St. Jude, the Nephilim, and angels behaving badly

[Esran]

Dear friends,

I am somewhat of an armchair theologian and amateur scripture scholar. For the past few days, I’ve been trying to figure out who or what the “sons of God” are in Genesis 6: 1-5. Here is what I have learned so far. Please let me know if I am in error at any point in this discourse.

The relevant passage from Genesis is posted below, first in the Revised Standard Version and then in the Douay-Rheims Challoner Revision. I have not included the New American Bible translation, because most scholars I consulted pointed out numerous translational and even doctrinal errors within the text of this Bible, especially in its footnotes and book introductions.

“When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. Then the LORD said, ‘My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.’ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:1-5, RSV).

“And after that men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose. And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown. And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times…” (Gen. 6:1-5, DR).

Bl. Challoner asserts that the “sons of God” are the descendants of Seth and Enos, and the footnote for this section in my Navarre commentary on the Pentateuch concurs with his position. However, many modern commentators, and one monk I consulted, disagreed with such a position. In their opinion, the “sons of God” are fallen angels that had sexual intercourse with human women, thus creating the Nephilim which were a race of giants with diabolical powers. The modern commentators proceeded to write the Scripture passage off as an allusion to fanciful constructions of the imagination, while the monk told me I must believe that fallen angels had sex with women and that Noah’s flood wiped out the dinosaurs. I disdain the arrogance of the modern commentators, and I admire the intense piety of the monk, but I find both their positions equally absurd.

In support of their viewpoint, they quoted a section from the letter of St. Jude, which is posted below.

 

[Esran]

“And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day; just as Sodom and Gomor’rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 1: 6-7, RSV).

It seems that St. Jude is referring to the fall of the angels, which I believe is discussed more thoroughly in the book of Daniel. The interpretation that this is a citation of the apocryphal book of Enoch, which elaborates on Genesis, is absolutely untenable. First of all, Jewish theology held that the angels are spiritual beings that cannot engage in sexual acts, as affirmed by Jesus Christ. He is comparing the judgement which came upon the angels to that which came upon Sodom and Gomorrah. The act of angels turning away from the beatific vision is a rebellion against nature, as is the act of sodomy and unnatural lust. Both of these sins are examples of beings abandoning their divinely appointed position. I think this comes across better in the Douay-Rheims translation, which conveys Latin and Greek syntax more accurately, albeit awkwardly.

“And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 1: 6-7, RSV).

Furthermore, we can see that the interpretation of the “sons of God” as Seth’s lineage is reasonable, because St. Matthew in his Gospel calls Adam “…of God” (Luke 3: 38, DR). In the RSV, this designation is even more blatant, because St. Luke’s words are translated as “Adam, the son of God” (Luke 3:38, RSV). Thus, the lineage of Seth is called the “sons of God,” while the lineage of Cain is referred to as the “children of men,” which later became a label applied to all wicked men, as evidenced by the Psalms of St. David.

In conclusion, the correct interpretation of Genesis 6:1-5 is as follows: The “sons of God” were pious and religious descendants of Seth, while the “daughters of men” were ungodly women following after the way of Cain. Thus, this passage serves to highlight the increasing depravity of mankind before the flood, and asserts that breakdowns in marriage and poor choices of spouses resulted in the tragic state of humanity immediately prior to the flood. If this text was referencing angels here, it would not make sense, because God clearly states He is punishing men for their sins and does not mention angels at all. Truly, we must be careful who we marry. Our family, and ultimately all of society, is at the mercy of our decisions.

Some people are influenced and possessed by demons and evil spirits, but none are ever impregnated by them. As for the Nephilim, I agree with Bl. Challoner, who wrote: “…these here spoken of are called giants, as being not only tall in stature, but violent and savage in their dispositions, and mere monsters of cruelty and lust.” This makes sense, because the same Hebrew word for giant is used in referring to some of the people in Canaan, who besides being a more muscular people than the Semites also had very barbarous religious practices.

Is my argument here sound and convincing? What are your thoughts on the matter?

Pax Christi,
Geoffrey

 

[TheOneTrueFred]

This was a favorite subject of mine a few years back. Your position is perfectly reasonable and very persuasive, however I disagree that the position held by Enoch is in itself untenable, at least if only using the meaning of the Vulgate. I believe these verses are what you’re basing your assertion about Christ’s teachings on (please correct me if I’m wrong).

“For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.” Matt 22:30, Challoner.

Seems straightforward, but is Christ making a point of saying “in heaven”? I can’t say for sure, but at very least it leaves wiggle room to consider that a fallen angel might not be covered by this statement.

Then we have this one:

And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives. Neither can they die any more: for they are equal to the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. Luke 20:34-36, Challoner

Ok, now this statement doesn’t have the qualifier concerning heaven, so it’s a stronger position against angelic marriage in general - however, we also have “children of God” thrown into this statement, here speaking about the resurrected faithful. This creates two problems: 1) Genesis was definitely not speaking about resurrected faithful when using the term “children of God”, and 2) If we try to apply “children of God” as a general term of description and not as a specific group independent of the one Genesis spoke of, the passage from Luke and the passage from Genesis would be directly contradicting each other. These children of God, as those “worthy of that world”, and equal to the angels, cannot then be the same lust-crazed group as the children of God mentioned in Genesis, and also by their character cannot be equated with fallen angels. This leads me to conclude that a distinction has to be made between fallen angels and faithful angels with regard to these verses.

Finally: consider that these days when a believer hooks up with a heathen, the couple does not produce a race of giants - just confused children:blush: .

I’m sure that wasn’t very clear, I’ve definitely been online too long tonight. But rest assured, I’ll try to clear this up a bit tomorrow if it’s impossible to even catch my drift. Also, for the record I tend to lean towards the theory that the folks from Genesis were Sethites, I just don’t exclude the possibility of angels.

 

[thistle]

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 1. Daughters. These had borne equal proportion with the males from the beginning; but here they are particularized, because they were the chief instruments in corrupting the descendants of Seth. (Haydock) — Even the sons of these libidinous people were so effeminate, as to deserve to be called women. (Menochius)

Ver. 2. The sons of God. The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called Sons of God, from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men. The unhappy consequence of the former marrying with the latter, ought to be a warning to Christians to be very circumspect in their marriages; and not to suffer themselves to be determined in choice by their carnal passion, to the prejudice of virtue or religion. (Challoner) — See St. Chrysostom, hom. 22, &c. Some copies of the Septuagint having the angels of God, induced some of the ancients to suppose, that these spiritual beings (to whom, by another mistake, they attributed a sort of aerial bodies) had commerce with women, as the pagans derived their heroes from a mortal and a god. But this notion, which is borrowed from the book of Henoch, is quite exploded. (Calmet) — The distinction of the true Church from the synagogue of satan, here established, has been ever since retained, as heretics are still distinguished from Catholics. (Worthington) (St. Augustine)

Ver. 3. His days shall be, &c. The meaning is, that man’s days, which before the flood were usually 900 years, should now be reduced to 120 years. Or rather, that God would allow men this term of 120 years, for their repentance and conversion, before he would send the deluge. (Challoner) — He spoke therefore to Noe in his 480th year. (St. Augustine) — Those who suppose, that he foretold this event 20 years later, think with St. Jerome, that God retrenched 20 years from the time first assigned for penance. The Spirit of the sovereign Judge was fired with contending; or, as others translate it, with remaining quiet as in a scabbard, and bearing with the repeated crimes of men. He resolved to punish them severely in this world, that he might shew mercy to some of them hereafter. (St. Jerome, 9. Heb.) (Calmet) — If we suppose, that God here threatens to reduce the space of man’s life to 120 years, we must say, at least, that he did it by degrees; for many lived several hundred years, even after the deluge. In the days of Moses, indeed, few exceeded that term. But we think the other interpretation is more literal, and that God bore with mankind the full time which he promised. (Worthington)

Ver. 4. Giants. It is likely the generality of men before the flood were of a gigantic stature, in comparison with what men now are. But these here spoken of, are called giants, as being not only tall in stature, but violent and savage in their dispositions, and mere monsters of cruelty and lust. (Challoner) — Yet we need not imagine, that they were such as the poets describe, tearing up mountains, and hurling them against heaven. Being offspring of men, who had lived hitherto with great temperance, but now gave full scope to their passions, and the love of the fair daughters whom they chose, we need not wonder that they should be amazingly strong and violent. Nephilim, rushing on, as Ag. translates. That there have been giants of an unusual size, all historians testify. Og, Goliah, &c. are mentioned in Scripture, and the sons of Enac are represented as much above the common size, as the Hebrews were greater than grasshoppers, Numbers xiii. 34. If we should suppose they were four or five times our size, would that be more wonderful that they should live nine or ten times as long as we do? See St. Augustine, City of God xv. 9, 23; Calmet’s Dissert. &c. Delrio affirms, that in 1572 he saw at Rouen, a native of Piedmont, above nine feet high. (Haydock) — Of old. The corruption of morals had commenced many ages ago, and some of the sons of Seth had given way to their lusts; so that we are not to suppose, that these giants were all born within a hundred years of the flood, as some might suppose from their being mentioned here, after specifying the age of Noe, chap. v. 31. (Haydock)

Ver. 5. At all times. Hebrew: only evil continually. They had no relish for any thing else: as we may say of a glutton, he thinks of nothing but his belly. Yet some good thoughts would occur occasionally, and we may grant that they did some things which were not sinful. (Menochius) — If we follow corrupt nature, and live among sinners, we find a law within us warring against the spirit; and a very powerful grace is necessary to rescue us from such a dangerous situation. (Calmet) — Though the expressions in this place seem general, they must be understood with some limitations. (Worthington)

 

[Esran]

Cool commentary, and old too. I love antiques! Where did you find this jewel online? Where can I get the Haydock commentary?

 

[thistle]

Cool commentary, and old too. I love antiques! Where did you find this jewel online? Where can I get the Haydock commentary?

The Navarre Bible comentaries, Ignatious Bible commentaries and the Douey-Rheims Bible Haydock commentaries are probably the 3 best commentaries.
The Douey Rheims Challoner version basically has little commentary and nobody uses it.

Online Haydock Commentary:

haydock1859.tripod.com/

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Dear friends,

I am somewhat of an armchair theologian and amateur scripture scholar. For the past few days, I’ve been trying to figure out who or what the “sons of God” are in Genesis 6: 1-5. Here is what I have learned so far. Please let me know if I am in error at any point in this discourse.

The relevant passage from Genesis is posted below, first in the Revised Standard Version and then in the Douay-Rheims Challoner Revision. I have not included the New American Bible translation, because most scholars I consulted pointed out numerous translational and even doctrinal errors within the text of this Bible, especially in its footnotes and book introductions.

“When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. Then the LORD said, ‘My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.’ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:1-5, RSV).

“And after that men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose. And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown. And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times…” (Gen. 6:1-5, DR).

Bl. Challoner asserts that the “sons of God” are the descendants of Seth and Enos, and the footnote for this section in my Navarre commentary on the Pentateuch concurs with his position. However, many modern commentators, and one monk I consulted, disagreed with such a position. In their opinion, the “sons of God” are fallen angels that had sexual intercourse with human women, thus creating the Nephilim which were a race of giants with diabolical powers. The modern commentators proceeded to write the Scripture passage off as an allusion to fanciful constructions of the imagination, while the monk told me I must believe that fallen angels had sex with women and that Noah’s flood wiped out the dinosaurs. I disdain the arrogance of the modern commentators, and I admire the intense piety of the monk, but I find both their positions equally absurd.

In support of their viewpoint, they quoted a section from the letter of St. Jude, which is posted below.

Jude’s letter quotes the First - or Ethiopic - Book of Enoch*****; & implies familarity with it through most of the letter. 1 Enoch has a lot to say about the fall of the angels.​

ISTM that the intepretation of the bene elohim (= sons of G/god) as “angels”/divine beings is well supported, both in the OT & in texts from Ugarit (= modern Ras Shamra). They were rediscovered after 1929, & are not in Hebrew; so the older commentators (many of whom had no Hebrew either, but only European languages) had no opportunity to use them - so they (reasonably enough, given what they did have) came to a different conclusion: the Sethite-Cainite one.

An interpretation does not become right merely because it is from a venerated source: if the prestige of traditional interpretations is enough to make them right, then there is no need to bother with the Biblical languages: but that sort of traditionalism (as it is mistakenly called) is completely untraditional; only in recent times has it become usual to vilify modern Biblical scholarship; which is not a good move.

***** Jude 14,15 = 1 Enoch 1.9 - & see Rev. 1.7. There is good reason to think that Jesus thought of Himself as - or is at least being presented in the Gospel as - the “Son of Man” of 1 Enoch. (There are three Enoch books - 1 Enoch is a composite work, but pre-Christian)

 

[Deacon_Joseph]

Nephilim comes from the Hebrew word which means ‘fallen ones’ or ‘giants’. This same word, ‘Nephilim’, is used in Numbers 13:33 to describe the people in Caanan before Moses led his people into the promised land(in the original Hebrew). Who were the people living in Caanan before the Hebrews entired with Joshua? If they were desendants of intermarriages with Cain and Seth’s offspring, then its likely that the Nephilim described in Gn 6 would also be their desendants. That’s my theory, in a nutshell.

 

[nmercier1]

Just to give my two cents. And this is far from being theologically correct, I though tit was interesting. It is private revelation so you are by no means meant to know it or believe it, but Ven. Cahterine Emmerich explain the nephilim as follows,

"One of Cains descendants was Tubalcain, (Genesis 4:22.) the originator of numerous arts, and the father of the giants. I have frequently seen that, when the angels fell, a certain number had a moment of repentance and did not in consequence fall as low as the others. Later on, these fallen spirits took up their abode on a high, desolate, and wholly inaccessible mountain whose site at the time of the Deluge became a sea, the Black Sea, I think. They were permitted to exercise their evil influence upon men in proportion as the latter strayed further from God. After the Deluge they disappeared from that region, and were confined to the air. They will not be cast into Hell before the last day.

I saw Cains descendants becoming more and more godless and sensual. They settled further and further up that mountain ridge where were the fallen spirits. Those spirits took possession of many of the women, ruled them completely, and taught them all Sorts of seductive arts. Their children were very large. They possessed a quickness, an aptitude for everything, and they gave themselves up entirely to the wicked spirits as their instruments. And so arose on this mountain and spread far around, a wicked race which by violence and seduction sought to entangle Seths posterity likewise in their own corrupt ways. Then God declared to Noah His intention to send the Deluge. During the building of the ark, Noah had to suffer terribly from those people."

That puts it very nicely for me. The book of Enoch speacks of this also.