My Boy Augustine, Sons of God, Nephilim, etc.

It's been a while since I read Augustine's City of God, but I recently read a few selections in preparation for a class and came across his discussion of Genesis 6 and the sons of God and the giants that were on the earth in those days. And not too long ago, I had a fun little chat with some friends who disagreed with my view of Genesis 6, and lo and behold, I find Augustine saying the same thing as I said.

Augustine asks: "Are we to believe that angels mated with women, and that the giants resulted from these unions?" (Bk. XV, ch. 23)

Augustine basically says maybe they have but that's not what Genesis 6 is talking about.

Augustine grants that biblically speaking it is certainly true that angels can appear in the form of men and so could perhaps go so far as to lust and "mate" with a woman. (And the opposite is at least suggested in the story of Lot in Gen. 18.) And Augustine references extra biblical mythology which gives us far more information on that sort of thing than we need.

Nevertheless, Augustine is not persuaded that that is what is going on in Genesis 6. First, he notes that he doesn't think this story is what Peter is referring to in 2 Peter 2. Rather, he says Peter is referring to the fall of the angels before or at the creation of the world, the same fall in which the devil fell and began tempting Adam and Eve to sin.

Augustine also points out that the description "sons of God" certainly can and does refer to men in the Bible, but realizes that the stumbling block for this view seems to be the fact that the text says that there were "giants" in the earth in those days. But Augustine says that the text seems to indicate that there were giants before and after the intermarriage between the sons of God and the daughters of men. And besides, Augustine notes, there have been giants born throughout human history at various points and this does not require angelic/human sexual unions every time a giant is born.

We know that the sons of Anak and the Rephaim in the days of the conquest were giants (Num. 13:22-33, Dt. 2:11), and David eventually killed Goliath, and David's mighty men struck down others, apparently descendants of the same giants (Dt. 3:11, 2 Sam. 21:16-22). But we have no biblical basis for blaming fallen angels for these big men.

Furthermore, the linguistic connection between the giants in Canaan and the giants in Genesis 6 is the word "nephilim" used only in Gen. 6:6 and Num. 13:33. But this actually proves too much since the "nephilim" of Genesis 6 were apparently destroyed in the flood. If we want "nephilim" to be a technical term for the half-breed offspring of angelic/human intermarriage, then we have to insist that it happened again after the flood, in spite of the fact that there is no mention of it.

The strongest case in my view for not viewing the "sons of God" as angels in Genesis 6 is that it simply doesn't fit the story. The story for the first 5 chapters of Genesis is all about Adam and Adam's family. And we know that Adam was the first "son of God" because he was made in God's image and likeness. Sons look like their fathers. And if you don't believe me, ask Luke (Lk. 3:38). Luke says that Adam was the "son of God" and implies that his genealogy is the genealogy of the sons of God because Jesus too is the "son of God" (Lk. 4:3). But Luke is getting this from Moses.

Moses said that Seth was born in the image and likeness of Adam who was made in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 5:1-3). This means that Seth was a son of God just like Adam who was a son of God. And then Moses proceeds to tell us the genealogy of this family, these "sons of God" (Gen. 5). When the story picks up in Genesis 6 it makes no sense to think of anyone else other than this line of Seth as the "sons of God." Furthermore, it makes no sense for God to be angry with people if it was unruly angels who screwed this world up. God sent the flood to destroy all flesh because human beings sinned, because the descendants of Seth, the sons of God who had begun to call on the name of the Lord, fell into sin like their father Adam. And so God judged them and destroyed them.

Of course some modernist types deny the possibility of angelic/human unions because they don't believe in angels, fairies, magic, or dragons to begin with. And they are well on their way to doubting the virgin birth and the resurrection. And I have no interest in bowing to their small imaginations. But neither would a man like Augustine who was willing to speculate on a whole host of issues.

All that to say, like Augustine, I grant the possibility of some occurrence of a weird angelic/human union, and the abundance of such stories in the mythologies at least invites that sort of speculation. But I don't see it in Genesis 6 and neither does my boy Augustine.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Exodus and the Cross

On the mount of transfiguration Moses and Elijah appear and speak with Jesus about the coming "Exodus" that He will accomplish at Jerusalem (Lk. 9:31). While this is commonly translated "decease" (e.g. NKJV), the word in the Greek is "exodus" which, incidentally, means "exodus." The word is used throughout the Septuagint to mean "going out" or "going forth" beginning with the Exodus from Egypt (e.g. Ex. 19:1, Num. 33:38).

Interestingly, the word is only used in two other places in the New Testament: first, in Hebrews 11 where Joseph is remembered as prophesying the coming Exodus of Israel out of Egypt, and secondly, it is used in 2 Pet. 1:15 where Peter does seem to be speaking about his coming death. But even there, this reference comes immediately after him speaking about his "tent" that he will soon be putting off. Obviously "tent" is used elsewhere to refer to the body (e.g. Jn. 1:14, 2 Cor. 5:1-4), but a form of the same word is also used for the tabernacle. The Exodus story moves from one house to another, from the house of bondage to the tent of Yahweh. Similarly, later in Israelite history, they will be freed from the tent in Shiloh under Eli's wicked sons and David will construct his tent on Mt. Zion. Still later, Ezekiel will see the entire exile story as an exodus, freeing Israel from the bondage in Jerusalem and the Solomonic temple and bringing them to a new, heavenly temple.

Thus, the death and resurrection of a human is this exodus story. We put off the old tent of the body, the body that is in bondage to sin and death, and we go into the "wilderness" in the heavenly presence of Christ until we are re-clothed with a new, heavenly house in the resurrection of the body (2 Cor. 5:1-8). In this sense, Israel "died" in the Passover/Unleavened Bread/tenth plague. They were putting off the "tent" of Egypt so that they could put on a new, heavenly tent, a new resurrection body in the tabernacle. They "went to heaven" in the presence of God at Mt. Sinai, and they were finally "re-clothed" in the body of the tabernacle.

And this makes sense of Christ's description of His own death and resurrection as an Exodus. His death is the great Passover/Unleavened Bread/tenth plague all wrapped up into one. And His body is the temple, the old tent of Israel, which is being destroyed so that it can be rebuilt in three days. In His body on the tree, Jesus became the old Israel in the tent of bondage, the tent of Egypt, so that He could free us from that tent, free us from that house of death, and re-clothe us with a new heavenly tent, a new body, a new temple in Him.

Read More...

Summary only...

Psalm 82 and Human Gods

The Psalms refer to men as "gods" in a number of places, and Jesus defends His own deity on the basis of Psalm 82.

"God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods... I said 'You are gods,' and all of you are sons of the Most High. But you shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." (Ps. 82:1, 6-7)

In the middle portion of Psalm 82, the psalmist complains that the rulers of the earth do not do justice or perform mercy. He calls them to defend the poor and the fatherless, to free the poor and the needy from the hand of the wicked. But they do not understand; the foundations of the earth are unstable. And so they will fall and die even though they are princes. The psalmist ends by calling upon God to arise and judge the earth and inherit the nations.

"Gods" in this psalm clearly refers to people, rulers, sons of the Most High. The "gods" have failed to deliver, to save, to heal, to hold up the earth in security as they ought.

But where other psalms are perhaps a bit more vague or ambiguous, this psalm teaches that we ought to read "gods" as a broader category than merely "carved images" or other demonic/evil beings or natural/created phenomena bolstered by imagination and superstition. Human beings are "gods," and therefore Yahweh is "a great God, a great King above all gods" (Ps. 95:3) Worshipers of images should be ashamed of themselves, and all the gods should worship Yahweh (Ps. 97:7). Yahweh is great and a Lord above all the gods (Ps. 135:5). Give thanks to the "God of gods" for his mercy endures forever (Ps. 136:2). David sings praises to Yahweh before the gods (Ps. 138:1).

While there are clearly places where the "gods" refers to carved images and false/evil gods, having a broader category of "gods" implies a broader application of these psalms, particularly in the New Covenant where Jesus has triumphed over the principalities and powers and shown the worthlessness of idols. In the New Covenant era, while there is still idolatry and evil spirits in the world, the western Christian world is largely doing battle with human gods. The central question is whether the gods are in submission to the God of gods, the Lord of lords or not.

What is striking is that Jesus defends His own deity in at least one place on the basis of Psalm 82: Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "you are gods."? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him who the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? (Jn. 10:34-36)

But this doesn't confirm some kind of Jehovah's Witness or Mormon anti-Trinitarian theology by any stretch. There are plenty of places to turn to defend and explain the full, eternal deity of Jesus. But in our haste and delight in the doctrine of Incarnation and Trinity, we should not miss the fact that the humanity of Jesus is not only essential for the atonement, for bearing the just sentence we deserve on the cross, but His humanity is also all bound up with the original and final intent of God for His sons. The Son of God came to be a perfect son so that He might bring many sons to His glory. God came for the fallen gods of this world so that He might cause us to share in His divine nature, restoring us to His glory so that we, like Him, might be gods who heal, deliver, redeem, and save.

Read More...

Summary only...