Thomas A. Howe, Ph.D. (a Professor of Bible and Biblical Languages at Southern Evangelical Seminary) wrote A Response To Chuck Missler: Who Are the Sons of God in Genesis 6? In general, the late Chuck Missler (author, Bible teacher, engineer, and businessman) held to the Angelic interpretation on the Genesis 6 affair, as I term it, and Thomas Howe holds the Sethite interpretation.
I find that even though I agree with Missler on the Angelic interpretation I do not necessarily agree with his supporting argumentation. I also find that even though I disagree with Howe on the Sethite interpretation I did agree with some of his criticisms of Missler even whilst disagreeing with much that Howe has to say contra Missler and in favor of his own view.
Thus, hereinafter is my view and review on Thomas Howe on Chuck Missler on the Nephilim and Angels. Altogether, Howe’s paper is a four-part 47-page document which is an addendum to yet another article so I will tease out the most relevant portions.
Howe admits that, as per his quotation of Umberto Cassuto, “The interpretation in the sense of angels is the oldest in the history of exegesis . . .”[1] Howe notes, “As early as 400 A.D. ‘The Book of the Watchers,’ which forms the first 36 chapters of 1 Enoch, propagated what has become arguably the most popular understanding of this passage…The fact that the angelic-cohabitation view probably finds its beginnings in the mid-second century B.C. in the apocryphal book of 1 Enoch.”
The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view, as I proved in my book, On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.
Thus, he recognizes that he is arguing against the historical understanding of Genesis 6.
1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.
ANCIENT ANGEL VIEW
Thomas Howe writes:
The parallelism in [Job] 38:7 calls into question the idea that the expression, “sons of God” is a reference to angelic beings. The first part of the poetic line refers to, “morning stars,” and the expression, “sons of God” functions in poetic parallelism to this. This is most probably a more poetic or figurative reference to the heavenly bodies.
At least it is not unambiguously a reference to angels. Since the expression here is itself controversial, it cannot be called upon to support any particular view. It seems clear, however, that the remaining passages of Job, 1:6 and 2:1, are indeed references to angelic beings.
Are there instances of parallelism as well as poetic and figurative language in the Bible? Of course, it is just that we must be careful to not conjure these genre in order to abscond from the known historical, hermeneutically cogent, interpretation of any given text.
In this case, it almost seems like Howe seems to be formulating a way to get away from the supports for understanding, “sons of God” in Genesis 6 as Angels based on the Job usages. He seems to think that the text is telling us that celestial objects that we call stars, like our Sun, sang and thus since this is poetic so must be the reference to, “sons of God.”
Yet, this is merely another layer of symbolic terminology for well, look at it this way: the Bible employs the term, “morning star” or, “star of the morning” as indicative of authority (see Isaiah 14:12, Revelation 2:26-28, 22:5, 12-16, etc.). Thus, morning stars are actual beings who actually sang as they rejoice over God’s creative act.
It seems that we are beginning to get a glimpse into a manner of thought that those of us who do not spend much time in academia do not necessarily share. For example, “Since the expression here is itself controversial, it cannot be called upon to support any particular view” which is a form of intellectual subjectivism.
He might as well say that since most of the Bible is controversial, it cannot be called upon to support any particular theology or view of any sort on anything. He also wrote, “The text is ambiguous enough in this expression to go either way” except, apparently, going the way Missler has taken it (Missler, Jude, Peter and most ancient Jewish and Christian commentators).
Yet, in any case, Howe recognizes that there is at least some support for understanding, “sons of God” to be Angels as, “It seems clear, however, that the remaining passages of Job, 1:6 and 2:1, are indeed references to angelic beings.”
Thomas Howe notes that, “Rather than demonstrate his point before asserting his conclusion, Missler states up front that he believes that the term ‘sons of God’ exclusively refers to angels” to which I will add the details that this is Missler’s claim about the usage within the Old Testament only. Howe notes, “According to Waltke, ‘Human beings are called ‘sons of God’ in Hos. 1:10 . . . and divine kings in 2 Sam. 7:14 . . .’”[2]
The contention is that Genesis 6 refers to Angels as ben ha ‘elohim (בֵּן אֱלֹהִים), “sons of the living God” is applied to humans in Hosea 1:10 as ben chai ‘el (בֵּן אֵל חַי) and 2 Samuel 7:14 actually states, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men.”
I would contend that considering both the Old and New Testament usages, the term son of God is a reference to a styled direct creation by God and is thus applied to Adam (from mud/dust), Angels (from scratch), Jesus (as per the virgin birth) and Christians (as per the new birth).
Thus, Howe’s point stands, “even though the passages in Job refer to angels, it is not true that this expression is used exclusively of angels.” I will add that even though this expression is not used exclusively of Angels, this does not mean that it does not refer to such in Genesis 6.
Thomas Howe has a subsection titled, “Sons of God as Fallen Angels” in which things get particularly messy—and he plays off of this mess towards his discrediting of the Angel view. For example, he writes:
A closer examination of the Job passages reveals that there is nothing in these verses that would lead one to conclude that, “sons of God” refers to fallen angels. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. Both passages describe the scene in which the, “sons of God” present themselves before the Lord. But, there is someone who comes in among them.
The expression, “and the Satan came in the midst of them”…is exactly the same in 1:6 and 2:1. The statement implies that the Satan was not one of the sons of God, but came in among them when they came to present themselves before the Lord. This would seem to indicate that the sons of God in Job are not fallen angels, but heavenly angels. It becomes very problematic, then, to assume that the references in Job support the view that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are, “fallen angels.”
In fact, it would seem to be contrary to the sense of the expression, “sons of God” to think that it would be used of fallen angels. It is not at all clear that the use of the expression, “sons of God” in Job offers any support for understanding Gen. 6:2 to refer to fallen angels.
If Job offers any support for understanding Genesis, it would seem to indicate that the expression, “sons of God” should be taken to refer to angels of heaven rather than fallen angels.
Thus, by dealing specifically with, “Sons of God as Fallen Angels” it becomes easier for Howe to discredit the Angel view. For example, I would agree that there is nothing in the Job passages that would lead one to conclude that, “sons of God” refers to fallen angels. However, he could not make the same assured statement about them being Angels in general or rather, loyal Angels. Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that, sons of God can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as Angeloi (ἄγγελοί): plural of Angelos) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth.
Indeed, as he notes, “This would seem to indicate that the sons of God in Job are not fallen angels, but heavenly angels.” But then he doubles back to again note that one cannot appeal to Job for supporting the view that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are, “fallen angels” but only that they are Angels in general or loyal, heavenly, Angels specifically.
If you are noting a certain tendency of Thomas Howe towards being repetitive indeed, he is rather given to repetition particularly as you read all 4 parts.
Howe rightly notes:
…one cannot simply assume that because a word or phrase is used to mean a certain thing in other passages that it must be understood this way in every passage.
Even though ‘sons of God’ is never used of fallen angels does not mean it could not possibly mean this in Gen. 6:2. It is possible that a word or phrase can mean one thing in a single passage even though all other passages use it differently.
Howe further notes, “the interpreter cannot rest his interpretation on unproven assumptions. If an interpreter wants to argue that ‘sons of God’ in Gen. 6:2 means ‘fallen angels,’ he must demonstrate this by convincing arguments from the context of Genesis.” This is only partially accurate as there is such a thing as immediate context (in this case, “from the context of Genesis”) and greater context such as in the case of demonstrating that Genesis’ serpent in the Garden of Eden is Satan which one cannot do without appealing to Ezekiel 28 and Revelation chapters 12 and 20.
So going back to the easy way out approach Howe writes, “Proponents of the Angels View particularly fall victim to this criticism because they often assume that since it means ‘angels’ in Job, it must mean ‘fallen angels’ in Genesis” which is too fine an assertion.
I, for example, would not conclude that since it means, “angels” in Job, it must mean, “fallen angels” in Genesis but only that it means Angels in both (with fallen being an inference based on an implication). Even after all of this and more, Howe notes that, “Although this” fallen Angel view, “is conceivable, given the evidence it is highly improbable.”
However, he continues that thought by noting that, “And, after looking at the evidence, it seems to be the case that taking ‘sons of God’ to mean ‘fallen angels’ has no support from Job or anywhere else” which is reaching far enough to lose his grip on the issue as we shall see.
You see, Thomas Howe refers to Jude 6-7 which states:
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 the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
He comments thusly:
From this passage interpreters conclude [quoting Missler], “Jude made an allusion to these events in Genesis 6 and clearly he was writing about angels who, for whatever reason, went after ‘strange flesh.’”[3]
The problem with such a conclusion is that it assumes what it must prove. One can see Jude’s statement as an, “allusion” to Genesis 6 only if he already accepts the Angels View of Genesis 6. If Genesis 6 is interpreted differently, say to refer to the line of Seth, then Jude can no longer be seen as an allusion to it. So, in order to interpret Jude as providing support for the Angels View, one must assume that his interpretation of Genesis 6 is correct. But this is circular. This is a case of using the interpretation of Genesis 6 to understand Jude, and then using Jude as support for his interpretation of Genesis 6.
I will momentarily remove the word, “only” in the following so as to note that perhaps one can see Jude’s statement as an, “allusion” to Genesis 6 if he already accepts the Angels View of Genesis 6 but not if they do not. The point is that he states that one can see Jude’s statement as an, “allusion” to Genesis 6 only if he already accepts the Angels View of Genesis 6 as in that they presuppose it.
However, this is not necessarily the case since perhaps one would not know what to make of Genesis 6 but then read Jude and realize that he was interpreting the Genesis text for us. In this way, they would not be presupposing but would rather concluding.
But what if one presupposes or concludes that Genesis 6 refers to the line of Seth? Can they then not conclude that Jude is alluding to Genesis 6? Perhaps not but then they would have to tell us to what it does refer as Genesis 6 seems to be the only place where Jude’s statements fit.
Thus, it is faulty to assert that, “in order to interpret Jude as providing support for the Angels View, one must assume that his interpretation of Genesis 6 is correct.” This is a somewhat messy sentence: he does not seem to be questioning Jude’s interpretation but is referring to the person holing the Angel view by the term, “his.” Moreover, rounding off the repetitious mannerisms of Howe, it is not circular to understand one text via another one especially when the latter seems to so clearly interpret the former. One can rightly correlate Genesis 1 and John 1 without fallacious circularity.
In fact, Howe will conclude that the, “sons of God” are Sethites and we can simply make the same claims about his view since he is circularly understanding certain texts as allusions to Sethites in order to interpret Genesis 6 as referring to Sethites.
STRANGE FLESH
Thomas Howe then notes:
In fact, there are no compelling reasons to take Jude as referring to Genesis 6. The analogy between Sodom-Gomorrah and the angels is that each group left its proper abode.
In the way humans left their proper sexual abode, so angels left their proper spiritual abode. This could be an allusion to the rebellion of angels against God who set them in their proper place.
The issue seems to be that Genesis 6 is the one text which seems to fit when and how it was that in the same way as humans left their proper sexual abode at Sodom-Gomorrah, so Angels left their proper spiritual abode. It is indeed an allusion to the rebellion of Angels who rebelled against God as did the Sodomites and Gomorrahites: by leaving their proper sexual abode.
Howe rightly notes that, “Human sexual relations are often used as symbolic of one’s dedication to God. In Hosea Israel is depicted as an adulterous wife. So the immorality of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah makes a fitting analogy to the angels who rebelled against God rather than remain His faithful servants.”
True but when and where? Genesis 6 seems to be the most fitting record of this event. Howe concludes that his view on this particular point is, “at least as reasonable an interpretation as the one proposed in the Angels View.” Yet, it is not since the Sodom-Gomorrah record contains nothing about rebellious Angels.
Thomas Howe then generalizes in writing:
…commentators simply assume that angels can have sexual relations with human women. As Bruce Waltke points out, “This interpretation also contradicts Jesus’ statement that angels do not marry (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25). It is one thing for angels to eat and drink (see Gen. 19:1-3), but quite another to marry and reproduce.”[4]
In Matt. 22:30, in response to a challenge by the Sadducees, Jesus said, “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven”…
Missler says…“They don’t marry (in Heaven), but apparently are (or were) capable of much mischief.” Of course, as is his practice, Missler conveniently misrepresents the text. Jesus statement in Matthew is:, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”
Missler makes a subtle change in the text. Missler says, “they don’t marry (in Heaven) . . .” Jesus did not say they don’t marry in heaven. Jesus says, “angels in heaven don’t marry.” Missler restates the text in such a manner as to imply that angels can marry if they are not in heaven. Such an implication is not present in Jesus’ claim.
Speaking for myself: I do not simply assume that Angels can have sexual relations with human women but conclude as much from Genesis 6, Jude and Peter—as we shall see.
Now, Waltke takes a text out of context to make a pretext for a proof-text since Jesus never said, “that angels do not marry.” To his credit, Howe gets it right by pointing out that what Jesus said is that it is, “the angels of God in heaven” who do not marry.
This is a huge difference in meaning and is why those of us who take the Angel view of Genesis, as interpreted by Jude and Peter, consider the sons of God to not only be Angels in general but fallen ones in particular. In other words, the Angels of God in heaven do not marry but those who kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation did so.
Now, for some reason Howe quoted Waltke for support even though Waltke offered him no support and Howe had to correct him—even if only incidentally. Yet, he goes from the rightful correction to folly as he then concludes that, “Jesus clearly denies that heavenly angels can have sexual relations” which is simply not the case. For one, Jesus stated no such thing and for two, at least logically if not theologically, perhaps Angels can have sexual relations even whilst not marrying.
Thomas Howe then goes on to argue against what I just explained:
Another response to this is to point out that Jesus is referring to angels in heaven, but Genesis 6 is referring to fallen angels. But, this maneuver will not work either. We have already shown that it is highly unlikely that the expression, “sons of God” would be used to refer to fallen angels.
Secondly, the traditional view holds that these angels fell because they had forbidden sexual relations with human females. But, if they were unfallen prior to their sinful act, then they must have been heavenly angels. But, if they were heavenly angels, according to what Jesus said, they cannot have sexual relations.
So, as heavenly angels they could not commit the very act that is supposed to have caused them to fall. Besides this, the advocates of this view simply assume that sexual relations between heavenly angels and human females is forbidden. No commentator has attempted to prove this assumption.
Note that one cannot assert that, “this maneuver will” certainly, “not work” based on an attempted elucidation which is only, “highly unlikely.” Howe then seems to get into an unnecessarily confusing and/or confused argument. I will simply state my view thusly: there were loyal/heavenly Angels who are not supposed to marry but purposed to marry and in doing so they fell. Thus, Angels, “don’t marry (in Heaven)” and, “angels in heaven don’t marry.”
Howe refers to this again thusly:
Missler refers to the statements in Peter and Jude as support for the notion that the sons of God were fallen angels. However, assuming that these passages are even talking about the Genesis 6 event, the implication of these NT passages is that these beings became fallen angels because they went after, “strange flesh.”
In other words, the implication is that they fell as a result of cohabiting with the daughters of men. It was, in other words, the sexual relation between these angelic beings and human women that precipitated the fall of these sons of God. It follows that prior to this these sons of God were not, “fallen angels,” but were in fact, angels in heaven.
However, according to Jesus’ statement, angels in heaven are not capable of having sexual relations. This is, of course, the point of his response to the inquisition of the Saducees [sic] in Matthew 22.
So again, it is a timeline semantical issue: he merely asserts that since sexual relations precipitated the fall they were not, “fallen angels,” prior. Well, of course, they were not fallen before they fell and left where they could not marry so as to marry and thus fell.
Also, just to clarify, Jesus’ statement was that Angels are not capable of having sexual relations specifically whilst in heaven and not about what they could do if they left heaven or fell from heaven—actually, Jesus only referred to marriage but, “sexual relations” is Howe’s, however rightful, inference.
We are also back to an example of Howe’s assertion as it is not necessarily the case that, “the advocates of this view simply assume that sexual relations between heavenly angels and human females is forbidden” and it is especially not the case that, “No commentator has attempted to prove this assumption” as there are at least two who have done so of whom Howe is aware: Jude and Peter—and anyone who has appealed to Jude and Peter so as to interpret Genesis 6. If heavenly Angels do not marry then any who do so, are acting in a disloyal, rebellious manner.
Thomas Howe then makes an assertion of his own, “it is completely consistent with Jude’s context to understand his statements are referring to the original fall and rebellion of Satan and the angels who followed him.”
How it is that Satan and the Angels who followed him could be said to have gone after strange flesh in the selfsame manner in which those in Sodom and Gomorrah did is unstated.
In fact, referring to the original fall and rebellion of Satan and the Angels who followed him is not as clear cut as it may seem. It would appear that the original fall and rebellion of Satan took place in the Garden of Eden.
Yet, no Angels, “followed him” at that point but when Satan did that which Revelation 12 refers to as him, symbolized as a dragon, sweeping them with his tail to the Earth, they engaged in the Genesis 6 affair.
In any regard, Howe then argues:
The reference to, “strange flesh” concerns the actions of those in Sodom and Gomorrah who cohabited with the same sex—men with men, and women with women. The angelic-cohabitation view is not a case involving, “strange flesh,” because the text indicates that males, “sons of God,” took females, “daughters of men.” Consequently, the reference in Jude to, “strange flesh” cannot properly be an allusion to the cohabitation of male angels with female humans.
The issue seems to be that with regards to Sodom and Gomorrah, “strange flesh” referred to homosexuality (or, overall bisexuality) yet for Angels, it was going after flesh of a styled different category of being: humans.
Now, we will see what Howe does with his Sethite view when it comes to the fact that, “the text indicates that males, ‘sons of God,’ took females, ‘daughters of men’”: why only males Sethites and only female Cainites and/or why not the other way around or any combination thereof?
TARTARUS
To start with, just as an FYI: tartarus is not that sauce that you eat with fish.
Howe writes:
Missler says, “Peter . . . also used a term for hell that was only used in the New Testament: tartarus, a term used in Greek literature for ‘a dark abode of woe’ or ‘a pit of darkness of the unseen world.’”[5]
Missler seems unable accurately to present the facts of the case. The word tartarus appears three times in the Greek version of the Old Testament: Prov 30:16; Job 40:20 and 41:24.
FYI: Proverbs 30:16, “The grave; and the barren womb; the earth that is not filled with water; and the fire that saith not, It is enough” grave is the Hebrew sheol (שְׁאוֹל) and Greek tartarus (ταρταρόω) which is certainly an oddity in translating sheol.
Job 40:20, “Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play” in Greek tartarus is the last word in the sentence so, it may be translating, “field play” which in Hebrew is sadeh sachaq (שָׂדֶה שָׂחַק) so the context is not the tartarus where Angels are incarcerated.
Job 41:24, “His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone” I do not see tartarus in the Greek.
Yet, the issue for me is that Howe simply side steps the reference to Peter’s relevant points. 2 Peter 2:4-6 states:
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly…
Peter references Angels that sinned, that they have been cast into tartarus (commonly oddly translated as, “hell”), they are incarcerated because of something that Peter seems to be correlating with the pinpoint timeline of the flood (Genesis 6) as well as Sodom and Gomorrha (going after strange flesh). So, we have a punishment, when the punishable actions were taken and what the actions were like.
Howe notes, “it is not obvious that a cohabitation between angels and women would constitute a corrupting influence.” Well, Jude and Peter tell us that the action itself was a corruption of God’s order. Also, following directly from the cohabitation we are told that, “And GOD 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” so that is the corrupting influence either genetically, socially, morally or some combination.
He also writes:
…the text does not say that the sons of God took every single woman alive at the time. If follows than that there were women who were not taken by the sons of God. Consequently, it does not follow that, “all flesh was corrupted.” If Missler’s view is accurate, then the biblical text must not be. How could, “all flesh” be corrupted as a result of angels cohabiting with some women.
Well, some believe that, “all flesh was corrupted” because the Bible states that, “all flesh was corrupted.” But how could, “all flesh” be corrupted as a result of Angels cohabiting with some women? Because one generation leads to the next and to the next and so on until, “all flesh was corrupted.”
The text tells us that, “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose” beginning, “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them” which could have been as far back as when Adam and Eve’s offspring first began having their own offspring.
With creation set to 3925 BC, the flood occurred circa 2269 BC (Hebrew manuscripts result in a 1,650 year scale, the LXX result in 2,200 years). Thus, we have somewhere in the range of over a millennium and a half to over two millennia for generations to come and go and on an old Earth view, you clearly have an unspecified amount of time. Add to this the fact that humanity still lived within relative geographical proximity to each other, and you can certainly have all flesh being corrupted—sans Noah, his wife, their sons, and their sons’ wives.
Furthermore, Howe writes:
Missler says, “Incidentally, the Nephilim didn’t completely end with the flood. Genesis 6:4 mentions, ‘. . . and also after that . . .’ We find the sons fo [sic] Anak, the Anakim, later in the Old Testament.” What Missler is claiming is that the text of Genesis is in error.
Gen. 6:17 says, “Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish. But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark–you and your sons and your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.”
This seems to make it clear that everyone, every human being, except Noah, his wife, his sons, and his sons’ wives, would be destroyed from off the face of the earth. By contrast, Missler claims that not all of the Nephilim were destroyed. In other words, Genesis is wrong…
Whereas the text of Genesis clearly says all mankind died, except for those who were on the ark, Missler just as clearly claims that not all mankind died. There can be no doubt that Missler is ascribing error to the biblical text.
There is a lot to unpack here so let us go step by step. There are at least two popular manners whereby it need not be the case that, “Missler is claiming is that the text of Genesis is in error”: some claim (without evidence) that more Angels fell, married women and had offspring again after the flood and some claim (without evidence) that Nephilim genetics made it through the flood within one of Noah’s sons’ wives. If Nephilim genetics made it through the flood in any way, shape, or form, then God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. Such a concept also contradicts the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5).
Howe notes, “In his criticism of the Angels view, Waltke says, ‘This interpretation, however, does not fit the context of the Flood, since the flood judgment is against humanity (Gen. 6:3-5) and not against the heavenly realm.’”[6]
From my Angel view, I would note that, “the sons of God saw the daughters of men,” then, “the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man,” the offspring, “became mighty men which were of old, men of renown” and, “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man…,” etc. Thus, since they were half Angel and half human, they are still referred to as man/men.
And so, this interpretation fits the context since the flood judgment is against humanity—actually against man/men, which within the context includes the Nephilim. However, as far as I know no one claims that the Angel view claims that the flood was, exclusively or not, “not against the heavenly realm” but against fallen Angels and their corrupted and corrupting offspring.
Now, a point on which I disagree with Chuck Missler and virtually everyone involved in Nephilim (and/or giants) research: I disagree that, “the Nephilim didn’t completely end with the flood” regardless of to which un-evidenced loophole they appeal and, by the way, I see no biblical evidence for any concept of a return of the Nephilim at any time whatsoever.
My view is that since, as just reviewed, there was over a millennia and maybe two, or more, during which Angels were producing offspring with women, “and also after that” refers to after the first instance of it but still during a pre-flood period. The text does not specify that after that is after the flood: particularly as that statement is made during a pre-flood context. But what of the Anakim as Nephilim?
Well, this concept comes from Numbers 13:33 which is the only other usage of Nephilim in the Bible (not counting its root word naphal—if, that is, nephilim comes from naphal). I have dealt with this issue in detail in the article Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal: in short, God told the people to inhabit the land, most spies discourage them from doing so, Caleb steps in to say get’er’done, and it is only at this point (when they are trying to take the discouraging fear factor up a notch) that the other spies mention Nephilim. Not only is their report said to have been bad/evil but when Caleb reiterates this event in Joshua 14:12, he affirms the presence of the Anakim but does not mention the Nephilim and Moses does the same in Deuteronomy 1:28. There is no reason to think that the Anakim were decedents of the Nephilim—and the LXX’s version of that verse lack any reference to Anakim.
Thomas Howe makes an error about Angels which seems to be based on common knowledge and that is that they, “can appear in human form.” Yet, biblically Angels do not appear in human form but are human in form, ontologically. Biblically Angels look just like human males: there is no indication that they appear otherwise and then appear in human form or shapeshift or are spirit and take on physicality or any such thing.
They do not have wings (or halos for that matter) but we must understand that Cherubim and Seraphim—who have wings and do not appear human—are not Angels but these three are different categories of being.
Howe asks, “if everyone was destroyed, how can there be any relationship between the Nephilim before the flood and the Nephilim after the flood”? His answer is that, “The Nephilim after the flood, referred to in Num. 13:33, are certainly not angelic beings of any kind” but, “are giant sized humans.” He then paraphrases, “Moses is saying something like this: ‘Just like there are fallen ones in our time, so there were fallen ones then too.’”
Two issues to tackle:
Firstly, since, or if, Moses was saying something like that there were fallen ones during his time and there were also fallen ones during the Genesis 6 affair: if these fallen ones are Angels, then Howe discredited his own criticism of Chuck Missler and accredited the Angel view.
Secondly, the Bible generically refers to people who are, “tall” and, “very tall” but only gives us a few specific heights of a handful none of which make it to over 8 feet tall (with the possible exception of Goliath). Thus, “giant sized humans” need only have been somehow taller than the average Hebrew male of those days who would have been 5.0-5.3 feet tall. The Goliath issue is that the Masoretic text has him at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. (compared to the average Israelite male) so that is the preponderance of the earliest data.
Regarding the Angel view, Thomas Howe declares that since, “unproven assumptions seems to be fatal to these views” and so, “More and more contemporary commentators are conceding this point and are turning to an different interpretation” which is the Tyrants view and is, “the up-and-coming view of commentators.” Howe also notes that, “the ‘divine king’ view” envisages that, “tyrants were demon possessed.”[7]
W. H. Gispen wrote that, “The text presents us with men who are controlled by fallen angels.”[8]
Of course, there could be various reasons why some reject the Angel view that do not relate to alleged unproven assumptions. For example, Thomas Howe published an article on this topic for Hank Hanegraaff’s Christian Research Institute’s journal. Well, having him state as much time and again on his show: Hanegraaff’s main reason for rejecting the Angel view appears to be that since he cannot figure out where Nephilim as Angel/human hybrids would be factored into soteriology then the Angel view must be wrong: his hang-up is actually not knowing where dead Nephilim would have gone—all indications are that they would have ended up in sheol (שְׁאוֹל) just all of the dead. The point is that this is secondary consideration and one ought not to appeal to as a loophole in order to deny the correlation between Genesis 6, Jude 6-7 and 2 Peter 2, et al.
Allen Ross is quoted to the effect that, “I find most attractive a combination of the ‘angel’ view and the ‘despot’ view. Fallen angels left their habitation and indwelt human despots and warriors, the great ones of the earth.”[9]
Well, hopefully subjective attraction is not Ross’ only criteria as one thing is certain: there is even less evidence for his view that there is for the Sethite or the Angel views.
Waltke specifies an utter speculation, “Their perverted psyches allowed this entrance of the demonic.”[10] Howe rightly replies that, “there is no indication in the text that the ‘sons of God’ had perverted psyches, and how appropriate would it be to identify men with perverted psyches as ‘sons of God.’” Indeed, it is about as appropriate as identifying them as, “divine kings” which is to say that it is not appropriate at all. It is appropriate to identify them as Angels as that is what Angels are.
Thomas Howe then asks, “why should we conclude that the sexual relation between demon possessed men and women would necessarily produce evil offspring? The Bible has plenty of instances in which the sons of evil men were themselves righteous.” Of course, when it comes to his own Sethite view we could ask Howe, “why should we conclude that the sexual relation between Sethites men and Cainite women would necessarily produce evil offspring?”
Now, Howe notes, “In defense of this view, Allen Ross asserts, ‘The view that interprets the ‘sons of God’ solely as powerful rulers does not, in my opinion, make enough use of the literary connections with pagan literature.’’[11] But why assume that the Word of God must be connected with Pagan literature?”
Howe makes a good case that the Word of God is precisely counteracting pagan literature which is why we ought not to assume that it must be connected with it in any way but to discredit it.
If I may read into Ross’ meaning, I would say that the, or a, reason to assume that the Word of God connects with Pagan literature in various ways—as with Paul quoting Greek poets—is that Pagan myths and legends are saturated with tales of gods or Angels or demons or aliens coming to Earth and mating with humans and their offspring becoming giants or rulers or warriors, etc.
To this point, Howe writes:
The unproven assumption made by Ross is that the only way one can understand the, “literary connections with pagan literature” is if the text makes assertions that are similar to or reminiscent of the assertions made in these pagan texts.
However, the literary connection, as seems to be the precedent set forth in the biblical account of creation, is a view of the facts that is contrary to and often contradictory of the view set forth in pagan literature.
Note the goalpost movement: Ross is referring specifically to Genesis 6’s reference to the sons of God and the Nephilim. However, Howe decides to refer to Genesis 1-2’s, “biblical account of creation.”
Referring to both the Angel and Tyrant view Howe writes, “the primary shortcoming of these two views—they do not give any reason for the existence of this account. Why does Moses even include this material in the narrative?”
I will let Tyrantists speak for themselves but as for my Angel view well, I have already elucidate that Genesis 6 directly correlates the sons of God with daughters of men affair with the flood thus, that is the reason that Moses include it.
Howe further writes:
What difference does it make if fallen angels had sexual relations with human females to produce evil offspring? Is the evil that brings on the flood the result of the overpowering of men by evil spirits? Then it would seem to be their fault, not the fault of mankind, and the Flood seems to be unconnected to these events.
Well, there may be something to the question of who is at fault, but the answer seems to be both. After all, the sons of God got married.
Thomas Howe writes, “I think the only way to make sense of this account is the Sethite View, that the sons of God are the descendants of Seth.” He rightly notes that, “Missler’s report that this [Sethite] view ‘started in the fifth century A.D.’ is apparently designed to cause the reader to question its validity on the basis of its origin. But, such points are instances of the genetic fallacy…the fact that the ‘lines of Seth’ view began with Celsus disqualify it.”
Sadly, when it finally comes to Howe telling us that which he subjectively thinks is, “the only” mind you, “way to make sense of this account” he takes us down a very long and very verbose road. He embarks upon a multi-page, multi-part, multi-section elucidation of parallelism in the first few chapters of Genesis and beyond. This is a great read for discerning parallelism in general but how this is all supposed to lead us to conclude that the Sethite view is not only a viable view, but the only correct view, is certainly mysterious.
He notes:
The descendants of Cain are going about their lives, marrying and giving in marriage, and not knowing or caring until the day that Noah entered the ark and the flood came…The character of the descendants of Seth is diametrically the opposite of the descendants of Cain.
It begins with Seth and Enosh who call upon the name of the Lord…Whereas Cain and his descendants are characterized by the bookends of the murder by Cain in the beginning of the chapter and the murder by Lamech at the end, Seth’s descendants are characterized by their, “calling upon the name of the Lord.”
In order to seek to butters his claim that the whole line of Cain was corrupt, etc., Howe writes:
In 4:1 Eve says, “I have created a man as the Lord [יהוה, yehwah] did.” Here the implication is that Eve perceives herself to be on a par with the Lord in being able to produce a man. However, in verse 25 Eve’s attitude has changed. Seth is received as a gift from אֱלֹהִים (‘ĕlōhîm), not a produce of a creative ability comparable to that of יהוה (yehwah).
It certainly seems like much too far a stretch to claim that Eve perceives herself to be on a par with the Lord. This is particularly the case when Howe and the NET seem to be the only ones that translate, “as the Lord.”
Examples: KJV, NKJV and WEB, “from the LORD,” NLT, “With the LORD’s help, I have produced a man!,” NIV, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man,” ESV and RSV, “with the help of the LORD,” HCSB, HNV and NASB, “with the LORD’s help,” ASV, “with the help of Jehovah,” YLT, “I have gotten a man by Jehovah,” DBY, “acquired a man with Jehovah,”
In fact, even Howe does not (always) agree with Howe’s translation as he had previously written, “Eve gives her son the name Cain saying, ‘I have created a man with the Lord’ (Gen. 4:1).”
In any case, Howe is going somewhere with this which was to claim something about Cain, Seth and their respective genealogical lines.
Recall that based on his question, “why should we conclude that the sexual relation between demon possessed men and women would necessarily produce evil offspring?” I asked, “why should we conclude that the sexual relation between Sethites men and Cainite women would necessarily produce evil offspring?”
Well, he seems to be stating that sin such as murder is all in the family, as it were. Indeed, he then specifies, “the division of mankind into the seed of the serpent, the Cainites, and the seed of the woman, the Sethites. The connection of the Cainites with the serpent as his seed is established in the pattern of murder.”
Well, this is getting uncomfortably close to the serpent seed theory (about which I have written a five volume set of books Cain As Serpent Seed of Satan). His specific identification of, “the seed of the serpent” being, “the Cainites” and the, “seed of the woman” being, “the Sethites” seems off the mark as biblically these lines are not genetic but based on righteous Godly actions versus unrighteous sinful actions. Given Howe’s arguments this could fit his claim with the odd exception, or so it seems to me, that everyone in Cain’s lines were unrighteously sinful and everyone in Seth’s were righteously Godly.
Based on his parallelism, Howe writes, “the reference to the daughters of mankind, and the fact that the sons of God indiscriminately take as many wives as they choose, seems to be, in part, a re-enactment of the fall in the garden.” However, this may be erroneous on one point and certainly erroneous on another.
On the first point, the text states, “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose” which may imply multiple wives for each but may not. In any case, just how do multiple wives re-enactment the fall in the garden: was Lilith around?
I jest with the question, but Howe does not exactly explain it. He writes, “Noah lives in a time when the pattern of marriage is abandoned, and Noah must resist the temptation to take as many wives as he chooses. This is yet another significant ingredient for understanding the identity of the sons of God” and with that, then he is off to another subsection.
Later, he goes back to this issue by writing:
Here the sons of God are deciding for themselves what is good, and contrary to the standard established in the garden, they take as many wives as they choose. What is going on here is the corruption of the godly line of Seth.
But again, this is much more than one can conclude from the Bible alone since it presupposes the utter corruption of every member of the one line and the utter righteousness of every member of the other—the Sethite view is a late-comer of a view based on myth, prejudice, and which only creates more problems than it solves so, more than zero.
Thus, in the end I would score Thomas Howe thusly:
Tyrant/Divine King view: discredited.
Angel view: some good points contra Chuck Missler, many erroneous attempts to discredit the view in general and thus fails to discredit it.
Sethite view: fails to accredit it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Endnotes:
[1] Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, vol. 1, From Adam to Noah, trans. Israel Abrams (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1961 AD), 292
[2] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2001), 116, n19
[3] Chuck Missler, Learn the Bible in 24 Hours (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2002 AD), 27
[4] Waltke, Genesis, 116
[5] Missler, 27
[6] Waltke, p. 116
[7] Waltke, pp. 116-17
[8] W. H. Gispen, Genesis I: Kommentaar op het Oude Testament (Kapen: J. H. Kok), 221; quoted in Waltke, Genesis, 117
[9] Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of the Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988 AD), 181-82
[10] Waltke, p. 117
[11] Ross, p. 182
See my various books here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.