If we continue to be enslaved by this fear, it isn’t for lack of concern on God’s part, nor for lack of effort or weakness of strategy. Freeing you from this fear was in His mind when Christ came to earth taking on humanity, living out the war against sin victoriously, dying triumphantly over its grip.

This fear rests over mankind like a heavy wet blanket. It fills the lungs of man with its acrid particles; coats the landscape. Regardless of the bravado of some, it is a dreadful enemy, striking every man, woman, boy or girl. Industries are built upon it. Depression arises from it like a mist. The entertainment world levitates its viewers from it, then plunges them into it again because it remains the greatest of all shocks. We all will die and we all know it.
It must be the happiest news possible to hear that Jesus Christ did something about death in order to remove this fear. Read and be amazed:
“Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.” (Heb 2:14-15)
Read More

We can clearly say that Jude is aware of 1 Enoch (cf. Jude 14–15), and that if he has Genesis 6 in mind, which I will argue below, then he likely has the stories of 1 Enoch in mind too. This does not mean he accepts everything 1 Enoch says, but we can make the following observations. Both 1 Enoch and Genesis 6 report the same historical event, albeit 1 Enoch 6–16 has vastly more details. Without making a distinction, it appears that 1 Enoch and Genesis 6 inform Jude. Or at least, both books report how the sons of God fell, if we take sons of God in Genesis 6 to be angels, as the Alexandrian Text of Septuagint did. We do know that Jude relies on both the Old Testament and the pseudepigrapha. In that vein, he doesn’t make any qualifications, nor does he have to qualify one as Scripture and the other not. Instead, he cites these events assuming that his Jewish audience would know both.

In Genesis 6 we find the curious introduction to a group of people (?) called the Nephilim. In verse 4, the ESV reads, “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.”
Thus concludes one of the strangest passages in all the Bible. For centuries, the four verses that begin Genesis 6 have occasioned debate on whom the Nephilim are, who the sons of God are, who the daughters of man are, who the mighty men of old were, the men of renown, and how these characters all fit together. Are these all descriptions of human beings, sons and daughters of Adam? Or, is something more nefarious afoot? Are the sons of God fallen angels? And if so, who are their offspring?
To these questions and more, I will attempt to give an answer in this post and three more to come. Below, I will consider what it means for Christians to use extra-biblical sources, and how we can properly benefit from reading 1 Enoch. In the next post, I will lay out the options for reading Genesis 6, and explain the strengths and weaknesses of various positions. Then third, I will make a canonical argument for understanding the sons of God as fallen angels and the Nephilim/mighty men as giants. Fourth, I will draw some theological conclusions related to Genesis 6 but also to Christ and his rule over the cosmos.
Always Begin with the Bible
Whenever evangelicals read the Bible, we do so as heirs of a great tradition. Among other things, that tradition is summarized in two words: Sola Scriptura.
Going back to the Reformation, the Protestant heritage has prioritized the Word of God as the only inspired and authoritative revelation of God. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church which put the Apocrypha on the same level at the other sixty-six books of the Bible, Protestant confessions always set Scripture apart from the other books. As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, after delimiting the canon to sixty-six books,
The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings. (WFC 1.3)
This statement articulated in various ways by other Protestant confessions makes it clear that the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) is the source for all doctrine and the substance for all that God has revealed to his covenant people. And accordingly, when we study the Bible and formulate doctrine, the Bible has a special place. While studies investigating the language, history, and customs of the people surrounding God’s people, whether the Ancient Near East or Second Temple Judaism in the Greco-Roman world, Scripture itself is the first and final authority.
By consequence, we should strive to understand the Bible on its own terms. As Andy Naselli has framed it with respect to history and culture,
I can’t overstate how important this is. You can discover so much about the historical-cultural context by simply reading the text carefully. Never lose your anchor to this one text: the Bible. Everything else is supplementary. So in your zeal to understand the historical-cultural context, don’t neglect the one text that matters most. Give it preeminence. Read the text more often than you read any other. Let this text be supreme over all others.[1]
On this basis when we consider the various views related to Genesis 6, we should make our case for a given interpretation based upon what we find in text of Scripture, not outside of Scripture. That being said, there are ways that extra-biblical resources, understood to be non-inspired human writings, provide help in understanding the biblical text. As the Belgic Confession, Article 6, notes concerning the Apocrypha.
The church may certainly read these books and learn from them as far as they agree with the canonical books. But they do not have such power and virtue that one could confirm from their testimony any point of faith or of the Christian religion. Much less can they detract from the authority of the other holy books.[2]
While these statement does not directly apply to 1 Enoch, its sentiments do. The church has long recognized the importance of extra-biblical books that “agree with the canonical books.” And in fact, this point actually coheres with Naselli’s point above when read in the context of his own argument.
To speak personally for a minute, I found Naselli’s quotation when Graham Cole cited it in his book Against the Darkness: The Doctrine of Angels, Satan, and Demons.[3]Ironically, in a section describing evangelical theology and its engagement with extra-biblical resources, Cole only cited Naselli’s argument for the Bible; he said nothing of Naselli’s ongoing argument for other literature too. If he had, Cole would have found arguments for a wise and selective use of ancient literature that would be included in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.
Benefitting from Extra-Biblical Sources
To be sure, the faithful student of Scripture does not read the Bible alone, even if the Bible alone has magisterial authority. Rather, students of Scripture will also “use primary (extracanonical) Jewish sources,” as Naselli notes. That is to say, the man who is committed to Sola Scriptura does not read the Bible only, he reads everything else—including ancient sources—through the lens of God’s inspired word. This is the point that Andy was making when he prioritized Scripture among all the other ancient documents.[4]
Critically, Naselli states, “With that exhortation [to use the Bible] ringing in your ears, let’s survey two other categories of resources to understand the historical-cultural context.”[5] In light of Cole’s appropriation of Naselli to argue against the application of 1 Enoch to Genesis 6, the first “other category” includes the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, which is the classification where one finds 1 Enoch. Listing “six bodies of Jewish literature for New Testament studies” (e.g., OT Apocrypha, OT Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus, and Targums and Rabbinic Literature), Naselli makes this entry on the pseudepigrapha,
In a handful of cases, New Testament writers apparently display direct dependence on sources belonging to early Judaism and their handling of the Old Testament (e.g., Jude). What is to be inferred from such dependence?[6]
Interestingly, Naselli cites Jude, because of the epistle’s dependence on 1 Enoch. Continued in a footnote, he writes,
In addition to several possible allusions, Jude refers to two stories not taught in the Bible: the story of Michael’s dispute with the devil over Moses body in v. 9 (apparently from The Assumption of Moses, OT pseudepigrapha) and the prophecy of Enoch in v. 14-15 (from 1 Enoch 1:9, a Jewish writing from the OT pseudepigrapha). Some wrongly conclude from this that the standard set of OT books (i.e., the OT ‘canon’) was not fixed in Jude’s day. Yet Jude cites neither of these books as ‘Scripture, nor does he use traditional formulas to introduce them. He implies nothing about his view of the books in which the stories are found. He may cite them simply because they are well-known to his audience.”[7]
Read More
Related Posts:

The extent of the atonement should be determined by faithful readings of the Bible—thick readings, if you will, as opposed to thin readings of Scripture. Murray does that well, and all those who take up this doctrinal debate should read him and follow his exegetical method. 

For whom did Christ die? For all nations without distinction? For all persons without exception? For everyone? Or only for the elect?
In any doctrinal exposition of the cross of Christ, the question of the atonement’s extent (or intent) is necessary. And throughout church history, especially since the Protestant Reformation, a great debate has arisen in response to the question. That dispute has divided Calvinist from Arminian, Reformed from Wesleyan, and Particular Baptist from General Baptist—to name only a few. Thus, it is not possible in one blog—let alone in one book—to resolve all the difficulties, but it is possible to lay out some of the issues and a few of the exegetical debates.
To that end, I offer ten points from John Murray. His little book, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, provides a concise argument for the extent of the atonement that comes from a Reformed position. If I were writing a chapter on the extent atonement, I would do it differently, but I appreciate Murray’s commitment to biblical exegesis in his chapter. Even though he leaves many proof texts unchecked, what he does say sets his readers in the right direction. And for that reason I offer the following points from his chapter as a superb model for entering this debate.

Ten Arguments for Definite Atonement
1. Proof texts are not sufficient to prove the extent of the extent of the atonement.
John Murray begins his chapter highlighting a few verses which appear to support a universal atonement (i.e., that Christ died for all persons without exception). But quickly, he calls us to consider if isolated proof texts can adequately support the doctrine. He writes,
We are not to think, however, that the quotation of a few texts like these [Isa. 53:6; Heb. 2:9; 1 John 2:2] and several others that might be quoted determines the question. From beginning to end the Bible uses expressions that are universal in form but cannot be interpreted as meaning all men distributively and inclusively. Such words as “world” and “all” and such expressions as “every one” and “all men” do not always in Scripture mean every member of the human race. For example, when Paul says with reference to the unbelief of Israel, “For if their trespass is the riches of the world . . . how much more their fulness” (Rom. 11:12), are we to suppose that he meant that the trespass of Israel brought the riches of which he is speaking to every person who had been, is now, and ever will be in the world? Such an interpretation would make nonsense. The word “world” would then have to include Israel which is here contrasted with the world. And it is not true that every member of the human race was enriched by the fall of Israel. (59)
2. Universal language does not mean a universal atonement.
Closely connected to the point that we must read texts in context, Murray goes on to say that universal language does not automatically produce a doctrine of definite atonement.
So it will not do to quote a few texts from the Bible in which such words as “world” and “all” occur in connection with the death of Christ and forthwith conclude that the question is settled in favor of universal atonement. (61)
Proving his point, he appeals to Hebrews 2:9 (“so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone”) and its following context.
We can readily show the fallacy of this procedure in connection with a text like Hebrews 2:9. What provides the denotation of the “every one” in the clause in question? Undoubtedly the context. Of whom is the writer speaking in the context? He is speaking of the many sons to be brought to glory (ver. 10), of the sanctified who with the sanctifier are all of one (ver. 11), of those who are called the brethren of Christ (ver. 12), and of the children which God had given to him (ver. 13). It is this that supplies us with the scope and reference of the “every one” for whom Christ tasted death. Christ did taste death for every son to be brought to glory and for all the children whom God had given to him. But there is not the slightest warrant in this text to extend the reference of the vicarious death of Christ beyond those who are most expressly referred to in the context. This texts shows how plausible off-hand quotation may be and yet how baseless is such an appeal in support of a doctrine of universal atonement. (61)
The point Murray makes in this passage can be made throughout the New Testament, which means that universal language does not automatically result in a doctrine of universal atonement. More on this below.
3. Extent is the wrong question, intent is the right one.
Moving from the language of Scripture to the language of doctrine, he asks if the extent of the atonement is even the right question.
The question is not the relation of the death of Christ to the numerous blessings which those who finally perish may partake of in this life, however important this question is in itself and in its proper place.
The question is precisely the reference of the death of Christ when this death is viewed as vicarious death, that is to say, as vicarious obedience, as substitutionary sacrifice, and expiation, as effective propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption. In a word, it is the strict and proper connotation of the expression “died for” that must be kept in mind.
When Paul says that Christ “died for us” (1 Thess. 5:10) or that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3), he does not have in mind some blessing that may accrue from the death of Christ but of which we may be deprived in due time and which may thus be forfeited. He is thinking of the stupendous truth that Christ loved him and gave himself up for him (Gal. 2:20), that Christ died in his room and stead, and that therefore we have redemption through the blood of Christ. (62, emphasis mine)
4. Definite atonement does not deny universal, non-saving benefits.
Once we ask the right question, and ascertain the proper relationship between priest and new covenant people (my emphasis, not his), we can begin to see how the cross relates to the whole world, even to those who reject it or never hear about it.
The unbelieving and reprobate in this world enjoy numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died and rose again. The mediatorial dominion of Christ is universal. Christ is head over all things and is given all authority in heaven and in earth. It is within this mediatorial dominion that all the blessings which men enjoy are dispensed. But this dominion Christ exercises on the basis and as the reward of his finished work of redemption. “He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and given him the name that is above every name” (Phil. 2:8-9).
Consequently, since all benefits and blessings are within the realm of Christ’s dominion and since this dominion rests upon his finished work of atonement, the benefits innumerable which are enjoyed by all men indiscriminately are related to the death of Christ and may be said to accrue from it in one way or another. If they thus flow from the death of Christ they were intended thus to flow. It is proper, therefore, to say that the enjoyment of certain benefits, even by the non-elect and reprobate, falls within the design of the death of Christ. The denial of universal atonement does not carry with it the denial of any such relation that the benefits enjoyed by all men may sustain to Christ’s death and finished work. (61)
To those well-versed in argument for universal atonement, they will not readily accept this universal, non-saving benefit as logically consistent. But it is important to see that those who hold definite atonement do not deny a universal effects of the cross (see Colossians 1:20 and my theological exposition of that passage). What those like Murray deny is a universal procurement of salvation that does not actually save.
5. Christ’s redemption is effective. Glory! Hallelujah!
While advocates of universal atonement stress the greatness of the cross in terms of size and scope, advocates of definite atonement argue for its greatness in terms efficacy and design. All that God intended, he accomplished on the cross. To this point Murray asks the question, “What does redemption mean?” He answers,
Read More