The Pretribulation

Rapture

Chuck Missler: Jesus' Strange Prediction Part 2

In this in-depth teaching, we explore one of the most debated passages in Scripture—Genesis 6—and its connection to Jesus’ warning that the last days would be “as the days of Noah.” Was the sin in Genesis 6 simply intermarriage between Sethites and Cainites, or was it something far more supernatural?

Key Topics Covered:

The angelic rebellion in Genesis 6 and the rise of the Nephilim
Why the “lines of Seth” theory doesn’t align with the biblical text
Insights from 2 Peter 2:4–5, 1 Peter 3:19–20, and Jude 6–7
The unique use of the Greek word Tartarus as a holding place for fallen angels
Historical evidence: Jewish literature, Josephus, the Septuagint, and the Early Church Fathers
How Augustine’s adoption of the Sethite theory shaped church tradition for centuries
Why understanding Genesis 6 is critical for interpreting Old Testament history and end-times prophecy

Discover why the Bible, early Jewish thought, and the New Testament all point to the angel view of Genesis 6—and why it matters for prophecy today.

#BibleProphecy #DaysOfNoah #Nephilim #EndTimes #Genesis6 #FallenAngels

2 Peter, 1 Peter 3 also has a reference—let’s keep it moving. I’ll just take the one in 2 Peter.

2 Peter says: “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell…” and the word he uses happens—that’s what it’s translated in English—happens to be Tartarus. I’ll come back to that. “…and delivered them under chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the old world, but saved Noah…” and he goes on.

Peter echoes the same thing that Jude says, but he adds a couple of insights: he ties it to the days of Noah.

These are angels that sinned. Where are they now? They are in a special holding place. They’re not in hell as we think of it—neither Sheol nor Gehenna—but someplace else, a place that Peter calls Tartarus.

The word Tartarus only appears here in the Greek New Testament. However, we know a lot about the word in Greek vocabulary. The word Tartarus is a Greek term for a dark abode of woe. It’s the pit of darkness of the unseen world. It shows up, for example, in Homer’s Iliad and is described as being as far below Hades as the Earth is below Heaven. This is not just a regular place—it’s someplace really special.

Now, I want to nail another alternative view down, because many people in this audience—probably, I will not ask for a show of hands—have been taught a different view of this passage. A very commonly taught view, and there are many outstanding, excellent authorities that happen to hold this view.

But I don’t. I no longer believe it’s very optional for us. Like many things in Scripture where good men can have different views, I think it’s important for you to consider for yourself the viability of the “lines of Seth” view.

Because unless you go the other way, there are many other things you won’t be able to understand. Let me just explain.

The “lines of Seth” view is that the term sons of God really refers to the faithful leadership of the Sethites. The daughters of Adam really refers to the daughters of Cain. They were supposed to be separate, and the sin involved is their failure to maintain separation.

There is no really good answer as to what the term Nephilim means by this view. That part doesn’t have a good response, but that’s the essence of the Sethite view: the sons of God are the good guys (Sethites), the daughters of men are the daughters of Cain, and their intermarriage produced offspring.

Well, there are some problems with this:

The text itself: the sons of God is never used of believers in the Old Testament. People who hold this view are misapplying New Testament passages.
Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. I’m not being cute—that’s effectively what this view imputes to the text.
There’s no mention of the daughters of Elohim.

There’s also a grammatical antithesis between sons of God and daughters of men. The structure is clear.

For example, in Psalm 82: “Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.” This antithesis shows up elsewhere in the Old Testament.

The “lines of Seth” view also infers separation, but that’s a fallacy because the separation of nations didn’t happen until Genesis 11. We’re in Genesis 6. The concept of separation was imposed later, beginning with Isaac—not beforehand. There’s no textual basis for it.

By the way, Ishmael was not told to be separate. Don’t assume Arabs today are descendants of Israel—they can’t prove it, because Israel never kept separate. Small point, but worth noting.

Furthermore, Genesis 6:12 indicts this view: “All flesh was corrupted.” It doesn’t say just one group was the problem.

The “lines of Seth” view also infers that the line of Seth was godly. But only Enoch and Noah’s eight were spared in the flood. That’s nine people—not a “godly line.”

Also, the text says the sons of God took wives of all whom they chose. That doesn’t sound like godly behavior—it sounds like coercion.

So why did the supposed godly Sethites all perish in the flood? That alone nails the coffin on this view.

Another point: Enosh, Seth’s son, is actually the one who initiated defiance of God. Most people don’t know this because of a mistranslation in most of our Bibles.

Genesis 4:25 doesn’t really mean “then men began to call upon the name of the Lord.” It really means “then men began to profane the name of the Lord.” The Targum of Onkelos, the Targum of Jonathan, Kimchi, Rashi, Jerome, and other authorities confirm this.

So the days of Enosh are when apostasy began—not godliness. That clouds the idea that the Sethites were the “good guys.”

Meanwhile, the text implies unnatural offspring—the Nephilim. Believers and unbelievers may marry and produce sinners, but they don’t produce monsters.

Also, the offspring are only described as men of renown, not women. That’s consistent with the angel view, not the Sethite view.

And why was Noah’s genealogy singled out as “perfect in his generations” in Genesis 6:9 if there wasn’t a contamination issue?

In the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter is established. As I already pointed out:

Jude 6–7
1 Peter 3:19–20
2 Peter 2:4–5

All corroborate the angel view. Even the unique Greek term Tartarus supports it.

So, to summarize:

The text itself contradicts the Sethite view.
The supposed separation is inferred, not textual.
Godliness of Sethites is assumed, not supported.
Canaanite subset is conjectural.
Offspring argument fails.
New Testament confirmation supports the angel view.

These are, in my mind, major indictments of the so-called “lines of Seth” view, although it is still widely taught.

But here’s what may surprise you: there are post-flood events in the Old Testament, and prophetic issues in the New Testament, that you will be blind to if you adhere to the Sethite view.

The angel view was the traditional view before the birth of Christ. It is reflected in:

The Book of Enoch
Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs
Josephus
The Septuagint
Early Church Fathers (Philo of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and many others)

The early Church believed in the angel view.

So where did the “line of Seth” idea begin? In the 5th century. Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the angel view to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus then introduced the Sethite theory as a more “comfortable” explanation. Cyril of Alexandria used it to repudiate the orthodox position.

The problem? Augustine picked it up. He embraced the Sethite theory, and it became doctrine in the Catholic Church. From there, it carried into denominational churches and prevailed through the Middle Ages.

Modern scholarship, however, has many who hold the angel view: