the end of the book of Job in verse seven of chapter thirty-eight. “When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
In each of these passages the Bible is obviously making reference to angels. Thus it is reasoned that the use of the phrase in verses two and four of the sixth chapter of Genesis makes reference to the same.[5]
With this assurance, most proponents of this argument move on to their next point, that of the significance of the “giants” in Genesis chapter six. Some, however, do pause here long enough to state that the Hebrew Phrase translated in Genesis and Job as “the sons of God” is also used twice in the book of Psalms. There it is translated as “mighty” in Psalm twenty-nine verse one and as “sons of the mighty” in Psalm eighty-nine verse six. However, it is once again assumed that both of these uses are in reference to the angels.[6]
The second evidence used in the etymological argument comes from a study of the word “giants” in verse four of Genesis chapter six. Most scholars, when interpreting this verse, first assume that the sons of God mentioned here were angels. They then assume that these sons of God committed fornication in going in unto the daughters of men. Building upon these two assumptions they then claim that the giants mentioned here as a result of this unnatural union are the best proof of that union. James M. Boice claims that…
Since we have no information about the results of an angelic/human union, except what is found here, it is impossible to argue how such a union might produce giants. It is enough to say that it is conceivable that this could happen and that this is the probable meaning of verse 4.
Mr. Boice goes even further to state, “What would be more natural than that this union would produce the ‘mighty men’ of antiquity?”[7]
Chuck Missler brings this argument to its unavoidable conclusion by stating that…
“It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which seem 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 children that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the flood.[8]
These arguments, if accepted, would lead one to believe that at some point prior to the flood, a certain group of angels came to earth in a physical form, took wives from the women then present, and produced gigantic offspring which became legendary among men. They would also require that one claim this action as the cause of God’s judgment upon “the world that then was.”[9]
Now, although many great men have accepted this argumentation, there are many flaws in both its reasoning and its evidence.
First, the association of the sin of the angels with that of Sodom and Comorrha does not fit the context of either Jude or II Peter chapter two.
Jude was written to exhort believers to contend for the faith. At the time of this writing certain false teachers had infiltrated the church, and in verses five through fifteen Jude wrote concerning their eventual fate of the judgment of God.
To illustrate this judgment Jude presented three examples of God’s judgment in the past. Verse five begins with, “I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how…” It concludes by giving the first of the three examples, “…that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.” Verse six begins with the word “And,” indicating that it is a continuation of the thought in verse five. Knowing this we must determine where verse six fits in this thought.
Syntactically, verse six must be parallel to the second half of verse five because it is the second of the three illustrations that the readers are being reminded of. The first illustration is given in a subordinate clause; therefore the second example is also given in a subordinate clause. The only difference being that the subordinate conjunction is stated in verse five but understood in verse six. Therefore the first two verses of our study could be stated with all grammatically unnecessary phrases removed and with the understood conjunction added as, “I will therefore put you in remembrance how that the Lord destroyed them that believed not and [that] the angels which kept not their first estate he hath reserved in darkness.”
With the syntax of verse six resolved we then come to verse seven where we are presented with a similar problem. The illustration in this verse is not introduced with a conjunction as in verse six but with an adverb, “Even as.” The question, then, is, “Which verb does this adverb modify?”
Adverbs usually modify the closest verb. Therefore, if we argue that it modifies either “kept” or “left,” we must explain why the adverb is separated from those verbs by the presence of another verb, which it could modify just as easily. If, however, we argue that it modifies the verb phrase “hath reserved,” the syntax of the verses becomes perfectly clear. We are then able to see that Sodom and Gomorrha are set forth in the same manner in which or “even as” these angels have been reserved. That is, both groups were judged by God for their wickedness.
This interpretation is in keeping with the parallelism found to exist between the fifth and sixth verses of this passage, and our grammatical statement of the verses could now be changed to, “I will therefore put you in remembrance how that the Lord destroyed them that believed not and [that] the angels which kept not their first estate he hath reserved in darkness, even as Sodom and Gomorrha are set forth for an example.”
This interpretation also matches the parallelism of II Peter chapter two. In that passage the example of the judgment on the angels is listed first, followed by the illustration of the flood; and the example of Sodom and Gomorrha is introduced with the conjunction “and.” This construction of separating the punishment of the angels from that of Sodom and Gomorrha by a whole verse and introducing both the second and third illustration with a conjunction is in complete accord with the afore mentioned interpretation of our passage in Jude.
There is one other phrase in Jude that might need to be explained. The adverbial phrase “in like manner” is used by some to associate the sin of Sodom and Gomorrha with that of the angels in verse six.[10] However if one applies the same reasoning to this phrase as we did to the phrase “even as” he will find that “in like manner” can only be referring to the fact that the cities around Sodom and Gomorrha were involve in the same sin as those two cities.
Also in refutation of this association let me briefly mention a few things about the Septuagint and the Book of I Enoch. First, when quoting the Septuagint, we must keep in mind that it is not a perfect translation of the Old Testament. That it agrees with some of the New Testament quotes only shows that its translators were correct in that particular section of their translation. This does not indicate that the New Testament writers approved of the whole translation. In reference to the Book of I Enoch, let me simply state that it is a pseudepigraphal book which contains many errors and is thus invalid as evidence. Its validity in this discussion is further diminished by the fact that the book itself is never mentioned by Jude. The prophecy of Enoch is mentioned but there is no indication here that this prophecy was ever put into writing through the inspiration of God.
Not only do the proponents of the Genesis interpretation have flaws in their association, they also have many flaws in their etymology. By far, the evidence most often presented in defense of this view is the etymological studies done on the phrase “the sons of God” found in verse two and verse four of Genesis chapter six. However, few of today’s scholars have published a thorough study of this phrase. Most state that it is only repeated in the three instances found in Job. A few have gone so far as to study the Hebrew phrases translated differently in the Psalms, but I am not aware of any proponent of the Genesis position that has presented a thorough study of every use of this phrase in the Old Testament, for to do so would be to undermine the very cornerstone of their arguments.
Let us look first at the English phrase “the sons of God.” As stated before this phrase only appears in three verses other than the two in the sixth chapter of Genesis. The last of these three is speaking of a time before the formation of man when all the angels shouted the glory of God rejoicing over His creation. This verse is relevant to our current study only in that it is obviously referring to angels in its use of the phrase “the sons of God.”
The other two verses are of much greater significance in that they make a distinguishment between the sons of God and Satan. Verse six of chapter one states that “there was a day when the sons of God cam to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.” Verse one of chapter two repeats this statement and adds that Satan came “to present himself before the Lord.” That Satan is mentioned as acting independently of the sons of God might indicate that he was no longer considered one of the sons of God at this time. If this is correct, then none of the angels that followed Satan would be considered sons of God. There is the possibility that Satan is referred to here individually in these passages only for the purpose of drawing our attention to a particular individual, but there is no passage of Scripture in which Satan is specifically designated as one of the sons of God.
It can be argued that the sons of God in Genesis six were angels that did not follow Satan in his initial rebellion against God, but that fell much later when looking on the daughters of men they lusted after them.[11] This argument is easily refuted by I John chapter three verse eight. “He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.”
While the verses in Job might not consider Satan to be on of the sons of God, their use of the phrase is undoubtedly in reference to angels, so based on just these three instances one must conclude that the reference in Genesis is to the same. However, these are not the only instances of this phrase in the Old Testament.
The Hebrew words translated “sons of God” are “bene elohiym.” The shortened version of this Hebrew phrase, “ben el,” is also used twice in the book of Psalms. The first instance is in chapter twenty-nine verse one. “Give unto the LORD, O ye mighty, give unto the LORD glory and strength.” This verse could still be speaking of angels but not necessarily so. The second instance found in verse six of the eighty-ninth Psalm could also refer to either. “For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD?”
Here is where every commentator I have read has stopped and drawn his conclusion, but there is at least one other instance in which the words “ben el” are used. That instance is the tenth verse of the first chapter of Hosea, where not only the Hebrew words are used but also the English phrase, “the sons of God. “…there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.” As you can see, the word living, chay in Hebrew, was added to the phrase, yet the reference here is undoubtedly to the Children of Israel, and though it is prophetic, a precedent is set for Old Testament use of the term “sons of God” in reference to men.
This is a significant precedent in light of our current study but it does nothing to clear up the mystery of Genesis chapter six. However, it does present us with a guide for further study, for if the phrase was separated by a word in this case there might be other variations which have escaped notice. With this thought in mind, let us look at the fourteenth chapter of Deuteronomy specifically verse one. “Ye are the children of the LORD your God:” This verse differs from the one in Hosea in that it uses the same Hebrew phrasing as the passages in Job but is translated with a different English phrase. Here the Hebrew word “bene” is translated “children” instead of “sons,” but the word used for God is still “elohiym.” Again we see that the phrase is split by the insertion of another word, which in this case, is “Yahovah” or “the Lord.” In this verse we see a definite, non-prophetic use of the phrase “bene elohiym” in direct reference to the nation of Israel. Thus is refuted the idea that use of this phrase in the Old Testament can only refer to the angels.
Of course this refutation still does not specifically prevent the verses in Genesis six from referring to angels, but it does present another viable option. That option is that the term “the sons of God” always refers to those who serve Him. This explanation is congruous with every possible interpretation of the phrase including occurrences of the phrase in the New Testament. In support of this explanation is the frequent use of the term “sons of Belial” in the Old Testament. This phrase would be the exact opposite of that found in Genesis chapter six, yet it does not refer to those directly created by Satan nor does it refer to his angels. It can only refer to those who follow Satan and serve him.
Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; (Deuteronomy 13:13)
Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial; they knew not the LORD. (I Samuel 2:12)
The New Testament also supports this explanation.
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44)
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (I John 3:8)
Thus we see that the interpretation which best fits the context of the Scriptures as a whole is that the sons of God mentioned in Genesis chapter six were men that were serving God at the time.[12]
To further solidify their arguments for the angelic view of the sons of God, most proponents of that argument claim that the birth of the giants in verse four stands as evidence for their interpretation. The only problem with this is that their reason for assuming that the giants mentioned here are different from the other giants of the Scriptures is that they must have been superhuman if they had angels as parents.[13] Regardless of their mistakes in reasoning let us examine the possibility of such personages being the result of this type of intermarriage.
There are several reasons for rejecting this as a possibility. The first is that “children are an heritage of the Lord.” Thus angels have no possibility of using the power of procreation for their own advantages. All children are formed by God Himself.[14]
The second reason that I will mention is the reason stated for the judgment of the flood. Of all the verses in the Bible that mention the reason for the flood, not one of them makes any reference, no matter how vague, to angels or demons. In every case the flood is always attributed to the wickedness of man.
Third and most final reason for rejecting this union as a possibility is that to accept it is to give Satan power that is equal to God in that he too would then be able to produce a child born of a virgin by a spirit. Such a possibility cannot exist.[15]
In conclusion, allow me to briefly state who I believe that the angels mentioned in Jude are. My explanation is very simple. We do not know.
In the book of Jude there are two other references made to Old Testament occurrences which are not mentioned in the Old Testament. The first is found in Michael’s disputing with Satan over the body of Moses. In the case of this verse we have no sure idea what Jude is talking about other than that Michael did not bring a railing accusation against Satan. The second instance, found in verses fourteen and fifteen, is Jude’s reference to the prophecy of Enoch. Once again we do not know anything about Enoch’s prophecy other than that it pronounced an eventual judgment on those who did not follow God.
Likewise in verse six we are told of the fall of certain angels, a fall about which we know very little. We do know that they were followers of Satan, but we do not know the particulars of their sin. All Jude conveys to us is that they were judged for doing wrong, and it is this thought which is consistent throughout the book. Thus while Jude and II Peter both present us with an intriguing question. The answer to that question is not given and should not be surmised beyond its application within the context of these two great books.
______________________________________________________
[1] The Pulpit Commentary, “Jude” by S.D.F. Salmond. 1978 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI
[2] The Genesis Record, Henry Morris 1976
[3] The Companion Bible, Appendix 23 “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:2,4”
[4] Genesis, James Montgomery Boice, Baker Books, 1998
[5] Signs of Collapse, Ray C. Stedman
[6] The Genesis Record, Henry Morris 1976
[7] Genesis, James Montgomery Boice, Baker Books, 1998
[8] Textual Controversy: Mischievous Angels or Sethites? Chuck Missler
[9] Gleanings In Genesis, “The Flood” A. W. Pink, Swengel PA.
[10] “Even More on the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6” William Arnold III
[11] The Pulpit Commentary, “Jude” by S.D.F. Salmond. 1978 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI
[12] “Sons of God” Author Unknown, www.homestead.com
[13] Genesis, James Montgomery Boice, Baker Books, 1998
[14]Psalm 139:13-16
[15] “Sons of God” Author Unknown, www.homestead.com
First, allow me to review the evidence given in support of this interpretation. S. D. F. Salmond stated this interpretation as follows:
The sin suggested by the context is not the sin of pride, but a sin against nature. The reference, therefore, is taken to be to the Jewish idea that amatory passion is not limited to the creatures of earth, and that some angels, yielding to the spell of the beauty of the daughters of men, forsook their own kingdom, and entered unto unnatural relations with them.”[1]
Henry Morris, in his book, The Genesis Record, also supported this view, stating that…
Satan and his angels must have feared that their opportunities for victory in this cosmic conflict were in imminent danger. Desiring reinforcements for a coming battle against the host of heaven, and also desiring, if possible, to completely corrupt mankind before the promised Seed could accomplish Satan’s defeat, they seem to have decided to utilize the marvelous power of procreation which God had given the human family and to corrupt it to their own ends. Men now were rapidly multiplying on the earth and by implanting their own “seed” in humanity they might be able to enlist in only one generation a vast multitude as allies against God. So these “sons of God saw the daughters of men and took them wives of all which they chose.”[2]
Immediately, we can see a contradiction between the two interpretations in that Salmond claims that the angels were seduced by the daughters of men whereas Morris saw the cohabitation to be the result of satanic planning, however let us examine the supporting arguments for these two propositions before we critique their weaknesses.
There are basically two arguments presented in defense of the Genesis position, namely that of association and that of etymology. The argument of association is that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrha mentioned in verse seven of Jude and verse six of II Peter chapter two is the same sin that was committed by the angels, namely that of fornication and the desire for “strange flesh.” The etymological argument consists of studies of the phrase “the sons of God” and the word “giants” both found in chapter six of Genesis.
In explaining the association of the sin of Sodom with that of the angels, commentators claim that the phrases “even as” and “in like manner” refer to the sin of these two groups of people rather than their punishment.
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 Gomorrha, and 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.
Also in support of this association is the use of the word “angels” by the Septuagint in place of the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis six verse two. It is then claimed that it was this translation of the Scriptures to which Jude and Peter were alluding. [3]
A Third bit of evidence that is frequently used in support of the argument of association is the reference made by Jude to the prophecy of Enoch. This reference is taken by many to be a “stamp of approval” by the New Testament writers on at least part of the psuedopigraphal book of I Enoch which is said to have been extant at the time.[4]
This book elaborates much on the cohabitation of angels with humans and the resulting judgment upon the two races. It is quoted to say…
And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' They were in all two hundred. [They] took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments…And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells…And there was much godlessness, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways.” (Chapters 6-8)
These three evidences make up the argument of association used by proponents of the Genesis interpretation. Of the three, the supposed association of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrha with that of the angels through an interpretation of the phrase “Even as” to be referring to the sins of the two groups is the strongest and is referred to the most often.
Though the argument of association is a strong one the etymological argument is much more so. Its supporting evidence is more sound and it is referred to much more often and with greater confidence. This argument takes the opposite approach to the previous one in that it argues from Genesis to Jude rather than from Jude to Genesis.
Those utilizing this argument usually begin at the point of greatest significance, that of the true meaning of the term, “the sons of God” found in verses two and four of Genesis chapter six. They are usually quick to point out that this phrase is only found in three other places in the Old Testament, all in the book of Job.
The first is in verse six of Job chapter one. “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.” The second is found in verse one of the following chapter. “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.” The final use of this phrase in the Old Testament is found at the end of the book of Job in verse seven of chapter thirty-eight. “When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
In each of these passages the Bible is obviously making reference to angels. Thus it is reasoned that the use of the phrase in verses two and four of the sixth chapter of Genesis makes reference to the same.[5]
With this assurance, most proponents of this argument move on to their next point, that of the significance of the “giants” in Genesis chapter six. Some, however, do pause here long enough to state that the Hebrew Phrase translated in Genesis and Job as “the sons of God” is also used twice in the book of Psalms. There it is translated as “mighty” in Psalm twenty-nine verse one and as “sons of the mighty” in Psalm eighty-nine verse six. However, it is once again assumed that both of these uses are in reference to the angels.[6]
The second evidence used in the etymological argument comes from a study of the word “giants” in verse four of Genesis chapter six. Most scholars, when interpreting this verse, first assume that the sons of God mentioned here were angels. They then assume that these sons of God committed fornication in going in unto the daughters of men. Building upon these two assumptions they then claim that the giants mentioned here as a result of this unnatural union are the best proof of that union. James M. Boice claims that…
Since we have no information about the results of an angelic/human union, except what is found here, it is impossible to argue how such a union might produce giants. It is enough to say that it is conceivable that this could happen and that this is the probable meaning of verse 4.
Mr. Boice goes even further to state, “What would be more natural than that this union would produce the ‘mighty men’ of antiquity?”[7]
Chuck Missler brings this argument to its unavoidable conclusion by stating that…
“It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which seem 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 children that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the flood.[8]
These arguments, if accepted, would lead one to believe that at some point prior to the flood, a certain group of angels came to earth in a physical form, took wives from the women then present, and produced gigantic offspring which became legendary among men. They would also require that one claim this action as the cause of God’s judgment upon “the world that then was.”[9]
Now, although many great men have accepted this argumentation, there are many flaws in both its reasoning and its evidence.
First, the association of the sin of the angels with that of Sodom and Comorrha does not fit the context of either Jude or II Peter chapter two.
Jude was written to exhort believers to contend for the faith. At the time of this writing certain false teachers had infiltrated the church, and in verses five through fifteen Jude wrote concerning their eventual fate of the judgment of God.
To illustrate this judgment Jude presented three examples of God’s judgment in the past. Verse five begins with, “I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how…” It concludes by giving the first of the three examples, “…that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.” Verse six begins with the word “And,” indicating that it is a continuation of the thought in verse five. Knowing this we must determine where verse six fits in this thought.
Syntactically, verse six must be parallel to the second half of verse five because it is the second of the three illustrations that the readers are being reminded of. The first illustration is given in a subordinate clause; therefore the second example is also given in a subordinate clause. The only difference being that the subordinate conjunction is stated in verse five but understood in verse six. Therefore the first two verses of our study could be stated with all grammatically unnecessary phrases removed and with the understood conjunction added as, “I will therefore put you in remembrance how that the Lord destroyed them that believed not and [that] the angels which kept not their first estate he hath reserved in darkness.”
With the syntax of verse six resolved we then come to verse seven where we are presented with a similar problem. The illustration in this verse is not introduced with a conjunction as in verse six but with an adverb, “Even as.” The question, then, is, “Which verb does this adverb modify?”
Adverbs usually modify the closest verb. Therefore, if we argue that it modifies either “kept” or “left,” we must explain why the adverb is separated from those verbs by the presence of another verb, which it could modify just as easily. If, however, we argue that it modifies the verb phrase “hath reserved,” the syntax of the verses becomes perfectly clear. We are then able to see that Sodom and Gomorrha are set forth in the same manner in which or “even as” these angels have been reserved. That is, both groups were judged by God for their wickedness.
This interpretation is in keeping with the parallelism found to exist between the fifth and sixth verses of this passage, and our grammatical statement of the verses could now be changed to, “I will therefore put you in remembrance how that the Lord destroyed them that believed not and [that] the angels which kept not their first estate he hath reserved in darkness, even as Sodom and Gomorrha are set forth for an example.”
This interpretation also matches the parallelism of II Peter chapter two. In that passage the example of the judgment on the angels is listed first, followed by the illustration of the flood; and the example of Sodom and Gomorrha is introduced with the conjunction “and.” This construction of separating the punishment of the angels from that of Sodom and Gomorrha by a whole verse and introducing both the second and third illustration with a conjunction is in complete accord with the afore mentioned interpretation of our passage in Jude.
There is one other phrase in Jude that might need to be explained. The adverbial phrase “in like manner” is used by some to associate the sin of Sodom and Gomorrha with that of the angels in verse six.[10] However if one applies the same reasoning to this phrase as we did to the phrase “even as” he will find that “in like manner” can only be referring to the fact that the cities around Sodom and Gomorrha were involve in the same sin as those two cities.
Also in refutation of this association let me briefly mention a few things about the Septuagint and the Book of I Enoch. First, when quoting the Septuagint, we must keep in mind that it is not a perfect translation of the Old Testament. That it agrees with some of the New Testament quotes only shows that its translators were correct in that particular section of their translation. This does not indicate that the New Testament writers approved of the whole translation. In reference to the Book of I Enoch, let me simply state that it is a pseudepigraphal book which contains many errors and is thus invalid as evidence. Its validity in this discussion is further diminished by the fact that the book itself is never mentioned by Jude. The prophecy of Enoch is mentioned but there is no indication here that this prophecy was ever put into writing through the inspiration of God.
Not only do the proponents of the Genesis interpretation have flaws in their association, they also have many flaws in their etymology. By far, the evidence most often presented in defense of this view is the etymological studies done on the phrase “the sons of God” found in verse two and verse four of Genesis chapter six. However, few of today’s scholars have published a thorough study of this phrase. Most state that it is only repeated in the three instances found in Job. A few have gone so far as to study the Hebrew phrases translated differently in the Psalms, but I am not aware of any proponent of the Genesis position that has presented a thorough study of every use of this phrase in the Old Testament, for to do so would be to undermine the very cornerstone of their arguments.
Let us look first at the English phrase “the sons of God.” As stated before this phrase only appears in three verses other than the two in the sixth chapter of Genesis. The last of these three is speaking of a time before the formation of man when all the angels shouted the glory of God rejoicing over His creation. This verse is relevant to our current study only in that it is obviously referring to angels in its use of the phrase “the sons of God.”
The other two verses are of much greater significance in that they make a distinguishment between the sons of God and Satan. Verse six of chapter one states that “there was a day when the sons of God cam to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.” Verse one of chapter two repeats this statement and adds that Satan came “to present himself before the Lord.” That Satan is mentioned as acting independently of the sons of God might indicate that he was no longer considered one of the sons of God at this time. If this is correct, then none of the angels that followed Satan would be considered sons of God. There is the possibility that Satan is referred to here individually in these passages only for the purpose of drawing our attention to a particular individual, but there is no passage of Scripture in which Satan is specifically designated as one of the sons of God.
It can be argued that the sons of God in Genesis six were angels that did not follow Satan in his initial rebellion against God, but that fell much later when looking on the daughters of men they lusted after them.[11] This argument is easily refuted by I John chapter three verse eight. “He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.”
While the verses in Job might not consider Satan to be on of the sons of God, their use of the phrase is undoubtedly in reference to angels, so based on just these three instances one must conclude that the reference in Genesis is to the same. However, these are not the only instances of this phrase in the Old Testament.
The Hebrew words translated “sons of God” are “bene elohiym.” The shortened version of this Hebrew phrase, “ben el,” is also used twice in the book of Psalms. The first instance is in chapter twenty-nine verse one. “Give unto the LORD, O ye mighty, give unto the LORD glory and strength.” This verse could still be speaking of angels but not necessarily so. The second instance found in verse six of the eighty-ninth Psalm could also refer to either. “For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD?”
Here is where every commentator I have read has stopped and drawn his conclusion, but there is at least one other instance in which the words “ben el” are used. That instance is the tenth verse of the first chapter of Hosea, where not only the Hebrew words are used but also the English phrase, “the sons of God. “…there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.” As you can see, the word living, chay in Hebrew, was added to the phrase, yet the reference here is undoubtedly to the Children of Israel, and though it is prophetic, a precedent is set for Old Testament use of the term “sons of God” in reference to men.
This is a significant precedent in light of our current study but it does nothing to clear up the mystery of Genesis chapter six. However, it does present us with a guide for further study, for if the phrase was separated by a word in this case there might be other variations which have escaped notice. With this thought in mind, let us look at the fourteenth chapter of Deuteronomy specifically verse one. “Ye are the children of the LORD your God:” This verse differs from the one in Hosea in that it uses the same Hebrew phrasing as the passages in Job but is translated with a different English phrase. Here the Hebrew word “bene” is translated “children” instead of “sons,” but the word used for God is still “elohiym.” Again we see that the phrase is split by the insertion of another word, which in this case, is “Yahovah” or “the Lord.” In this verse we see a definite, non-prophetic use of the phrase “bene elohiym” in direct reference to the nation of Israel. Thus is refuted the idea that use of this phrase in the Old Testament can only refer to the angels.
Of course this refutation still does not specifically prevent the verses in Genesis six from referring to angels, but it does present another viable option. That option is that the term “the sons of God” always refers to those who serve Him. This explanation is congruous with every possible interpretation of the phrase including occurrences of the phrase in the New Testament. In support of this explanation is the frequent use of the term “sons of Belial” in the Old Testament. This phrase would be the exact opposite of that found in Genesis chapter six, yet it does not refer to those directly created by Satan nor does it refer to his angels. It can only refer to those who follow Satan and serve him.
Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; (Deuteronomy 13:13)
Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial; they knew not the LORD. (I Samuel 2:12)
The New Testament also supports this explanation.
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44)
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (I John 3:8)
Thus we see that the interpretation which best fits the context of the Scriptures as a whole is that the sons of God mentioned in Genesis chapter six were men that were serving God at the time.[12]
To further solidify their arguments for the angelic view of the sons of God, most proponents of that argument claim that the birth of the giants in verse four stands as evidence for their interpretation. The only problem with this is that their reason for assuming that the giants mentioned here are different from the other giants of the Scriptures is that they must have been superhuman if they had angels as parents.[13] Regardless of their mistakes in reasoning let us examine the possibility of such personages being the result of this type of intermarriage.
There are several reasons for rejecting this as a possibility. The first is that “children are an heritage of the Lord.” Thus angels have no possibility of using the power of procreation for their own advantages. All children are formed by God Himself.[14]
The second reason that I will mention is the reason stated for the judgment of the flood. Of all the verses in the Bible that mention the reason for the flood, not one of them makes any reference, no matter how vague, to angels or demons. In every case the flood is always attributed to the wickedness of man.
Third and most final reason for rejecting this union as a possibility is that to accept it is to give Satan power that is equal to God in that he too would then be able to produce a child born of a virgin by a spirit. Such a possibility cannot exist.[15]
In conclusion, allow me to briefly state who I believe that the angels mentioned in Jude are. My explanation is very simple. We do not know.
In the book of Jude there are two other references made to Old Testament occurrences which are not mentioned in the Old Testament. The first is found in Michael’s disputing with Satan over the body of Moses. In the case of this verse we have no sure idea what Jude is talking about other than that Michael did not bring a railing accusation against Satan. The second instance, found in verses fourteen and fifteen, is Jude’s reference to the prophecy of Enoch. Once again we do not know anything about Enoch’s prophecy other than that it pronounced an eventual judgment on those who did not follow God.
Likewise in verse six we are told of the fall of certain angels, a fall about which we know very little. We do know that they were followers of Satan, but we do not know the particulars of their sin. All Jude conveys to us is that they were judged for doing wrong, and it is this thought which is consistent throughout the book. Thus while Jude and II Peter both present us with an intriguing question. The answer to that question is not given and should not be surmised beyond its application within the context of these two great books.
______________________________________________________
[1] The Pulpit Commentary, “Jude” by S.D.F. Salmond. 1978 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI
[2] The Genesis Record, Henry Morris 1976
[3] The Companion Bible, Appendix 23 “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:2,4”
[4] Genesis, James Montgomery Boice, Baker Books, 1998
[5] Signs of Collapse, Ray C. Stedman
[6] The Genesis Record, Henry Morris 1976
[7] Genesis, James Montgomery Boice, Baker Books, 1998
[8] Textual Controversy: Mischievous Angels or Sethites? Chuck Missler
[9] Gleanings In Genesis, “The Flood” A. W. Pink, Swengel PA.
[10] “Even More on the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6” William Arnold III
[11] The Pulpit Commentary, “Jude” by S.D.F. Salmond. 1978 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI
[12] “Sons of God” Author Unknown, www.homestead.com
[13] Genesis, James Montgomery Boice, Baker Books, 1998
[14]Psalm 139:13-16
[15] “Sons of God” Author Unknown, www.homestead.com