63: Why 1 Enoch Shouldn’t Shape Your View of Genesis

Welcome to the Ready for Eternity podcast, a podcast and blog dedicated to inquisitive

Bible students exploring biblical truths that might not be fully explored in typical sermons or Bible studies.

My name is Eddie Lawrence. In episode 61, we noted that some people view the sons of God in Genesis 6 as angels because of 1st

Enoch, but is 1st Enoch a reliable guide to understanding

Genesis? Passages from the 2nd

Temple period book of 1st Enoch offer an interpretation of Genesis 6 verses 1 through 4.

It claims that the sons of God in this passage were rebellious spiritual beings who married human women, and that these marriages produced a race of giants called the

Nephilim. What do we know about 1st Enoch, and can we trust it for shedding light on the

Scriptures? First of all, the book of 1st Enoch is not inspired, and people have never considered it to be part of the canon of the

Hebrew Scripture. Works such as 1st Enoch are religious fiction loosely comparable to Dante's Inferno or Paradise Lost.

Although it's based on real events recording in the Bible, and it may contain certain truths, it's still a work of fiction, it lacks inspiration, and it holds no authority.

1st Enoch was a fictional interpretation of the events recorded in Genesis 6.

Not only is it mere fiction, but Jews wrote it under the influence of pagan stories they encountered during their exile in Babylon.

Surprisingly, some Bible students are allowing this work of fiction to influence their interpretation of the inspired

Scriptures. 1st Enoch was written in the 2nd or 3rd century BC. That's about 1 ,200 years after Moses wrote

Genesis. While it's nearly certain that Moses' original readers of Genesis 6 understood who the sons of God and the

Nephilim were, it's not at all certain that the Jews of the 2nd century BC did.

Moreover, the Jews encountered Mesopotamian pagan mythology during their exile in Babylon, which influenced the book of Enoch and other literature from the same period.

By way of illustration, consider the myth of the Apkallu. Many ancient cultures had a flood story, and the

Mesopotamians had one as well. Mesopotamian literature describes divine beings of great knowledge called the

Apkallu who lived before the flood. Mesopotamian myth says the

Apkallus descended to earth, mated with human women, and had semi -divine offspring.

Sound familiar? The Jewish writers were well aware of these pagan stories, and there can be little doubt that the myth of the

Apkallu colored their thinking about Genesis 6. As a matter of fact, some

Jewish texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls give names to the offspring of the sons of God.

The book of Giants calls one of these offspring Gilgamesh.

Gilgamesh was the main character from the Mesopotamian epic of Gilgamesh. Clearly, Mesopotamian mythology found its way into Jewish literary tradition during the intertestamental period.

Even though these pagan -laced literary traditions existed in Judaism, we shouldn't assume all

Jews believed the Enoch Interpretation. Likewise, today we mustn't allow this pagan influence to alter our perception of the scriptures.

The proper context for interpreting the Bible is the context in which the author and original readers lived.

Uninspired literature written 1 ,200 years after Genesis can't provide the original context, and it can't be used to arrive at a correct understanding of biblical passages.

We cannot derive sound biblical theology from uninspired, non -canonical

Second Temple period literature. Filtering Genesis 6 through a genre of intertestamental religious fiction is not being true to Moses' original intent.

It's true that Second Temple period literature is valuable for understanding

Jewish ideas from that period, but we must not let uninspired writings overly influence our understanding of the

Bible. What does Genesis 6 1 through 4 actually say, or just as important, what does it not say?

The proponents of divine human marriages read a good deal into the text that it does not actually say.

When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive, and they took as their wives any they chose.

Then the Lord said, My spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh.

His days shall be 120 years. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man, and they bore children to them.

These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. Genesis 6 1 through 4.

First of all, notice that the text does not identify the sons of God as angels, nor any other kind of spiritual beings.

As we noted in episode 61, the context determines who the sons of God are, and the context here suggests that they're human.

In addition, there's no indication in this passage that anything sinful was taking place.

It doesn't say that the sons of God sinned, nor does it say that the daughters of men engaged in nefarious activities.

Since the phrases sons of God and daughters of men refer to godly and ungodly people, respectively, the worst we can say is that people exercised poor judgment in selecting spouses.

Likewise, the passage here in Genesis does not accuse the Nephilim of any particular sin.

Yet, an important part of the fictional account of 1 Enoch centers on the

Giants, also known as the Nephilim. The assumption is that the Nephilim were the hybrid offspring produced by the union of angels mating with human women.

There's one huge problem with this notion. This is not what

Genesis 6 says. The text says that the Nephilim were on the earth in those days.

What was happening in those days? It was the time when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and bore children to them.

Notice, the text does not say the Nephilim were the children who were born to the sons of God and daughters of men.

It says they lived at the same time. That's all it says.

The Nephilim existed on the earth at this time, and the text does not say they were the offspring of these unions.

The related idea from 1 Enoch that God sent the flood to clean up the mess instigated by these rebellious angels and to eliminate the

Nephilim falls flat. Genesis 6 states that there were Nephilim after the flood also.

This idea of divine human mating says that the Nephilim were around after the flood because these fallen angels continued to have relations with Noah's female offspring.

Wouldn't this imply that God wiped out almost all life on earth for nothing if these angels were just going to keep on having sex with human women?

Was God so inept that he couldn't defeat the rebellion of these angels, especially since they allegedly continued procreating once the earth was repopulated with human women?

This exposes an internal inconsistency in the theory. 1

Enoch says God had the rebellious angels captured and chained in darkness to await their judgment.

If the angels were locked up and could no longer mate with human women, how did they appear again to seduce women after the flood?

The reality set forth in the text is simply that the Nephilim lived at the same time when the sons of God were marrying the daughters of men.

The Bible doesn't say where the Nephilim came from nor exactly what they were.

The fact that Nephilim appeared after the flood, see Numbers 13 .33, shows that the word is not ethnic.

It most likely simply refers to giants, though scholars still dispute the exact meaning of the word

Nephilim. Everyone after the flood, including giants, you can think of Goliath, was a descendant of Noah, not some sort of hybrid offspring.

Is it even possible for angels to procreate? There is no evidence whatsoever in the

Bible suggesting that angels can reproduce. There is no example, statement, or necessary inference.

When God ordered creation, he designed both plants and animals to reproduce after their own kind.

It's common knowledge that plants and animals of different kinds cannot reproduce. Likewise, there is no evidence that angels would be able to reproduce with different kinds, that is, humans.

In fact, the evidence is fairly conclusive that angels can't reproduce at all.

In the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Matthew 22 .30 Jesus plainly says angels do not marry.

Those who believe in divine human mating point out that it is the angels in heaven who do not marry, and therefore

Jesus said nothing about the mating habits of angels who left heaven. Well, fair enough.

I think that's a real stretch, but still, the burden of proof falls on them to show that angels can procreate, because the

Bible never teaches this idea. The Bible simply doesn't support the idea that humans and angels married and produced a race of hybrid giants.

At first glance, it may appear that Genesis 6 verses 1 through 4 suggests this, but when we read the passage very carefully, it's easy to see that it doesn't actually say any of this.

The proponents of the theory of divine beings mating with humans have allowed a genre of religious fiction written in the 3rd or the 2nd century

BC to dominate their view of Scripture. This is something we cannot allow ourselves to do if we're to draw valid conclusions from God's Word.

In an upcoming episode, we'll examine one more aspect of this topic.

We'll examine Jude and Peter's interaction with 1st Enoch. Thanks for listening to the podcast.

We hope this episode has deepened your understanding of Scripture. If you found this content valuable, please share it with your friends.

For more biblical studies, visit our website at ReadyForEternity .com. That's the word ready, the number four, and the word eternity.

ReadyForEternity .com. Be sure and leave a comment on the Ready for Eternity Facebook page or reach out on Twitter.

That's all for now. Keep studying your Bible, growing closer to God, and getting ready for eternity.