Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Are you so desperate for even numbers you are shooting for the hundreds? ;-)
BRINGING BACK THE ARK - A BIBLICAL NETWORKING PARADIGM By John D. Garr, Ph.D.
The renewed interest in the Hebrew roots of Christian faith is one of the greatest and most universal works that the Holy Spirit is producing in the church in this generation. After being marred for nearly two millennia by Judaeophobia and anti-Semitism, Christianity is experiencing what is only the beginning of a re-awakening that has scholars, ministers, leaders, and laymen in virtually every denomination of the body of Christ engaged in the quest to reclaim the church’s Judaic heritage.
This reawakening is changing the way many Christians think about themselves and about the world around them. The traditional dualistic world view that the church inherited from the Greco-Roman mindset is gradually being replaced by the holistic world view of Judaism by which Jesus and the apostles lived and expressed their faith. This is affecting the way growing numbers of Christians throughout the world are thinking and acting about their families, their community life, their church relationships, and–most importantly–their relationship with the God of the Bible.
The reawakening that is occurring independently in lives of believers throughout the world is a sovereign work of God, for its universal manifestation in isolated places cannot be traced to any single identifiable human source. The Holy Spirit is at work leading individuals, Bible study groups, and even organizational structures into various elements of restoration truth. The wave of spiritual renewal that has swept through virtually every denomination has prepared the hearts of God’s people for the final restoration, the restoration of the church to its Biblical heritage in preparation for the coming of Messiah Yeshua.
The question that confronts those who have a burning passion for the restoration of Christianity’s Jewish roots is this: How can we promote and sustain this growing phenomenon? Or, put another way, How can we keep this work from becoming another passing fancy of a fad-conscious society and see to it that it makes a profound and lasting impact upon the lifestyle of a large segment of the Christian community and changes forever their thinking with regard to Israel, the Jewish people, and Judaism?
A Biblical Example of Restoration I believe that the answer to these questions is found in the strategy which King David employed in restoring the ark of the covenant to a place of prominence and honor among Israel. Listen to I Chronicles 13: 1-5’s account of this event: “Then David consulted with the captains of the thousands and the hundreds, even with every leader. And David said to all the assembly of Israel, If it seems good to you, and if it is from the Lord our God, let us send everywhere to our kinsmen who remain in all the land of Israel, also to the priests and Levites who are with them in their cities with pasture lands, that they may meet with us; and let us bring back the ark of our God to us, for we did not seek it in the days of Saul. Then all the assembly said that they would do so, for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people.”The parallel between the restoration of the ark to Israel and the restoration of the Judaic heritage to the church is striking, indeed. And, there are profound lessons which we can learn from a comparison.
First, when Israel chose Saul as king, they abandoned God’s system in favor of a man of their own choosing. “They have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them,” God told Samuel (I Samuel 8:7). The ark of the covenant and its attendant service were abandoned in favor of a cult of personality worship, and Israel became like every other nation. Could the parallel with the church be more obvious! Concurrent with its rejection of its Jewish roots, the church also abandoned its spirituality in favor of a cult of personality and power. Instead of a living experience, religion became a ritualistic performance for the masses. Finally, in the Middle Ages, as the church’s Judaic heritage was largely obliterated, it became a Gentile institution governed more by Hellenic philosophy than by Biblical faith.
The Protestant Reformation and the counter reformation within the Roman Catholic Church made significant steps in the direction of restoration; however, they stopped far short of fully restoring the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Progressively over the ensuing centuries, however, God has continued his restoration work. Now, in the twentieth century, this work has been accelerated, with significant numbers of people around the world committed to restoring the foundations of Christian faith that were laid by Jesus and the apostles on the bedrock of Biblical Judaic teaching.
The spirit of Messiah is calling the leaders of the universal church to consider whether or not it is appropriate to restore the New Testament order of God’s Judaic system of praise, worship, and service. This is the inspiration that we are receiving in Restoration Foundation, in which leaders from various denominations and fellowships are hearing the call to come together for dialogue about the foundations of our faith. This is a call to leaders of every background, from priests and pastors, to educators and writers, to captains of industry and political leaders. Restoration Foundation’s call says, “If it seems good to you, and if it is from the Lord our God, let us send everywhere to our kinsmen . . . that they may meet with us,” and let us collectively discover and restore the Judaeo-Christianity that the apostles practiced. We are asking leaders everywhere to give consideration in prayer and Bible study to the degree to which God would have them bring restoration of the church’s Judaic heritage to their constituencies.
Interactive Ministry on Leadership Level We recognize that the work which God is doing is too great for any one man or any single organization; therefore, we believe that it is vital that we serve as a catalyst for interactive ministry on a leadership level. Again, David’s strategy was to bring leaders together to analyze the challenge for restoration in his day to see if it was from God and pleasing to the leaders of God’s people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must daily affirm our unity in Christ, seeking by example to fulfill our Savior's prayer that we all may be one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We understand that networking is the focus of God’s designs for the nineties and beyond. Leaders must abandon their proclivities toward self aggrandizement and turf protection to become mutually submitted to one another in the fear of the Lord and for the welfare of the body of Christ. We must learn to work together as a team with each member’s talents and otherness respected and honored. We must stop trying to build up our own ministries and concentrate on helping one another build up the kingdom of God. We must abandon what produces division in the body of Christ, stop fighting one another in fratricidal confrontation, and destroy forever spirits of elitism and exclusivity. We must affirm daily our unity in the Messiah, seeking by example and word to bring to completion our Lord’s prayer that we “all may be one.” We must also affirm our mutual depen dence upon one another for the success of Christian ministry.
The Servant Leadership Model One means of achieving this goal is byadopting a true servant leadership model. Again, David is the prime example. Knowing that his authority came from God, David neither fought to gain power nor struggled to maintain power. While Saul became insane trying to protect his power and Absalom lost his life trying to seize it, David was content to be a servant of God and of the people and to leave the question of who was in authority over the people in the hand of God. For this reason, he was a man after God’s own heart, a shepherd and a servant of Israel.
Jesus said, “He that is greatest among you, let him be your servant.” Servanthood is the model for New Testament leadership. God is not looking for lords, but he is looking for servants. This concept runs cross current with traditional ideas of leadership employed throughout the world of the Gentiles, where power is grabbed by the heaviest hand and maintained with murderous efficiency. Our model must be the yeshivas of the rabbis, where every man was “greenlighted” to express his own views on every issue but where all issues were decided in the “multitude of counsellors” (Proverbs 11:14; 24:6).
Unity in Diversity
Because of its emphasis on orthodoxy and credalism, Christianity has sought to establish unity through uniformity. If some could not subscribe to the majority’s belief system, they were anathematized, excommunicated, and ostracized. This approach to the issue of unity has produced a fragmented Christianity more often than not engaged in internecine carnage with more energies expended upon exchanges of polemic pyrotechnics than upon engaging the enemy of men’s souls. Denomination-alism’s quest for purity of doctrine has produced impurity of the soul in far too many of its adherents. As Pogo in the comics said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us!”
The Judaic model of unity, on the other hand, is one of unity in diversity, with each person’s distinctives respected. Regardless as to what their views may be, the total Jewishness of each person is affirmed. Christians could well learn from this Jewish idea. We can affirm our total brotherhood either in Adam or in Christ, a concept that can help us with the Christ-mandated task of loving all mankind. We can honor the diversity in the body of Christ and not seek to make every member a hand or an eye (I Corinthians 12). We can be our brother’s brother regardless as to his ethnicity, race, culture, nationality, or denominational background. We can place greater attention on the Judaic concept of orthopraxy rather than on our Christian concepts of orthodoxy. Someone has said that many Jews do not believe anything but they do everything that their scriptures require while Christians believe everything and do nothing. Perhaps this statement is a bit extreme; however, it does illustrate a point. Christians are far too concerned about beliefs and ideas (a Greek concept) and give too little attention to practicing their faith (a Jewish concept).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Judaic model is one of unity in diversity, in which each person is fully affirmed. Christians could well learn from this Jewish idea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Together We Can If the cause of restoring the church’s Judaic heritage is to succeed in changing the face of Christianity in this generation, it will do so only because those who have this burden come together in truly Judaic fashion to promote and sustain this cause. We must reach out with compassion to all of our fellow citizens of the kingdom of God to invite their involvement in the research, analysis, and development of the concepts of restoration. We must dare to be inclusive. When others draw a circle that excludes us, we must have the wit and wisdom to draw a bigger circle that includes them. Though it may seem idealistic, it is my belief that if we present this message with the proper attitude of love and inclusion, it will be accepted for the truth that it is and for the blessing that it will bring the body of Christ. It will be said that “the thing was right in the eyes of all the people.”
Messiah Jesus (David, our king) is calling for restoration of his New Testament system of praise, worship, and service. Let’s network ourselves together and go to work researching, developing, and promoting this restoration!
That was an Indiana Jones movie as I recall.
When one claiming to be christian steps forward speaking error, it is the perogative of every christian who knows better to correct it. Do you not know the scriptures? As for defining a relationship. Nah, that isn't what this is about. You define your own relationship with Christ by your actions. I'm just the guy standing here warning you that giving dead weeds to your gal in place of flowers will get you decked. If you ain't got any more sense than to rebuff correction, the black eye is all your's baby. All yours. I love ya; but, that's a butt woopin only you can take.
Those who choose to observe the Lord's Supper in the manner prescribed by the Apostle Paul, may offend you personally, but they, none-the-less, base their practice upon Scripture.
Those who observe in the manner prescribed by Jesus, Paul and the rest of the Apostles from day one do not give offense. Those that blaspheme the Lord by uttering things they know not what tends to ruffle my feathers. But I would be in error not to tell you. And thus you've been warned. Henceforth, what you do, you do in full understanding that you commit blasphemy against God in so doing. You had the opportunity placed before you and are therefore responsible for it. The rest is between you and your maker.
Oh, and one last point. Satanists base their practices on scripture. Just something of comfort for you to ponder. Enjoy.
As far as circumstance is concerned, environment has very little to do with anything. Choices are choices. America didn't come about because people were trapped by circumstance. America came about because people did something about circumstance that was balanced heavily against them. One can rattle off every excuse under the sun. But Jesus came down and overcame greater odds than anyone on earth since or before him. There are no excuses. People may think otherwise; but, fools will tell themselves anything so they can believe the gun they've cocked and put to their own head is unloaded - even after chambering a round..
Sons of God, Daughters of Men
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 antedeluvian world.
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 space?
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 God" 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 heresy.
Third, many famed scholars contend that the "sons of God" are the male descendants of Seth, and that the "daughters of men" are the 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 eisegesis--they are guilty of reading into the text what is obviously not there.
FALSE EXEGESIS 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 Jehovah." Other scholars translate the statement in this manner: "Then men began to call upon their gods (idols) by the name of Jehovah." If 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." (2)
The designation "sons of God" is used 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 that time!
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.
SONS OF 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 God.'" 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 states:
"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.
LIGHT 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." (5)
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. Says Wuest:
"These angels transgressed the limits of their own natures to invade a realm of created beings of a different nature." (6)
Alford confirms:
"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.
TEMPTING THE ANGELS
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)
STRANGE PARENTAGE
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 parentage.
GIANTS?
"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. (7)
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 assumptions.
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 human race.
NEPHILIM -- 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!
RAPE OF THE TEXT
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.
JEWISH 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." (8)
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 Bamberger, "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." (11) And again, "...the angels transgressed, and were captivated by love of women and begat children." (12)
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. (13)
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.
THE ULTIMATE SIN
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." (14)
WAS NOAH IMMUNE?
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"? The Hebrew 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. (15)
And again:
Noah's bloodline had remained free of genetic contamination. (16)
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 Deluge.
ARE ANGELS SEXLESS?
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 state.
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.
DEMONS AT LARGE
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 Kent Philpott:
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. (19)
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 nether regions.
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.
Becky
That was a very interesting read Steven. I don't agree with the conclusion, but it was fascinating nonetheless.
Here's a cut and paste argument for the other side:
Some have taught that Genesis 6 describes fallen angels interbreeding with human women to produce half-demon giants. But there is a more rational explanation.
Halley’s Bible Handbook states that “the ‘sons of God’ (6:2) are thought to have been either fallen angels…or leaders in Sethite families who intermarried with the godless descendants of Cain” (24th ed., p. 72). The first possibility offered here is not really a possibility at all, even though angels are referred to as “sons of God” in Job 38:7 because God is their “Father” through creation. Angels are spirit beings (Hebrews 1:7), not fleshly creatures. They neither marry nor sexually reproduce (compare Luke 20:34-36). Also, this explanation would violate the principle made clear in Genesis 1 that each kind reproduces only “according to its kind.”
Furthermore, the risen Jesus explained that “fallen angels,” or demons, are not able to manifest themselves materially like He and the righteous angels can (Luke 24:39; compare verses 40-43; Genesis 18:1-8, 16; 19:1). Rather, we see demons in Scripture only possessing individuals or appearing as ghostly apparitions.
The second explanation in Halley’s is far more reasonable and better fits the context of the passage. Genesis 4 gives the story of Cain and Abel and follows with the genealogical descent from Cain. Genesis 5 is called “the book of the genealogy of Adam” (verse 1). It starts with God’s creation of Adam and how Adam’s line continued through Seth. As with the angels, Adam was a “son of God” by creation (compare Luke 3:38)—though even more so since Adam was made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26; 5:1-3). Of this family line through Seth it is stated, “Then men began to call on the name of the LORD”—which could also be rendered “called after the name of the LORD.” Then, in the next chapter, Genesis 6, we see “the sons of God” (men of Seth’s godly line in this explanation) intermarrying with “the daughters of men” (women of Cain’s ungodly line).
There is even a third possibility, in which “sons of God” should be translated “sons of the gods,” as the Hebrew word elohim here, plural in form, can sometimes refer to false gods instead of the true God. In this explanation, wicked men referred to as sons of the gods (either pagan worshipers or perhaps men claiming to be demigods themselves) forcibly “took” innocent women as wives—an example perhaps of the evil conduct of the day.
In any event, human beings were clearly the problem here—not angels. God says, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever” (verse 3) and “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth” (verse 7). Thus, the giants mentioned must have been human also—descendants of Adam and Eve (compare Acts 17:26). These very tall people were destroyed in the Flood. But there would be more like them following the Flood, who were descended, just as everyone else in the post-Flood world, from Noah—again, not angels (compare Deuteronomy 2:20-21; 3:11). Consider Goliath, whom David slew. He was more than nine feet tall (1 Samuel 17:4). But he was still just a man (verses 24-25, 33)—not some human-demonic hybrid.
That seems like a pretty bold statement to make, but it's in the bible.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Notice "and for seasons". God isn't talking about using the sun and the moon to tell when it's winter, spring, summer of fall.
The word translated "seasons" in the King James is actually:
moade
BDB Definition:
1) appointed place, appointed time, meeting 1a) appointed time
1a1) appointed time (general)
1a2) sacred season, set feast, appointed season
1b) appointed meeting
1c) appointed place
1d) appointed sign or signal
1e) tent of meeting
Notice that it really has nothing to do with what we consider "seasons".
A quick search in Strongs Cocordance will verify that later on in Leviitucs, this same word translated "feasts", as here:
Lev 23:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, [Concerning] the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim [to be] holy convocations, [even] these [are] my feasts.
In other words, God wanted his people to meet at appointed times to keep God's feasts. He created the sun and the moon to enable us to do just that. They aren't humanly devised feasts or festivals, they are of God.
Some scholars give us a more literal and exact translation to this verse: "Then men began to call themselves by the name of Jehovah." Other scholars translate the statement in this manner: "Then men began to call upon their gods (idols) by the name of Jehovah." If either of these be the correct translation then the evidence for the so-called godly line of Seth is non- existent.
This is just as much of a stretch as the "sons of Seth/ daughters of Cain" theory.
To impose a human interpretation at the expense of the obvious meaning of the divine Word, is a rape of the biblical text.
Which discounts the possibility that the meaning of the passage may not be obvious.
Philo of Alexandria, a deeply religious man, wrote a brief but beautiful treatise on this subject, called "Concerning The Giants."
Philo was a hellenist. He certainly would have been familiar with Greek mythology and the stories of the titans. I wouldn't consider his opinions to be representative of Jewish belief at the time.
Nowhere before the 5th century A.D. do we find any interpretation for "sons of God" other than that of angels.
I've cited this one several times recently:
You are the sons of the LORD your God... (Deuteronomy 14:1)
They neither marry nor sexually reproduce (compare Luke 20:34-36). Also, this explanation would violate the principle made clear in Genesis 1 that each kind reproduces only “according to its kind.”
Luke 20:34-35 Jesus was explaining "in the resurrection" the order of things. Nowhere in those scriptures do we read the natural order of things here in this world cannot be violated. Since there are NT verses that confirm Genesis 6, we know that it has been violated.
Furthermore, the risen Jesus explained that “fallen angels,” or demons, are not able to manifest themselves materially like He and the righteous angels can (Luke 24:39; compare verses 40-43; Genesis 18:1-8, 16; 19:1). Rather, we see demons in Scripture only possessing individuals or appearing as ghostly apparitions.
In Enoch, non-canonized writing, nonetheless the half brother of Jesus and more than a few anti-nicene fathers viewed it as scripture, it explains that demons are the spirits of the nephilim, the offspring of fallen angels and humans. Since they were conceived in this earthly realm it is required they remain here until the fulfillment of all things.
In any event, human beings were clearly the problem here—not angels. God says, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever” (verse 3) and “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth” (verse 7). Thus, the giants mentioned must have been human also—descendants of Adam and Eve (compare Acts 17:26). These very tall people were destroyed in the Flood. But there would be more like them following the Flood, who were descended, just as everyone else in the post-Flood world, from Noah—again, not angels (compare Deuteronomy 2:20-21; 3:11). Consider Goliath, whom David slew. He was more than nine feet tall (1 Samuel 17:4). But he was still just a man (verses 24-25, 33)—not some human-demonic hybrid.
This argument holds no water since the nephilim were half human.
The second explanation in Halley’s is far more reasonable and better fits the context of the passage. Genesis 4 gives the story of Cain and Abel and follows with the genealogical descent from Cain. Genesis 5 is called “the book of the genealogy of Adam” (verse 1). It starts with God’s creation of Adam and how Adam’s line continued through Seth. As with the angels, Adam was a “son of God” by creation (compare Luke 3:38)—though even more so since Adam was made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26; 5:1-3). Of this family line through Seth it is stated, “Then men began to call on the name of the LORD”—which could also be rendered “called after the name of the LORD.” Then, in the next chapter, Genesis 6, we see “the sons of God” (men of Seth’s godly line in this explanation) intermarrying with “the daughters of men” (women of Cain’s ungodly line).
There are a few problems with this. If the godly line of Seth intermarry with the ungodly line of Cain, why do only males from the godly line procreate with females from the ungodly line? Also right before the flood Noah and his family were the only righteous. What happened to all the rest of the godly line of Seth?
There is even a third possibility, in which “sons of God” should be translated “sons of the gods,” as the Hebrew word elohim here, plural in form, can sometimes refer to false gods instead of the true God. In this explanation, wicked men referred to as sons of the gods (either pagan worshipers or perhaps men claiming to be demigods themselves) forcibly “took” innocent women as wives—an example perhaps of the evil conduct of the day.
2 other places "bnai elohim" shows up in the OT. When the "sons of God" came before God along with Satan in the Book of Job. And when the "Son of God" showed up in the furnace in the book of Daniel. All 3 times not a word about humans. Perhaps these fallen angels were posing as false gods. I have no problem with that.
For someone who's an advocate for the gap theory and pre-adamic civilization, I'm surprised you don't believe this. :-)
Are you talking about these feast? :-)
Amos 5:21-24 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.
It’s not the works of the law God loves,
Ro 9:32 33 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
G-Nite all, don’t loose any sleep over this Doug. Lol
JH :-)
Ya know I've often thought that this would make a great movie. If done right it could rival Lord of the Rings. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.