Men Increase, Wickedness Increases (6:1-8)

“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” (1 Enoch 6:1-2).[1]

With this brief text I introduce to you the pseudepigraphal writing of 1 Enoch, from likely the 2nd or 3rd century BC. In so doing, we hear this pseudonymous author’s understanding of Genesis 6. Let me read the text in Genesis.

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. The Lordsaw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. (Genesis 6:1–8).

In Genesis 6, Moses unfolds a rather intriguing, near mythical, story of potentially angels procreating with women and producing the Nephilim and producing extreme wickedness on the earth resulting in a worldwide flood. Pretty amazing stuff! However, just like the first couple chapters of Genesis, we could potentially get lost in the weeds and lose the main point of the chapter. We need to acknowledge the challenges in the chapter, but let’s acknowledge up front the main point and keep that main point in front of us.

Purpose statement. Mankind devolves into increased wickedness, resulting in judgment and destruction. However, God extends grace to those who believe in him, resulting in godly behavior. Let me offer this more succinctly. God judges sin. God provides salvation. God expects obedience.

Context of Genesis 6

Assumptions from chapter five. As we come to chapter six, let’s draw some logical assumptions from the flow of chapter five. (1) Without the first verse in chapter six, we would logically conclude from the statements made in chapter five that there were a lot of people on the earth. Each father in the genealogy sired a son but then had additional “sons and daughters.” Therefore, there were a lot of men and women on the earth. (2) The emphasis on sons being born in chapter five may explain why Moses acknowledges “daughters were born to them” in 6:1. (3) However, we are not told to which genealogical line these daughters belong (whether Seth or Cain). A lot of speculation surrounds this point. Willem Van Gemeren determines the daughters of man “cannot be limited to the genealogy of Seth or Cain. They are the daughters of man. They belong to the category of human beings of the feminine gender.”[2]For now, let’s draw no conclusions as to the meaning of the “daughters of man.” We can, however, assume from the content of chapter five, there were a lot of men and women on the earth.

Obvious conclusions from chapter six. Now let’s draw some obvious conclusions from the first few verses of chapter six. (1) These women were attractive. This does not necessarily mean the “sons of God” chose these wives solely based on their beauty, but their beauty seems to be a prominent motivation. (2) The fact that the “sons of God” were taking “any they chose” likely indicates lust drove their decisions more than the value or quality of the women themselves. John Calvin concludes with certainty that the “sons of God” were described by “the violent impetuosity of their lust … the sons of God did not make their choice from those possessed of necessary endowments, but wandered without discrimination, rushing onward according to their lust.”[3]Van Gemeren disagrees and thinks a conclusion involving lust “introduces an idea foreign to the text and prejudges the case.”[4] (3) The fact the “sons of God” took any they chose likely assumes polygamy. Plenty of corruption surrounds this scenario requiring no additional corruption to make Moses’ point, however, the text seems to allow if not imply polygamy of some kind. (4) The first four verses of chapter six lead to “the wickedness of man being great on the earth” in verse five. What exactly happened in the first four verses that indicate wickedness? Besides the potential lust and polygamy going on (which is prevalent today), what else is wrong? Are the Nephilim inherently wrong? What about the men of renown? What did they do? Did the line of Seth intermarry with the line of Cain, producing an impure line within God’s promised line? Whatever the terms mean in the first four verses, they must indicate some form of corruption.

Challenges in chapter six. Now let’s consider some things we likely don’t know and cannot easily draw conclusions about. (1) Who are “the sons of God” and “daughters of men”? (2) Does the 120 years refer to the average length of man’s life or the number of years before the flood? (3) Who or what are the Nephilim, the mighty men of old, the men of renown?

Let me narrow our conversation just a bit. The most challenging discussion in this chapter surrounds the identification of “sons of God” and “daughters of man.” Regarding the 120 years, either this length indicates the length of time God determined to give the world to repent[5], or more likely, due to the wickedness of mankind, God limits the length of man’s life to around 120 years.[6] Additionally, one’s understanding of the Nephilim or “mighty men of old” primarily rests upon the interpretation of “sons of God” and “daughters of man.” If the “sons of God” are real people then the Nephilim are most likely men who possessed immense power and position. If the “sons of God” were angelic beings, the Nephilim most likely are a legendary giants.

We could easily get lost in the weeds in the discussions presented in Genesis 6. However, we are going to briefly look at the primary interpretations of “sons of God” and “daughters of man.”

Sons of God & Daughters of Man: three views [7]

(1) The “sons of God” are earthly rulers who hold inordinate power and gather to themselves harems of women. If “sons of God” identify kings or powerful rulers, the divine punishment on mankind makes more sense. However, the term “sons of God” finds little evidence in Ancient Near Eastern literature to reference kings or rulers.

(2) The “sons of God” are the Sethites and the “daughers of man” are the Cainites. [8] This interpretation makes the most sense following the two previous chapters’ two distinct lines of genealogies. Additionally, this position bypasses the problem of angelic beings procreating with women – an idea most of us would reject. [Although, scripture is silent on angel’s ability for sex. Scripture does say angels are not given in marriage, but this does not necessitate a sexual inability (Matt 22:29-30). Humans are not married in heaven but are presently able to have sex.] And, also makes sense of the fact that God’s punishment is dispensed on humans. However, this interpretation requires “man” to be taken generally and specific to the line of Seth in verse 2. Typically, an author does not shift between different meanings for the same word in the same context. This view also struggles to take into consideration the New Testament text that connect to this passage.

(3) The “sons of God” are angelic beings who mate with women. By far, this is the weirdest interpretation, although also the most prominent. Steven Cole summarized well the general feel of many commentators and pastors regarding this view as he wrote, “it is incredible and makes the Bible sound like Greek mythology to say that demons take on bodies and produce offspring with human women!”[9] Yet, I also appreciate Van Gemeren’s opening line in his article on this passage. He writes, “Why does the theology in which creation, miracles, the miraculous birth and resurrection of Jesus have a place, prefer a rational explanation of Genesis 6:1-4?”[10]

Even so, Old Testament authors often use the term “sons of God” to refer to angelic beings (eg. Ps 29:1, 89:7; Job 1:6). Additionally, most scholars support the identification of “sons of God” to be angelic beings. And most significantly, other biblical and extrabiblical texts suggest or conclude this interpretation (1 Enoch, Jubilees, Peter, Jude). However, why would mankind be punished for the sins of angelic beings?[11]

So then, given three interpretations, which one should we conclude? Given just the context of Genesis 6, I would most likely conclude that “the sons of God” were human men, maybe kings but more likely the men in the line of Seth. Moses sets up a contrast between two genealogies – between the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain. It follows best that Genesis 6 would continue the discussion on these two genealogical lines. If so, the problem would likely have been the intermarrying between the godly and ungodly lines.

However, a few New Testament passages must be considered as well that complicate the discussion.

Three New Testament Texts

1 Peter 3:18-20

Peter writes a word of encouragement in his first epistle to the persecuted and exiled Christians spread throughout Asia Minor. Within this epistle we find one of the most complicated passages to exegete in the New Testament, 1 Peter 3:19-20.[12] Martin Luther wrote in his commentary on First Peter, “A wonderful text is this, and a more obscure passage perhaps than any other in the New Testament, so that I do not know for a certainty just what Peter means.”[13] Although challenging, I believe Peter offers one of the most encouraging passages to believers (specifically suffering and persecuted believers) of the great victory accomplished through the death of Christ.

Peter writes, “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water” (1 Pe 3:18–20).

We desire to better understand the passage in Genesis, so let us not stray to far into the challenges of 1 Peter – which would be extremely easy to do. Let me quickly acknowledge some of the challenges. (1) What did Christ proclaim? The gospel or a declaration of victory? (2) To whom did Christ make this proclamation? Peter says Christ proclaimed to “spirits.” Were these “spirits” human beings (OT saints or unbelievers) or demons? (3) When did Christ make this proclamation? During the time of Noah or following his death?

In attempting to answer all these questions, we could provide a host of varied opinions. Wayne Grudem offers a thorough discussion in which he identifies five primary interpretations. [14] Joel Green concisely proposes two primary interpretations. (1) “These are the disembodied spirits of Noah’s contemporaries who perished in the flood and have been kept in prison in Hades.” If so, Christ would have declared the gospel to these bound souls. Let me add an additional interpretation like the first. A pre-incarnate Christ or Christ through Noah (Grudem’s view) [15] proclaimed the gospel to the people of Noah’s day. (2) Secondly, “[t]he imprisoned spirits are the fallen angels of Gen 6:1–6 who were responsible for bringing upon the whole earth the Great Flood and were therefore imprisoned … The majority view favors this second option.”[16] In his very concise overview of these two views, Richard Bauckham appears to accept (along with R. T. France[17] and Edward Selwyn[18]) the view that the spirits are fallen angels who “disobeyed God by descending to earth, mating with women, and teaching humanity evil practices. Thus they were responsible for the corruption of humanity which led to the Flood.”[19]

Many factors and word studies could (and probably should) be teased out for a more thorough interpretation; however, let me just draw your attention to a few extra-biblical sources and two additional biblical passages that support the view that “the sons of God” in Genesis 6 are most likely angelic beings.

Let me draw your attention to three extrabiblical sources. None of these offer any inspired evidence to this discussion, but they do seem to play a role in both how Jews understood Genesis 6 and how Peter’s recipients might have understood his discussion about Christ proclaiming something to spirits in prison connected to the days of Noah.

Testament of Naphtali 3:5. In like manner the Watchers also changed the order of their nature, whom the Lord cursed at the flood, on whose account He made the earth without inhabitants and fruitless.[20]

Jubilees 10:5. And Thou knowest how Thy Watchers, the fathers of these spirits, acted in my day: and as for these spirits which are living, imprison them and hold them fast in the place of condemnation, and let them not bring destruction on the sons of thy servant, my God; for these are malignant, and created in order to destroy.[21]

Baruch 56:12-15. 12 And some of them descended, and mingled with the women. 13 And then these who did so were tormented in chains. 14 But the rest of the multitude of the angels, of which there is 〈no〉 number, restrained themselves. 15 And those who dwelt on the earth perished together (with them) through the waters of the deluge.[22]

1 Enoch 6-16. 6:1-2 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.’ … 7:1 And all the others together with them 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 … 8:2 And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways … 10:1-2 Then said the Most High, the Holy and Great One spake, and sent Uriel to the son of Lamech, and said to him: ‘Go to Noah and tell him in my name “Hide thyself!” and reveal to him the end that is approaching: that the whole earth will be destroyed, and a deluge is about to come upon the whole earth, and will destroy all that is on it…. 10:11 Go, bind Semjâzâ and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them in all their uncleanness.[23]

Philo, the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher (20 BC – 50 AD), offers his opinion to the meaning of Genesis 6. In addressing the giants in Genesis 6, he writes of how Moses “relates that these giants were sprung from a combined procreation of two natures, namely, from angels and mortal women.”[24]

Given the manner in which Peter connects these imprisoned spirits with the days of Noah and the extra biblical literature offering a potential first century backdrop, it seems most likely that Peter points to Genesis 6 and believes the “sons of God” and the “daughters of man” were angels and human women.

2 Peter 2:4-6

Of much more significance, let us now consider two passages that further connect us to both 1 Peter and Genesis 6. In his second epistle, Peter warns the believers of the false prophets that “arose among the people” (2 Pe 2:1). He goes on warn the believers from following these false teachers that will ultimately come to condemnation. He then offers examples in which God meted out judgment on those who followed in their own paths: the angels, the flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah. Peter writes the following:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly (2 Pe 2:4–6).

While commentators typically present these verses as including three examples of judgment[25] potentially only two periods of time are offered as examples; (1) the period in which angels and mankind were judged but Noah was spared and (2) Sodom and Gomorrah were judged but Lot was spared.

Jude 6-7

Similarly, Jude mentions these two periods of time and the judgment meted out by God. In this case, Jude more closely connects the event with the angels and the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah with no mention of Noah and the flood. He writes:

And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 6–7).

The similarities between Jude and 1 Enoch are notable. I am uncomfortable concluding that Jude quoted Enoch or relied in anyway on it. However, notable commentators do draw such a conclusion. Peter Davids writes, “Jude is clearly dependent upon the form found in 1 Enoch, not least because he explicitly cites this work in vv. 14–15, but also because of the close parallels between Jude 6 and the account in 1 Enoch 6–19.”[26] Schreiner as well concludes “we know from vv. 14–15 that Jude was influenced by 1 Enoch, and 1 Enoch goes into great detail about the sin and punishment of these angels.[27]

Conclusion

Genesis six confronts us with a challenging and awkward biblical story. Easily we get lost in speculative discussions about the meaning of “sons of God” and “daughters of man.” Discussions about Nephilim and men of renown. And in getting lost, I think we miss the larger picture and the foundation for any application.

First, God judges sin. While God displays his patience in giving people time to repent and continues to shower his blessings on them through means of general grace, God does not allow sin to forever go unchecked or undealt with. God judges sin.

In Genesis, God sees the pervasive wickedness of mankind and sends a flood.

In his first epistle, Peter acknowledges the imprisonment of spirits and discusses the destruction of the flood due to disobedience (1 Pe 3:19-20a).

In his second epistle, Peter acknowledges how angels were chained in gloomy darkness because of sin, the ancient world was destroyed because of their sin, and Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their sin – especially the sin of lust and despising authority (2 Pe 2:4–10).

Similarly, Jude points to the destruction of Egypt for their lack of belief, the imprisonment of the angels for leaving their proper dwelling and despising authority and Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction due their sexual immorality and unnatural desires (Jude 5-7).

Note in this passage how Jude seems to liken the sin of the angels to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. He writes, “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewiseindulged in sexual immorality.” Like who? The angels?

Jude goes on to further describe God’s judgment. He writes in verses 14-16, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him” (Jude 14–16).

Secondly, God preserves his people. In Genesis, God extended salvation to mankind in an Ark. Throughout the New Testament passages, God extends salvation to mankind in Christ – the substance and fulfillment of Noah’s Ark. Believers are placed into Christ, and in Christ we weather the storm of God’s wrath against sin. To be saved from God’s wrath, we must be in the ark – which is Jesus Christ.

In his first epistle, by means of a couple really challenging verses, Peter connects the salvation of Noah and his family in the ark to the salvation that believers now experience in Christ.

After acknowledging the imprisoned spirits, Peter discusses God’s patience “in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pe 3:20–21).

We likely stumble on the phrase “baptism … now saves you.” We cannot take the necessary time to work through this passage at length. So then, let me offer a very quick and likely insufficient explanation. Note how quickly Peter offers a caveat to his statement about baptism saving you. He immediately follows that statement with “not as removal of dirt from the body” but instead “as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pe 3:21).

Amid the flood, the water was the visible display of God’s wrath. The water did not save them. The ark saved them from the water which was God’s wrath. In the same way Noah was immersed in the Ark, resulting in being spared from God’s wrath, we must be immersed in Christ to be spared from God’s wrath. Therefore, baptism does save you. More specifically, being immersed (or baptized) into Christ now saves you.[29]

In his second epistle, Peter once again acknowledges Noah, a herald of righteousness, being preserved with seven others (2 Pe 2:5). Lot was preserved from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Pe 2:7). And then Peter draws a timeless principle. “The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials (2 Pe 2:9).

After addressing the destruction brought on by the false teachers, Jude exhorts believers to “keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life” (Jude 21).

Therefore, given these two theological statements, we draw two initial points of application. First, do not undermine the significance and destructive power of your sin. God may not have fully addressed or judged your sin yet, but a day is coming in which your sin will be condemned and judged. However, secondly, in Christ provides to us an Ark of salvation. Repent of your sins and accept Christ to avoid God’s wrath against your sin.

Finally, the connected New Testament passages offer an additional point of application. We have avoided God’s wrath because we have been baptized into the body of Christ – our Ark of salvation. Therefore, how should we live? Both Peter and Jude exhort godly living due to our salvation.

In his first epistle, Peter exhorts believers to arm themselves with the way Christ thought who “ceased from sin, so as to live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for human passions but for the will of God” (1 Pe 4:1). Therefore we should not live like the Gentiles, “living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry” (1 Pe 4:3). Instead be “be self-controlled and sober-minded … Above all, keep loving one another earnestly … Show hospitality to one another … serve one another … in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (1 Pe 4:7-11).

Peter asks a similar question in his second epistle. After encouraging and reminding these persecuted believers of how God knows how to spare the righteous, Peter then asks the question, “what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness” as you wait the coming of the Lord in which God’s wrath will be displayed (2 Pe 3:11). Peter concludes, “beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace” (2 Pe 3:14).

Jude draws a similar application. “[H]ave mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear” (Jude 22–23).

Resources

Bauckham, Richard, ed. “Spirits in Prison.” In The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, 177–78. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Clines, David J A. “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode (Genesis 6:1-4) in the Context of the ‘Primeval History’ (Genesis 1-11).” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 4, no. 13 (August 1979): 33–46.

France, R. T. “Exegesis in Practice: Two Samples.” In New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, edited by I. Howard Marshall, 252–81. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997.

Grudem, Wayne A. “Christ Preaching Through Noah: 1 Peter 3:19-20 in the Light of Dominant Themes in Jewish Literature.” In 1 Peter: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988.

Murray, John. “The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men (Genesis 6:1-4).” In Principles of Conduct : Aspects of Biblical Ethics, 243–49. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 1957.

VanGemeren, Willem A. “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 (An Example of Evangelical Demythologization).” The Westminster Theological Journal 43, no. 2 (1981): 320–48.

Footnotes

[1] R. H. Charles, ed., Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 191–94. [2] Willem A Van Gemeren, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 (An Example of Evangelical Demythologization),” The Westminster Theological Journal 43, no. 2 (1981): 332–33. [3] Calvin and King, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, 239. [4] Van Gemeren, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6,” 332. I understand Van Gemeren’s point and to some degree agree with him. However, in taking the three New Testament passages into consideration, I conclude the sin in this moment seems to be primarily characterized by lust. [5]A position held by Keil and Delitzch (Jerome, Augustine, Luther – Hamilton, Wenham). They write, “this means, not that human life should in future never attain a greater age than 120 years, but that a respite of 120 years should still be granted to the human race. This sentence, as we may gather from the context, was made known to Noah in his 480th year, to be published by him as “preacher of righteousness” (p. 86). [6]I found fewer commentators offering this opinion. Both Westermann and Mathews drew this conclusion, primarily based on the context addressing the mortality of mankind and the punishment extending to all mankind. Mathews writes, “Yet the issue of human mortality in 6:1–4, as we have seen it in continuum with the garden tōlĕdōt (2:7, 17; 3:6, 17–24), recommends we take the 120 years as the shortening of life. Since 6:3 concerns God’s judgment against all humanity (ʾādām) and a period of grace would affect only one generation, it is better to take the 120 years as a reference to human life span.” [Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11, CCS (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994), 376; Mathews, Genesis 1-11, 1a:335.] [7]David Clines offers what I found to be the most concise overview of the varied views of “sons of God” and “daughters of man.” [David J A Clines, “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode (Genesis 6:1-4) in the Context of the ‘Primeval History’ (Genesis 1-11),” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 4, no. 13 (August 1979): 33–34.] [8]Van Gemeren’s synopsis of John Murray’s study. (1) The divisions of "the daughters of man" and "the Sons of God" are drawn from the human family. (2) The genealogies given in chapter 4 (the family of Cain) and in chapter 5 (the family of Seth) provide the background for the distinctions of "daughters of men" and "Sons of God." (3) The phrase "the Sons of God" also applies to human beings and applies properly to the godly family of Seth. (4) Scripture is silent on the sexual functions of angels or demons. (5) The phrase "and they took wives for themselves" is the Hebrew idiom for a legal marriage relationship and can hardly refer to an unnatural relationship. (6) The judgment is inflicted on men (6:3), not on angels. (7) The nephilim are not necessarily the offspring of the intermarriage between the sons of God and the daughters of men. [Van Gemeren, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6,” 334; John Murray, “The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men (Genesis 6:1-4),” in Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 1957), 243–49.] See Appendix H for John Murray’s study. [9] Steven Cole, “Lesson 14: Sin’s Full Course (Genesis 6:1-8),” in Cole, Genesis. [10] Van Gemeren, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6,” 320. [11]Keil and Delitzsch hold to this view and discuss it at length. [Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 1:86.] [12]I conclude in my previous (poorly footnoted) study that Jesus proclaimed his victory to demonic beings in hell following his death, thereby also concluding that these demons were in hell due to their great offense spoken of in Genesis 6 when they impregnated “the daughters of man.” I offer a somewhat coherent summary of the views within this study. [Aaron Sturgill, Exploring First Peter (Grand Blanc, MI: Crowdedship, 2010), 129–33.] [13]Schreiner quotes Martin Luther. [Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 184.] [14] Grudem: Five Views. (1) When Noah was building the ark, Christ ‘in spirit’ was in Noah preaching repentance and righteousness through him to unbelievers who were on the earth then but are now ‘spirits in prison’ (people in hell). (2) After Christ died, he went and preached to people in hell, offering them a second chance of salvation. (3) After Christ died, he went and preached to people in hell, proclaiming to them that he had triumphed over them and their condemnation was final. (4) After Christ died, he proclaimed release to people who had repented just before they died in the flood, and led them out of their imprisonment (in Purgatory) into heaven. (5) After Christ died (or: after he rose but before he ascended into heaven), he travelled to hell and proclaimed triumph over the fallen angels who had sinned by marrying human women before the flood. [Wayne A Grudem, 1 Peter: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988), 212–13.] [15] Wayne A Grudem, “Christ Preaching Through Noah: 1 Peter 3:19-20 in the Light of Dominant Themes in Jewish Literature,” in 1 Peter: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988), 248. [16]Both Green and Grudem conclude the interpretation involves Christ proclaiming to people – not demons. However, they both acknowledge the dominant view to be Christ’s proclaiming victory to demons. While I could find some commentators holding this view, I would struggle concluding this was the prominent view. However, Grudem does offer a footnote including different proponents of this view. He writes: “This is probably the dominant view today, primarily because of the influence of Selwyn’s commentary, pp. 197–203, 314–362, and then of the detailed work by Dalton, esp. pp. 135–201. (Dalton sees the preaching as having occurred during an ‘invisible ascension’ of Christ on Easter Sunday morning, just after his appearance [John 20:17] to Mary in the Garden: see pp. 185–186.) Others who favour this view (but who place the preaching at various times, either before Christ’s resurrection, immediately after it, or at his ascension) include: Kelly, pp. 151–158; J. Fitzmyer, JBC, vol. 2, pp. 366–367; Stibbs/Walls, pp. 142–143; Blum, pp. 241–243; Leaney, pp. 50–52; France, pp. 264–281 (a good recent statement of this position).” [Joel B. Green, 1 Peter, Two Horizons (Grand Blanc, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: W. B. Eerdmans, 2007), 121–22; Grudem, “Christ Preaching Through Noah,” 213.] [17] R. T. France, “Exegesis in Practice: Two Samples,” in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, ed. I. Howard Marshall (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997), 268–78. [18] Edward Gordon Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter with Introduction, Notes, and Essays (London: Macmillan and Co., 1946), 197–203. [19] Richard Bauckham, ed., “Spirits in Prison,” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 177. [20]The Testament of Naphtali was identified among the Dead Sea Scrolls and considered to be part of the Jewish Greek Pseudepigrapha. [Charles, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 337 vol. 2.] [21]The Book of Jubilees is an ancient Jewish religious work considered canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and considered part of the pseudepigrapha by Protestants. [Charles, 28 vol. 2.] [22] Charles, 513. vol. 2. [23]The Book of Enoch is an ancient Hebrew apocalyptic text, ascribed to Noah’s great grandfather – Enoch. Likely, it was written in the 2nd or 3rdcentury BC. It carries no inherent value and proves no biblical point, however, it may offer a background source impacting how the early believers understood Peter’s letter. [Charles, 191–94.] [24] Philo of Alexander and Charles Duke Yonge, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 811. [25]Both Green and Schreiner accept Genesis 6 as referring to angels. However, others (such as Lenski) who reject this proposal, conclude that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are humans. Peter would then be offering three examples instead of two. [Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude, vol. 18, TNTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1987), 121–222; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 37:334; R. C. H Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude(Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1966), 309.] [26] Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, PNTC (W. B. Eerdmans, 2006), 49. [27]“Apparently Jude also understood Gen 6:1–4 in the same way. Three reasons support such a conclusion. First, Jewish tradition consistently understood Gen 6:1–4 in this way (1 En. 6–19; 21; 86–88; 106:13–17; Jub. 4:15, 22; 5:1; CD 2:17–19; 1QapGen 2:1; T. Reu.5:6–7; T. Naph. 3:5; 2 Bar. 56:10–14; cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.73). Second, we know from vv. 14–15 that Jude was influenced by 1 Enoch, and 1 Enoch goes into great detail about the sin and punishment of these angels.” [Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 37:448.]

We should note at this point that Judaism abandoned this interpretation of Genesis 6 as referring to angelic beings only after the time of R. Simeon b. Yohai (in the third-generation Tannaim, i.e., a.d. 130–60), insisting thereafter that the “sons of God” were human beings rather than angels. In Christian circles this interpretation of Genesis 6 as referring to angelic beings remained unanimous until the third century and continued until the fifth century (Bauckham). Thus the strangeness of the tradition to our ears does not mean that it was strange to Jude’s readers. [Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 49.] [29] Sturgill, Exploring First Peter, 135.