God, Daughters of Men
"The craving of demons for a body,
evident in the Gospels, offers at least some parallel to this
hunger for sexual experience." -Derek Kidner
In 1947 an Arab boy tending his sheep
accidentally discovered an ancient cave near the Dead Sea. In it
were found a priceless collection of ancient scrolls which soon
became known as the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Qumran Texts. Among
these writings was one known as the Genesis Apocryphon. At first it
was thought to be the long lost Book of Lamech. Although the scroll
consisted of a speech by Lamech and a story about some of the
patriarchs from Enoch to Abraham; it was not that book.
According to the Bible, Lamech was the son of Methuselah and the
father of Noah. He was the ninth of the ten patriarchs of the
It is significant, however, that the Genesis Apocryphon mentions the
Nephilim, and makes reference to the "sons of God" and the
"daughters of men" introduced in Genesis 6. The Apocryphon also
elaborates considerably on the succinct statements found in the
Bible, and provides valuable insights into the way these ancient
stories were interpreted by the ancient Jews.
The copy of the Genesis Apocryphon discovered at Qumran dates back
to the 2nd century B.C., but it was obviously based on much older
sources. When discovered in 1947, it had been much mutilated from
the ravages of time and humidity. The sheets had become so badly
stuck together that years passed before the text was deciphered and
made known. When scholars finally made public its content, the
document confirmed that celestial beings from the skies had landed
on planet Earth. More than that, it told how these beings had mated
with Earth-women and had begat giants.
Is this story myth or history, fable or fact? Specialized research
has revealed that many ancient legends have a basis in fact. But to
answer the question, let us consult the most authoritative document
known to man--the Bible.
In Genesis 6:1-4 the "sons of God" are captivated by the beauty of
the "daughters of men." They subsequently marry them and produce an
offspring of giants known as the Nephilim. Genesis goes on to say
that these Nephilim were "mighty men" and "men of renown."
"Sons of God"? "Daughters of men"? What sort of beings were these?
Were they human or did they belong to an alien species from outer
IDENTIFYING THE SONS OF God
There is no problem in identifying the "daughters of men" for this
is a familiar method of designating women in the Bible. The problem
lies with the "sons of God." Three major interpretations have been
offered to shed light on this cryptic designation.
First, a group within orthodox Judaism theorized that "sons of
meant "nobles" or "magnates." Hardly anyone today accepts this view.
Second, some interpret the "sons of God" as fallen angels. These
were enticed by the women of Earth and began lusting after them.
Many reputable Bible commentators have rejected this theory on
psycho-physiological grounds. How can one believe, they ask, that
angels from Heaven could engage in sexual relations with women from
Earth? Philastrius labeled such an interpretation a down-right
Third, many famed scholars contend that the "sons of God"
male descendants of Seth, and that the "daughters of men" are
female descendants of Cain. According to this view, what actually
happened in Genesis 6 was an early example of believers marrying
unbelievers. The good sons of Seth married the bad daughters of
Cain, and the result of these mixed marriages was a mongrel
offspring. These later became known for their decadence and
corruption; indeed, it reached such a degree that God was forced to
intervene and destroy the human race. This comment of Matthew Henry
could be taken as representative of those holding this view:
"The sons of Seth (that is the
professors of religion) married the daughters of men, that is,
those that were profane, and strangers to God and Godliness. The
posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to
have done. They inter- mingled themselves with the
excommunicated race of Cain." (1)
However, in spite of the excellent
pedigree of the proponents of this theory, their argument is not
convincing. Their interpretation is pure exegesis--they are guilty
of reading into the text what is obviously not there.
Their interpretation fails on other grounds as well. At no time,
before the Flood or after, has God destroyed or threatened to
destroy the human race for the sin of "mixed marriages." It is
impossible to reconcile this extreme punishment with the mere verbal
strictures found elsewhere in the Bible for the same practice. If
God is going to be consistent, He should have destroyed the human
race many times over!
The contrast made in Genesis 6:2 is not between the descendants of
Seth and the descendants of Cain, but between the "sons of God" and
the "daughters of men." If by "sons of God" is meant "sons of Seth,"
then only the sons of Seth engaged in mixed marriages, and not the
daughters. And only the daughters of Cain were involved, and not the
sons. And another strange assumption is implied: that only the sons
of Seth were Godly, and only the daughters of Cain were evil.
The strangeness is compounded when one seeks for evidence that the
sons of Seth were Godly. We know from Genesis that when the time
came for God to destroy the human race, He found only one Godly
family left among them--that of Noah. Where were all the other
supposedly Godly sons of Seth? Even Seth’s own son could hardly be
called righteous. His name was Enos, meaning "mortal" or "frail."
And he certainly lived up to it! Genesis 4:26 reads,
"And to Seth,
to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then
began men to call upon the name of the Lord."
That statement seems
harmless enough, but what does it mean when it says that it was only
now that men began to call upon the name of the Lord? Upon whom did
Adam call? And Abel? And Seth himself?
Some scholars give us a more literal and exact translation to this
verse: "Then men began to call themselves by the name of
Other scholars translate the statement in this manner: "Then men
began to call upon their Gods (idols) by the name of Jehovah."
either of these be the correct translation then the evidence for the
so-called Godly line of Seth is non- existent. The truth of the
matter is that Enos and his line, with few noted exceptions, were as
unGodly as the other line. The divine record could not be clearer:
"all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth" (Genesis 6:12).
In the Old Testament, the designation "sons of God" (bene Elohim) is
never used of humans, but always of supernatural beings that are
higher than man but lower than God. To fit such a category only one
species is known--angels. And the term "sons of God" applies to both
good and bad angels. These are the beings of whom Augustine wrote:
"Like the Gods they have corporeal
immortality, and passions like human beings."
The designation "sons of God"
four other times in the Old Testament, each time referring to
angels. One example is Daniel 3:25, where king Nebuchadnezzar looks
into the fiery furnace and sees four men, "and the form of the
fourth is like the son of God." The translation is different and
clearer in our modern versions, "like a son of the Gods." Since
Jesus had not yet become the "only begotten son" of God, this "son"
would have had to be angelic.
Another example is Job 38:7 which says the sons of God shouted for
joy when God laid the foundations of the Earth. Angels are the only
entities that fit this designation since man had not been created at
In Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 the "sons of God" came to present themselves
before the Lord in Heaven. Among the sons of God is Satan--a further
implication that the "sons of God" must have been angels.
Since the designation "sons of God" is consistently used in the Old
Testament for angels, it is logical to conclude that the term in
Genesis 6:2 also refers to angels.
God: THREE CATEGORIES
In the New Testament, born-again believers in Christ are called the
children of God or the sons of God (Luke 3:38, John 1:12, Romans
8:14, 1 John 3:1).
Dr. Bullinger in the Companion Bible states:
"It is only by the divine specific
act of creation that any created being can be called ’a son of
This explains why every born-again
believer is a son of God. It explains also why Adam was a son of
God. Adam was specifically created by God, "in the likeness of God
made He him" (Genesis 5:1). Adam’s descendants, however, were
different; they were not made in God’s likeness but in Adam’s. Adam
"begat a son in his own likeness, after his image" (Genesis 5:3).
Adam was a "son of God," but Adam’s descendants were "sons of men."
Lewis Sperry Chafer expresses this in an interesting way when he
"In the Old Testament terminology
angels are called sons of God while men are called servants of
God. In the New Testament this is reversed. Angels are the
servants and Christians are the sons of God." (3)
It is thus clear that the term "sons of
God" in the Bible is limited to three categories of beings: angels,
Adam and believers. All three are special and specific creations of
God. As for the use of the term in Genesis 6, since it cannot
possibly refer to Adam nor believers in Christ, we conclude that it
has to refer to the angels whom God had created.
FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT
Two New Testament passages shed further light on Genesis 6. They are
Jude 6-7 and 2 Peter 2:4. These verses indicate that at some point
in time a number of angels fell from their pristine state and
proceeded to commit a sexual sin that was both unusual and
repugnant. Jude 6-7 states:
"And the angels which kept not their
first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in
everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great
day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them in
like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going
after strange flesh..."
These angels not only failed to keep
their original dominion and authority, but they "left their own
habitation." Habitation is a significant word: it means "dwelling
place" or "heaven." And the addition of the Greek word "idion"
("their own") means that they left their own private, personal,
unique possession. (4) Heaven was the private, personal residence of
the angels. It was not made for man but for the angels. This is why
the ultimate destination of the saints will not be Heaven but the
new and perfect Earth which God will create (Revelation 21:1-3).
Heaven is reserved for the angels, but as for the beings referred to
in Jude 6-7, they abandoned it.
Not only did these angels leave Heaven, they left it once-for- all.
The Greek verb "apoleipo" is in the aorist tense, thus indicating a
once-for-all act. By taking the action they did, these angels made a
final and irretrievable decision. They crossed the Rubicon. Their
action, says Kenneth Wuest, "was apostasy with a vengeance."
As to the specific sin of these angels, we are given the facts in
Jude 7. As in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah it was the sin of
"fornication" and it means "going after strange flesh." "Strange"
flesh means flesh of a different kind (Greek "heteros"). To commit
this particularly repugnant sin, the angels had to abandon their own
domain and invade a realm that was divinely forbidden to them.
"These angels transgressed the
limits of their own natures to invade a realm of created beings
of a different nature." (7)
"It was a departure from the
appointed course of nature and seeking after that which is
unnatural, to other flesh than that appointed by God for the
fulfillment of natural desire."
The mingling of these two orders of
being, was contrary to what God had intended, and summarily led to
God’s greatest act of judgment ever enacted upon the human race.
Another New Testament verse may have bearing on Genesis 6. In I
Corinthians 11:10, Paul instructs that a woman should cover her head
as a sign of subjection to her husband, and also "because of the
angels." This observation has intrigued commentators through the
years. Why this sudden reference to angels? Could it be a reference
to what happened in Genesis 6 where angels succumbed to the
inducements and physical charm of the women of Earth? Obviously,
Paul believed that an uncovered woman was a temptation even to
angels. William Barclay mentions an old rabbinic tradition which
alleges that it was the beauty of the women’s long hair that
attracted and tempted the angels in Genesis. (6)
The off-spring of this union between the "sons of God" and the
"daughters of men" were so extraordinary that it indicates an
unusual parentage. In no way could the progenitors of such beings be
ordinary humans. Their mothers possibly could be human, or their
fathers, but certainly not both. Either the father or the mother had
to be superhuman. Only in such a way can one account for the
extraordinary character and prowess of the off-spring.
God’s law of reproduction, according to the biblical account of
creation, is "everything after his kind." God’s law makes it
impossible for giants to be produced by normal parentage. To produce
such monstrosities as the Nephilim presupposes super- natural
"Nephilim" is a Hebrew word translated in the Authorized King James
version as "giants." "There were giants in the earth in those days"
(Genesis 6:4). It is true that they were giants in more senses than
one. However, the word Nephilim does not mean "giants." It comes
from the root "naphal," meaning "fallen ones," and most modern
versions of the Bible have left the word "Nephilim" untranslated.
When the Greek Septuagint was made, "Nephilim" was translated as "gegenes."
This word suggests "giants" but actually it has little reference to
size or strength. "Gegenes" means "earth born."
The same term was used to describe the mythical "Titans" --
being partly of celestial and partly of terrestrial origin.
The Hebrew and the Greek words do not exclude the presence of great
physical strength. Indeed, a combined supernatural and natural
parentage would imply such a characteristic. Angels, according to
Scripture, are known for their power. They are often referred to as
"sons of the Mighty" (Psalm 103:20). Therefore, if the ones who
sired them were strong and mighty, it could be assumed that their
offspring were likewise.
No evidence exists in Scripture that the offspring of mixed
marriages (believers and unbelievers) were giants, excelling in
great strength and might. No evidence can be found anywhere in
history for that matter. Such an interpretation poses impossible
When the word "Nephilim" is used in Numbers 13:33, the question of
size and strength is explicit. Here we are left in no doubt as to
their superhuman prowess. When Joshua’s spies reported back from
Canaan, they called certain of the inhabitants of Canaan "giants."
"And there we saw the Nephilim, the
sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim, and we were in our own
sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."
Some commentators have speculated that
the Nephilim of Numbers 13 belonged to a second eruption of fallen
angels, since the earlier Nephilim had been destroyed in the Flood.
And they see an allusion to this in Genesis 6:4, where it states
that "there were Nephilim in the earth in those days; and also after
that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men." Could
it be that the "after that" was a reference to the Nephilim found in
Canaan during the Israelite entry into the land? If so, it could
explain why the Lord commanded the total extermination of the
Canaanites, as He had earlier ordered the near annihilation of the
-- NO RESURRECTION
The Book of Isaiah says that the Nephilim and their descendants will
not participate in a resurrection as is the portion of ordinary
mortals. Isaiah 26:14 reads: "They are dead, they shall not live;
they are deceased, they shall not rise." The original Hebrew word
translated "deceased" here is the word "Rephaim." It would have
saved a lot of misinterpretation if the translators had left the
word as it was in the original. The verse actually reads: "Dead,
they shall not live; Rephaim, they shall not rise." The Rephaim are
generally understood to be one of the branches of the Nephilim, and
God’s Word makes it clear that they are to partake in no
resurrection. But with humans it is different: all humans will be
resurrected either to life or to damnation (John 5:28-29).
We have already seen that the Greek Version of the Old Testament
(The Septuagint) translated "Nephilim" as "gegenes;" we shall now
inquire how it translates "sons of God." In some of the manuscripts
it is left as "sons of God," but in the others-- including the
Alexandrian text--it is rendered by the word "angelos." This text
was in existence in the time of Christ, but there is no indication
that He ever corrected or queried it. Can we not assume from His
silence that He agreed with the translation!
Having studied all the arguments in favor of "sons of Seth," one
concludes that the only argument that is valid among them is that of
rationality. "Sons of Seth" is an interpretation that is more
palatable to human reason. Reason can never subscribe to the
incredible notion that fallen angels could have sex relations with
women of Earth. Angels have no physical bodies! They do not marry!
They belong to an entirely different species of being! The mind
revolts against such absurdity. So, what does one do? Settle, of
course, for an easy, rational interpretation--sons of Seth and
daughters of Cain. But what if the meaning of Scripture is clearly
otherwise? There is the rub! Scripture is clearly otherwise! To
impose a human interpretation at the expense of the obvious meaning
of the divine Word, is a rape of the biblical text. Furthermore,
when one deals with the world of the supernatural, rationality is
never an argument.
AND PATRISTIC FATHERS
The Jewish Fathers, when interpreting this expression from Genesis
6:2, invariably interpreted it as "angels." No less an authority
than W.F. Allbright tells us that:
"The Israelites who heard this
section (Genesis 6.2) recited unquestionably thought of
intercourse between angels and women."
Philo of Alexandria, a deeply religious
man, wrote a brief but beautiful treatise on this subject, called
"Concerning The Giants." Basing his exposition on the Greek version
of the Bible, he renders it as "Angels of God." Says
"Had he found the phrase ’sons of
God’ in his text, he most certainly would have been inspired to
comment on it." (9)
Philo certainly took the Genesis passage
as historical, explaining that just as the word "soul" applies both
to good and evil beings, so does the word "angel." The bad angels,
who followed Lucifer, at a later point in time failed to resist the
lure of physical desire, and succumbed to it. He goes on to say that
the story of the giants is not a myth, but it is there to teach us
that some men are earth-born, while others are heaven- born, and the
highest are God-born. (10)
The Early Church Fathers believed the same way. Men like Justin
Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius,
Ambrose... all adopted this interpretation. In the words of the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, the angels fell,
"into impure love of virgins, and
were subjugated by the flesh...Of those lovers of virgins
therefore, were begotten those who are called giants."
And again, "...the angels
transgressed, and were captivated by love of women and begat
Nowhere before the 5th century A.D. do
we find any interpretation for "sons of God" other than that of
angels. We cannot deny the Jewish Fathers knowledge of their own
terminology! They invariably translated "sons of God" as
"angels." The testimony of Josephus, that colorful cosmopolitan and
historian, is also of paramount importance. In his monumental
volume, "Antiquities of the Jews," he reveals his acquaintance with
the tradition of the fallen angels consorting with women of Earth.
He not only knew of the tradition but tells us how the children of
such union possessed super human strength, and were known for their
extreme wickedness. "For the tradition is that these men did what
resembled the acts of those men the Grecians called giants."
Josephus goes on to add that Noah remonstrated with these
offspring of the angels for their villainy.
Perhaps the most conclusive argument for interpreting the expression
as "angels" is the simplest one of all. If the writer of Genesis
wanted to refer to the "sons of Seth" he would have just said so. If
God had intended that meaning, then the verse would undoubtedly
read, "the sons of Seth saw the daughters of Cain that they were
fair..." But the Bible meant something far more sinister--the sexual
union between angels from Hell and evil women from Earth. Because of
the gravity of such a union, and its dire consequences for the human
race, God moved to destroy the race before it could destroy
itself--except for one family which had not been contaminated.
God made man in His own image, the highest of all His earthly
creations. While God said that everything He made was good, He
considered man very good. Man had been made for fellowship with God
Himself, but he soon turned his back upon his Maker and worshipped
the creature more than the Creator. Before many generations, the
human race was being polluted by this abominable union with demons.
It seemed that Hell and Earth were in league together against the
God of Heaven. God’s righteous anger was such that He regretted
having made man.
"And God saw that the wickedness of
man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented
the Lord that he had made man. ..."(Genesis 6:5-6)
It was specifically because of this
ultimate sin that God brought about a deluge of such magnitude that
man and beast were drowned from the face of the Earth. In the words
of old Joseph Hall:
"The world was so grown foul with
sin, that God saw it was time to wash it with a flood: and so
close did wickedness cleave to the authors of it, that when they
were washed to nothing, yet it would not wash off, yea, so deep
did it stick in the very grain of the earth, that God saw it
meet to let it soak long under the waters."
Why Noah and his immediate family were the only ones immune from
this great judgment is significant. Genesis 6:9 says, "Noah was a
just man." He stood out as an example of righteousness and Godliness
in a perverse age. Like Enoch before him, Noah also "walked with
God." But there was another reason why Noah was spared, one that
seems to have escaped most commentators. Genesis 6:9 says that Noah
was "perfect in his generation." Does this mean moral and spiritual
perfection? Hardly. Genesis 9:20-23 disproves any such perfection.
What, then, does the Bible mean by calling him "perfect"?
word is "tamiym" and comes from the root word "taman." This means
"without blemish" as in Exodus 12:5, 29:1, Leviticus 1:3. Just as
the sacrificial lamb had to be without any physical blemish, so
Noah’s perfection. In its primary meaning, it refers not to any
moral or spiritual quality, but to physical purity. Noah was
uncontaminated by the alien invaders.
He alone had preserved their
pedigree and kept it pure, in spite of prevailing corruption
brought about by the fallen angels.
And again: Noah’s bloodline had remained free of genetic
This implies, of course, that all the
other families on Earth had been contaminated by the Nephilim. It
also proves that the assault of Satan on the human race had been far
more extensive than realized. It is no wonder that God pronounced
such a universal fiat of judgment.
As for the fallen angels who participated in the abomination, God
put them in custody "in everlasting chains under darkness unto the
judgment of the great day" (Jude 6). This is sometimes interpreted
as Tartarus or the "nether realms" (2 Peter 2:4). This would also
explain why some fallen angels are in custody and why others are
free to roam the heavens and torment mankind.
Such a drastic punishment, both for men and angels, presupposed a
drastic sin, something infinitely more evil and more sinister than
mixed marriages. It was nothing less than the demonic realm
attempting to pervert the human world. By genetic control and the
production of hybrids, Satan was out to rob God of the people He had
made for Himself.
If Satan had succeeded in corrupting the human race, he would have
hindered the coming of the perfect Son of God, the promised "seed of
the woman," who would defeat Satan and restore man’s dominion
(Genesis 3:15). If Satan had by any means prevented that birth, he
would obviously have averted his own doom. Satan did succeed to a
large extent. It was for this reason that God drowned mankind in the
Interpreting the "sons of God" as fallen angels, the question
immediately arises--do angels marry? In Matthew 22:30, Jesus said
angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. This seems a clear
and emphatic negative. However, it does not preclude the possibility
of such a thing happening--obviously contrary to the will of God.
And it does not preclude fallen angels, who had rebelled against God
already, from cohabiting with women of Earth, as the Scriptures
Some interpret the words of Jesus as meaning that angels do not
marry among themselves. Is it because they are all male? Or is it
because celestial beings are deathless and thus need no offspring.
Only terrestrial beings need to find immortality in their children.
(17) But if they do not need to marry and procreate, is it still
possible that they could engage in sexual acts? If not among
themselves then with human spouses? Jude seems quite explicit on the
matter: the angels left their own habitation, and gave themselves
over to fornication, going after strange flesh. In other words, they
were capable of performing human functions--eating, drinking,
walking, talking, even sexual activity and fathering children.
The fact that angels do not marry does not in itself prove they are
sexless. Throughout the Bible, angels are referred to only as men.
Finis Drake writes:
"It is logical to say...that the
female was created specifically for the human race in order that
it could be kept in existence; and that all angels were created
males, in as much as their kind is kept in existence without the
reproduction process. Angels were created innumerable to start
with (Hebrews 12:22) whereas, the human multitudes began with
one pair." (18)
Even in the next world, when the saints
will dwell in their resurrection body and live forever, it does not
imply that they will be sexless. The Bible teaches that everyone
will have his own body in the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:35-38).
No suggestion is made that they will be unsexed. Furthermore, Christ
remained a man after His resurrection.
One other question has been raised. If the fallen angels who lusted
after women of Earth in Genesis 6 have been interred in Tartarus
with "everlasting chains," how does one explain the demons who have
been operating since then? They seemed to have been quite active
during the ministry of Jesus, and are busy again in our day.
Following this reasoning, some share the conclusion of
However one might wish to interpret
Genesis 6: 1-4 to link this passage with the verses in 2 Peter
and Jude seems to post far more problems than it would solve.
But 2 Peter 2.4 and Jude 6 clearly assert that the rebellious
angels are being kept prisoner in the "nether gloom." If they
are prisoners, they could not very well function as the demons
are described as functioning in the New Testament.
But Philpott failed to see that there
are two categories of fallen angels: Those cast out of Heaven with
Lucifer, and who are still free to torment mankind; and those who
fell the second time by committing carnal acts with the daughters of
men. The spirits in this second category are those chained in the
It seems clear to me that the "sons of God" are none other than
fallen angels, and, because of their further sin of lusting after
the "daughters of men," many were imprisoned by God. Both the near
annihilation of the human race and the incarceration of the fallen
angels in Tartarus indicate the magnitude of the sin they committed.
By such drastic judgment, God saved the human race from a calamity
worse than the physical death originally imposed upon them.
1. Matthew Henry’s
Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961).
2. Aurelius Augustine, The City of God (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1949), Transl. Marcus Dods.
3. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Volume
2. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947), p. 23.
4. Kenneth S. Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek N.T
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966), Vol.
4, p. 240.
5. Ibid., p. 240.
6. Ibid., p. 241.
7. Unger, Biblical Demonology (Wheaton: Van Kampen
Press, 1957), p. 48.
8. W. F. Allbright, From the Stone Age to
Christianity (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1940), p. 226.
9. Bemard J. Bamberger, Fallen Angels (Philadelphia:
The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1952), p. 53.
10. Philo, DeGigantibus, pp. 58-60.
11. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 8, pp. 85 and 273.
12. Ibid., p. 190.
13. Josephus, The Work of Flavius Josephus;
Antiquities of the Jews (London: G. G. Rutledge), 1.3.1.
14. Joseph Hall, Contemplations (Otisville, Michigan:
Baptist Book Trust, 1976), p. 10.
15. Companion Bible (Oxford University Press).
16. The Gospel Truth Magazine, Vol. 18, (June 1978),
17. Dr. Morgenstem, Hebrew Union College Annual, XIV,
18. Finis Dake, Annotated R,?ference Bible, p.63.
19. Kent Philpott, A Manual of Demonology and the
Occult (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp.