Nephilim: Noah Primeval Part 24

Before examining the texts about the divine council it is important to understand that the English word "G.o.d," can be misleading in Biblical interpretation. The most common Hebrew word translated in English as "G.o.d" in the Bible is Elohim. But G.o.d has many names in the text and each of them is used to describe different aspects of his person. El, often refers to G.o.d's powerful preeminence; El Elyon (G.o.d Most High) indicates G.o.d as possessor of heaven and earth; Adonai means G.o.d as lord or master; and Yahweh is the covenantal name for the G.o.d of Israel as distinguished from any other deity. Elohim, though it is the most common Hebrew word for G.o.d in the Old Testament, was also a word that was used of angels (Psa. 8:5; Heb. 2:7), G.o.ds or idols of pagan nations (Psa. 138:1), supernatural beings of the divine council (Psa. 82:6), departed spirits of humans (1Sam. 28:13), and demons (Deut. 32:17).[1] Scholar Michael S. Heiser has pointed out that the Hebrew word Elohim was more of a reference to a plane of existence than to a substance of being. In this way, Yahweh was Elohim, but no other elohim was Yahweh. Yahweh is incomparably THE Elohim of elohim (Deut. 10:17).[2]

Of G.o.ds and Elohim A common understanding of absolute monotheism is that when the Bible refers to other G.o.ds it does not mean that the G.o.ds are real beings but merely beliefs in real beings that do not exist. For instance, when Deuteronomy 32:43 proclaims "rejoice with him, O heavens, bow down to him, all G.o.ds," this is a poetic way of saying "what you believe are G.o.ds are not G.o.ds at all because Yahweh is G.o.d." What seems to support this interpretation is the fact that a few verses before this, (v. 39) G.o.d says, "See now, that I, even I am he, and there is no G.o.d [elohim] beside me." Does this not clearly indicate that G.o.d is the only G.o.d [elohim] that really exists out of all the "G.o.ds" [elohim] that others believe in?

Not in its Biblical context it doesn't.

When the text is examined in its full context of the chapter and rest of the Bible we discover a very different notion about G.o.d and G.o.ds. The phrase "I am, and there is none beside me" was an ancient Biblical slogan of incomparability of sovereignty, not exclusivity of existence. It was a way of saying that a certain authority was the most powerful compared to all other authorities. It did not mean that there were no other authorities that existed. We see this sloganeering in two distinct pa.s.sages, one of the ruling power of Babylon claiming proudly in her heart, "I am, and there is no one beside me" (Isa. 47:8) and the other of the city of Nineveh boasting in her heart, "I am, and there is no one else" (Zeph. 2:15). The powers of Babylon and Nineveh are obviously not saying that there are no other powers or cities that exist beside them, because they had to conquer other cities and rule over them. In the same way, Yahweh uses that colloquial phrase, not to deny the existence of other G.o.ds, but to express his incomparable sovereignty over them.[3]

In concert with this phrase is the key reference to G.o.ds early in Deuteronomy 32. Israel is chastised for falling away from Yahweh after he gave Israel the Promised Land: "They sacrificed to demons not G.o.d, to G.o.ds they had never known, to new G.o.ds that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded" (Deut. 32:17). In this important text we learn that the idols or G.o.ds of the other nations that Israel worshipped were real beings that existed called "demons." At the same time, they are called, "G.o.ds" and "not G.o.d," which indicates that they exist as real beings, but are not THE G.o.d of Israel.

Psalm 106 repeats this same exact theme of Israel worshipping the G.o.ds of other nations and making sacrifices to those G.o.ds that were in fact demons.

Psa. 106:34-37 They did not destroy the peoples, as the LORD commanded them, but they mixed with the nations and learned to do as they did.

They served their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons.

One rendering of the Septuagint (LXX) version of Psalm 95:5-6 reaffirms this reality of national G.o.ds being demons whose deity was less than the Creator, "For great is the Lord, and praiseworthy exceedingly. More awesome he is than all the G.o.ds. For all the G.o.ds of the nations are demons, but the Lord made the heavens."[4] Another LXX verse, Isa. 65:11, speaks of Israel's idolatry: "But ye are they that have left me, and forget my holy mountain, and prepare a table for [a demon], and fill up the drink-offering to Fortune [a foreign G.o.ddess].[5]

The non-canonical book of 1 Enoch, upon which some of Noah Primeval is based, affirms this very notion of G.o.ds as demons, the fallen angels of Genesis 6: "The angels which have united themselves with women. They have defiled the people and will lead them into error so that they will offer sacrifices to the demons as unto G.o.ds."[6]

The New Testament carries over this idea of demonic reality of beings behind the idols that pagans offered sacrifices to and worshipped: "No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to G.o.d. I do not want you to be partic.i.p.ants with demons (1Cor. 10:20)." In Revelation 9:20, the Apostle John defines the worship of gold and silver idols as being the worship of demons. The physical objects were certainly without deity as they could not "see or hear or walk," but the G.o.ds behind those objects were real beings with evil intent.

Returning to Deuteronomy 32 and going back a few more verses in context, we read of a reality-changing incident that occurred at Babel: Deut. 32:8-9 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of G.o.d. But the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.

The reference to the creation of nations through the division of mankind and fixing of the borders of nations is clearly a reference to the event of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 and the dispersion of the peoples into the 70 nations listed in Genesis 10.

But then there is a strange reference to those nations being "fixed" according to the number of the sons of G.o.d.[7] We'll explain in a moment that those sons of G.o.d are from the a.s.sembly of the divine council of G.o.d. But after that the text says that G.o.d saved Jacob (G.o.d's own people) for his "allotment." Even though Jacob was not born until long after the Babel incident, this is an anachronistic way of referring to what would become G.o.d's people, because right after Babel, we read about G.o.d's calling of Abraham who was the grandfather of Jacob (Isa. 41:8; Rom. 11:26). So G.o.d allots nations and their geographic territory to these sons of G.o.d to rule over, but he allots the people of Jacob to himself, along with their geographical territory of Canaan (Gen. 17:8).

The idea of Yahweh "allotting" geographical territories to these sons of G.o.d who really existed and were worshipped as G.o.ds (idols) shows up again in several places in Deuteronomy: Deut. 4:19-20 And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your G.o.d has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.

Deut. 29:26 They went and served other G.o.ds and worshiped them, G.o.ds whom they have not known and whom He had not allotted to them.

"Host of heaven" was a term that referred to astronomical bodies that were also considered to be G.o.ds or members of the divine council.[8] The Encyclopedia Judaica notes that, "in many cultures the sky, the sun, the moon, and the known planets were conceived as personal G.o.ds. These G.o.ds were responsible for all or some aspects of existence. Prayers were addressed to them, offerings were made to them, and their opinions on important matters were sought through divination."[9]

But it was not merely the pagans who made this connection of heavenly physical bodies with heavenly spiritual powers. The Old Testament itself equates the sun, moon, and stars with the angelic "sons of G.o.d" who surround G.o.d's throne, calling them both the "host of heaven" (Deut. 4:19; 32:8-9).[10] Jewish commentator Jeffrey Tigay writes, "[These pa.s.sages] seem to reflect a Biblical view that... as punishment for man's repeated spurning of His authority in primordial times (Gen. 3-11), G.o.d deprived mankind at large of true knowledge of Himself and ordained that it should worship idols and subordinate celestial beings."[11]

There is more than just a symbolic connection between the physical heavens and the spiritual heavens in the Bible. In some pa.s.sages, the stars of heaven are linked interchangeably with angelic heavenly beings, also referred to as "holy ones" or "sons of G.o.d" (Psa. 89:5-7; Job 1:6)[12].

Daniel 10:10-18 speaks of these divine "host of heaven" allotted with authority over pagan nations as spiritual "princes" battling with the archangels Gabriel and Michael.

Some Second Temple non-canonical Jewish texts ill.u.s.trate an ancient tradition of understanding this interpretation of the G.o.ds of the nations as real spirit beings that rule over those nations: Jubilees 15:31-32 (There are) many nations and many people, and they all belong to him, but over all of them he caused spirits to rule so that they might lead them astray from following him. But over Israel he did not cause any angel or spirit to rule because he alone is their ruler and he will protect them.

Targum Jonathan, Deuteronomy 32, Section LIII[13]

When the Most High made allotment of the world unto the nations which proceeded from the sons of Noach [Noah], in the separation of the writings and languages of the children of men at the time of the division, He cast the lot among the seventy angels, the princes of the nations with whom is the revelation to oversee the city.

In conclusion, the entire narrative of Deuteronomy 32 tells the story of G.o.d dispersing the nations at Babel and allotting the nations to be ruled by "G.o.ds" who were demons, or fallen divine beings called sons of G.o.d. G.o.d then allots the people of Israel for himself, through Abraham, and their territory of Canaan. But G.o.d's people fall away from him and worship these other G.o.ds and are judged for their apostasy. We will now see that Yahweh will judge these G.o.ds as well.

Psalm 82 Bearing in mind this notion of Yahweh allotting G.o.ds over the Gentile nations while maintaining Canaan and Israel for himself, read this following important Psalm 82 where Yahweh now judges those G.o.ds for injustice and proclaims the Gospel that he will eventually take back the nations from those G.o.ds.

G.o.d [elohim] has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the G.o.ds [elohim] he holds judgment: "How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the dest.i.tute.

Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."

They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

I said, "You are G.o.ds [elohim]

sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince."

Arise, O G.o.d, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!

So from this text we see that G.o.d has a divine council that stands around him, and it consists of "G.o.ds" who are judging rulers over the nations and are also called sons of the Most High (equivalent to "sons of G.o.d"). Because they have not ruled justly, G.o.d will bring them low in judgment and take the nations away from them. Sound familiar? It's the same exact story as Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and Isaiah 24:21-22.

The idea that the Bible should talk about existent G.o.ds other than Yahweh is certainly uncomfortable for absolute monotheists. But our received definitions of monotheism are more often than not determined by our cultural traditions, many of which originate in theological controversies of other time eras that create the baggage of non-Biblical agendas.

According to the Evangelical Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura, that the Bible alone is the final authority of doctrine, not tradition, believers are obligated to first find out what the Bible text says and then adjust their theology to be in line with Scripture, not the other way around. All too often we find individuals ignoring or redefining a Biblical text because it does not fit their preconceived notion of what the Bible should say, rather than what it actually says. The existence of other G.o.ds in Scripture is one of those issues.

In light of this theological fear, some try to reinterpret this reference of G.o.ds or sons of G.o.d in Psalm 82 as a poetic expression of human judges or rulers on earth metaphorically taking the place of G.o.d, the ultimate judge, by determining justice in his likeness and image. But there are three big reasons why this cannot be so: First, the terminology in the pa.s.sage contradicts the notion of human judges and fails to connect that term ("sons of G.o.d") to human beings anywhere else in the Bible; Second, the Bible elsewhere explicitly reveals a divine council or a.s.sembly of supernatural sons of G.o.d that are judges over geographical allotments of nations that is more consistent with this pa.s.sage; Third, a heavenly divine council of supernatural sons of G.o.d is more consistent with the ancient Near Eastern (ANE) worldview of the Biblical times that Israel shared with her neighbors. We'll take a closer look at each of these following.

Human or Divine Beings?

Though the sons of G.o.d in Psalm 82 and elsewhere in the Old Testament have been understood as supernatural, angelic, or divine beings through most of Jewish and Christian history, it is fair to say that there has also been a minor tradition of scholars and theologians who have interpreted these beings as human rulers or judges of some kind or another.[14] They claim that the scenario in which we see these sons of G.o.d is a courtroom, the liturgy they engage in is legal formality, and the terminology they use is forensic (related to lawsuits), thus leading them to conclude that these are poetic descriptions of the responsibility of natural human authorities over their subjects on earth. And they would be supernaturally wrong.

The setting, liturgy and language are indeed all courtroom-oriented in their context, but that courtroom is G.o.d's heavenly courtroom because that is how G.o.d reveals his own judgments to his people and the nations. Let's let Jesus exegete this pa.s.sage for us.

In John 10, learned Jews in the Temple challenge Jesus about his ident.i.ty as Christ. Jesus says that he and the Father are one, a clear claim of deity in the Hebrew culture, which results in the Jews picking up stones to stone him because he, being a man, made himself out to be G.o.d (10:33). Their particular Rabbinic absolute monotheism did not allow for the existence of divinity other than the Father. Jesus responds by appealing to this very pa.s.sage we are discussing: "Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are G.o.ds'? If he called them G.o.ds to whom the word of G.o.d came-and Scripture cannot be broken-do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of G.o.d'?" (10:34-36).

If the judges in Psalm 82 "to whom the word of G.o.d came" were considered to be men rather than G.o.ds by Jesus, then his appeal to the pa.s.sage to justify his claims of deity would be nonsensical. He would essentially be saying "I am a G.o.d in the same way that human judges were human representatives of G.o.d." But this would not be controversial, it would divest Jesus of all deity, and they would certainly not seek to stone him. No, Jesus is affirming the divinity of the sons of G.o.d in Psalm 82 and chastising the Jews that their own Scriptures allow for the existence of divine beings (G.o.ds) other than the Father, so it would not be inherently unscriptural for another being to claim divinity. Of course, Jesus is the species-unique Son of G.o.d (John 1:18),[15] the "visible Yahweh" co-regent over the divine council (Dan. 7). But Jesus' point is that the diversity of deity is not unknown in the Old Testament.[16]

Jesus is arguing for the Trinitarian concept of divine diversity as being compatible with Old Testament monotheism, which was not compatible with man-made traditions of absolute monotheism that Rabbinic Jews followed. Remember, in the Bible, the concept of "G.o.d" (elohim) was about a plane of existence not necessarily a "being" of existence, so there were many G.o.ds (many elohim) that existed on that supernatural plane, yet only one G.o.d of G.o.ds who created all things, including those other elohim or sons of G.o.d.

This is precisely the nuanced distinction that the Apostle Paul refers to when he addresses the issue of food sacrificed to idols-that is, physical images of deities on earth. He considers idols as having "no real existence," but then refers to other "G.o.ds" in the heavens or on earth who do exist, but are not the same as the One Creator G.o.d: 1 Cor. 8:4-6 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no G.o.d but one." For although there may be so-called G.o.ds in heaven or on earth-as indeed there are many "G.o.ds" and many "lords"-yet for us there is one G.o.d, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

1 Cor. 10:18-20 Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices partic.i.p.ants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to G.o.d. I do not want you to be partic.i.p.ants with demons.

In 1 Corinthians, as in Revelation 9:20 quoted earlier, G.o.ds are not merely figments of imagination without existence in a world where the Trinity is the sole deity residing in the spiritual realm. Rather, physical idols (images) are "nothing," and "have no real existence" in that they are the representatives of the deities, not the deities themselves. But the deities behind those idols are real demonic beings; the G.o.ds of the nations who are not THE G.o.d, for they themselves were created by G.o.d and are therefore essentially incomparable to the G.o.d through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

The terminology used by Paul in the first pa.s.sage contrasting the many G.o.ds and lords with the one G.o.d and Lord of Christianity reflects the client-patron relationship that ANE cultures shared. As K.L. Noll explains in his text on ancient Canaan and Israel, "Lord" was the proper designation for a patron in a patron-client relationship. There may have been many G.o.ds, but for ancient Israel, there was only one Lord, and that was Yahweh."[17]

This is certainly difficult for a modern mind to wrap itself around because we have been taught to think that there are only two diametrically opposed options: Either absolute diversity as in polytheism (many G.o.ds of similar essence) or absolute unity as in absolute monotheism that excludes the possibility of any other divine beings less than the One G.o.d.[18] As we have already seen, the Bible seems to indicate that there are other "G.o.ds" who are not of the same species as G.o.d the Father or G.o.d the Son, yet they do exist as supernatural ent.i.ties with ruling power over the nations outside of G.o.d's people. Some scholars have used the term monolatry of this view rather than monotheism, because monotheism excludes the existence of any other G.o.ds, while monolatry allows for the existence of other G.o.ds, but demands the worship of one G.o.d who is essentially different from all other G.o.ds.[19]

Psalm 89 fills out the picture of the heavenly divine council as opposed to an earthly human one that is composed of these sons of G.o.d who are comparably less than Yahweh: Psa. 89:5-7 Let the heavens praise your wonders, O LORD, your faithfulness in the a.s.sembly of the holy ones!

For who in the skies can be compared to the LORD?

Who among the heavenly beings (Hebrew: sons of G.o.d) is like the LORD, a G.o.d greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him?

Here, the sons of G.o.d are referred to as an a.s.sembly or council of holy ones that surround Yahweh in a heavenly court "in the skies," not in an earthly court or council of humans, thus reinforcing the supernatural distinction from earthly judges. Israel is sometimes called, "a holy nation" (Ex. 19:6), a "holy people" (Isa. 62:12), "holy ones" (Psa. 16:3), and other derivatives of that concept, but the Hebrew word for "holy ones" (qedoshim) is used often in the Bible to refer to these supernatural sons of G.o.d, as the "ten thousands of his holy ones," surrounding G.o.d's heavenly throne.[20] Daniel calls these heavenly holy ones "watchers" in Daniel 4 (verses 13, 17, and 23) and the New Testament book of Jude quotes the non-canonical book of Enoch regarding G.o.d coming with ten thousand of his holy ones who were also these "watchers" or sons of G.o.d from heaven (Jude 14).[21] The Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran also used the term "holy ones" in many pa.s.sages to refer to angelic beings from G.o.d's heavenly throne, making this a common Semitic understanding congenial with the worldview of Daniel.[22]

So there is Biblical unanimity in describing a heavenly host of ten thousands of sons of G.o.d, called G.o.ds, watchers, and holy ones who surround G.o.d's throne in the heavens as an a.s.sembly, and who counsel with G.o.d and worship him, and some of whom were given to rule over human nations in the past (also called "demons"), but have lost that privilege at some point. These G.o.ds are clearly not human judges on earth; they are supernatural elohim in the heavenly divine council.

Biblical Narratives of the Divine Council The idea of a divine council of sons of G.o.d surrounding Yahweh as a hierarchical a.s.sembly is not merely mined from poetic pa.s.sages in the Psalms; it is explicitly described in narratives that seem to settle any question of the matter. The two main pa.s.sages are 1Kings 22 and Job 1-2.

In 1 Kings 22, the evil King Ahab of Israel seeks out prophets to tell him that his wicked intentions of invading Ramoth-gilead will be condoned by Yahweh. Many of the prophets encourage Ahab to do so with G.o.d's blessing. The prophet Micaiah however describes this vision of what actually happened: 1 Kings 22:19-22 And Micaiah said, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; and the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, 'I will entice him.' And the LORD said to him, 'By what means?' And he said, 'I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And he said, 'You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.'

So, here we see an explicit description of how the Divine council of G.o.d operates. The sons of G.o.d, called "host of heaven" surround G.o.d's throne and G.o.d throws out a question that they then deliberate through council until G.o.d accepts one of the ideas offered by a spiritual being. G.o.d then gives that spirit the authority to go and perform the will of the council led by Yahweh.

Job 1 and 2 picture a very similar scene of G.o.d's heavenly a.s.sembly "presenting themselves" in a legal procession "before the Lord" with the added element of the prosecuting "adversary" (the Hebrew word ha satan means "the adversary"): Job 1:6-12 Now there was a day when the sons of G.o.d came to present themselves before the LORD, and the adversary also came among them... And the LORD said to the adversary, "Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand." So the adversary went out from the presence of the LORD.

Job 2:1-6 Again there was a day when the sons of G.o.d came to present themselves before the LORD, and the adversary also came among them to present himself before the LORD... And the LORD said to the adversary, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears G.o.d and turns away from evil?...And the LORD said to the adversary, "Behold, he is in your hand; only spare his life."

Once again, G.o.d counsels with his divine a.s.sembly of sons of G.o.d, asking questions and deliberating, in this case with the adversary. And then G.o.d gives the adversary the responsibility of carrying out the will of G.o.d's overseen council meeting. These sons of G.o.d are the same heavenly host who were present when G.o.d was creating the foundations of the earth and sang for joy as in the Psalm pa.s.sages we already looked at (Job 38:7). These could not possibly be human rulers in an earthly court.

The last pa.s.sage that describes a scene exactly like the previous two is in Zechariah: Zech. 2:13-3:7 Be silent, all flesh, before the LORD, for he has roused himself from his holy dwelling. Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan ["the adversary"] standing at his right hand to accuse him... Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments. And the angel said to those who were standing before him, "Remove the filthy garments from him."...And the angel of the LORD solemnly a.s.sured Joshua, "Thus says the LORD of hosts..."

In this vision of Zechariah he sees into G.o.d's holy dwelling where Yahweh has brought his heavenly host standing before him and the satan standing ready to accuse Joshua before the heavenly court. Yahweh is called "Lord of hosts" because he is surrounded by that heavenly host of the sons of G.o.d (Remembering that the name of G.o.d used in a pa.s.sage reflects a distinct aspect of his ident.i.ty or character related to that pa.s.sage).

Scholars point out that this vision of Zechariah is exemplary of another thread throughout the Old Testament of the covenant lawsuit. As we have seen in Job, 1Kings and Zechariah, there are legal procedures that the divine council engages in when deliberating judgment upon Israel or another guilty nation or king.[23] We have seen the summoning of the host and defendant, a presentation or standing before G.o.d, the judge's call for testimony from the council, accusation of an adversary or the prophet himself, and judgments carried out by council members. These same elements are a.s.sumed in other pa.s.sages with a more implicit presence. Examples would be Isaiah's vision of the heavenly throne of seraphim with the plural imperatives by G.o.d "Who will go for us?" (Isa. 6) or "Comfort my people and cry out" (Isa. 40), or in Ezekiel's throne room vision (Ezek. 1). In these pa.s.sages, G.o.d asks a question to an unknown group of beings. That group is no doubt the divine council around his throne. Jeremiah and Amos have even indicated that the mark of a true prophet versus a false prophet is that the true prophet has actually stood in the divine council and received his directions from G.o.d and his holy ones, while the false prophet has not (Jer. 23:18, 22; Amos 3:7).

Ancient Near Eastern Parallels We have seen that the term sons of G.o.d is used interchangeably in the Bible with other words such as G.o.ds, demons (in some cases), heavenly host, host of heaven, watchers, holy ones, a.s.sembly, and divine council. But there is a third reason why the sons of G.o.d are not human judges but divine heavenly beings, and that is because the same divine council or a.s.sembly of G.o.ds shows up in ancient Near Eastern stories from Israel's neighbors. In other words, Israel shared a common cultural environment with her contemporaries that provides a context for interpreting the intended meaning of the Biblical text.[24] If we want to understand the meaning of a mysterious term or concept in the Bible we must exegete the broader cultural context within which Israel operated. Though this is not finally determinative of Biblical meaning, it carries great weight considering that Israel shared much in common with her neighbors in terms of language, worldview, symbols, and imagination.

Thorkild Jacobsen, one of the foremost authorities on Mesopotamian religion explained the origins of the divine council as a projection of the terrestrial conditions of the primitive form of human governmental democracy that existed in ancient Mesopotamia.[25] Though this worldview of divine world and cosmos ruled by the G.o.ds through a divine a.s.sembly was not monolithic and unchanging, scholar Patrick D. Miller has argued that it nevertheless remained fairly constant, and was clearly a part of the Biblical worldview as well.[26]

The Mesopotamian/Sumerian worldview that Abraham was immersed in before his calling by Yahweh involved a divine council of G.o.ds that functioned in part as a court of law that ruled over the affairs of men, including the authority to grant kingship to both G.o.ds and men. The divine council met in a.s.sembly under the G.o.d of heaven and "father of the G.o.ds," An (later, Anu), but also with him was Enlil, the G.o.d of storm. Either of them would broach a matter to be considered which would then be discussed and debated by the "great G.o.ds" or "Anunnaki," whose number included the fifty senior G.o.ds as well as "the seven G.o.ds who determine fate."[27] As Jacobsen put it, "Through such general discussion-"asking one another," as the Babylonians expressed it-the issues were clarified and the various G.o.ds had opportunity to voice their opinions for or against."[28] The executive duties of carrying out the decisions of the a.s.sembly seemed to have rested with Enlil as a kind of co-regent with An.

The Enuma Elish, the Akkadian creation myth of the Babylonians who presided over Israel's exile also depicted a divine council of G.o.ds convened around the supreme G.o.d Marduk whose operations reflected the same heavenly bureaucracy.[29] But as Heiser points out, the consensus of scholars is that the Ugaritic pantheon of Canaan was the closest conceptual precursor to the Israelite version of the divine council.[30] The linguistic parallels are numerous and their comparison yields fruitful understanding of the Hebrew worldview, both in its similarities and differences.

Among the many parallels that Heiser draws out between the Canaanite and Israelite divine council are the following: Ugaritic terms of the divine council include, "a.s.sembly of the G.o.ds," and "a.s.sembly of the sons of G.o.d." The Hebrew Bible uses the terms, "sons of G.o.d," "a.s.sembly of the holy ones" (Psa. 89:6), and "G.o.ds" "in the council of G.o.d" (Job 15:8).

In Ugaritic mythology, El was the supreme G.o.d and Baal was his vice-regent who ruled over the other G.o.ds of the council. In the Hebrew Bible, El/Elohim/Yahweh is the creator G.o.d, but he also has a vice-regent, the Son of Man/Angel of the Lord who was a visible incarnation of Yahweh who ruled over the divine council (Dan. 7). Christians would eventually argue that this "second Yahweh" was in fact the pre-incarnate Messiah, Jesus.

In Ugaritic mythology, El lived in a tent on a cosmic mountain in the north (Sapon) "at the source of two rivers," where the divine a.s.sembly would meet to deliberate and El would dispense his decrees. The mountain was a connection between heaven and earth, that is the earthly temple and its counterpart in heaven. In the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh's sanctuary is also in a tent (tabernacle) on a cosmic mountain, Zion (Psa. 48:1-2), that is in the heights of the north (Sapon). This mountain is poetically linked to Eden, which is the source of rivers (Ezek. 28:13-16) and its precursor, Mount Sinai was where G.o.d dispensed his word with his heavenly host (Deut. 33:1-2; Ps. 68:15-17).[31]

Though there are more congruencies between Canaanite and Hebrew concepts of the divine council than listed here, there are certainly many incongruencies as well, not the least of which was the polytheistic worldview of Canaan versus the monolatrous worldview of Israel. Gerald Cooke's cla.s.sic article, "The Sons of (the) G.o.d(s)" lists the distinguishing characteristics in the Hebrew divine council of sons of G.o.d: The full mythological representation is absent: the individualization, personalization and specification of function which characterized this idea-complex in other cultures of the Near East finds little parallel in the Hebrew-Jewish records... The recognition or a.s.signment of functions in the heavenly company is never specific as in non-Israelite mythologies: they appear only in the more general functions of praising Yahweh and his holiness, serving as members of the royal court, entering into counsel with Yahweh, exercising judgment over the peoples, and doing Yahweh's bidding. Nor are the interrelations of the G.o.ds treated in Israelite tradition as in other traditions. Members of the heavenly company remain essentially characterless functionaries even when they appear singly as "the spirit," "the satan," or a "messenger." Yahweh's relationship to the lesser beings appears only in the formalized t.i.tle "sons," which seems to describe only the cla.s.sification of these beings as divine; Yahweh is never a.s.sociated in paternal relationship with any particular one(s) of these beings, as are many of the G.o.ds of pagan pantheons; if Yahweh's "fatherhood" vis--vis these divine beings can be spoken of at all, it has only the formal meaning found in the idea of the "father" (i.e., head and leader) of a group of prophets; members of the heavenly company are never called "sons of Yahweh"; worship of any of the heavenly court besides the supreme Judge, Yahweh, is never countenanced by prophetic Yahwism. Members of the heavenly company never threaten his authority as supreme Judge and King.[32]

So the similarities between the worldviews need not mean absolute ident.i.ty, but rather a common linguistic understanding that may help modern interpreters to understand the Bible in its own historical and cultural context. As Miller concluded, "The mythopoeic conception of the heavenly a.s.sembly, the divine council, is the Bible's way of pointing to a transcendent ordering and governing of the universe, of which all human governments and inst.i.tutions are a reflection, but even more it is the machinery by which the just rule of G.o.d is effective, that is, powerful, in the universe."[33]

Appendix b The Nephilim Gen. 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of G.o.d came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Num. 13:33 And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like gra.s.shoppers, and so we seemed to them."

The meaning of the Biblical word Nephilim has been a matter of unending controversy in Church history. That the word is still not translated into an English defined word but transliterated in most Bible translations is evidence of the fact that no agreement can be made over its original meaning. The two pa.s.sages quoted above are the only two places in the Bible where the Hebrew word Nephilim is used. What would surprise some Bible readers is that these are not the only places where the Nephilim are talked about in Scripture. Nephilim has a theological thread that begins in Genesis 6 and goes through all the way to the New Testament.

The main opposing interpretations of this word come down to whether it is a reference to mighty leaders of some kind or to giants of abnormal human height. In my novel, Noah Primeval I take the perspective that these are giants and that these Bible pa.s.sages are not merely obscure and unconnected factual references to an historical oddity, but rather that they are part of a diabolical supernatural plan of "sons of G.o.d" who are fallen from G.o.d's divine council of heavenly host. While my novel is obviously speculative fictional fantasy, it is nevertheless loosely based upon what I believe is a theological thread revealed in the Bible that becomes clear upon closer inspection of the text.

Taking a look at the first pa.s.sage, Genesis 6:4, in context we read: Gen. 6:1-4 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of G.o.d saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of G.o.d came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Genesis 6 is the opening lines to the story of Noah's flood. It talks about man reproducing upon the face of the earth and "sons of G.o.d" taking women as wives. I have already doc.u.mented extensively elsewhere that the phrase sons of G.o.d in the Bible is a proven attribution to supernatural members of G.o.d's divine council. But some still attempt to change that meaning of the phrase in this pa.s.sage to mean either men in the "righteous lineage" of Seth as contrasted with the daughters of men in the "unrighteous lineage" of Cain, or to mean kingly rulers on the earth who were engaging in polygamy.

In either case, these interpretations correctly acknowledge the negative connotation of the intermarriage and the violation of a separation, but they both seek to define the sons of G.o.d as natural men on earth. What both of these "humanly" interpretations miss is that the pa.s.sage does not talk about a violation of separation of status or bloodline, but upon heavenly and earthly essence. The text links the "daughters of men" to the multiplication of "man" in general, not to a particular bloodline or royalty.

The Sethite view seeks to base its argument on an early reference in Genesis after Cain has killed Abel, and G.o.d grants a new son, Seth, to replace Abel for Eve. "To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD (Gen. 4:26)." They believe that these ones calling upon the name of the Lord are those in the line of Seth as opposed to people in the line of Cain.

But the text does not restrict the righteousness in any way to Seth's lineage. It speaks in general of people calling upon G.o.d. In fact, the word used of "man" in Genesis 6 is "adam" which makes the population growth of Genesis 6:1 a generic reference to humankind fulfilling G.o.d's mandate to the Adam as mankind's representative to populate the earth, not to the exclusive lineage of Cain. The daughters are after all, "daughters of adam," in the text, not daughters of Cain.

Michael Heiser sums up the arguments against the human interpretation: First, Genesis 4:26 never says the only people who "called on the name of the Lord" were men from Seth's lineage, nor does it say that Seth's birth produced some sort of spiritual revival. This is an idea brought to the text from the imagination of the interpreter. Second, if these marriages are human-to-human, how is it that giants (Nephilim) were the result of the unions? Third, the text never calls the women "daughters of Cain." Rather, they are "daughters of men [humankind]." Fourth, nothing in Genesis 6:1-4 or anywhere else in the Bible identifies those who come from Seth's lineage with the descriptive phrase "sons of G.o.d."[34]

There is simply no explicit reference in the Bible to sons of Seth being sons of G.o.d or daughters of man being only daughters of Cain. One must bring a preconceived theory to the text to make it fit. But in so doing, one must ignore the more explicit Biblical pa.s.sages about the sons of G.o.d as G.o.d's heavenly host. And in so doing, one must affirm a racial righteousness based on human blood lineage. The emphasis in the text is on the separation of heavenly and earthly flesh.[35]

The New Testament agrees with the supernatural interpretation of divine/human cohabitation because it actually alludes to this very violation of fleshly categories and resultant punishment in 2 Peter and Jude, letters that show a strong literary interdependency on one another. If you compare the two pa.s.sages you see the sensual violation of human and angelic flesh that is located in Genesis 6: 2Pet. 2:4-10 For if G.o.d did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into h.e.l.l (tartarus) and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the unG.o.dly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the unG.o.dly;... then the Lord knows how to rescue the G.o.dly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the l.u.s.t of defiling pa.s.sion and despise authority.

Jude 6-7 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day- just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in gross immorality and pursued strange flesh, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Both these pa.s.sages speak of the same angels who sinned before the flood of Noah, and who were committed to chains of gloomy darkness. 1 Peter 3:19-20 calls these imprisoned angels "disobedient." According to our study, the angelic sons of G.o.d are spoken of as sinning in Genesis 6, so these must be the same angels referred to by the authors of the New Testament. But just what is their sin?

Both Peter and Jude link the sin of those fallen angels with the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is described as indulging in "gross immorality" by pursuing "strange flesh." The Greek word for "gross immorality" (ek p.o.r.neuo) indicates a heightened form of s.e.xual immorality, and the Greek words for "strange flesh" (heteros sarx) indicate the pursuit of something against one's natural flesh. The angels who visited Sodom were clearly spoken of as enfleshed in such a way that they were physically present to have their feet washed and even eat food with Abraham and with Lot (Gen. 18:1-8; 19:3).

Angels on earth can have a physical presence. Bible students know that the men in Sodom were seeking to engage in s.e.xual penetration of these same angels who later visited Lot in his home. So here, men seeking s.e.x with angels is not merely a h.o.m.os.e.xual act, it is a violation of the heavenly and earthly flesh distinction that the Scriptures seem to reinforce. So Peter and Jude link the angels sinning before the flood to the violation of a s.e.xual separation of angels and humankind. The New Testament commentary on Genesis 6:1 affirms the supernatural view of the sons of G.o.d as having s.e.x with humans.

It has been long known by scholars that the letter of Jude not only quotes a verse from the non-canonical book of 1 Enoch (v. 14 with 1 Enoch 1:9),[36] but that Jude 6-7 and 2 Peter 2:4-10 both paraphrase content from 1 Enoch, thus supporting the notion that the inspired authors intended an Enochian interpretation of "angels" called the Watchers (sons of G.o.d) having s.e.xual intercourse with humans. 1 Enoch extrapolates the Nephilim pre-flood story from the Bible as speaking of angels violating their supernatural separation and having s.e.x with humans who bear them giants.[37]

Any question regarding the authenticity of this interpretation in Jude and Peter is quickly answered by another commonality that the New Testament authors share with the Enochian interpretation. Their combination of the angelic s.e.xual sin with the s.e.xual sin of Sodom is a poetic doublet that does not occur in the Old Testament, but does appear in multiple Second Temple Jewish ma.n.u.scripts circulating in the New Testament time period. Jude and Peter are alluding to a common understanding of their culture that the angelic sin (and its hybrid fruit of giants) was an unnatural s.e.xual violation of the divine and human separation. Here are some of those texts: Sirach 16:7-8 He forgave not the giants of old, [the fruit of the angelic sin]

Who revolted in their might.

He spared not the place where Lot sojourned, Who were arrogant in their pride.[38]

Testament of Naphtali 3:4-5 [D]iscern the Lord who made all things, so that you do not become like Sodom, which departed from the order of nature. Likewise the Watchers departed from nature's order; the Lord p.r.o.nounced a curse on them at the Flood.[39]

3 Maccabees 2:4-5 Thou didst destroy those who aforetime did iniquity, among whom were giants trusting in their strength and boldness, bringing upon them a boundless flood of water. Thou didst burn up with fire and brimstone the men of Sodom, workers of arrogance, who had become known of all for their crimes, and didst make them an example to those who should come after.[40]

[notice "making an example for those after" that is also referenced in Jude 7]

Jubilees 20:4-5 [L]et them not take to themselves wives from the daughters of Canaan; for the seed of Canaan will be rooted out of the land. And he told them of the judgment of the giants, and the judgment of the Sodomites, how they had been judged on account of their wickedness, and had died on account of their fornication, and uncleanness, and mutual corruption through fornication.[41]

This is critical for understanding the Nephilim as unholy giant progeny because the Nephilim are the result of this s.e.xual union between angel and human.

Some respond that angelic beings cannot have s.e.x with humans because of Jesus' statement in Matthew 22. Jesus is confronted by Sadducees who are trying to force Jesus to deny the future Resurrection of the dead. They construct a hypothetical of a woman with multiple husbands due to their multiple deaths, and then ask him whose wife she is at the Resurrection,, hoping to stump Jesus on the horns of a dilemma. Jesus replies, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of G.o.d. "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven (Matt. 22:29-30)." Because of this, it is alleged that angels cannot have s.e.xual intercourse with humans.

But this is not at all what Jesus is concluding. Firstly, Jesus is not talking about s.e.xual intercourse, but the religious law of marriage connections between husband and wife. Secondly, he is not talking about what angels cannot do, but what they do not do. Angels in heaven who obey G.o.d do not marry. This has no implication on what a fallen angel is capable of physically doing when coming to earth. Thirdly, Jesus is talking about angels in heaven, their natural abode, not angels on earth who left that abode to engage in unnatural liaisons with human flesh (as we saw in 2 Peter 2 and Jude). The angels in heaven that Jesus is talking about are not the angelic sons of G.o.d who left heaven, came to earth, and violated G.o.d's separation of those domains by having intercourse with human women.

Returning to Genesis 6:1-4, let's take a look at the second part of the pa.s.sage: Gen. 6:3-4 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of G.o.d came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Some believe that the Nephilim were not the result of the s.e.xual union between the sons of G.o.d and the daughters of men, but rather Nephilim were simply mighty warriors who happened to be around during those times before and after the incident of the sons of G.o.d. But this view would make nonsense of the text by inserting something (Nephilim) that has no connection to what is being talked about, namely the s.e.xual unions and the flood. The pericope of verses 1-4 are a lead up to the proclamation of the flood in verses 5-8. The contextual reading of this concise unit of text begins talking about the s.e.xual union of the sons of G.o.d with the daughters of men, then makes a reference to G.o.d's announcement to destroy the world in 120 years, which then references the Nephilim in context with that judgment, and then bookends the pericope with a reference back to the supernatural s.e.xual union again, thus linking everything between those "bookends" as a sidebar explanation of what it was all about, which leads to the flood in verse 5-8. The Nephilim were around before and after the flood, not just the intermarriage incident, and they were the offspring result of that union.[42] Numbers 13:33 confirms this interpretation by saying that the Anakim at the time of Joshua were descendants of the Nephilim, so the Nephilim were clearly around before and after the flood.

But the question remains, what does the Hebrew word Nephilim mean? Some scholars looking at the root word claim that it means "fallen ones" because that is what the Hebrew means, "to fall". But there is a problem, and that is that the Septuagint (LXX) which is sometimes quoted by the New Testament authors as authoritative, translates this word as "giants."[43] Did those ancient h.e.l.lenized Jews not know the true meaning of the word? Or did they know something we do not?

Biblical scholar Michael S. Heiser has revealed a Biblical reference that virtually seals the proof that Nephilim are giants, not "fallen ones." In his article "The Meaning of the Word Nephilim: Fact vs. Fantasy"[44] he explains that Hebrew is a consonantal language, which means it only spells words with consonants and leaves the reader to fill in the vowels. The ancient language of Aramaic is also consonantal and has an influence on the Hebrew text at various places. There are many Aramaic words in the Bible, and some chapters, such as Daniel 2-7, are written in Aramaic. In later copies, vowel markers were added to the consonants in order to aid in p.r.o.nunciation. He then explains that the Hebrew word NPHL which is translated into English as Nephilim has different meanings depending on the morphology or form of the word. Evidently the morphological form of the word in Genesis and Numbers is not that of the Hebrew meaning "fallen ones," but that of the Aramaic meaning "giants." And the Bible clinches this argument in Numbers 13:33: Num. 13:33 And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like gra.s.shoppers, and so we seemed to them."