Understanding Sin and Evil #4: Who Watches the Watchers?

In this episode, we will discuss the beginning of what is later known as the “Watchers myth”: the story of the mating of “bnei ‘elohim” with human women in Genesis 6:1-4.

What is the original biblical story actually about? Who were the nephilim? Tune in and find out!

Don’t forget to leave your comments and questions below.

33 Responses to "Understanding Sin and Evil #4: Who Watches the Watchers?"

Chris says:

January 16, 2016 at 4:55 am

Thank you for bringing some insight to this issue. My personal stance on the subject hasn’t really changed but it helps bring some clarity nonetheless.

Out of all the given explanations I’ve heard as to what this bit of Genesis means, I still can’t see any of them fitting as well as the angelic offspring explanation popular during 2nd temple times, despite that it’s the craziest-sounding one. I can just barely see how the judges interpretation might fit, but I don’t think it fits nearly as well with all the elements involved. As far as the Sethite-Cainite theory goes, I think it’s pretty ridiculous quite frankly.

So until I come across something that clearly contradicts the “watchers” theory from a scriptural standpoint, helps fit the judges theory better, or offers another theory that fits even better, I’m pretty much stuck with strange musings from the “watchers” interpretation.

It sure would be nice if we had more literature closer to the Exodus/Judges period to help explain this! It seems as if in Moses’s day, knowledge of this subject was taken for granted.
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  January 19, 2016 at 11:27 pm
  
  Thanks for your well thought-out comment, Chris! Yes, I’m pretty much with you – the clearest explanation is that the story is talking about divine beings/angels. Of course, the theological problem this creates for many of us today does not seem to be an issue in the original story.
  
  I’m also with you in wishing we could bring an “ancient” from back in the day to explain it all to us. But we probably wouldn’t believe him anyway… 😉
Lew says:

January 16, 2016 at 6:32 pm

I’ve never been able to agree that angelic beings were able to mate with human being, because of the created order of kinds and their specific designs. I could agree with it in the case of possession which in many cases have shown humans doing abnormal things. Would this explain the Elohim tag or description of this class of people?
Up untill this point sin was contained within individuals, now we begin to see it’s rapid growth in more than one or two people. It also seems to connect the spiritual fall with the physical, and their separation from the Creator.
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  January 19, 2016 at 11:30 pm
  
  Hi Lew,
  
  I really appreciate your comment, especially since it is such a great counterpoint to Chris’s comment above. In general, demonic possession does not exist in the same way in the Hebrew Bible or even in Second Temple literature as it does in, say, the Gospels (with one notable exception in the Dead Sea Scrolls which I hope to get to later in the series). Demons can trick, they can influence, but they don’t actually take over your body and control you.
  
  We will discuss more about the general “fall” of human kind in the Biblical context of Noah and the Flood later in this series. Stay tuned!
  1. Lee Templer says:
    
    January 21, 2016 at 11:28 pm
    
    My interest peaked, I downloaded the copy of the book of Enoch which I downloaded after listening to your interview with Nehemia Gordon on his latest wall post. I have a little more understanding of the perspective and the topic being discussed. I am enjoying this insight and the availability of you and Nehemia to learn more about the many unanswered questions that seem to clear over the heads of most of our local spiritual leaders in our assemblies. Thank you and look forward to the next post.
    1. Miryam Brand says:
      
      January 22, 2016 at 1:43 pm
      
      I’m glad you downloaded the book of Enoch, because that will be the topic of my next episode!
Marlon says:

January 22, 2016 at 4:13 pm

I’m grateful to you Dr. Brand for these exciting insights into the ancient views and concepts about the Tanakh. I’m looking forward to more and I’m sure so are others.
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  January 23, 2016 at 6:45 pm
  
  Thank you!
Steve. says:

January 23, 2016 at 2:56 am

Thanks for your podcasts – I’m enjoying them. Do you have any comment on the following…

Are there any linguistic, or geography clues who Anak was descended from? (i.e. Shem, Ham, orJapheth; Anak was in Canaan). If we knew this perhaps it would help us understand Gen 6:4 because the Nephilim were also descended from Anak (Num 13:33). The Flood story gives the impression that only Noah’s family survived the Flood, so Anak would be descended from one of these three families.

I have difficulty accepting that the ‘sons of God’ in Gen 6:4 definitely refers to angelic beings, which the following (rhetorical) questions illustrate. I don’t have a better answer myself, but wonder how scholars may have thought to answers these:
1. Were (or, are) angels/spiritual beings really able to produce sperm which can fertilise a human egg cell, with all its complex DNA structure?
2. If angels are able to, why are they not doing so now and still mating with women today?
3. Do angels really have physical or sexual attraction to human women? (which is what this interpretation of Gen 6:2 implies). Do angels actually desire to be married to, or at least have sexual union with woman? Are they in an eternal state of frustration if they’ve now been prohibited from doing so? Has God given angels an emotional nature which He’ll never allow to be satisfied?
4. Do angels marry or have union with each other in ‘heaven’ (or wherever they live) and the Gen 6 story just tells of a moment in history when they over-stepped the boundaries for a season?

On a different point, was the 120 years of Gen 6:3 God’s warning to Noah that He was going to judge mankind in 120 years , so He was giving him 120 years to build the ark and prepare for the Flood? This would explain why men continued to live much longer than 120 years after the Flood – it wasn’t a statement declaring what the new lifespan for men and women would be afterwards.

Thanks for any comments.
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  January 24, 2016 at 1:36 am
  
  Thanks for your comments, Steve. All the points you raise are good ones, and they are the reason why most traditions within Jewish and Christian interpretation reject the idea that these were actually angels.
  
  Regarding the 120 years – nice explanation! Your interpretation is close to at least one Second Temple interpretation (which I hope to get to next week) and almost exactly matches that of Rashi, a major medieval exegete, who explains that verse as giving humankind 120 years to repent before God will bring the Flood.
  1. Steve. says:
    
    February 7, 2016 at 8:24 pm
    
    Is it possible that the reference to the “sons of God” in Gen 6:2, 4 may be a reference to local city-state kings who were held to be ‘gods’ because that was the worldview of that period in history?
    
    For example, we read that:
    1. the king of Moab is referred to as a ‘son of god’ on the Moabite Stone, ie. “son of Chemosh”;
    2. Nebuchadnezzar considered himself to be a god (Jewish Enc.; cf. Dan 6:7);
    3. the human prince of Tyre saw himself as a god (Eze 28:2,9);
    4. the Pharaohs were regarded as incarnations of a god;
    5. people shouted of King Herod: “The voice of a god…!” (Acts 12:21-22);
    6. “the Most High gave to their nations their inheritance, when he… fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (Deut 32:8-9, ESV; drawn on in Acts 17:26-29; see also note in JPS Study Bible on Dt 32:8).
    
    Were these ‘sons of God’ just tyrannical city-state kings/bullies (like the ‘god’ Nebuchadnezzar)? They took cruel advantage (over their meeker fellow-man) of a genetic repeating abnormality in their pituitary glands which had caused them to grow very tall. (See medical explanations of gigantism; e.g. Robert Wadlow).
    1. Miryam Brand says:
      
      February 8, 2016 at 11:49 pm
      
      While this is certainly a valid interpretation of this story alongside the traditional “judges” interpretation, it still leaves us to wonder who the “daughters of man” were and why this mating would lead to unusual offspring. Of course, I am hardly an expert on the pituitary gland. 😉
2. Ricky Gray says:
  
  January 27, 2016 at 5:11 am
  
  If Anak was a Canaanite then that would make him a descendant of Ham.
  1. Ricky Gray says:
    
    January 27, 2016 at 5:27 am
    
    Why was Canaan cursed by Noah when it was his father Ham that saw the nakedness of his father Noah? Did Ham’s wife carry Nephilim DNA and passed it down to Canaan and eventually to Anak?
    1. Miryam Brand says:
      
      January 29, 2016 at 2:25 pm
      
      That’s a difficult question without an easy solution, but I wouldn’t go the DNA route. 😉
Gabri'el says:

January 23, 2016 at 6:27 am

Messengers (angels) are spirit beings. They are not fleshly beings.
They have no reproductive organs, or any other fleshly body parts.
Therefore, they cannot have offspring.
Daniel Herman says:

January 23, 2016 at 6:54 pm

This is great! My wife and I are LOVING, this series…it really helps to give more foundation and context to our understanding thus far. We will be sharing this with a lot of people, so thank you again for making your perspective so accessible. Great work Dr! Please continue in this format, you “translate” to the “rest of us” VERY well! Three thumbs up.
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  January 23, 2016 at 9:55 pm
  
  Thank you so much!
Jim Seward says:

January 29, 2016 at 7:09 pm

Hi Dr. Brand. That was a really fascinating point near the end about the Ayin and Tsade switch. Could you spell this out for me? Thank you.

Also I note that Daniel 4:13 has “watcher” for angel.
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  February 1, 2016 at 11:19 pm
  
  Hi Jim,
  
  Ayin and Tsade can reflect the same protosemitic sound, which in some languages became ayin and in others became tsade. So we have ar’ah (that is, aleph-resh-ayin-aleph – ארעא) meaning “land” in Aramaic while eretz (aleph-resh-tsade ארץ) means land in Hebrew. Thus, tsir ציר meaning messenger in Hebrew (which is the meaning of both the Hebrew mal’ach and the Greek angelos) could have become ‘ir עיר in Aramaic meaning angel/messenger. A secondary explanation of this term thought up by Second Temple Jews could then hinge on the ‘er ער “awake” – the angels never sleep, and so are “watchers.”
  
  Yes, Daniel 4:13 (4:14 in the Hebrew Bible), which is in Aramaic, has עירין ‘irin for angels, and in fine Second Temple tradition this could be translated as “watchers.” 🙂
  1. Jim Seward says:
    
    February 3, 2016 at 10:56 pm
    
    Hi, and thank you. I’ve noticed that 1 Enoch (the Parables) refers to angelic beings as ones who do not sleep (39:12, 13; 61:12; 71:7), which is like what Revelation 4:8 describes (“and they rest not day and night” KJV).
    1. Miryam Brand says:
      
      February 3, 2016 at 10:57 pm
      
      Exactly. 🙂
Charles says:

May 5, 2016 at 3:38 pm

Dr. Bland, thanks for systematically leading us on this journey. It seems to me that almost all of the historical traditions of biblical interpretation have definitely NOT watched the Watchers regarding the influences of sin and evil upon humanity. Now, my question is, Who or what beguiled the Watchers; was it an external source, or was it an evil thought contrived in their own mind?
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  May 5, 2016 at 11:43 pm
  
  Hi Charles,
  
  Enoch gives different explanations for the different groups, although the main group of Watchers (in Enoch at least) is motivated by wanting to have children. Interestingly, your question is almost directly addressed in the Damascus Document (of the Qumran community), which portrays the Watchers as sinning because they followed their own will rather than God’s commandments. I will address this question more in-depth when I address the idea of an “evil inclination” in a few episodes.
Rion Clark says:

May 7, 2016 at 4:19 am

I love your reading in Hebrew still don’t know it though. The understanding of these scriptures Gen.6:1-4 seem to have only one possible meaning. First Adam also male & female called (named) character (red dirt). Then after listing the generations from Adam thru Noah’s son Shem year 1 thru 1558 birth of Shem
also death of Lamech 5 years before the flood year 1651 & Methuselah’s death
7 days before the flood on 2/17/1656 after the formation of Adam. (Though the year is absolute the Hebrew month and day may not be in direct correlation with the formation of Adam. Needs 2 or 3 witnesses not man only the father.)
Eve was not yet from the womb of man (woman) not formed until after Adam
had the breath of life after he was “taken” to Eden or 5 years before being taken to Eden so the fruit would be good from the trees. Enoch was born 622 years from formation of Adam. 600 years is always a sign I think. So 600 years after Adam was taken to Eden Enoch was born. A renewed beginning? Then 57 years
after Adam died Enoch was taken. To China? Lamech was born 56 years before Adam died showing when the fruit of good & evil was eaten and when he was expelled from Eden. So another renewed beginning 1056 birth of Noah 600 years later flood another beginning and end. So Adam was the first son of Elohim
the others male & female were sons of Elohim (& woman of man?) Renowned (different) being without navel also breath of life? So the Nephilim were sons of Elohim like Adam formed on the sixth day taught what was food etc. So destroyed all Adams that day. 1000 years 930 years of life less 70 years for birth
of Cain and Able twins. Again correlates with more than 2 or 3 witnesses. All proven by the Aleph and Tav? Gen.1:1 ax heaven (upheld) yax earth. Love your work Miryam shalom.
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  July 4, 2016 at 8:28 am
  
  Hi Rion. I’m not sure what your chronology is pointing to, but I will tell you that in the Jewish tradition, there is a lot of significance given to the 10 generations from Adam to Noah and the 10 generations from Noah to Abraham.
  
  Thanks for listening!
  Miryam
briannaandchris2017.com says:

May 31, 2017 at 11:38 am

Grigori and the fallen angels by stating that in fifth heaven, Enoch sees “the giants whose brothers were the fallen angels.
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  May 31, 2017 at 10:27 pm
  
  It looks like part of your comment was cut out. Do you have a question?
Derek Collins says:

November 2, 2017 at 4:54 am

Hi Miryam, I am a Christian (though no longer an orthodox Christian) and stumbled upon this podcast series as I am studying the idea of Satan and demons. Just wanted to say thank you for doing this and I have enjoyed the information so far.

Btw, I am not a proponent of the “Watcher theory.” I see a consistent theme running through Scripture when God’s people begin to look outside faith boundaries for marriage, even into the NT. It creates stumbling blocks.
Sarah says:

May 13, 2020 at 7:04 pm

Hello. Love this series! Didn’t Wiseman pose the tablet theory for some of the oldest texts that were edited and compiled into the Hebrew narrative? I know this theory lacks credence to most scholars because of how deeply invested we’ve been in the documentary hypothesis, but I don’t think these theories are at odds with each other. Sumerian was still a “educated” language long after it fell from daily speech and these tales from the same region no doubt were a source for compiling Israel’s narrative, perhaps for different reasons by the various authors and editors. So I wonder if it is safe in this instance to also compare “sons of god” to the Epic of Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh goes on rampages where he leaves no daughter to her mother. It is true the ancients don’t have trouble mixing up some demigods, but we can also see how differing politic situations and human migration could play a role in the labels.
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  June 17, 2020 at 7:33 pm
  
  Hi Sarah, I’m glad you’re enjoying it!
  Many scholars compare Biblical narratives with ancient epics like Gilgamesh or the Enuma Elish, and they would have no problem comparing the “sons of god” here with contemporary myths.
  I personally think that the account of the “sons of god” as we have it is a response to these stories rather than simply a parallel, and a way of reframing demigod myths that were known by the Hebrew Bible’s original audience.
Charlie says:

July 8, 2020 at 6:16 am

Hi – thank you for this great series! My question is about the meaning of the letters in the Hebrew word Nelphilim. (I don’t speak Hebrew so the rest of this is from google searches):

This site indicates that Nephilim is spelled
נְפִל
http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/5303.html

And the meaning of the letters are:

Ancient Name: Nun
Pictograph: Sprouting Seed
Meanings: Continue, Heir, Son
https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/ancient-alphabet/nun.htm

Ancient Name: Kaph
Pictograph: Open Palm
Meanings: Bend, Open, Allow, Tame
https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/ancient-alphabet/kaph.htm

Ancient Name: Lam?
Pictograph: Shepherd Staff
Meanings: Teach, Yoke, Bind, Toward
https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/ancient-alphabet/lamed.htm

My understanding (via David Abram’s writing) is that ancient Hebrew letters functioned similar to Chinese characters, in that the individual meanings of the letters combined to form the meaning of the word.

So in this case, it would be

Continue, Heir, Son
Bend, Open, Allow, Tame
Teach, Yoke, Bind, Toward

I guess my question is: would the individual letter meanings have been part of the Second Temple era interpretation of Genesis?

Thank you!
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  July 21, 2020 at 8:17 am
  
  Hi Charlie,
  
  Hebrew letters are used alphabetically, like English letters. Words are formed based on the sounds of the letters, not their meaning. Just as you would not interpret a Greek word according to the original meaning of alpha, beta, etc., Jews (or Israelites, for that matter) would not interpret Hebrew words in this manner. However, Jews of the Second Temple period could well have looked at the root of the word “nephilim” which would seem to be n-ph-l, meaning “to fall.”
  
  Perhaps you are referring to the way that the Hebrew letters (or the Phoenician letters they were based on) were chosen to reflect specific sounds. For example, as the word “aleph” in Hebrew is a bull, the first letter of “bull” was originally written to look like a bull’s head, and called “aleph.” The letter “bet” originally resembled a house (beit/bayit) and makes the sound “b.” Now, of course, the letters have evolved so few of them still resemble their original form.
  
  Looking forward to your future comments!

Comments are closed.

Share this:

Related