 I've noticed that on numerous occasions, Mike says that Scripture tells us that the Nephilim were done away with in the Old Testament. Why then are there still instructions that are suggestive of the angels still having potential to be enticed? For instance, if the reference to angels in the head covering harken back to Genesis 6, why is that significant unless cohabitation is still possible? Also, why does it matter if a woman's hair is covered in the New Covenant? Well, I would say first, the wording of the question sort of presumes that the Watchers and the Sons of God and the Nephilim are kind of the same, but they're not. I think the questioner understands that, but the wording, the way the question is worded makes me just wonder a little bit, so I'll just start there. First Corinthians 11 obviously doesn't mention Nephilim, but the gist of the question is, why was Paul concerned? Well, the fact that Paul would be concerned about angelic enticement is no justification for arguing that there are Nephilim now. It just means he was concerned. In other words, it means exactly what you would think it would mean, that in Paul's mind that this possibility was there. A possibility is not an actuality, and these are just simple ways of just thinking coherently about the topic we're discussing. The instructions Paul give, I don't even like the word instructions, they're not instructions that Paul writes in First Corinthians 11 about the head covering in the sense that Paul's saying, do X, because if you don't do X, then why will happen? That isn't the sense of what Paul's doing, rather Paul's advice shows he's concerned. He considers a Genesis 6-like event to perhaps be possible. That doesn't mean it was happening, it doesn't mean it would happen again. Paul's just reflecting a fear or concern, something again that's lurking in the back of his mind, but there's no guarantee that if someone, some woman who listened to Paul and read that and said, well, forget that, I'm leaving my head cover, I'm doing what I want, flaunting my sexuality. What does it mean that something's going to happen to her? In other words, the cause and effect mechanism here is not being taught in First Corinthians 11. First Corinthians 11 is not teaching a cause, effect, reality, and in some cases even a potentiality, what it does, what Paul's wording suggests is that in his mind he thought that there was some, there's a reason to be concerned, there's some possibility here, but we can't sort of convert that possibility in Paul's head to something that would indeed happen. Possibilities are just that, they are possibilities, they are not actualities. A potentiality is not an actuality. Again, we could just go over the, again, these terms like this to try to draw the distinction, but I think that would get a little annoying. So I would just say Paul isn't predicting anything, his words reflect a concern of his. There's no evidence from the fact that he was concerned that anything was happening. The Old Testament does make it quite clear that the giant clan lines were destroyed, that's the whole point of what happens with the refaeim, the remnant there, flees to the cities of the Philistines, that's where we find them next. Goliath and his brothers are taken out, they're exterminated, we never get another reference to them. Even if you're reading the Septuagint, you have a reference to Anachim in Jeremiah, but it's a reference back to the Philistines. You know, there's just no evidence for this, zero in scripture that we have a Nephilim presence beyond the Old Testament period, on into the inter-testamental period, on into the New Testament. All we can say is that from the way Paul wrote this, he thought that it could happen again. In other words, there's nothing in his mind that says it can't happen again, but we can't convert that to saying, oh, it was or it is, or if somebody just flaunted their sexuality, some woman in court, that it was going to happen, that was the trigger event. It's going to produce this effect. This is the cause that produces this effect. All of those things are overstatements. They overstate the data. So I don't think we should read into what Paul said. We should just sort of leave it where Paul left it. Second question also is concerning cohabitation. Is this what Jesus means in Matthew when he speaks to the days of Noah marriage and the end times? And could this possibility have any ties to the man of sin possibly being a result of such things? Yeah. I mean, we did a little bit of this in the in the head covering, you know, episode. Paul is trying to get the Corinthians to do the right thing in terms of sexual modesty and of course, sexual fidelity within marriage. And again, because, you know, he has this concern and other concerns, frankly, he's talking to the Corinthians and they must have done just about everything under the sun in this area. But anyway, you know, those things matter again for new covenant living, for New Testament living. Of course, why wouldn't they, you know, fidelity and modesty and what not. You know, and Paul is, you know, he's speaking to Gentiles here. I think they understand what what's going on clearly. As far as, you know, what's going on, what is there some relationship between this and Matthew 24, the Gospels or, you know, the end times with the man of sin? You know, I don't think that there's any direct proof, any direct even evidence that the Antichrist figure has anything to do with Genesis six, one, two, four. Now the key word there is direct. You did have people, you know, like Irenaeus that considered Genesis six, one through four to be a possible backdrop that there may be some sort of indirect tie in between Genesis six, one through four and the Antichrist, again, that the man of sin. So his argument, you know, was more peripheral, more sort of character based, you know, he ties it in with the the idea that the the giboree of Genesis six were tyrants. And so he thinks that the man of sin is going to be a tyrant. In other words, Irenaeus will talk about Genesis six, one through four in relationship to the Antichrist figure, but he never says anything like that cohabitation is going to happen again to produce the Antichrist. He never says anything like that. Neither does anybody else. Neither does any text. Now personally, I think there are peripheral, indirect connections between the Antichrist figure and the sin of the watchers and, you know, what happens in Genesis six, one through four, let me just, you know, bring that all down to this point. I don't think there's any direct connection between these two things, Genesis six, one through four, the Nephilim and the Antichrist. Okay. I do think there are peripheral indirect, suggestive sort of connections that are not clear, but again, that may indicate that there's something about that event that has a role to play in the Antichrist figure. I know that's kind of a convoluted way to say it, but I think it's better than just saying indirect versus direct. Back to the Matthew 24 thing. I've commented on that before. I think even in a Q&A, I don't think Matthew 24 has any connection to Genesis six, one through four, because there are no textual connections there. The terminology for marrying and intermarriage in Matthew 24 is not the terminology the Septuagint uses for Genesis six. If it was, I would change my tune on this to me, that would be telegraphing a connection, but it just isn't there. And the rest of the things that are described in Matthew 24 about what people were doing before the flood entirely refer to the human population of Noah's day. So to me, it's cheating to take four or five things that are described in Matthew 24, pluck one of them out and say, oh, this is about the Nephilim. Okay, that to me is not legitimate hermeneutics. But again, if there was a connection via the Septuagint to that passage, well, that would be a little different because then to me, again, if you've listened to the podcast long enough, those kinds of things are important to me because the writer is trying to draw our attention back to a specific passage by virtue of the Septuagint, but that does not occur in Matthew 24.