{"id":210,"date":"2017-11-25T16:23:22","date_gmt":"2017-11-25T15:23:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/?p=210"},"modified":"2020-01-17T19:00:06","modified_gmt":"2020-01-17T18:00:06","slug":"the-unseen-realm-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/2017\/11\/25\/the-unseen-realm-ii\/","title":{"rendered":"The Unseen Realm – II"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

CHAPTER 8<\/p>\n

Only God Is Perfect<\/p>\n

Like the creation story, the story of the fall in Genesis<\/a> 3<\/a> is one of those episodes in Scripture that anyone acquainted with the Bible seems to know. But there\u2019s more to<\/span> the story than meets the eye. Over the next few chapters I\u2019ll draw attention to some often-overlooked details in the story and the questions they raise.<\/p>\n

What we\u2019ve covered in earlier chapters serves <\/span>as crucial backdrop for understanding the fall. Eden was both the divine abode and the nerve center for God\u2019s plan for Earth. The worldview of the biblical writer was: Where Yahweh is, so is his council.<\/span><\/p>\n

Yahweh had announced his intention to create humankind as his imagers (Gen 1:26<\/a>). The council members heard that these humans, new members in Yahweh\u2019s family, would be tasked with overspreading th<\/span>e earth, advancing God\u2019s kingdom rule. They were Yahweh\u2019s choice to be steward-kings over a global Eden under his authority.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ll soon see that one divine being dissented. But how could there be trou<\/span>ble in paradise? How could things have gone so wrong?<\/em><\/p>\n

The book of Job contains some of the clues.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

THE BACKDROP<\/p>\n

Job is an odd book. That\u2019s part of what makes it so interesting. The story opens with a divine council scene\u2014the sons of God appear before Yahweh (Job 1:6<\/a>). During the council meeting the satan<\/span> shows up. His rank is not clear. The language is ambiguous with respect to whether he is of the same level as the sons of God or is on the scene as a servant official to the council. The lower status is more likely, given what we learn about his job.<\/p>\n

I use the phrase \u201cthe satan<\/span>\u201d deliberately. The Hebrew (satan<\/span>) means something like \u201cadversary,\u201d \u201cprosecutor,\u201d or \u201cchallenger.\u201d It speaks of an official legal function within a ruling body\u2014in this case, Yahweh\u2019s council. When Yahweh asks the satan<\/span> where he has been, we learn that his job involves investigating what is happening on earth (Job 1:7<\/a>). He is, so to speak, Yahweh\u2019s eyes and ears on the ground, reporting what he has seen and heard.<\/p>\n

The satan<\/span> in Job 1\u20132<\/a> is not a villain. He\u2019s doing the job assigned to him by God. The book of Job does not identify the satan<\/span> in this scene as the serpent of Genesis 3<\/a>, the figure known in the New Testament as the devil. The Old Testament never uses the word sa\u1e6dan<\/span> of the serpent figure from Genesis 3<\/a>. In fact, the word sa\u1e6dan<\/span> is not a proper personal noun in the Old Testament.See Peggy Day, An Adversary in Heaven: <\/em>\u015b\u0101\u1e6d\u0101n<\/em> in the Hebrew Bible<\/em> (Harvard Semitic Monographs 43; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); John H. Walton, \u201cSatan,\u201d Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, and Writings<\/em> (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008): 714\u201317<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a><\/p>\n

Old Testament scholars are well aware of all this. Their conclusion that sa\u1e6dan<\/span> is not a proper personal name in the Old Testament is driven by Hebrew grammar. Like English, Hebrew does not attach the definite article (the word \u201cthe\u201d) to proper personal nouns. English speakers do not refer to themselves (or to another person) with phrases like \u201cthe Tom\u201d or \u201cthe Sally.\u201d I\u2019m not \u201cthe Mike.\u201d English doesn\u2019t use the definite article with personal names. Neither does Hebrew.<\/p>\n

Most of the twenty-seven occurrences of sa\u1e6dan<\/span> in the Hebrew Bible, however, do indeed have the definite article\u2014including all the places English readers presume the devil is present (Job 1:6\u20139<\/a>, 12<\/a>; 2:1\u20134<\/a>, 6\u20137<\/a>; Zech 3:1\u20132<\/a>). The satan<\/span> described in these passages is not the devil. Rather, he\u2019s an anonymous prosecutor, as it were, fulfilling a role in Yahweh\u2019s council\u2014bringing an accusatory report. The instances of sa\u1e6dan<\/span> in the Old Testament that lack the definite article also don\u2019t refer to the devil or the serpent figure. Those occurrences describe either humans or the Angel of Yahweh, who is occasionally sent by God to \u201coppose\u201d someone or execute judgment (e.g., Num 22:22\u201323<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The function<\/em> of the office of the satan<\/span> is why later Jewish writings began to adopt it as a proper name for the serpent figure from Genesis 3<\/a> who brought ruin to Eden. That figure opposed God\u2019s choices for his human imagers. The dark figure of Genesis 3<\/a> was eventually thought of as the \u201cmother of all adversaries,\u201d and so the label satan<\/span> got stuck to him. He deserves it. The point here is only that the Old Testament doesn\u2019t use that term for the divine criminal of Eden.<\/p>\n

In Job 1<\/a> the satan<\/span> and God converse about Job. The satan<\/span> gets a bit uppity, challenging God about Job\u2019s integrity. We know the rest of the story\u2014God gives the satan<\/span> enough latitude to prove himself wrong, albeit at Job\u2019s expense.<\/p>\n

The beginning of Job is of interest to us because of two statements later in the book. In Job 4<\/a>, one of Job\u2019s friends, Eliphaz, responds to Job\u2019s lament and wish for death (Job 3:11<\/a>). He\u2019s not much of a comfort. He questions Job\u2019s belief that he has done nothing deserving of suffering (Job 4:6<\/a>), something the reader knows is actually true (Job 1:8<\/a>). Eliphaz says at one point:<\/p>\n

17<\/a> Can a human being be more righteous than God,<\/p>\n

or can a man be more pure than his Maker?<\/p>\n

18<\/a> Look, he does not trust in his servants<\/p>\n

and he charges his angels with error.<\/p>\n

19<\/a> How much more dwellers in clay houses,<\/p>\n

whose foundation is in the dust?<\/p>\n

They are crushed like a moth (Job 4:17\u201319<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Who do you think you are, Job!<\/em> A man isn\u2019t more righteous than his Maker! Why would God consider you blameless when he doesn\u2019t even look at his heavenly messengers that way? Eliphaz repeats the thought in Job 15:14\u201315<\/a>:<\/p>\n

14<\/a> What is a human being, that he can be clean,<\/p>\n

Or that one born of a woman can be righteous?<\/p>\n

15<\/a> Look, he does not trust his holy ones,<\/p>\n

and the heavens are not clean in his eyes.<\/p>\n

What Eliphaz says is significant. Here are two scriptural statements that God\u2019s heavenly council members are corruptible; they are not perfect<\/em>.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s not terribly profound on the surface. The only truly perfect Being is God himself. God never actually said that Job was incorruptible and perfect, only that he was blameless at the time of the council meeting. God knows that Job could indeed fail\u2014just like the divine beings in his council. Even the lesser elohim<\/span> cannot be completely trusted.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

FREE IMAGERS<\/p>\n

God knows that none of his imagers, divine or human, can be completely trusted. The reason is straightforward. Though imagers are like God, they aren\u2019t God. That\u2019s a truth we know all too<\/span> well from our own struggles and experiences in a fallen world.<\/p>\n

Without genuine free will, imagers cannot truly represent God. We saw earlier that the image of God is not an attribute or ability. Rath<\/span>er, it is a status conferred by God on all humans, that of representing God. God created humankind to extend Eden over all the earth. That\u2019s what the commands of Genesis 1:27<\/a>, collectively referred to<\/span> by theologians as the dominion mandate, are about. Humanity was to multiply, steward the creation, and govern on God\u2019s behalf. The goal was to care for the earth and harness its gifts for the betterment of fellow human imager<\/span>s, all the while enjoying the presence of God.<\/p>\n

How all that happens in our postfall world varies from person to person. In our experience, humans have widely differing abilit<\/span>ies. Some never see birth due to natural death or abortion. Others manifest in their bodies the effects of a world that isn\u2019t Eden. Some human beings have severe mental and physical defects that impede or prevent representing God according to the original vision. And even if we\u2019re blessed with what we consider normal health, <\/span>we\u2019re all subject to disease, injury, aging, and the weakness of a world subject to corruption. But imaging is bound to our humanity. Regardless of ability or stage, human life is sacred precisely because we are the creatures God put on earth to represent him.<\/span><\/p>\n

Humans who s<\/span>urvive birth without suffering severe impairment, however, are able to represent God as originally intended. They do so by means of a spectrum of abilities we have as humans. These abilities are part of our being<\/span> like God. They are attributes we share with God, such as intelligence and creativity. The attributes God shared with us are the means<\/em> to imaging, not the image status itself. Imaging stat<\/span>us and our attributes are related but not identical concepts.<\/p>\n

One of these attributes is freedom\u2014free will that reveals itself in decision making. If humanity had not been created with genuine freedom<\/span>, representation of God would have been impossible. Humans would not mirror their Maker. They could not accurately image<\/em> him. God is no robot. We are reflections of a free Being, not a cosmic automato<\/span>n.<\/p>\n

Put another way, God did not intend to create imagers that did nothing. True, even if an imager accomplished nothing (say, an aborted human fetus), they would still be an imager. But God\u2019s original<\/span> intent was to arm his imagers with both the will and the ability to carry out his decrees. Representation of God as his imagers and possession of free will are inextricably related.<\/p>\n

Since the lesser <\/span>elohim<\/span> were also created as God\u2019s imagers, they too must have free will. Both human and nonhuman imagers are less than their Maker. Only God is perfect in the possession and exercise of his attributes<\/span>. Every lesser being is imperfect. The only perfect Being is God. This<\/em> is why things could, and did, go wrong in Eden.<\/p>\n

If that was true even in Eden\u2014the place on earth where the council was present\u2014th<\/span>en being in the presence of God is no guarantee that free-will beings will never stray or act out of self-will<\/em>. Only God is perfect. Beings that are lesser than God, whether human or divine, are not p<\/span>erfect. The potential for error and disobedience is by definition possible.The kingdom of God and its residents (believers) will be restored and glorified after the final judgment. In the last chapter of this book we\u2019ll discuss how the new Eden and its occupants are the same and yet superior to the original Edenic situation.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a> Trouble could<\/em> happen in paradise, and of course it did. God\u2019s decision to create free imagers involved that risk.<\/p>\n

You might<\/span> think that all the risk was ours\u2014after all, the world of humanity has suffered in its wake. But the only way in which there was no risk involved for God is if you define risk as the threat of harm. God cannot<\/span> be harmed. But he can be grieved. He is moved by human sin and suffering (Gen 6:6<\/a>; Isa 54:6\u20137<\/a>). God was willing to risk that to have humanity.<\/p>\n

What we\u2019ve learned leaves us with important que<\/span>stions. Even though free will is necessitated by imaging and representation, is risk<\/em> the right word to use of God\u2019s decision? If God foreknew all the things that would happen as a result of his decisi<\/span>on, didn\u2019t he also predestine those things? But if he did, how can we even talk about free will? How are Adam and Eve truly responsible? What about the notion that they would \u201cknow good and evil\u201d (Gen<\/span> 3:5<\/a>) and be like God\u2014does that mean God has an evil streak in him?<\/p>\n

These questions have long been debated. It may therefore surprise you when I say they all have straightforward answers. What we\u2019ve s<\/span>een in this and earlier chapters about Eden, God, and his divine council prepares us for the answers. God does not delight in evil and suffering. Nor does he need it for his sovereign plan. The conundrums evaporate if we just allow the text to say what it says. We need to lay our theological systems aside, answer these questions l<\/span>ike an ancient Israelite would have, and embrace the results.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

CHAPTER 9<\/p>\n

Peril and Providence<\/p>\n

We closed the last chapter with a series of questions. How is it appropriate to talk about God\u2019s decisions involving risk? If God knew what was going to happen\u2014and if he<\/span> predestines the events\u2014where\u2019s the risk? Perhaps Adam and Eve needed to be taught a lesson about good and evil. Surely God didn\u2019t learn anything. But how do we get God off the moral hook when it comes to the appearance of sin and evil?<\/span><\/p>\n

An ancient Israelite would have thought differently about these questions than most believers do today. One reason is that we have layers of tradition that filter <\/span>the Bible in our thinking. It\u2019s time to peel those layers away.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

GOD\u2019S GIFT<\/p>\n

We might wonder why God doesn\u2019t do away with evil and suffering on earth. The answer sounds paradoxical: He can\u2019t<\/em>\u2014because that would require elimination of all his imagers. But he will at the last day. For evil to be eliminated, Earth and humanity as we know it would have to end. God has a chronology, a plan, for this ultimate development. It could be no other way, given his decision to create time-bound humans as the vehicles for his rule. But in the meantime, we experience the positive wonders of life as well. Though God knew the risk of Eden, he deemed the existence of humankind preferable to our eternal absence.<\/p>\n

Despite the risk of evil, free will is a wonderful gift. God\u2019s decision was a loving one. Understanding that requires only a consideration of the two alternatives: (1) not having life at all, and (2) being a mindless robot, capable only of obeying commands and responding to programming.<\/p>\n

If our decisions were all coerced, how authentic would those \u201cdecisions\u201d actually be? If love is coerced or programmed, is it really love? Is any<\/em> such decision really a genuine decision<\/em> at all? It isn\u2019t. For a decision to be real, it must be made against an alternative that could be chosen.<\/p>\n

We all know the difference between freedom and coercion. The IRS doesn\u2019t tell you that you may perhaps<\/em> pay your taxes by April 15. When you behave wrongly, where would the emotional healing of forgiveness be if the person you offended was merely programmed to say those words, or coerced to say them? Free will is a gift, despite the risk.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL<\/p>\n

Several phrases in Genesis 3:5<\/a>, 22<\/a> that have puzzled interpreters become more understandable in light of what we\u2019ve been discussing.<\/p>\n

In Genesis 3:5<\/a> the serpent (Hebrew: nachash<\/span>) <\/span>says to Eve: \u201cFor God (elohim<\/span>) knows that on the day you both<\/em> eat from it, then your eyes will be opened and you both<\/em> shall be like gods (elohim<\/span>), knowing good and evil.\u201d This verse is like Psalm 82:1<\/a><\/span>. The word elohim<\/span> occurs two times in the same verse. The first instance is singular because of grammar (the verbal \u201cknows\u201d is singular in form). While most English translations render the second inst<\/span>ance as \u201cGod,\u201d it should be plural because of the context supplied by Genesis 3:22<\/a>. That verse reads: \u201cAnd Yahweh God said, \u201cLook\u2014the man has become as one of us<\/strong>, to know good and evil.\u201d The phrase \u201co<\/span>ne of us\u201d informs us that, as in Genesis 1:26<\/a>, God is speaking to his council members\u2014the elohim<\/span>. This tells us clearly that the second instance of elohim<\/span> in Genesis 3:5<\/a> should be plural.<\/p>\n

This fits we<\/span>ll with Psalm 8:5<\/a>, where the psalmist notes that humankind was created \u201ca little lower than elohim<\/span>.\u201d We aren\u2019t a \u201clittle\u201d lower than God\u2014we\u2019re light years lower. Relatively speaking, the gap is narrow<\/span>er if we assume the reference in the psalm is plural (\u201ca little lower than the elohim<\/span>\u201d). This is the way the writer of Hebrews takes the phrase. In Hebrews 2:7<\/a> the writer quotes Psalm 8:5<\/a> from the Sep<\/span>tuagint. That translation reads the plural \u201cangels\u201d for elohim<\/span>, a clear plural.<\/p>\n

In Genesis 3:5<\/a>, Eve is being told that if she violates God\u2019s command, she and Adam will become as elohim<\/span>, knowing good a<\/span>nd evil. Notice that the phrase is \u201cknowing<\/em> good and evil,\u201d not will be capable of<\/em> good and evil. As free-will beings, Adam and Eve were already capable of disobedience. Like God\u2019s holy ones in counci<\/span>l, they were imperfect. But Adam and Eve had not yet experienced evil\u2014either by their own commission or as bystanders.<\/p>\n

The \u201cknowing good and evil\u201d phrase with the same Hebrew vocabulary occurs elsewhe<\/span>re. Deuteronomy 1:39<\/a> says:<\/p>\n

And your little children, who you thought shall become plunder, and your sons, who do not today know good or bad<\/strong>, shall themselves go there, and I will give it to them, and <\/span>they shall take possession of it.<\/p>\n

The little children referred to here are the generation of Israelites that would arise after the original generation that had escaped from Egypt at the exodus. That f<\/span>irst generation had been sentenced by God to wander in the desert for forty years until they died off for their refusal to enter the promised land in conquest (Num 14<\/a>). The new generation did not know<\/span> good or evil and would be allowed entrance into the land.<\/p>\n

The meaning is clearly that the second generation was not held morally accountable<\/em> for the sins of their parents. Though as children they wer<\/span>e under the authority of their parents, they had no decision-making authority in the matter and were thus not willing participants. Therefore they were not considered liable. They were innocent<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The s<\/span>ame perspective makes sense in Genesis 3<\/a>. Prior to knowing good and evil, Adam and Eve were innocent. They had never made a willing, conscious decision to disobey God. They had never seen an act of di<\/span>sobedience, either. When they fell, that changed. They did indeed know good and evil, just as God and the rest of his heavenly council members\u2014including the nachash<\/span> (\u201cserpent\u201d).See chapters 10<\/a> and 11<\/a> on the nachash as a divine being, a member of the council.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a><\/p>\n

EVIL AND FOREKNOWLEDGE<\/p>\n

Acknowledging God\u2019s foreknowledge and also the genuine free will of humankind, especially with respect to the fall, raises obvious questions: Was the fall predestined? If so, ho<\/span>w was the disobedience of Adam and Eve free? How are they truly responsible?<\/p>\n

Since we aren\u2019t told much in Genesis about how human freedom works in relation to divine attributes like foreknowledge, pre<\/span>destination, and omniscience, we need to look elsewhere in Scripture for some clarification. Let\u2019s look at 1 Samuel 23:1\u201313<\/a>. Note the underlining carefully.<\/p>\n

1<\/a> Now they told David, \u201cLook, the Philistin<\/span>es are fighting in Keilah and they are raiding the threshing floors.\u201d 2<\/a> So David inquired of Yahweh, saying, \u201cShall I go and attack these Philistines?\u201d And Yahweh said to David, \u201cGo and attack the Phi<\/span>listines and save Keilah.\u201d 3<\/a> But David\u2019s men said to him, \u201cLook, we are afraid here in Judah. How much more if we go to Keilah to the battle lines of the Philistines?\u201d 4<\/a> So David again inquired of Yah<\/span>weh, and Yahweh answered him and said, \u201cGet up, go down to Keilah, for I am giving the Philistines into your hand.\u201d 5<\/a> So David and his men went to Keilah and fought with the Philistines. They drove of<\/span>f their livestock and dealt them a heavy blow. So David saved the inhabitants of Keilah. 6<\/a> Now when Abiathar the son of Ahimelech fled to David at Keilah, he went down with an ephod in his hand. 7<\/a> Whe<\/span>n it was told to Saul that David had gone to Keilah, Saul said, \u201cGod has given him into my hand, because he has shut himself in by going into a city with two barred gates. 8<\/a> Saul then summoned all of <\/span>the army for the battle, to go down to Keilah to lay a siege against David and his men. 9<\/a> When David learned that Saul was plotting evil against him, he said to Abiathar the priest, \u201cBring the ephod h<\/span>ere.\u201d 10<\/a> And David said, \u201cO Yahweh, God of Israel<\/strong>, your servant has clearly heard that Saul is seeking to come to Keilah to destroy the city because of me. 11<\/a> Will the rulers of Keilah deliver me into<\/strong><\/span> his hand? Will Saul come down<\/strong> as your servant has heard? O Yahweh, God of Israel, please tell your servant!\u201d And Yahweh said, \u201cHe will come down.\u201d<\/strong>12<\/a> Then David said, \u201cWill the rulers of Keilah delive<\/strong><\/span>r me and my men into the hand of Saul?<\/strong>\u201d And Yahweh said, \u201cThey will deliver you.\u201d<\/strong> 13<\/a> So David and his men got up<\/strong>, about six hundred men, and went out from Keilah<\/strong> and wandered wherever they could go. W<\/span>hen it was told to Saul that David had escaped from Keilah, he stopped his pursuit<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

In this account, David appeals to the omniscient God to tell him about the future. In the first instance (23:1\u20135<\/a>), D<\/span>avid asks God whether he should go to the city of Keilah and whether he\u2019ll successfully defeat the Philistines there. God answers in the affirmative in both cases. David goes to Keilah and indeed defeats <\/span>the Philistines.<\/p>\n

In the second section (23:6\u201313<\/a>), David asks the Lord two questions: (1) will his nemesis Saul come to Keilah and threaten the city on account of David\u2019s presence? And (2) will the<\/span> people of Keilah turn him over to Saul to avoid Saul\u2019s wrath? Again, God answers both questions affirmatively: \u201cHe will come down,\u201d and \u201cThey will deliver you.\u201d<\/p>\n

Neither of these events that God fores<\/em><\/span>aw ever actually happened.<\/em> Once David hears God\u2019s answers, he and his men leave the city. When Saul discovers this fact (v. 13<\/a>), he abandons<\/em> his trip to Keilah. Saul never made it to the city. The men<\/span> of Keilah never turned David over to Saul.<\/p>\n

Why is this significant? This passage clearly establishes that divine foreknowledge does not necessitate divine predestination<\/em>. God foreknew what Saul would<\/span> do and what the people of Keilah would do given a set of circumstances. In other words, God foreknew a possibility<\/em>\u2014but this foreknowledge did not mandate that the possibility was actually predestined<\/span> to happen. The events never happened, so by definition they could not have been predestined. And yet the omniscient God did indeed foresee them. Predestination and foreknowledge are separable<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The th<\/span>eological point can be put this way:<\/p>\n

That which never happens can be foreknown by God, but it is not predestined, since it never happened.<\/em><\/p>\n

But what about things that do<\/em> happen? They can obviously be f<\/span>oreknown, but were they predestined?<\/p>\n

Since we have seen above that foreknowledge in itself<\/em> does not necessitate predestination, all that foreknowledge truly guarantees is that something is foreknown. <\/span>If God foreknows some event that happens, then he may have<\/em> predestined that event. But the fact that he foreknew an event does not require its predestination if it happens. The only guarantee is that <\/span>God foreknew it correctly, whether it turns out to be an actual event or a merely possible event.<\/p>\n

The theological point can be put this way:<\/p>\n

Since foreknowledge doesn\u2019t require predestination, forekno<\/em><\/span>wn events that happen may or may not have been predestined.<\/em><\/p>\n

This set of ideas goes against the grain of several modern theological systems. Some of those systems presume that foreknowledge requires pr<\/span>edestination, and so everything must be predestined\u2014all the way from the fall to the holocaust, to what you\u2019ll choose off a dinner menu. Others dilute foreknowledge by proposing that God doesn\u2019t foreknow all possibilities, since all possibilities cannot happen. Or they posit other universes where all the possibilities happen. These ideas <\/span>are unnecessary in light of 1 Samuel 23<\/a> and other passages t<\/span>hat echo the same fundamental idea: foreknowledge does not necessitate predestination.<\/p>\n

Things we discussed earlier in this book allow us to take the discussion further. God may foreknow an event and p<\/span>redestine that event, but such predestination does not necessarily include decisions that lead up to that event. In other words, God may know and predestine the end\u2014that something is ultimately going to happen\u2014without predestining the means to that end.<\/span><\/p>\n

We saw this precise relationship when we looked at decision making in God\u2019s divine council. The passages in 1 Kings 22:13\u201323<\/a> and Daniel 4<\/a> informed<\/span> us that God can decree something and then leave the means up to the decisions of other free-will agents. The end is sovereignly ordained; the means to that end may or may not be.<\/p>\n

IMPLICATIONS<\/p>\n

An ancient Israelite would have embraced this parsing of foreknowledge, predestination, sovereignty, and free will. He would not have been encumbered by a theological tradition. She would<\/span> have understood that this is the way God himself has decided his rule over human affairs will work<\/em>. These are Yahweh\u2019s<\/em> decisions, and we accept them.<\/p>\n

This has significant implications for not only th<\/span>e fall, but the presence of evil in our world in general. God is not evil. There is no biblical reason to argue that God predestined the fall, though he foreknew it. There is no biblical reason to assert that God predestined all the evil events thro<\/span>ughout human history simply because he foreknew them.<\/p>\n

There is also no biblical coherence to the idea that God factored all evil acts into his grand pl<\/span>an for the ages. This is a common, but flawed, softer perspective, adopted to avoid the previous notion that God directly predestines evil events. It unknowingly implies that God\u2019s \u201cperfect\u201d plan need<\/em><\/span>ed<\/em> to incorporate evil acts because\u2014well, because we see them every day, and surely they can\u2019t just happen<\/em>, since God foreknows everything. Therefore (says this flawed perspective) they must just be p<\/span>art of how God decided best to direct history.<\/p>\n

God does not need<\/em> the rape of a child to happen so that good may come. His foreknowledge didn\u2019t require the holocaust as part of a plan that would give u<\/span>s the kingdom on earth. God does not need evil as a means to accomplish anything<\/em>.<\/p>\n

God foreknew the fall. That foreknowledge did not propel the event. God also foreknew a solution to the fall that he h<\/span>imself would guarantee, a solution that entered his mind long before he laid the foundations of the earth. God was ready. The risk was awful, but he loved the notion of humanity too much to call the whole thing off.<\/span><\/p>\n

Evil does not flow from a first domino that God himself toppled. Rather, evil is the perversion of God\u2019s good gift of free will. It arises from the choices made by imperfect imagers, n<\/span>ot from God\u2019s prompting or predestination. God does not need evil, but he has the power to take the evil that flows from free-will decisions\u2014human or otherwise\u2014and use it to produce good and his glory through the obedience of his loyal imagers, who are his hands and feet on the ground <\/span>now<\/em>.<\/p>\n

All of this means that what we choose to do is an important part of how things will turn out. What we do matt<\/em><\/span>ers<\/em>. God has decreed the ends to which all things will come. As believers, we are prompted by his Spirit to be the good means to those decreed ends.<\/p>\n

But the Spirit is not the only influence. The exper<\/span>iences of our lives involve other imagers, both good and evil, including divine imagers we cannot see. The worldview of the biblical author was an animate one, where the members of the unseen world interact with humans. Loyal members of God\u2019s \u201ccongreg<\/span>ation\u201d (council), sent to minister to us (Heb 1:14<\/a>), have embraced God\u2019s Edenic vision\u2014we are brothers and sisters (Heb 2:10\u201318<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Other divine beings<\/span> would oppose God\u2019s plan. The original dissident takes center stage in the next chapter.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span>Section Summary<\/em><\/p>\n

We\u2019re just at the beginning of our journey. But we\u2019ve learned some key concepts already\u2014concepts that will emerge elsewhere in the Bible to form patterns. Other ideas will accrue to th<\/span>ese concepts, and the mosaic will start to take form.<\/p>\n

There are several takeaways from this first section of the book that will take on more shape and definition as we proceed.<\/p>\n

First, God has a divine<\/span> family\u2014a heavenly assembly, or council, of elohim<\/span>. These elohim<\/span> are not a replacement for the Trinity, nor do they add to it. Yahweh is among the elohim<\/span>, but he is superior to all other elohim<\/span>. He is<\/span> their creator and sovereign master. He is unique. Since Jesus is Yahweh in flesh, he too is distinct from, and superior to, all elohim<\/span>. While God has no need of a council, Scripture makes it clear th<\/span>at he uses one. His divine family is his divine administration. The elohim<\/span> serve him to carry out his decrees.<\/p>\n

God also has a human family and administration. Their status and function mirror the divi<\/span>ne family-administration. Just as with the members of the divine council who represent God in what they are tasked to do, so humans are God\u2019s imaging representatives. Just as God doesn\u2019t need a divine council, he doesn\u2019t need humans, either\u2014but he has chosen to use them to further his int<\/span>entions for Earth.<\/p>\n

Heaven and Earth are separate but connected realms. God\u2019s households operate in tandem towar<\/span>d a mutual destiny. Their points of intersection along the way inform many other threads of biblical theology.<\/p>\n

With Eden the divine had come to earth, and earth would be brought into conformity. Human<\/span>s were created to enjoy everlasting access to God\u2019s presence, working side by side with God\u2019s loyal elohim<\/span>. But this yearning of God\u2019s came with risk, a risk that was fully known by him and accepted. <\/span>Free will in the hearts and hands of imperfect beings, whether human or divine, means imagers can opt for their own authority in place of God\u2019s.<\/p>\n

Sadly, that will also become a pattern. Both of God\u2019s h<\/span>ouseholds will experience rebellion. The result will be the commencement of a long war against God\u2019s original intention. The good news is that there will be an equally committed effort on God\u2019s part to preserve what he began.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>CHAPTER 10<\/p>\n

Trouble in Paradise<\/p>\n

The story of the fall of humanity in Genesis<\/a> 3<\/a> seems straightforward, perhaps because we\u2019ve heard it told so many times. The truth is that the passage presents a lot of <\/span>interpretive questions. We\u2019ve devoted some time to a couple of them in the previous chapter. Now it\u2019s time to examine the main character, the serpent. Once again, there\u2019s a lot more than meets the eye here.<\/span><\/p>\n

One of the things that always bothered me about the story was why Eve wasn\u2019t scared witless when the serpent spoke to her. There\u2019s no indication that she thought the incident unusual. I\u2019ve run <\/span>into some odd explanations for that, such as, \u201cMaybe animals back then could walk and talk.\u201d That sort of speculation is aimed at preserving an overliteralized view of the text, and it\u2019s often accompanied by an appeal to science\u2014a claim that snake anatomy shows snakes once had legs. It\u2019s a bit misguided when someone attempts to defend biblical literalism by appealing to the evolutionary his<\/span>tory of snakes. And anyway, the whole approach misses the point. It also presumes that the villain was simply an animal. He wasn\u2019t.<\/span><\/p>\n

The truth is that an ancient reader would not have expected Eve to be frigh<\/span>tened. Given the context\u2014she was in Eden, the realm of Yahweh and his elohim<\/span> council\u2014it would have been clear that she was conversing with a divine being. As we\u2019ve seen in earlier chapters, the biblic<\/span>al author has telegraphed that Eve was on divine turf.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

GENESIS 3<\/a> IN CONTEXT<\/p>\n

In ancient Near Eastern literature of the Old Testament world, animal speech is not uncommon. The context for such speaking is that of magic, which of course is tied to the world of the gods, or direct divine intervention. No Egyptian, for example, would have presumed that the animals they experienced in their normal lives could talk. But when the gods or magical forces were in view, that was a different story. Animals were often the vehicle for manifesting a divine presence or power in a story. The kind of animal would often depend on characteristics associated with that animal, or on the status of that animal in a culture\u2019s religion.<\/p>\n

Consequently, the point of Genesis 3<\/a> is not to inform us about ancient zoology or a time when animals could talk. We\u2019re not in the realm of science by design<\/em>. Genesis telegraphed simple but profound ideas to Israelite readers: The world you experience was created by an all-powerful God; human beings are his created representatives; Eden was his abode; he was accompanied by a supernatural host; one member of that divine entourage was not pleased by God\u2019s decisions to create humanity and give them dominion. All that leads to how humanity got into the mess it\u2019s in.<\/p>\n

In some respects, we know<\/em> that the Genesis \u201cserpent\u201d wasn\u2019t really<\/em> a member of the animal kingdom. We have other passages to help us grasp that point, particularly in the New Testament. We understand that, even though New Testament writers refer to the serpent back in Eden, they are really referring to a supernatural entity\u2014not a mere member of the animal kingdom (2 Cor 11:3<\/a>; 1 Thess 3:5<\/a>; Rev 12:9<\/a>).<\/p>\n

This is how we need to think about the story of Genesis 3<\/a>. An Israelite would have known that the episode described interference in the human drama by a divine being, a malcontent from within Yahweh\u2019s council.I refer to the divine council broadly here, as roughly equivalent to the heavenly host. In what follows, readers will discover I consider the divine rebel\u2019s description to be one of a divine throne guardian. The divine council need not necessarily<\/em> be conceptually restricted to decision makers. Indeed, the analogy of human government in civilizations that had a conception of a divine council makes the point clear. Not all members of a king\u2019s \u201cgovernment\u201d would be directly involved in decision making, but they still worked for the high sovereign.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a> The vocabulary used by the writer reveals several things about the divine enemy that has emerged from the council. If we\u2019re thinking only in terms of a snake, we\u2019ll miss the messaging.<\/p>\n

My task in this chapter and the next is to help you think beyond the literalness of the serpent language. If it\u2019s true that the enemy in the garden was a supernatural being, then he wasn\u2019t a snake.Other scholars have taken the same view, notably van Dijk (Ezekiel\u2019s Prophecy on Tyre (Ez. 26:1\u201328:19): A New Approach<\/em><\/a>), cited more fully in the ensuing discussion.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a><\/p>\n

But it\u2019s also true that the story is told as it is for a reason. As odd as it sounds, the vocabulary and the imagery are designed to alert readers to the presence of a divine being, not a literal snake. Making that case will involve comparing Genesis 3<\/a> to other Old Testament passages. But to see that those passages are indeed conceptually linked to Genesis 3<\/a>, we need to review some of things we\u2019ve learned.<\/p>\n

Eden was the divine abode and, therefore, the place that Yahweh held council meetings. Here are some of the terms and verses associated with Eden we briefly noted in an earlier chapter. I\u2019ve added the Hebrew words behind the English.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Hebrew Term<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

English Meaning<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Concept<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Important Verses<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

elim, elohim (plural)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cgods\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

council members<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gen 3:5<\/a>, 22<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

gan<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cgarden\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

D<\/span>ivine abode, council meeting place<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gen 2:8\u201310<\/a>, 15\u201316<\/a><\/p>\n

Gen 3:1\u20133<\/a>, 8<\/a>, 10<\/a>, 23\u201324<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\u02beed<\/p>\n

nahar<\/p>\n

yamim<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201c(watery) mist\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201criver\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cseas, waters\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

description of the well-watered garden of the council<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gen 2:6<\/a>, 10\u201314<\/a><\/span>; Ezek 28:2<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

har<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cmount, mountain\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

mountain range where divine council met<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ezek 28:13<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

moshab elohim<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cseat of the gods\u201d (place of governing authority)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

the divine assembly<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ezek 28:2<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

You can see quickly <\/span>that, other than Genesis 2\u20133<\/a>, the other source of verse citations is Ezekiel 28<\/a>. That\u2019s one of the chapters conceptually linked to Genesis 3<\/a>. Its connection is explicit. Ezekiel 28:13\u201314<\/a> refers to \u201cEd<\/span>en, the garden of God \u2026 God\u2019s holy mountain.\u201d<\/p>\n

The table does not list all the points of connection between the two. There are a number of others, most of them hotly debated by scholars.The debate over the relationship of Ezek 28<\/a> and Gen 3<\/a> quickly becomes very technical. This chapter and the next introduce a few selective points of connection and issues relevant to those connections. See the companion website<\/a> for more detailed analysis of the grammatical, text-critical, and conceptual issues related to the Edenic referents in Ezek 28<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a> Back in the f<\/span>irst chapter I told you that there are many interpretations for strange passages in the Bible, but the best ones are those that make sense in the context of many others\u2014the mosaic. The relationship of <\/span>Genesis 3<\/a> to Ezekiel 28<\/a> and other passages is going to illustrate that point.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

EZEKIEL 28<\/a><\/p>\n

Ezekiel 28<\/a> is not specifically about the fall of humankind. It\u2019s also not a commentary on Genesis 3<\/a>. The chapter begins with God chastising the prince of Tyre (Ezek 28:1\u20138<\/a>). God accuses this prince of extraordinary arrogance. In verse 2<\/a> the prince considers himself a god (el<\/span>), who sits in the seat of the gods (moshab elohim<\/span>), a term associated with the divine council.Both phrases, \u201cseat of the gods\u201d and \u201cheart of the seas,\u201d point to the place of divine authority, the throne room of the divine council. Ugaritic yields a close parallel to moshab elohim<\/em> (Ugar. m[\u1e6f]b il<\/em>, \u201cseat of El\u201d; KTU<\/em><\/a> 1.4.i.13<\/a>). See Richard J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament<\/em> (Harvard Semitic Monographs 4; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972; reprinted by Wipf and Stock, 2010; but page numbers refer to the original edition, not the reprint by Wipf and Stock), 170; E. Theodore Mullen Jr., The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature<\/em> (Harvard Semitic Monographs 24; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), 150\u201355. Block seeks to deny a number of connections back to the divine council in this passage on the basis that an orthodox Yahwist wouldn\u2019t have drawn the analogies Block does (Daniel Isaac Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25\u201348<\/em> [The New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997], 94\u201395<\/a>). This is misguided in my judgment. There is nothing unorthodox about a biblical writer\u2019s repurposing of Ugaritic terms and ideas. Their use wasn\u2019t an endorsement of the theology of Ugarit. Their purpose is quite the opposite: to typecast a villain by comparing his arrogance to a supernatural rebellion against Yahweh. W. Hermann summarizes the view of most scholars in this regard: \u201cThe residence of El (m\u1e6fb il<\/em>) is referred to in KTU<\/em><\/a> 1.3 iv:48<\/a>; v:39<\/a>; 1.4 i:12<\/a>; iv:52<\/a>. El\u2019s mythic dwelling is situated at mbk nhrm<\/em> \/ apq thmtm<\/em>, \u2018the fountainhead of the two rivers \/ bedding of the two floods\u2019 (e.g. KTU<\/em><\/a> 1.2 iii:4<\/a>; 1.6 i:33\u201334<\/a>)\u201d (\u201cEl,\u201d in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible<\/em>, 2nd ed. [ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst; Leiden: Brill, 1995], 278<\/a>). Biblical writers draw on ancient Near Eastern religious material dozens, perhaps hundreds, of times to make their own theological points, not endorse foreign ones. The Hebrew Bible uses moshab<\/em> of Zion, the place of Yahweh\u2019s rule and governance (Psa 132:13<\/a>). Likewise Zion is called the \u201cheights of the north\u201d (Psa 48:2<\/a>), a phrase recognized by Semitics scholars as being drawn from the description of Baal\u2019s abode (KTU<\/em><\/a> 1.3 i:21\u201322<\/a>; iii:29<\/a>, 47\u2013iv:1<\/a>; iv: 19\u201320<\/a>, 37\u201338<\/a>; 1.4 iv:19<\/a>; v:23<\/a>, 55<\/a>; 1.5 i:10\u201311<\/a>; 1.6 vi:12\u201313<\/a>; 1.10 iii:27\u201337<\/a>). As Niehr notes: \u201cNearly always in the mythological texts Mount Zaphon is mentioned together with Baal because mount Zaphon is his divine abode\u201d (\u201cZaphon,\u201d in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible<\/em>, 928<\/a>).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>4<\/a><\/p>\n

The choice of el<\/span>for who the prince considers himself to be is interesting. It also appears in verse 9<\/a>, where it is in parallel to elohim<\/span>. The word el<\/span> is another word that means \u201cgod\u201d in Hebrew and other Semitic languages. The people of Ugarit called their high god El\u2014they used the term as a proper name. So did the people of Tyre, which was a Phoenician city. The Phoenician religion had a divine council led by El, who was also called elyon<\/span> (\u201cMost High\u201d) in Phoenician texts and considered the creator of the earth.<\/p>\n

To the ancient reader familiar with El, the notion that the prince of Tyre would think himself fit to rule in El\u2019s place (or even to be a more generic deity-participant in the divine council) would be ludicrous. For biblical writers, the idea was also offensive. For them Yahweh was Most High\u2014the true king of all gods and creator of heaven and earth. This is why the biblical writers refer to Yahweh as el-elyon<\/span> (\u201cGod Most High\u201d; Gen 14:20<\/a>, 22<\/a>). The point of assigning el<\/span> and elyon<\/span> to Yahweh was not to endorse how Phoenicians and residents of Ugarit thought about their gods, but to assert Yahweh\u2019s superiority. He was incomparable among spiritual beings; the others were pretenders. Consequently, the biblical writers would have viewed the human arrogance of the prince of Tyre as an affront to the God of Israel.<\/p>\n

God proceeds to acknowledge the great intelligence of this prince, but reminds him that he is no god, and certainly not the Most High (Ezek 28:2\u20136<\/a>). This sort of arrogance must be punished. Judgment will come. God asks sarcastically (v. 9<\/a>), \u201cWill you indeed still say \u2018I am a god!\u2019 before the face of your killers?\u201d<\/p>\n

In verse 10<\/a> God adds a strange detail: \u201cYou will die the death of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers.\u201d Since the prince of Tyre is an uncircumcised Gentile anyway, the phrasing seems to lack coherence. If we read a little further in Ezekiel, the point would be clear to an ancient reader. The underworld realm of the dead, Sheol, is described by Ezekiel as the place where the uncircumcised warrior-king enemies of Israel find themselves (Ezek 32:21<\/a>, 24\u201330<\/a>, 32<\/a>; Isa 14:9<\/a>). This is the place of the Rephaim dead, quasi-supernatural beings we\u2019ll encounter later.<\/p>\n

It is at this point that God has the prophet raise a lament over the prince of Tyre, the brilliant prince whose arrogance led to his fall, not only to the earth but under<\/em> the earth. God, through the prophet, begins:<\/p>\n

12<\/a>  You were a perfect model of an example,<\/p>\n

full of wisdom and perfect of beauty.<\/p>\n

13<\/a> You were in Eden, the garden of God,<\/p>\n

and every precious stone was your adornment:<\/p>\n

carnelian, topaz and moonstone,<\/p>\n

turquoise, onyx and jasper,<\/p>\n

sapphire, malachite and emerald.<\/p>\n

And gold was the craftsmanship of your settings<\/p>\n

and your mountings in you;<\/p>\n

on the day when you were created they were prepared (Ezek 28:12\u201313<\/a>).<\/p>\n

These verses raise questions. The prince of Tyre wasn\u2019t in Eden\u2014he was in Tyre. We see now that, although Ezekiel 28<\/a> is about the prince of Tyre, in describing this prince\u2019s arrogance, downfall, and original state, the prophet utilizes an older tale of a downfall in Eden<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

THE HUBRIS OF ADAM?<\/p>\n

Many scholars argue that the Edenic figure in view is Adam. That perspective is workable with parts of the description, but not all of them. The more coherent alternative is the serpent\u2014more pointedly, a divine being who has forgotten his place in the pecking order.<\/p>\n

But where do we see a serpent in Ezekiel 28<\/a>? Let\u2019s look first at what\u2019s clear before addressing that question.<\/p>\n

This \u201cprince\u201d was in Eden, the garden of God (v. 13<\/a>). He is beautiful\u2014words like shining<\/em> or radiant<\/em> are what come to mind when reading about the panoply of gems that were his \u201cadornment\u201d (vv. 12b\u201313<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Some have taken this language to refer to a literal jewel-encrusted garment worn by the human prince. They in turn argue that the prince of Eden was Adam. They also note that many of the jewels listed here correspond to the jewels on the breastplate of the Israelite high priest (Exod 28:17\u201320<\/a>; 39:10\u201313<\/a>). The picture, they say, is Adam as priest-king of Eden. Since Jesus was the second Adam and a priest-king, the analogy fits. The backdrop to the prince of Tyre\u2019s arrogance is the rebellious Adam, not the serpent.<\/p>\n

This sounds reasonable until you start looking at how \u201cAdam\u201d is characterized in the verses that follow.<\/p>\n

14<\/a> You were an anointed guardian cherub,<\/p>\n

and I placed you on God\u2019s holy mountain;<\/p>\n

you walked in the midst of stones of fire.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>  You were blameless in your ways<\/p>\n

from the day when you were created,<\/p>\n

until wickedness was found in you.<\/p>\n

16<\/a> In the abundance of your trading,<\/p>\n

they filled the midst of you with violence, and you sinned;<\/p>\n

and I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,<\/p>\n

and I expelled you, the guardian cherub,<\/p>\n

from the midst of the stones of fire.<\/p>\n

17<\/a> Your heart was proud because of your beauty;<\/p>\n

you ruined your wisdom because of your splendor.<\/p>\n

I threw you on the ground before kings;<\/p>\n

I have exposed you for viewing (Ezek 28:14\u201317<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Was Adam an \u201canointed guardian cherub\u201d? Where do we read in Genesis 3<\/a> that Adam was filled with violence, or that his sin was propelled by the fact he was egotistically enamored of his own beauty and splendor? When was Adam cast to the ground to be exposed before kings (v. 17<\/a>)?<\/p>\n

All of the phrases alluded to in the questions above are important. Dealing with them will take the rest of this chapter and the next. The key question that frames any discussion of them is this: Is Ezekiel drawing on a tale about the rebellion of a divine<\/em> being against God, or about Adam\u2019s<\/em> rebellion against God? I believe the former is more coherent, a decision that links what\u2019s going on here back to the only divine<\/em> rebel in Genesis 3<\/a>\u2014the serpent. In what remains of this chapter, I\u2019ll begin to explain my reasoning, and then continue that exploration in the next chapter.Again, the companion website<\/a> provides much greater detail and depth of analysis for the points made here and in the next chapter.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>5<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

ANOTHER APPROACH<\/p>\n

Ezekiel 28:12b<\/a> addresses the prince of Tyre this way: \u201cYou were a perfect model of an example.\u201d Some translations have \u201cYou were the signet of perfection.\u201d This line is one of the more troublesome in the book for translation. Some scholars go as far as to list it among the more problematic in the entire Old Testament.See H. J. van Dijk, Ezekiel\u2019s Prophecy on Tyre (Ez. 26:1\u201328:19): A New Approach<\/em> (Biblica et orientalia 20; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968), 113\u201314<\/a>. This is a technical work. Van Dijk argues for a divine serpentine figure in Gen 28:12\u201319<\/a> against the Adam explanation. See the companion website<\/a> for more of his thoughts.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>6<\/a> The Hebrew word behind \u201cperfect model\u201d or \u201csignet ring\u201d (ch-w-<\/span>t-m<\/span>) is the crux of the problem. The word is not a noun, but a participle that literally means \u201cthe sealer.\u201d A translation of \u201csignet ring\u201d takes the term to denote some object, but the term is addressed as a person (\u201cYou\u201d). The fact that this \u201csealer\u201d is described as being \u201cfull of wisdom\u201d and \u201cperfect in beauty\u201d also makes it clear that an object is not in view, but some intelligent person or entity.<\/p>\n

The question of course is just how this entity should be identified. Ultimately, the answer to this question derives from the answer to the previous question of whether Ezekiel is drawing on a story about a divine rebel or a human one. That question is the focus of the next chapter. But there are certain observations that can be made here that will help frame that discussion.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s reconsider the gemstones that describe the appearance of the \u201cthe sealer\u201d in Ezekiel 28:13<\/a>. As I mentioned earlier, proponents of the view that Ezekiel is drawing on Adam\u2019s rebellion for his analogous portrayal of the prince of Tyre want to argue that the gemstones point to a human priest-king. But the \u201cadornment\u201d can quite easily be telegraphing something else\u2014divinity. All of the gems have one thing in common\u2014they shine or sparkle. Luminescence is a characteristic of divine beings or divine presence across the ancient Near Eastern world and the Old Testament (e.g., Ezek 1:4\u20137<\/a>, 27\u201328<\/a> [cf. Ezek 10:19\u201320<\/a>]; Dan 10:6<\/a>; Rev 1:15<\/a>). This description of the divine cherub in Eden is designed to convey divinity\u2014a shining presence.<\/p>\n

There are more details. The anointed cherub ultimately gets cast out of Eden, out from \u201cthe midst of the stones of fire.\u201d We already know from other data that Eden is the place of the council. The \u201cstones of fire\u201d is another clue in that direction. This phrase is associated in other Jewish texts (1 Enoch 18:6\u201311<\/a>; 1 Enoch 24\u201325<\/a>) with the supernatural, mountainous dwelling of God and the divine council.See Kelley Coblentz Bautch, A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17\u201319: \u2018No One Has Seen What I Have Seen\u2019<\/em> (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 107\u201315. Bautch\u2019s work also discusses Mesopotamian backgrounds to 1 Enoch 18:1\u20136<\/a>. See van Dijk and his footnoted references in Ezekiel\u2019s Prophecy on Tyre<\/em>, 118\u201323<\/a>, for Mesopotamian connections to the motifs in Ezek 28:12\u201319<\/a>. The Septuagint translation of Ezek 28<\/a> provides another indication that the \u201cstones of fire\u201d refers to the divine abode. All the stones in Ezek 28:13<\/a> except one are used elsewhere to describe the supernatural Jerusalem (Rev 21<\/a>), which is obviously the divine abode and throne room. This is entirely consistent with the portrayal of divinity in terms of luminescence. The lone exception is the Septuagint\u2019s \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1\u03be<\/span> (for Hebrew \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1<\/span>). That word is used elsewhere in Ezekiel to describe the divine throne (Ezek 10:9<\/a>) as well as in Isaiah to describe the new Jerusalem (Isa 54:11<\/a>). Readers who check the Greek closely may presume a point of incongruence with one other item in the Septuagint rendering of Ezek 28:13<\/a>\u2014\u1f40\u03bd\u03cd\u03c7\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd<\/span> (for Hebrew \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd\u05e8\u05b0\u05e7\u05b7\u05ea<\/span>) is not found in Rev 21<\/a>. The supposed discrepancy is a misperception. The word \u1f40\u03bd\u03cd\u03c7\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd<\/span> is \u201ca kind of onyx<\/em>, Thphr.Lap<\/em>.31, Lxx<\/span>Ex. 28:20<\/a>: as Adj. \u1f40\u03bd\u03cd\u03c7\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2<\/span> (sc. \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2<\/span>), Suid\u201d (Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon<\/em> [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996], 1234<\/a>). Instead of \u1f40\u03bd\u03cd\u03c7\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd<\/span> we see \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03be<\/span> in Rev 21:19<\/a>. Both terms describe the gem onyx, thus allowing an identification of all the gemstones in Ezek 28<\/a> (Septuagint) with the description of the supernatural Jerusalem in Rev 21<\/a>. See James Harrell, \u201cGemstones,\u201d UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology<\/em> 1.1 (2012): 5 (table 1, pts. 5\u20136). Harrell notes that both onyx and sardonyx were referred to by \u1f40\u03bd\u03cd\u03c7\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd<\/span>. Several other scholars have argued for a close connection between the gemstone description of Rev 21<\/a> and Ezek 28<\/a>: F. Petrie, \u201cPrecious Stones,\u201d Dictionary of the Bible<\/em>, vol. 4 (ed. J. Hastings; New York: Scribner, 1919), 619\u201321<\/a>; J. L. Myres, \u201cStones (Precious),\u201d Encyclopedia Biblica<\/em>, vol. 4 (ed. T. K. Cheyne and J. S. Black; New York: Macmillan, 1903), 4799\u20134812; and E. F. Jourdain, \u201cThe Twelve Stones in the Apocalypse,\u201d Expository Times<\/em> 22 (1911): 448\u201350. Daniel Block appears to misidentify the LXX rendering of \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd\u05e8\u05b0\u05e7\u05b7\u05ea<\/span> when he says the word is \u201ca derivation from b\u0101raq<\/em>, \u2018to flash, shine,\u2019 [which] connects the word with \u2018lightning.\u2019 In Exod 28:17<\/a> LXX renders it \u03c3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2<\/span>, which is probably to be identified with emerald.\u201d See Block, Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25\u201348<\/em>, 109<\/a>. For the equation of \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd\u05e8\u05b0\u05e7\u05b7\u05ea<\/span> with \u1f40\u03bd\u03cd\u03c7\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd<\/span>, see Emanuel Tov, The Parallel Aligned Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Texts of Jewish Scripture<\/em> (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2003). See the companion website<\/a> for further discussion.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>7<\/a><\/p>\n

It may be objected here that Eden was the dwelling place of God and so the \u201cstones of fire\u201d do not only point to the divine beings of Yahweh\u2019s council. That much is true, but there\u2019s more to the phrase than a dwelling place. Other scholars have also drawn attention to the ancient Near Eastern propensity to describe divine beings as stars. Job 38:7<\/a> refers to the sons of God as \u201cstars,\u201d and Isaiah 14:12\u201313<\/a> refers to a being fallen from heaven as the \u201cDay Star, son of Dawn\u201d (English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>) who wanted to ascend above the \u201cstars of God\u201d in the divine realm. The \u201cstones of fire\u201d therefore do not only describe an abode, but also divine entities in that abode.Clifford\u2019s treatment of the astral language of Ezek 28<\/a> and Isa 14:4b\u201321<\/a> in his work on the cosmic mountain and divine council is illustrative of the clear connections between the terminology and divine beings. See Clifford, Cosmic Mountain<\/em>, 160\u201373. See also John Gray, \u201cThe Desert God \u02bfAthtar in the Literature and Religion of Canaan,\u201d Journal of Near Eastern Studies<\/em> 78 (1949): 72\u201383; Ulf Oldenburg, \u201cAbove the Stars of El: El in Ancient South Arabic Religion,\u201d Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft<\/em> 82 (1970): 187\u2013208.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>8<\/a><\/p>\n

The \u201cground\u201d to which this haughty divine being is cast and where he is disgraced is also of interest. The Hebrew word translated \u201cground\u201d is \u02beerets<\/span>. It is a common term for the earth under our feet. But it is also a word that is used to refer to the underworld, the realm of the dead (e.g., Jonah 2:6<\/a>), where ancient warrior-kings await their comrades in death (Ezek 32:21<\/a>, 24\u201330<\/a>, 32<\/a>; Isa 14:9<\/a>). Adam, of course, was already on earth, so he couldn\u2019t be sentenced there. And he didn\u2019t wind up in the underworld. Yet this is the sort of language we would expect if the point was the expulsion of a heavenly being from the divine council.<\/p>\n

Lastly, some scholars have suggested that the problematic term \u201csealer\u201d (Hebrew ch-w-t-m<\/span>) might be a cryptic reference to the serpent figure of Genesis 3<\/a>. If their suggestion is correct, the point of confusion becomes a clever signal that Adam is not in view.What follows is a summation of this alternative. For more technical discussion, see the companion website<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>9<\/a><\/p>\n

There is a rare phenomenon in ancient Semitic languages where the final letter m<\/em> is silent (the \u201cenclitic mem<\/span>\u201d).An analogy in English spelling, though imprecise, would be the silent e.<\/em> In English, silent e<\/em> serves to telegraph that the preceding vowel sound is long. Enclitic mem<\/em> is considered a particle directing attention to the word for emp\u200bhasis. Scholars have debated the reality of the enclitic mem<\/em> in biblical Hebrew. See Horace D. Hummel, \u201cEnclitic mem in Early Northwest Semitic, Especially Hebrew,\u201d Journal of Biblical Literature<\/em> LXXVI (1957): 85\u2013107; Mitchell Dahood, \u201cEnclitic mem<\/em> and emphatic lamedh<\/em> in Psalm 85,\u201d Biblica<\/em> 37, no. 3 (1956): 338\u201340; J. A. Emerton, \u201cAre There Examples of Enclitic mem<\/em> in the Hebrew Bible?\u201d in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran<\/em> (ed. Menahem Haran and Michael V. Fox; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996): 321\u201338; C. Cohen, \u201cThe Enclitic mem<\/em> in Biblical Hebrew: Its Existence and Initial Discovery,\u201d in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume; Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism<\/em> (ed. Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 231\u201360. One clear example is the mem<\/em> at the end of the phrase \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05dd<\/span> (bny \u02belm<\/em>) in Psa 29:1<\/a>. This phrase was long considered to read \u201csons of El\/God\u201d (\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span>) but has recently been changed in modern editions of the Hebrew text to \u201csons of the gods\u201d (\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span>). David N. Freedman writes: \u201cThe el\u012bm in the first line is to be read as El with enclitic mem<\/em>: eli-m, i.e., the sons of El, the gods\u201d (David N. Freedman, \u201cArchaic Forms in Hebrew Poetry,\u201d Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft<\/em> 31 [1960]: 101\u20137 [esp. 104]).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>10<\/a> If the m<\/em> is made silent in (in effect, removed from) our confusing word, the word becomes ch-w-t<\/span>, which means \u201cserpent\u201d in Phoenician and other Semitic languages.See Jacob Hoftijzer, Karel Jongeling, Richard C. Steiner, Adina Mosak Moshavi, and Bezalel Porten, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions<\/em>, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 2:726 (n\u1e25\u0161<\/em>6<\/span>), 353.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>11<\/a> That noun in its lemma form is ch-w-h<\/span>.The Hebrew consonants are \u05d7\u05d5\u05d4<\/span>. A lemma is the form of a word without suffix endings or prefixes, or any sort of alteration. It is the most basic form. For example, one would not find \u201crunning\u201d as a headword in a dictionary. Rather, you would find \u201crun\u201d\u2014the most basic form. \u201cRun\u201d is a lemma.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>12<\/a><\/p>\n

Though the case for this reading cannot be made conclusively, its message would be to read Ezekiel 28:11\u201319<\/a> in light of Genesis 3<\/a> and its serpent.As the next chapter and the companion website<\/a> discuss, my view of the relationship between Gen 3<\/a>, Ezek 28<\/a>, and Isa 14<\/a> does not depend on this reconstruction. There are many points of intersection between the three chapters. Ultimately, the issue comes down to whether a backdrop of a divine rebellion or human rebellion has more comprehensive explanatory power for all the interconnections. My view is that the latter view, though the majority view in biblical scholarship, cannot account for certain connections and is therefore less coherent (see note 14 below).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>13<\/a> It produces a play on words that takes us directly back to the scene of the fall in Eden. Since we know that we are not dealing with a mere animal in Genesis 3<\/a>, but rather a divine being that is cast as creaturely, the description that this figure in the garden was an \u201canointed guardian cherub\u201d makes sense. A cherub was a divine<\/em> throne guardian in the ancient Near Eastern worldview.See Alice Wood, Of Wings and Wheels: A Synthetic Study of the Biblical Cherubim<\/em> (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 385; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008). Wood provides an excellent concise summary of the morphological, grammatical, and text-critical difficulties in Ezek 28:11\u201319<\/a> that become part of the effort to identify the figure (divine or human?) lurking in the background of this passage. See the companion website<\/a> for interaction with her work. Bernard F. Batto takes a similar perspective. He describes the Edenic rebel this way: \u201cThe \u2018serpent\u2019 [was] a semi-divine creature with wings and feet like the seraphs in Isa 6:2<\/a>, whose function was to guard sacred persons and sacred objects such as the tree of divine wisdom\u201d (In the Beginning: Essays on Creation Motifs in the Bible and the Ancient Near East<\/em> [Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures 9; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013], 47).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>14<\/a> Ancient Near Eastern art and engravings have many examples of such throne guardians as animals, including serpents. There is little coherence to viewing the guardian cherub in Ezekiel 28<\/a> as the human Adam.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s summarize where this leaves us. Ezekiel 28<\/a> browbeats the prince of Tyre using an ancient tale of divine arrogance in Eden, where a member of Yahweh\u2019s council thought himself on par with the Most High. This divine throne guardian was expelled from Eden to the \u201cground\u201d or underworld.<\/p>\n

These elements show up in another passage: Isaiah 14<\/a>.One of the significant weaknesses of identifying the Edenic rebel lurking in the background of Ezek 28<\/a> as Adam is the relationship between Ezek 28<\/a> and Isa 14<\/a>. Scholars acknowledge that the two passages have clear, undeniable conceptual overlaps\u2014yet they do not posit Adam in Isa 14<\/a>. Instead, they posit a divine rebellion tale as the conceptual source of Isaiah\u2019s portrait of the king of Babylon while positing Adam as the rebel behind Ezek 28<\/a>. This divergence in approach to two passages that contain clear points of overlap is methodologically inconsistent. See the companion website<\/a> for a discussion of how an ancient tale of divine rebellion accounts for all the elements in both passages.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>15<\/a> We\u2019ll consider what Isaiah says next and then take a fresh look at what went on in Eden.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

CHAPTER 11<\/p>\n

Like the Most High?<\/p>\n

In the previous chapter, we saw that Ezekiel<\/a> 28<\/a> presents us with the tragic portrait of the prince of Tyre. The prophet uses the literary strategy of drawing on an ancient story of a divine being in Eden who thought himself heading \u201cthe seat of the gods\u201d (Ezek 28:2<\/a>), the divine council. This being was punished with expulsion from Eden to the underworld. The portrait of this being as a divine guardian cherub, using the imagery of brilliant, shining gems and a serpent, has conceptual links to Genesis 3<\/a>.<\/p>\n

These elements also show up in Isaiah 14<\/a>. We\u2019ll consider that passage and then take another look at the serpent in Eden.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

ISAIAH 14<\/a><\/p>\n

In Isaiah 14:4<\/a>, God tells the prophet to take up a \u201ctaunt\u201d (Hebrew: mashal<\/span>) against the king of Babylon. A mashal<\/span> is better described as a comparative parable. The question to keep in mind as we proceed is, to whom is the king of Babylon being compared?The mashal<\/em> of Isa 14<\/a> has several points of correlation with a Ugaritic divine council scene involving a lesser deity snubbing El. See Michael S. Heiser, \u201cThe Mythological Provenance of Isaiah 14:12\u201315: A Reconsideration of the Ugaritic Material,\u201d Vetus Testamentum<\/em> 51.3 (Fall 2001): 354\u201369. I noted at the end of the last chapter that it is inconsistent to see a human rebellion (Adam) as the backdrop for Ezek 28<\/a> but a divine rebellion behind Isa 14<\/a> when all scholars agree they are conceptually related. Among the treatments of Isa 14<\/a> that explore some sort of divine rebellion as the backdrop to Isa 14<\/a>, see Joseph Jensen, \u201cHelel Ben Shahar (Isaiah 14:12\u201315) in Bible and Tradition,\u201d in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition<\/em> (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 70; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 339\u201357; J. W. McKay, \u201cHelel and the Dawn-Goddess: A Re-Examination of the Myth in Isaiah XIV 12\u201315,\u201d Vetus Testamentum<\/em> 20 (1970): 451\u201364; Peter C. Craigie, \u201cHelel, Athtar and Phaethon (Jes 14 12\u201315),\u201d Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft<\/em> 85 (1973): 223\u201325; W. S. Prinsloo, \u201cIsaiah 14 12\u201315: Humiliation, Hubris, Humiliation,\u201d Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft<\/em> 93.3 (1981): 432\u201338; Ulf Oldenburg, \u201cAbove the Stars of El: El in Ancient South Arabic Religion,\u201d Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft<\/em> 82 (1970): 187\u2013208. With such an abundance of possible correlations to a divine rebellion story as the backdrop of Isa 14<\/a>, why look to Adam in Ezek 28<\/a>, which is so closely related to Isa 14<\/a>? The major recent work on this is Hugh R. Page, The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion: A Study of Its Reflexes in Ugaritic and Biblical Literature<\/em> (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 65; Leiden: Brill, 1996). My conclusions will differ at points with Page\u2019s. He prefers the Keret Epic (which involves a human king) as the backdrop to Ezek 28<\/a>. As I show on the companion website<\/a>, all the evidences he draws for this proposal can also be found in myths of a rebellion of a divine<\/em> being. In short, divine rebellion motifs account for all the elements in both<\/em> biblical passages (which have clear touch-points to the nachash<\/em> of Gen 3<\/a>), but the same cannot be said for appeals to Adam or the Keret Epic. See the companion website<\/a> for more detailed discussion on this point.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a><\/p>\n

The beginning of the parable sounds as unfavorable to the king of Babylon as Ezekiel\u2019s description of the prince of Tyre is to that ruler. The king of Babylon is called an \u201coppressor\u201d (English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>; v. 4<\/a>) who ruthlessly persecuted the nations (vv. 5\u20136<\/a>). The world will finally be at rest when the oppressor is \u201claid low\u201d (English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>; vv. 7\u20138<\/a>). In anticipation of the joy of finally being rid of the king of Babylon, the prophet writes:<\/p>\n

9<\/a> Sheol below is getting excited over you,<\/p>\n

to meet you when you come;<\/p>\n

it arouses the dead spirits [rephaim<\/span>] for you,<\/p>\n

all of the leaders of the earth [\u02beerets<\/span>].<\/p>\n

It raises all of the kings of the nations from their thrones.<\/p>\n

10<\/a> All of them will respond and say to you,<\/p>\n

\u201cYou yourself also were made weak like us!<\/p>\n

You have become the same as us!\u201d<\/p>\n

11<\/a> Your pride is brought down to Sheol,<\/p>\n

and the sound of your harps;<\/p>\n

maggots are spread out beneath you like a bed,<\/p>\n

and your covering is worms (Isa 14:9\u201311<\/a>).<\/p>\n

As in Ezekiel 28<\/a>, the figure in Isaiah 14<\/a> who is the target of its diatribe goes to Sheol, the underworld. The Rephaim are there, here identified again as the dead warrior-kings (\u201cyou have become the same as us\u201d). The king of Babylon will be one of these living dead, just like the prince of Tyre.<\/p>\n

Recall that Ezekiel 28<\/a> shifted from the prince of Tyre to a divine figure in Eden. That shift informed us that the writer was using a story of cosmic, divine rebellion to, by comparison, portray the arrogance of the earthly prince. After verse 11<\/a>, Isaiah 14<\/a> shifts to a divine context with clear links to Ezekiel 28<\/a>. Those connections in turn take us conceptually back to Genesis 3<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Isaiah 14:12\u201315<\/a> reads:<\/p>\n

12<\/a>  How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of dawn!<\/p>\n

You are cut down to the ground, conqueror of nations!<\/p>\n

13<\/a> And you yourself said in your heart,<\/p>\n

\u201cI will ascend to heaven;<\/p>\n

I will raise up my throne above the stars of God;<\/p>\n

and I will sit on the mountain of assembly<\/p>\n

on the summit of Zaphon;<\/p>\n

14<\/a>  I will ascend to the high places of the clouds,<\/p>\n

I will make myself like the Most High.\u201d<\/p>\n

15<\/a>  But you are brought down to Sheol,<\/p>\n

to the depths of the pit (Isa 14:12\u201315<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The divine council context is transparent. You\u2019ve already seen much of the terminology in chapter 6<\/a> about divine gardens and mountains.<\/p>\n

The figure to whom the king of Babylon is being compared is a divine being fallen \u201cfrom heaven\u201d (v.12<\/a>). He is called the \u201cmorning star, son of dawn.\u201d The language takes us back to Job 38:7<\/a>, where the sons of God were called \u201cmorning stars.\u201d But the Hebrew terms in Isaiah 14:12<\/a> are different than those in Job 38:7<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cMorning star, son of dawn\u201d is an English rendering of the Hebrew helel ben-shachar<\/span>, which literally means \u201cshining one, son of the dawn.\u201d When we talked about Job 38:7<\/a> in chapter 3<\/a>, I noted that \u201cmorning stars\u201d were the visible bright stars seen on the horizon as the sun rose. Astronomers (ancient and modern) knew another celestial object that behaved the same way\u2014an object so bright it could still be seen as the sun rose. That object was Venus, and so Venus, though a planet, became known to the ancients as the \u201cbright morning star.\u201d<\/p>\n

In essence, borrowing the language of Ezekiel 28<\/a>, Isaiah portrays this particular divine being as hopelessly enamored of his own brilliance. So great was his arrogance that he declared himself above all the \u201cstars of God\u201d (kokebey el<\/span>), the other members of the divine council (Job 38:7<\/a>).<\/p>\n

That this \u201cshining one\u201d sought superiority over the other members of the divine council is indicated by the phrase \u201craise \u2026 my throne\u201d and his desire to \u201csit\u201d on \u201cthe mountain of assembly.\u201d That this \u201cmountain of assembly\u201d speaks of the divine council is clear from its location in \u201cZaphon\u201d (\u201cthe north\u201d; tsaphon<\/span>) and the clouds. The \u201cseat\u201d language is familiar from Ezekiel 28:2<\/a> (the \u201cseat of the gods\u201d). Isaiah 14<\/a> reads like an attempted coup in the divine council. Helel ben-shachar<\/span> wanted his seat in the divine assembly on the divine mountain to be above all others. He wanted to be \u201clike the Most High\u201d (elyon<\/span>). But there can be only one of those.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s no surprise that helel ben-shachar<\/span>, the shining one, meets the same end as the divine throne guardian in Ezekiel 28<\/a>. In three places we see his fate. You\u2019ve seen two of the verses already. Take note of the emphasis in bold:<\/p>\n

9<\/a>Sheol below<\/strong> is getting excited over you,<\/p>\n

to meet you when you come;<\/p>\n

it arouses the dead spirits<\/strong> for you,<\/p>\n

all of the leaders of the earth.<\/p>\n

It raises all of the kings of the nations from their thrones.\u2026<\/p>\n

12<\/a> \u201cHow you have fallen from heaven,<\/p>\n

morningstar, son of dawn!<\/p>\n

You are cut down to the ground<\/strong> [\u02beerets<\/span>].\u2026<\/p>\n

15<\/a> But you are brought down to Sheol<\/strong>,<\/p>\n

to the depths of the pit<\/strong> (Isa 14:9<\/a>, 12<\/a>, 15<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The punishment of helel<\/span> is to live in the realm of the dead. Helel<\/span> ends up in Sheol, the pit (bor<\/span>); brought down to earth (\u02beerets<\/span>) by God, the truly Most High.<\/p>\n

The table below expands on the one we began in the previous chapter. As we move forward, I\u2019ll add terms and verses to those from Ezekiel 28<\/a>. I\u2019ll focus on divine council connections between that chapter and Isaiah 14<\/a> and Genesis 3<\/a>, but will include references from elsewhere when appropriate.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

THE DIVINE COUNCIL CONTEXT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Hebrew Term<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

English Meaning<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Concept<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Important Verses<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

elim<\/span>, elohim<\/span> (plural)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cgods\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

council members<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gen 3:5<\/a>, 22<\/a>; Psa 82:1<\/a>, 6<\/a>; Ezek 28:2<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

beney elim<\/span><\/p>\n

beney elohim<\/span><\/p>\n

kokebey boqer<\/span><\/p>\n

kokebey el<\/span><\/p>\n

helel ben-shacha<\/span><\/span>r<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201csons of God\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cmorning stars\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cstars of God\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cshining one, son of the dawn\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

council members<\/p>\n

shining appearance<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Job 38:7<\/a>; Pss 29:1<\/a>; 89:6<\/a>; Isa 14:13<\/a>;<\/p>\n

Ezek 28:13<\/a> (gems)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

gan<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cgarden\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

divine abode, counc<\/span>il meeting place<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gen 2:8\u201310<\/a>, 15\u201316<\/a><\/p>\n

Gen 3:1\u20133<\/a>, 8<\/a>, 10<\/a>, 23\u201324<\/a><\/p>\n

Ezek 28:13<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\u02beed<\/span><\/p>\n

nahar<\/p>\n

yamim<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201c(watery) mist\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201criver\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cseas, waters\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

description of the well-watered garden of the council<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gen 2:6<\/a>, 10\u201314<\/a> (Zion)<\/span>; Ezek 47:1\u201312<\/a> (Jerusalem temple; cf. Zech 14:8<\/a>); Ezek 28:2<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

tsaphon<\/span><\/p>\n

yarketey tsaphon<\/span><\/p>\n

bamot<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cnorth\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cheights of the north\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cheights\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

mountain range where divine council met<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Psa 48:1\u20132<\/a> (Jerusalem temple<\/span>; cf. Ezek 40:2<\/a>); Isa 14:13\u201314<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

har<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cmount, mountain\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

mountain range where divine council met<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Exod 24:15<\/a> (Sinai; cf. Psa 68:15\u201317<\/a>; Deut 33:1\u20132<\/a>); Isa 14:13<\/a>; 27:13<\/a> (Zion); Ezek 47:1\u201312<\/a> (Jerusalem temple)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

adat<\/span><\/p>\n

sod<\/span><\/p>\n

mo\u02bfed<\/span><\/p>\n

moshab<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cassembly\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201ccouncil\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cmeeting\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cseat\u201d (governing)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

the divine assembly<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Pss 82:1<\/a>; 89:7<\/a>; Isa 14:13<\/a>; Ezek 28:2<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\n
\n

THE NACHASH OF GENESIS 3<\/a><\/p>\n

The pivotal character of Genesis 3<\/a> is the serpent. The Hebrew word translated serpent<\/span> is nachash<\/span>. The word is both plain and elastic.<\/p>\n

The most straightforward meaning is the o<\/span>ne virtually all translators and interpreters opt for: serpent. When the Hebrew root letters n-ch-sh<\/span> are a noun, that\u2019s the meaning.<\/p>\n

But n-ch-sh<\/span> are also the consonants of a verb. If we changed the vo<\/span>wels to a verbal form (recall that Hebrew originally had no vowels), we would have nochesh<\/span>, which means \u201cthe diviner.\u201d Divination refers to communication with the supernatural world. A diviner in the <\/span>ancient world was one who foretold omens or gave out divine information (oracles). We can see that element in the story. Eve is getting information from this being.<\/p>\n

The consonants n-ch-sh<\/span> may also for<\/span>m an alternative noun, nachash<\/span>, which is at times used descriptively, like an adjective. This term is used in place names outside the Bible and once within the Old Testament. First Chronicles 4:12<\/a> ref<\/span>ers to \u201cTehinnah, father of Ir-Nachash<\/span>.\u201d The otherwise unknown Tehinnah is regarded in this verse as the founder of the city (Hebrew: ir<\/span>) of nachash<\/span>.<\/p>\n

This city has yet to be securely identified by arc<\/span>haeologists. The phrase means \u201cthe city of copper\/bronze (smiths).\u201d Hebrew words like nechosheth<\/span> (\u201cbronze\u201d; \u201ccopper\u201d) are derived from this noun. Ir-nachash<\/span> was a place known for copper and bronze met<\/span>allurgy. The option is interesting because copper and bronze are shiny<\/em> when polished. In fact, the Old Testament uses nechosheth<\/span> to describe divine beings (Dan 10:6<\/a>).<\/p>\n

We have words with such elasticit<\/span>y in English, where meaning depends on the part of speech. For example:<\/p>\n

(Noun): \u201cRunning<\/em> is a good form of exercise.\u201d<\/p>\n

(Verb): \u201cThe engine is running<\/em> on diesel.\u201d<\/p>\n

(Adjective): \u201cRunning<\/em> paint is an eyeso<\/span>re.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sometimes writers, when they use a term, want their readers to think about all<\/em> possible meanings and nuances. If I ask, \u201cHow has your reading been?\u201d the reader is forced to think about all three.<\/span> Do I mean the latest assignment (noun)? Am I wondering if you got the right glasses (adjective)? Or am I referencing the process (verb)? What I\u2019m suggesting is that, since there are immediate clues in the story that the serpent is more than a mere snake, that he may be a <\/span>divine<\/em> adversary, the term nachash<\/span> is a triple entendre. The writer wants his readers to consider all the possible nuances in t<\/span>heir interpretive, intellectual experience. All of them carry theological weight.I am not arguing that nachash<\/em> should not be translated \u201cserpent.\u201d It is not the translation that matters, but the recognition that the story is not about a mere animal. The serpent is actually a divine being. Rather, I am suggesting that, to literate readers of the Hebrew Bible, the lemma nachash<\/em> would have (intentionally so) brought to mind other elements of the cognitive framework of the original readers: the dispensing of divine knowledge (the verb form) and luminescence (nachash<\/em> is of the same root as nechoshet<\/em> [\u201ccopper, bronze\u201d] in biblical Hebrew). With respect to the latter, given the Babylonian\/Aramaic context for other portions of Gen 1\u201311<\/a> (see chapters 12\u201315<\/a> in this book), it is worth noting that Aramaic n-ch-sh<\/em> also refers to \u201ccopper, shining bronze,\u201d evoking the same sense of radiance or brilliance. See Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, Vol. I and II<\/em> (London; New York: Luzac &amp; Co.; G. P. Putnam\u2019s Sons, 1903), 896<\/a> (\u05e0\u05d7\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> II); Jacob Hoftijzer, Karel Jongeling, Richard C. Steiner, Adina Mosak Moshavi, and Bezalel Porten, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions<\/em>, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 2:726 (n\u1e25\u0161<\/em>6<\/span>).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a><\/p>\n

The serpent (nachash<\/span>) was an image commonly used in reference to a divine throne guardian. Given the context of Eden,<\/span> that helps identify the villain as a divine being. The divine adversary dispenses divine information, using it to goad Eve. He gives her an oracle (or, an omen!): You won\u2019t really die. God knows when you eat you will be like one of the <\/span>elohim<\/span>. Lastly, a shining appearance conveys a divine nature. All the meanings telegraph something important. They are also consistent with the imagery from Isaiah<\/span> 14<\/a> and Ezekiel 28<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

DIVINE JUDGMENT<\/p>\n

I tend to be sympathetic toward Eve. She all too often gets cast as stupid and na\u00efve. Given the divine council context of her status as God\u2019s imager and new member of his family, what the nachash<\/span> said to her had the ring of validity. Of course God wants us to be like the elohim<\/span>\u2014we\u2019re all one family. We all represent the creator, don\u2019t we? Why would we die?<\/p>\n

This doesn\u2019t excuse Eve (or Adam). Their disobedience had dire consequences. But while the reason for God\u2019s judgment is transparent, the meanings of that judgment beg for some careful thought. Entire books have been written on the implications of God\u2019s response, so my thoughts will be very selective.I prefer the term \u201cjudgment\u201d to \u201ccurse\u201d when it comes to God\u2019s response to Adam and Eve, reserving the term \u201ccurse\u201d for the serpent. I agree with Wenham\u2019s assessment: \u201cIt should be noted that neither the man nor the woman are cursed: only the snake (v 14<\/a>) and the soil (v 17<\/a>) are cursed because of man. The sentences on the man and woman take the form of a disruption of their appointed roles\u201d (Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1\u201315 [vol. 1; Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998], 81<\/a>).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a><\/p>\n

The curse levied at Adam (Gen 3:17\u201319<\/a>) did not supersede God\u2019s mandate to subdue the earth and take dominion. But it did make the task harder. The expulsion of humankind from Eden (Gen 3:22\u201325<\/a>) turned a glorious dominion mission into mundane drudgery. We know that God would take steps to restore his rule, and that descendants of Adam (especially one of them\u2014Gen 3:15<\/a>) would be critical to that kingdom. The human yearning for utopia is interesting in this light. We seem to have an inner sense of need to restore something that was lost, but Eden cannot return on purely human terms.Utopianism is a familiar theme in classic literary works of Western civilization. Plato\u2019s Republic<\/em>, Augustine\u2019s City of God<\/em>, and Thomas More\u2019s Utopia<\/em> are the more obvious examples. In the Christian context, utopian communities that sought to separate from the world or reform the culture according to Christian ideals include Calvin\u2019s Geneva, the Shaker movement, and the Ephrata Cloister. The Transcendental movement and sociopolitical ideologies like Marxism are also well-known secular examples. All attempts at creating a perfect harmonious society are doomed because people are imperfect, and total conformity is contrary to human nature. See Frank Edward Manuel, Fritzie Prigohzy Manuel, and Frank Edward Manuel, Utopian Thought in the Western World<\/em> (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009); Michael Fellman, The Unbounded Frame: Freedom and Community in Nineteenth Century American Utopianism<\/em> (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1973).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>4<\/a><\/p>\n

God\u2019s judgment of Eve is in some sense entwined with the curse of the nachash<\/span>. Eve would suffer intensified pain in childbirth (Gen 3:16<\/a>: \u201cI will multiply<\/em> your pain.\u201d). There is no indication that, had she borne children before the fall, Eve would have felt no pain at all. She was human. And it was important that she bear children, since her childbearing would have some relationship to the destiny of the nachash<\/span> and his deed.<\/p>\n

15<\/a> I will put enmity between you and the woman,<\/p>\n

and between your offspring and her offspring;<\/p>\n

he shall bruise your head,<\/p>\n

and you shall bruise his heel (Gen 3:15<\/a>English Standard Version
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>esv<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The wording of Gen 3:15<\/a> is veiled. For reasons that I\u2019ll make clear later, I believe prophecies like this that ultimately move in a messianic direction were deliberately cryptic. At the very least the verse tells us that God was not done with humanity yet. The goal of his rule on earth through humanity<\/em> would not be abandoned. A descendant of Eve would come forth who would someday undo the damage caused by the divine rebel, the nachash<\/span>. That this descendant is linked to Eve implies that the score will be settled through her bloodline.<\/p>\n

This human threat to the nachash<\/span> is fitting. The seduction to sin meant that Yahweh would have to be true to his word and eliminate humanity. The nachash<\/span> counted on the justice of God to eliminate his rivals. God was just in this regard. Elimination from Eden did indeed mean death, but not in the sense of immediate annihilation. God would see to it that their lives ended, but not before continuing his plan. Humanity would die, but it would also, at some point, produce a descendant who would ultimately restore God\u2019s Edenic vision and destroy the nachash<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Adam and Eve had contingent immortality prior to the fall. They had never-ending life, depending on certain circumstances. The imagery of Eden, home of the life-giver, and its tree of life convey the notion that, so long as Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life, called Eden their home, and didn\u2019t do anything that resulted in mortal injury (they were truly human after all), they would live.See the companion website<\/a> for the theological messaging of the tree of life imagery.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>5<\/a> Protected in their perfect environment, they could multiply and carry out their tasks as God\u2019s representatives on earth until the job was done.<\/p>\n

All of that goes by the wayside once they are removed from Eden. God even takes the extra step of preventing them from returning to Eden\u2019s tree of life (Gen 3:24<\/a>). Had they access to it, they would have gone on living, despite what had happened. After the fall, the only way to extend the work of God\u2019s human council-family was childbirth. Eve was redeemed through childbearing (1 Tim 2:15<\/a>). So were the rest of us, in the sense that that is the only way God\u2019s original plan remained viable. Where there are no offspring, there can be no human imaging and no kingdom.<\/p>\n

But the judgment on Eve also tells us that the nachash<\/span> would have offspring as well. The rest of the biblical story doesn\u2019t consist of humans battling snake people. That\u2019s no surprise, since the enemy of humanity wasn\u2019t a mere snake. The Bible does, however, describe an ongoing conflict between followers of Yahweh and human and divine beings who follow the spiritual path of the nachash<\/span>. All who oppose God\u2019s kingdom plan are the seed of the nachash<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Many readers who still feel the urge to see only a snake in Eden would no doubt contend that the curse pronounced on the nachash<\/span> requires that. I disagree. Literal readings are inadequate to convey the full theological messaging and the entirety of the worldview context.<\/p>\n

Consider what happens to the nachash<\/span> against the backdrop of the judgment language found in Ezekiel 28<\/a> and Isaiah 14<\/a>:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

SERPENT\/SHINING ONE IMAGERY & PUNISHMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Hebrew Term<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

English Meaning<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Concept<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Important V<\/strong><\/span>erses<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

nachash<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cserpent\u201d (noun)<\/p>\n

\u201cto use divination,<\/p>\n

give omens\u201d (verb)<\/p>\n

\u201cbronze, brazen\u201d (adj)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

word play; triple entendre Image of serpent (divine throne guardian), information from divine realm (divina<\/span>tion), shining appearance associated with divinity (brazen)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gen 3:1\u20132<\/a>, 4<\/a>, 13\u201314<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

chawwat<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cserpent\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

Ezek 28:12<\/a> (with silent m<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

helel<\/span><\/p>\n

ben-shachar<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cshining one, son of the dawn\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

shining appearance associ<\/span>ated with divinity<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Isa 14:12<\/a><\/p>\n

Ezek 28:13<\/a> (gems)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

yarad<\/span><\/p>\n

gada\u02bf<\/span><\/p>\n

shalak<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cbrought down\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201ccut down\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201ccast down\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

an expulsion from the divine presence and former service role to YahwehThe satan of Job 1\u20132<\/a> is not the nachash<\/em> of Eden. See the discussion in Chapter 8<\/a>. The divine rebel of Eden lost his role as Yahweh\u2019s throne guardian and, consequently, access to Yahweh\u2019s council. As will be noted in subsequent chapters, as lord of the dead, the nachash<\/em> (later called Satan in the New Testament) has claim over humanity through death, since human immortality in the presence of God was disrupted by human sin in Eden, necessitating redemption to once again be part of God\u2019s eternal family.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>6<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ezek 28:8<\/a>, 17<\/a><\/p>\n

Isa 14:1<\/span>1\u201312<\/a>, 15<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\u200a<\/em>\u02beerets<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cearth, ground\u201d (abstractly): underworld realm of the dead<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

underworld, realm of the dead<\/p>\n

NOTE<\/em>: the nachash<\/span> of Gen 3<\/a> is made to crawl on his belly, put on the ground, under the feet of<\/span> animals (Gen 3:14<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ezek 28:17<\/a><\/p>\n

Isa 14:9<\/a>, 11\u201312<\/a>, 15<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

sheol<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Sheol; realm of the dead<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

rephaim<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Rephaim; the \u201cshades\u201d; the dead in the underworld<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

underworld occupants<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ezek 28:17<\/a><\/p>\n

Isa 14:9<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

m<\/span>e<\/span>lakim<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201ckings\u201d (f<\/span>allen enemies)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The nachash<\/span> was cursed to crawl on its belly, imagery that conveyed being cast down<\/em> (Ezek 28:8<\/a>, 17<\/a>; Isa 14:11\u201312<\/a>, 15<\/a>) to the ground. In Ezekiel 28<\/a> and Isaiah 14<\/a>, we saw the villain c<\/span>ast down to the \u02beerets<\/span>, a term that refers literally to the dirt and metaphorically to the underworld (Ezek 28:17<\/a>; Isa 14:9<\/a>, 11\u201312<\/a>, 15<\/a>). The curse also had him \u201ceating dirt,\u201d clearly a metaphorical re<\/span>ference, since snakes don\u2019t really eat dirt as food for nutrition. It isn\u2019t part of the \u201cnatural snake diet.\u201d The point being made by the curse is that the nachash<\/span>, who wanted to be \u201cmost high,\u201d will <\/span>be \u201cmost low\u201d instead\u2014cast away from God and the council to earth, and even under the earth. In the underworld, the nachash<\/span> is even lower than the beasts of the field. He is hidden from view and from <\/span>life in God\u2019s world. His domain is death.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

After the fall, though humankind was estranged from God and no longer immortal, the plan of God was not extinguished. Genesis 3<\/a> tells us why we die, why we ne<\/span>ed redemption and salvation, and why we cannot save ourselves. It also tells us that God\u2019s plan has only been delayed\u2014not defeated\u2014and that the human story will be both a tragic struggle and a miraculous, providential saga.<\/span><\/p>\n

But the situation is going to get worse before it gets better.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

CHAPTER 12<\/p>\n

Divine Transgression<\/p>\n

After the ruination of Eden, the human story heads south in a hurry. That\u2019s to be expected. The curses that followed the events in the garden bound the fate of humanity together with the seed of the nachash<\/span>, all those who oppose the rule of God in either the earthly or the spiritual realm. The rule of God known as Eden would disappear, kept alive only through a fledgling humanity to whom God extended mercy.<\/p>\n

The seed of the nachash<\/span> is therefore literal (people and divine beings are real) and spiritual (the lineage is one of spiritual rebellion). This description has secure biblical roots. Jesus told the Pharisees, \u201cYou are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father\u201d (John 8:44<\/a>), and called them \u201cserpents\u201d and \u201coffspring of vipers\u201d (Matt 23:33<\/a>). In 1 John 3<\/a> the apostle John expressed the notion of spiritual seed\u2014good or evil\u2014manifesting itself in the human heart when he wrote:<\/p>\n

8<\/a> The one who practices sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. For this reason the Son of God was revealed: in order to destroy the works of the devil. 9<\/a> Everyone who is fathered by God does not practice sin, because his seed resides in him, and he is not able to sin, because he has been fathered by God. 10<\/a> By this the children of God and the children of the devil are evident: everyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, namely, the one who does not love his brother.<\/p>\n

11<\/a> For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning: that we should love one another, 12<\/a> not as Cain, who was of the evil one and violently murdered his brother. And for what reason did he violently murder him? Because his deeds were evil and the deeds of his brother were righteous (1 John 3:8\u201312<\/a>).<\/p>\n

This passage describes people whose lives are characterized by wickedness as \u201cchildren of the devil,\u201d a contrast to the spiritual \u201cchildren of God.\u201d This is a spiritual lineage, since the children of God have \u201cGod\u2019s seed\u201d abiding in them, a reference to the Holy Spirit. Peter echoes the same thought in 1 Peter 1:23<\/a>, where he describes those born again (literally, born \u201cfrom above\u201d) as being born not as mortal offspring or seed, but of \u201cimperishable seed,\u201d through the word of God. The language, then, points toward the spiritual\u2014following Yahweh or following the example of the original rebel, the nachash<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, John mentions Cain specifically. Cain murdered Abel sometime after their parents were expelled from Eden, the point at which we\u2019ve arrived in our exploration. Cain\u2019s spiritual father was the nachash<\/span>. They walked the same path.<\/p>\n

Things eventually got so bad that in Genesis 6:5<\/a> we read, \u201cAnd Yahweh saw that the evil of humankind was<\/em> great upon the earth, and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was always only evil.\u201d But that verdict is preceded by four verses that describe a different kind of rebellion\u2014a divine one. There were those in that realm who, as the nachash<\/span> had done, made a free choice that violated God\u2019s design and strategy for his rule on earth.<\/p>\n

In what remains of this chapter, we\u2019ll take a closer look at this divine transgression, focusing on how the account has been stripped of its supernatural features\u2014and therefore its intended meaning\u2014by most Christian interpreters. We\u2019ll continue the discussion in the two chapters that follow, where we\u2019ll examine how the original context and intent of the passage compels a supernatural interpretation and then explore that interpretation\u2019s implications.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

PRECURSOR TO THE FLOOD: DIVINE REBELLION<\/p>\n

Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> is one of those texts that many readers and pastors would rather skip. Not here. Its theological message is important.<\/p>\n

1<\/a> And it happened that, when humankind began to multiply on the face of the ground, daughters were born to them. 2<\/a> Then the sons of God saw the daughters of humankind, that they were beautiful. And they took for themselves wives from all that they chose. 3<\/a> And Yahweh said, \u201cMy Spirit shall not abide with humankind forever in that he is also flesh. And his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.\u201d 4<\/a> The Nephilim were upon the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God went into the daughters of humankind, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty warriors that were from ancient times, men of renown.<\/p>\n

There are few Bible passages that raise as many questions as this one.There is a substantial body of scholarly literature on Gen 6:1\u20134<\/a>. The issues are many and complex. See the companion website<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a> Who are the sons of God? Are they divine or human? Who were the Nephilim? How do these verses relate to the human evil described in Genesis 6:5<\/a>?<\/p>\n

Before we start tackling these questions and others,The questions listed here are addressed in this chapter and the next. Other questions include how to think about the sexual element of the story and how, if everyone but Noah and his family is wiped out by the flood, Nephilim could show up on the earth after the flood. Those questions will be addressed in chapter 23<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a> we need to learn how not<\/em> to interpret this passage.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

THE SETHITE INTERPRETATION<\/p>\n

This interpretation of Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> is the one most commonly taught in Christian churches, evangelical or otherwise. It has been the dominant Christian position since the late fourth century ad.The history of how Gen 6:1\u20134<\/a> has been interpreted is chronicled in detail in Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature<\/em> (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a><\/p>\n

In this approach, the sons of God in Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> are merely human beings, men from the line of Seth, Adam and Eve\u2019s son who was born after Cain murdered Abel (Gen 4:25\u201326<\/a>; 5:3\u20134<\/a>). Presumably, these four verses describe forbidden intermarriage between the godly men of Seth\u2019s lineage (\u201csons of God\u201d) and the ungodly women of Cain\u2019s line (\u201cdaughters of humankind\u201d). In this reading, everyone who lived on earth ultimately came from these two lines, both of them lines descended from Adam and Eve\u2019s children.One wonders how only women could produce a \u201cline.\u201d
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>4<\/a> In this way, the Bible distinguished the godly from the ungodly. Part of the rationale for this view comes from Genesis 4:26<\/a>, where, depending on the translation, we read that either Seth or humankind \u201cbegan to call on the name of the Lord\u201d (niv).The verb form (\u201cbegan\u201d) is third masculine singular. Since the word \u02beadam<\/em>, which is often rendered \u201cmankind\u201d or \u201chumankind\u201d in modern translations (e.g., Gen 1:26<\/a>), does not actually appear in the verse, the most natural rendering would be that Seth<\/em> began to call on the name of the Lord. If this is the case, then the Sethite view needs to extrapolate Seth\u2019s faith to only men<\/em> from that point on, since it is the \u201csons\u201d of God who must be spiritually distinct from the \u201cdaughters\u201d of humankind. One way around this is to argue that Gen 6:1\u20134<\/a> describes godly Sethite men marrying ungodly non-Sethite women. The passage of course never says that, and it presumes that, by definition, the only godly women on the planet were those related to Seth. Those who insert \u201chumankind\u201d into the verse (\u201chumankind began to call on the name of the Lord\u201d) undermine the Sethite view with that decision, as it would have humans from other lineages, not just that of Seth, calling on the name of the Lord.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>5<\/a> The line of Seth was to remain pure and separate from evil lineage. The marriages of Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> erased this separation and incurred the wrath of God in the flood.<\/p>\n

Exposing the deficiencies of the Sethite view isn\u2019t difficult. The position is deeply flawed.<\/p>\n

First, Genesis 4:26<\/a> never says the only<\/em> people who \u201ccalled on the name of the Lord\u201d were men from Seth\u2019s lineage. That idea is imposed on the text. Second, as we\u2019ll see in the next chapter, the view fails miserably in explaining the Nephilim. Third, the text never calls the women in the episode \u201cdaughters of Cain.\u201d Rather, they are \u201cdaughters of humankind.\u201d There is no actual link in the text to Cain. This means that the Sethite view of the text is supported by something not<\/em> present in the text, which is the very antithesis of exegesis. Fourth, there is no command in the text regarding marriages or any prohibition against marrying certain persons. There are no \u201cJews and Gentiles\u201d at this time.It is also misguided to argue that the Sethite view is valid because the writers and editors of the Torah were living under the law. There are near-relation marriages in the Genesis story prior to the Sinai legislation. For example, Abraham and Sarah had the same father, but different mothers, a forbidden sexual relationship in the Torah (Gen 20:12<\/a>; cf. Lev 18:9<\/a>, 11<\/a>; 20:17<\/a>; Deut 27:22<\/a>). In other words, the later legal backdrop of Sinai isn\u2019t being presumed elsewhere in Genesis, so it cannot be presumed as the backdrop for Gen 6:1\u20134<\/a>. There simply is no support for condemned human intermarriage in the text.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>6<\/a> Fifth, nothing in Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> or anywhere else in the Bible identifies people who come from Seth\u2019s lineage with the descriptive phrase \u201csons of God.\u201d That connection is purely an assumption through which the story is filtered by those who hold the Sethite view.<\/p>\n

A close reading of Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> makes it clear that a contrast is being created between two classes of individuals, one human and the other divine. When speaking of how humanity was multiplying on earth (v. 1<\/a>), the text mentions only daughters (\u201cdaughters were born to them\u201d). The point is not literally that every birth in the history of the earth after Cain and Abel resulted in a girl.This sort of awkward overliteralizing cannot explain, for example, where Noah got his sons.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>7<\/a> Rather, the writer is setting up a contrast of two groups. The first group is human and female (the \u201cdaughters of humankind\u201d). Verse 2<\/a> introduces the other group for the contrast: the sons of God. That group is not human, but divine.<\/p>\n

There are more deficiencies in this viewpoint than I will take time here to expose, but the point is evident. The Sethite hypothesis collapses under the weight of its own incoherence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

DIVINIZED HUMAN RULERS<\/p>\n

Another approach that argues the \u201csons of God\u201d in Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> are human suggests that they should be understood as divinized human rulers. A survey of the academic literature <\/span>arguing this perspective reveals that it springs from the following: (1) taking the phrase \u201csons of the Most High\u201d in Psalm 82:6<\/a> as referring to humans, then reading that back into Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a>; (2) <\/span>noting language where God refers to humans as his sons (Exod 4:23<\/a>; Psa 2:7<\/a>), which, it is argued, is parallel to ancient Near Eastern beliefs that kings were thought to be divine offspring; and (3) ar<\/span>guing that the evil marriages condemned in the verses were human polygamy on the part of these divinized rulers.<\/p>\n

We have already seen how the human view of the plural elohim<\/span> language in Psalm 82<\/a> fails<\/span>, so that fundamental flaw need not be reiterated here. But there are other flaws in this approach.<\/p>\n

First, the text of Genesis 6<\/a> never says the marriages were polygamous. That idea must be read into t<\/span>he passage. Second, ancient parallels restrict divine sonship language to kings. Consequently, the idea of a group<\/em> of sons of God lacks a coherent ancient Near Eastern parallel. The precise plural phr<\/span>ase refers to divine beings elsewhere in the Old Testament, not kings (Job 1:6<\/a>; 2:1<\/a>; 38:7<\/a>; Pss 29:1<\/a>; 82:6<\/a> [cf. 82:1b<\/a>]; 89:6<\/a> [Hebrew: 89:7<\/a>]).The divinized kingship view is also defended by contending that there are no examples in ancient Near Eastern materials of divine beings \u201cmarrying\u201d human women, while there are examples of kings claiming mixed ancestry from gods and humans. This of course presumes Gen 6:1\u20134<\/a> is describing matrimonial unions. This is playing word games, since the \u201cmarriage\u201d idea derives from English translations. The word translated \u201cwife\u201d is simply the normal plural for \u201cwomen\u201d (nashim<\/em>). The biblical euphemisms of \u201ctaking\u201d (Gen 6:2<\/a>) or \u201cgoing in to\u201d a woman (Gen 6:4<\/a>) are not exclusively used for marriage. They are also used to describe the sexual act outside a marriage bond. That is, \u201ctaking\u201d a woman can describe an illicit sexual relationship (Gen 38:2<\/a>; Lev 18:17<\/a>; 20:17<\/a>, 21<\/a>; 21:7<\/a>), as can \u201ccoming\/going in to\u201d (Gen 38:2<\/a>; 39:14<\/a>; Lev 21:11<\/a>; Judg 16:1<\/a>; Amos 2:7<\/a>). The point of the language of Gen 6:1\u20134<\/a> is a sexual relationship, not matrimony. This objection is therefore a distinction without a difference. This view also fails logically. The objection about the lack of divine-human marriages<\/em> is aimed at eliminating the divine element from Gen 6:1\u20134<\/a>, thus reducing the episode to purely human relationships (albeit with divine kings as focus). But on what logical basis would multiple marriages between kings and women bring the world into chaos, necessitating God\u2019s judgment in a catastrophic flood?
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>8<\/a> Third, the broad idea of \u201chuman divine kingship\u201d elsewhere<\/span> in the Old Testament is not a coherent argument against a supernatural view of Genesis 6<\/a>. It was God\u2019s original design for his human children to be servant rulers over the earth under his authority a<\/span>s his representatives\u2014in the presence of his glory<\/em>. Restoring the loss of the Edenic vision eventually involves creating a people known as Israel and giving them a king (David), who is the template fo<\/span>r messiah. In the final eschatological outcome, the messiah is the ultimate Davidic king, and all glorified<\/em> believers share that rule in a new, global Eden.Rev 2:7<\/a>, 26\u201328<\/a>; 3:21<\/a>; 5:10<\/a>; 21:24<\/a> [\u201ckings\u201d = rulers]. The idea of believers ruling over nations must be read in the context of the reclamation of the nations disinherited by God in Deut 32:8\u20139<\/a> (see chapter 15<\/a> and the final chapter of this book). The eschatological portrayal of glorified human rulers in a global Eden is why Hos 1:10<\/a> cannot be used to argue that the sons of God in Gen 6:1\u20134<\/a> are human. First, the phrase is not a precise parallel. Second, that passage must be viewed in the larger context of biblical theology. Hos 1:10<\/a> is eschatological<\/em>. It looks to a distant future time when the northern<\/em> kingdom of Israel will be restored as people of God. That eschatological event coincides with the ultimate glorification of believers\u2014who are, and will be, children of the living God, ruling and reigning with Yahweh, as originally intended, in a new, global Eden. The fact that God will see his human family fulfill the original Edenic goal does not overturn the fact that God also has a divine family. At the last day, when human believers are glorified, the two families and councils merge<\/em>. One family of God doesn\u2019t erase the other.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>9<\/a> But it is flawed hermeneutics to read eith<\/span>er ancient kingship or the glorification of believers back into Genesis 6<\/a>. The reason is obvious: the marriages in Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> corrupt the earth in the prelude to the flood story. A biblical theolog<\/span>y of divinized human rulership in the restored Eden would not be corruptive and evil.<\/p>\n

In summary, the plurality of the phrase \u201csons of God\u201d and the heavenly contexts of its use elsewhere show us there<\/span> is no exegetical<\/em> reason to exclude the occurrences of the phrase in Genesis 6:2<\/a>, 4<\/a> from the list of supernatural beings. What drives this choice is apprehension about the alternative.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

PETER AND JUDE<\/p>\n

Peter and Jude did not fear the alternative. They embraced a supernatural view of Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a>. Two passages are especially relevant.<\/p>\n

1<\/a> But there were also false prophets among the peo<\/span>ple \u2026 3<\/a> And in greediness they will exploit you with false words, whose condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. 4<\/a> For if God did not spare the angels who sinned<\/strong>, b<\/span>ut held them captive in Tartarus with chains of darkness and handed them over to be kept for judgment<\/strong>, 5<\/a> and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah<\/strong>, a proclaimer of righteousness, and sev<\/span>en others when he brought a flood on the world of the ungodly, 6<\/a> and condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction, reducing them to ashes, having appointed them as an example for those wh<\/span>o are going to be ungodly, 7<\/a> and rescued righteous Lot, worn down by the way of life of lawless persons in licentiousness 8<\/a> (for that righteous man, as he lived among them day after day, was tormentin<\/span>g his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he was seeing and hearing), 9<\/a> then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to reserve the unrighteous to be punished at the day of judgment, 10<\/a><\/span> and especially those who go after the flesh in defiling lust and who despise authority<\/strong> (2 Peter 2:1\u201310<\/a>).<\/p>\n

5<\/a> Now I want to remind you, although you know everything once and for all, that Jesus, having <\/span>saved the people out of the land of Egypt, the second time destroyed those who did not believe. 6<\/a> And the angels who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling place, he has k<\/strong><\/span>ept in eternal bonds under deep gloom for the judgment of the great day<\/strong>, 7<\/a> as Sodom and Gomorrah and the towns around them indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire in the same way as<\/strong><\/span> these<\/strong>, are exhibited as an example by undergoing the punishment of eternal fire (Jude 5\u20137<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Scholars agree that the passages are about the same subject matter.See, for example, Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude<\/em> (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 3<\/a>; Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary<\/em> (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 18; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 68<\/a>; Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary<\/em> (Anchor Yale Bible 37C; New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 120\u201322<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>10<\/a> They describe an episode from the tim<\/span>e of Noah and the flood where \u201cangels\u201d sinned.The word choice (\u201cangels\u201d) comes from the Septuagint. Despite its imprecision, the divine orientation is clear.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>11<\/a> That sin, which precipitated the flood, was sexual in nature; it is placed in the same category as the sin which prompted the judgment of Sodom and Gom<\/span>orrah. The transgression was interpreted by Peter and Jude as evidence of despising authority and the boundaries of \u201cproper dwelling\u201d for the parties concerned. All of those elements are transparent in <\/span>Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a>. There is simply no other sin in the Old Testament that meets these specific details\u2014and no other \u201cangelic\u201d sin at all<\/em> in the Old Testament that might be the referent.Some interpreters imagine a prefall rebellion of angels that might fit with 2 Peter. The Bible records no such event. The closest one comes to it is in Rev 12:7\u20139<\/a>. Not only is Revelation the last book of the Bible written, which means it cannot be the referent of 2 Peter, but Rev 12:7\u20139<\/a> associates the war in heaven with the first coming of the messiah, not events before the flood. There is no biblical evidence for a prefall angelic rebellion. The idea comes from Milton\u2019s Paradise Lost<\/em><\/a>, not the Bible.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>12<\/a><\/p>\n

The punishment<\/span> for the transgression, however, is not mentioned in Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a>. Peter has the divine sons of God held captive in \u201cTartarus\u201d in chains of darkness until a time of judgment.The phrase \u201cheld captive in Tartarus\u201d in 2 Pet 2:4<\/a> is the translation of a verb lemma (\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c9<\/span>) that points to the term from classical Greek literature for the destination of the divine Titans, a term that is also used of their semidivine offspring. The terminology clearly informs us that, for Peter and Jude, an antisupernaturalist interpretation of Gen 6:1\u20134<\/a> was not in view. See G. Mussies, \u201cTitans,\u201d in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible<\/em>, 2nd ed. (ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst; Leiden; Boston; Cologne; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999), 872\u2013874<\/a>; G. Mussies, \u201cGiants,\u201d in ibid., 343\u2013345<\/a>; David M. Johnson, \u201cHesiod\u2019s Descriptions of Tartarus (Theogony<\/em> 721\u2013819),\u201d The Phoenix<\/em> 53:1\u20132 (1999): 8\u201328; J. Daryl Charles, \u201cThe Angels under Reserve in 2 Peter and Jude,\u201d Bulletin for Biblical Research<\/em> 15.1 (2005): 39\u201348<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>13<\/a> Jude echoes the though<\/span>t and clarifies the judgment as the day of the Lord (\u201cthe great day\u201d; cf. Zeph 1:1\u20137<\/a>; Rev 16:14<\/a>). These elements come from Jewish literature written between our Old and New Testaments (the \u201cSecond Tem<\/span>ple\u201d period) that retell the Genesis 6<\/a> episode. The most famous of these is 1 Enoch. That book informed the thinking of Peter and Jude; it was part of their intellectual worldview.This sort of thing is common in human experience. For example, anyone who has read John Calvin\u2019s thoughts on predestination, or a dispensationalist\u2019s take on prophecy, will find it next to impossible to eliminate that material from their thinking while reading, respectively, the book of Romans or Revelation. First Enoch and other works are part of the thinking of Peter and Jude because they were well known and taken seriously by contemporaries. The content of 1 Enoch shows up elsewhere in these epistles. It is obvious to those who study all these texts, especially in Greek, that Peter and Jude knew 1 Enoch very well. Scholars have devoted considerable attention to parallels between that book and the epistles of Peter and Jude. See George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch 1\u201336, 81\u2013108<\/em> (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 83\u201387<\/a>, 560<\/a>; Pieter G. R. de Villiers, ed., Studies in 1 Enoch and the New Testament<\/em> (= Neotestamentica<\/em> 17; Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch Press, 1983); and Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude<\/em> (Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 50; Dallas: Word, 1998), 139\u201340<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>14<\/a> The inspired New <\/span>Testament writers were perfectly comfortable referencing content found in 1 Enoch and other Jewish books to articulate their theology.None of this means 1 Enoch should be considered inspired. It shouldn\u2019t and wasn\u2019t. A handful of leaders in the early church gave it that status, and those who did eventually abandoned the idea. See James C. VanderKam, \u201c1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature,\u201d in The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity<\/em> (ed. James C. VanderKam and William Adler; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 33\u2013101.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>15<\/a><\/p>\n

These observations are important. All Jewish traditions before <\/span>the New Testament era took a supernatural view of Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a>.The well-known texts of 1 Enoch have the offenders of Gen 6<\/a> as divine (the sons of God are called Watchers in 1 Enoch, a term that, as our next chapter shows, derives from a Mesopotamian context) and their offspring as giants. First Enoch connects this to demonology in that, when a giant was killed, its \u201cWatcher spirit\u201d is referred to as a demon. Hence in Gen 6<\/a> divine-human cohabitation is the answer to where demons come from in Second Temple Jewish thinking. On that subject, see Reed, Fallen Angels<\/em>; Archie T. Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6:1\u20134 in Early Jewish Literature<\/em> (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament<\/em> 198, second series; T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). There are several other Second Temple Jewish texts that take the same perspective (and none that oppose it to my knowledge). For instance, several Dead Sea Scrolls refer to demons as \u201cbastard spirits\u201d (4Q510 [=4QShir<\/a>a<\/span><\/a>] frag. 1:5<\/a>; 4Q511 [=4QShir<\/a>b<\/span><\/a>] frag. 35:7<\/a>; 4Q204 [=4QEnoch<\/a>c<\/span><\/a> ar], Col V:2\u20133<\/a>). Another scroll (11QapocPsa[=11Q11]<\/a> refers to demons in Col II:3<\/a> and then later calls the demons \u201coffspring of man and the seed of the holy ones\u201d (Col V:6<\/a>). See the companion website<\/a> for those texts. This is a clear indication of how Second Temple Jews understood Gen 6:1\u20134<\/a>, which was in turn based on a grasp of the original polemic context of Gen 6:1\u20134<\/a>. See chapter 13<\/a> for more on that context. On the Qumran scrolls mentioned above, see Loren T. Stuckenbruck, \u201cThe \u2018Angels\u2019 and \u2018Giants\u2019 of Genesis 6:1\u20134 in Second and Third Century BCE Jewish Interpretation: Reflections on the Posture of Early Apocalyptic Traditions,\u201d Dead Sea Discoveries<\/em> 7.3 (2000): 354\u201377; Ida Fr\u00f6hlich, \u201cTheology and Demonology in Qumran Texts,\u201d Henoch<\/em> 32.1 (2010):101\u2013128; Hermann Lichtenberger, \u201cSpirits and Demons in the Dead Sea Scrolls,\u201d in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn<\/em> (ed. James D. G. Dunn, Graham Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker, and Stephen C. Barton; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 22\u201340<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>16<\/a> In other words, they were in line with 2 Peter and Jude. The interpretation of the passage, at least with respect to its supernatura<\/span>l orientation, was not an issue until the late fourth century ad, when it fell out of favor with some influential church fathers, especially Augustine.<\/p>\n

But biblical theology does not derive from the c<\/span>hurch fathers. It derives from the biblical text, framed in its own context. Scholars agree that the Second Temple Jewish literature that influenced Peter and Jude shows intimate familiarity with the original Mesopotamian context of <\/span>Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a>.See Amar Annus, \u201cOn the Origin of the Watchers: A Comparative Study of the Antediluvian Wisdom in Mesopotamian and Jewish Traditions,\u201d Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha<\/em> 19.4 (2010): 277\u2013320, and Ida Fr\u00f6lich, \u201cMesopotamian Elements and the Watchers Traditions,\u201d in The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions<\/em> (ed. Angela Kim Hawkins, Kelley Coblentz Bautch, and John Endres; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), 11\u201324.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>17<\/a> For the person who considers the Old and New Testament to be equally inspired, interpreting Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> \u201cin context\u201d means analyzing it in light of<\/span> its Mesopotamian background as well as 2 Peter and Jude, whose content utilizes supernatural interpretations from Jewish theology of their own day. Filtering Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> through Christian tradition<\/span> that arose centuries after the New Testament period cannot honestly be considered interpreting Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> in context.<\/p>\n

Our next step is to build on what we\u2019ve learned. In the next chapter, we\u2019ll ta<\/span>ke a closer look at how the ancient contexts of Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> demand a supernatural outlook for the passage. Doing so will enable us to understand its message and role in the larger biblical narrative<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

CHAPTER 13<\/p>\n

The Bad Seed<\/p>\n

In the last chapter we learned that New Testament writers par-took of the intellectual climate of their own Jewish community, a community that flourished in the period between the Old and New Testament. It might seem unnecessary to mention this, given the enthusiasm many Bible readers have today for tapping into the Jewish mind to understand the words of Jesus and the apostles. When it comes to Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a>, though, that enthusiasm often sours, since the result doesn\u2019t support the most comfortable modern Christian interpretation.<\/p>\n

The truth is that the writers of the New Testament knew nothing of the Sethite view, nor of any view that makes the sons of God in Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> humans. Our goal in this chapter is to revisit the passage and dig deeper. When we take it on its own terms, we can determine its character and meaning.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

THE ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN CONTEXT<\/p>\n

That Genesis 1\u201311<\/a> has many connections to Mesopotamian literature is not disputed by scholars, evangelical or otherwise. The story of creation, the genealogies before the flood, the flood itself, and the tower of Babel incident all have secure connections to Mesopotamian material that is much older than the Old Testament.The literature on these connections is voluminous. Mesopotamian epics such as Enuma Elish<\/em> (\u201cThe Epic of Creation\u201d), the Eridu Genesis<\/em>, the Tale of Adapa<\/em>, the Sumerian King List, Atrahasis<\/em>, the Epic of Gilgamesh<\/em>, and Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta<\/em> all contain close parallels to what we read in Gen 1\u201311<\/a>. There are many more texts that do as well, including texts from Egypt and Canaan. To learn about these connections, see John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context<\/em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), and Bill Arnold and Brian Beyer, Readings from the Ancient Near East: Primary Sources for Old Testament Study<\/em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2002). A more scholarly volume is Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura, eds., I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1\u201311<\/em>, Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 4 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>1<\/a><\/p>\n

Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a>, too, has deep Mesopotamian roots that, until very recently, have not been fully recognized or appreciated.The single best study in this regard is Amar Annus, \u201cOn the Watchers: A Comparative Study of the Antediluvian Wisdom in Mesopotamian and Jewish Traditions,\u201d Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha<\/em> 19.4 (2010): 277\u2013320. Other works that deserve accolades include Helge S. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and the Son of Man<\/em> (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 61; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988); Kvanvig, Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical, and Enochic<\/em> (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 149; Leiden: Brill, 2011); and S. Bhayro, The Shemihazah and Asael Narrative of 1 Enoch 6\u201311: Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary with Reference to Ancient Near Eastern Antecedents<\/em> (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 322; M\u00fcnster: Ugarit Verlag, 2005).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>2<\/a> Jewish literature like 1 Enoch that retold the story shows a keen awareness of that Mesopotamian context. This awareness shows us that Jewish thinkers of the Second Temple period understood, correctly, that the story involved divine beings and giant offspring.First Enoch<\/em> is witnessed in other manuscripts besides those known from Qumran. The Qumran material is in part important because it was held in high regard by certain Jewish sects. See George W. E. Nickelsburg, \u201cScripture in 1 Enoch<\/em> and 1 Enoch<\/em> as Scripture,\u201d in Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts: Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman<\/em> (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995), 333\u201354.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>3<\/a> That understanding is essential to grasping what the biblical writers were trying to communicate.<\/p>\n

Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> is a polemic; it is a literary and theological effort to undermine the credibility of Mesopotamian gods and other aspects of that culture\u2019s worldview. Biblical writers do this frequently. The strategy often involves borrowing lines and motifs from the literature of the target civilization to articulate correct theology about Yahweh and to show contempt for other gods. Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> is a case study in this technique.<\/p>\n

Mesopotamia had several versions of the story of a catastrophic flood, complete with a large boat that saves animals and humans.See Victor Matthews, Old Testament Parallels<\/em> (rev. and exp. ed.; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2007), 21\u201342, and Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others<\/em> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). The standard scholarly discussion is Alan Millard and W. G. Lambert, Atra-Hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood with the Sumerian Flood Story<\/em> (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>4<\/a> They include mention of a group of sages (the apkallus<\/span>), possessors of great knowledge, in the period before the flood. These apkallus<\/span> were divine beings. Many apkallus<\/span> were considered evil; those apkallus<\/span> are integral to Mesopotamian demonology. After the flood, offspring of the apkallus<\/span> were said to be human in descent (i.e., having a human parent) and \u201ctwo-thirds apkallu<\/span>.\u201dMore specifically, the last of the postflood apkallus<\/em> in Mesopotamian tradition (Lu-Nanna) was only two-thirds apkallu<\/em> (see Anne Draffkorn Kilmer, \u201cThe Mesopotamian Counterparts of the Biblical Nepilim,\u201d in Perspectives on Language and Text: Essays and Poems in Honor of Francis I. Andersen\u2019s Sixtieth Birthday, July 28, 1985<\/em> (ed. Edgar W. Conrad and Edward G. Newing; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987): 39\u201344 (esp. 41). Annus (\u201cOrigin of the Watchers,\u201d 282) notes that this description \u201cexactly matches the status of Gilgamesh in the post-diluvian world, as he also was \u2018two-thirds divine, and one-third human.\u2019\u2005\u201d
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>5<\/a> In other words, the apkallus<\/span> mated with human women and produced quasi-divine offspring.<\/p>\n

The parallels to Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> are impossible to miss. The \u201ctwo-thirds divine\u201d description is especially noteworthy, since it precisely matches the description of the Mesopotamian hero Gilgamesh. Recent critical work on the cuneiform tablets of the Epic of Gilgamesh<\/em> has revealed that Gilgamesh was considered a giant who retained knowledge from before the flood.See Andrew George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts<\/em> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); George, \u201cThe Gilgamesh Epic at Ugarit,\u201d Aula Orientalis<\/em> 25 (2007): 237\u201354. The relevant lines in the Gilgamesh Epic<\/em> are tablet 1, lines 8, 48.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>6<\/a><\/p>\n

Other connections: In the Mesopotamian flood story found in a text now known as the Erra Epic<\/em>, the Babylonian high god Marduk punishes the evil apkallus<\/span> with banishment to the subterranean waters deep inside the earth, which were known as Apsu.Annus is unclear on this issue, as is his wording regarding the apkallu<\/em> and the Apsu. In some places he has the apkallu<\/em> sages sent to the Apsu; in others he refers to this assertion as a speculation (e.g., pp. 309\u201310). The line from the Erra Epic<\/em> confirms the apkallu<\/em> sages were sent to the Apsu. Marduk says: \u201cI made those (original) Craftsmen [the seven sages] go down to the Apsu, and I said they were not to come back up\u201d (William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, The Context of Scripture<\/em> [Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997\u2013], 1:407<\/a>. See footnote 19<\/a> at the end of the line from Erra<\/em> for the identification of the craftsmen as the apkallu<\/em> sages).
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>7<\/a> The Apsu was also considered part of the underworld.See Wayne Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography<\/em> (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998), 342\u201344.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>8<\/a> Marduk commanded that they never come up again. The parallels are clear and unmistakable. The banishment of these sinister divine beings to beneath the earth is significant. In the last chapter, I noted that this element of the story, found in 2 Peter and Jude, is not found in the Old Testament. The presence of this item in books like 1 Enoch and, subsequently, in the New Testament, is a clear indication that Jewish writers between the testaments were aware of the Mesopotamian context of Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a>.As we saw in the previous chapter, 2 Pet 2:4<\/a> has the guilty divine beings imprisoned in \u201cTartarus.\u201d This Greek word is the precise term used in classical Greek myths of ancient Titans and giants. The two groups are different but also conflated by classical Greek writers. However, both groups were divine in origin<\/em> in Greek mythology. For our purposes, Peter\u2019s word choice here points very specifically to the divine nature of the sons of God in Gen 6:1\u20134<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>9<\/a><\/p>\n

There are two other features to highlight in our discussion before we discuss what it all means.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

THE SONS OF GOD:<\/p>\n

Watchers, Sons of Heaven, Holy Ones<\/strong><\/p>\n

The divine transgression before the flood is retold in several Jewish texts from the intertestamental period. At least one has the divine offenders<\/span> coming to earth to \u201cfix\u201d the mess that was humankind\u2014to provide direction and leadership through their knowledge. They were trying to help, but once they had assumed flesh, they failed to resist its <\/span>urges.The best scholarly survey of Second Temple retellings of Gen 6<\/a> is Loren T. Stuckenbruck, \u201cThe \u2018Angels\u2019 and \u2018Giants\u2019 of Genesis 6:1\u20134 in Second and Third Century BCE Jewish Interpretation: Reflections on the Posture of Early Apocalyptic Traditions,\u201d Dead Sea Discoveries<\/em> 7.3 (2000): 354\u201377.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>10<\/a> The more common version of events, one with a more sinister flavor, is found in 1 Enoch 6\u201311<\/a>. This is the reading that informed Peter and Jude. The story begins very much like Genesis 6<\/a>:<\/p>\n

And <\/span>when the sons of men had multiplied, in those days, beautiful and comely daughters were born to them. And the watchers, the sons of heaven, saw them and desired them. And they said to one another, \u201cCome, <\/span>let us choose for ourselves wives from the daughters of men, and let us beget for ourselves children.\u201d<\/p>\n

The account has the Watchers descending to Mount Hermon, a site that will factor into the bib<\/span>lical epic in unexpected ways. Watcher<\/em>, the English translation of Aramaic \u02bfir<\/span>, is not new to us. In an earlier chapter about how God and his council participate together in decision making, we looked<\/span> at part of Daniel 4<\/a>, one of the sections of Daniel written in Aramaic, not Hebrew. Daniel 4<\/a> is the only biblical passage to specifically use the term watcher<\/em> to describe the divine \u201choly ones\u201d of Yah<\/span>weh\u2019s council.In Jewish literature from the era of Daniel through the Second Temple period, watcher<\/em> is a common term for the heavenly sons of God. See John C. Collins, \u201cWatcher,\u201d in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible<\/em>, 2nd ed. (ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst; Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1999), 893\u2013895<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>11<\/a> The geographical context of Daniel is of course Babylon (Dan 1:1\u20137<\/a>), which is in Mesopotamia.<\/p>\n

The offspring of the Watchers (sons of God) in 1 Enoch were giants (1 Enoch 7<\/a>). Some frag<\/span>ments of 1 Enoch among the Dead Sea Scrolls give names for some of the giants. Other texts that retell the story and are thus related to 1 Enoch do the same. The most startling of these is known today by scholars<\/span> as The Book of Giants<\/em>. It exists only in fragments, but names of several giants, offspring of the Watchers, have survived. One of the names is Gilgamesh, the main character of the Mesopot<\/span>amian Epic of Gilgamesh<\/em>.Humbaba (Aramaic: Chobabish<\/em>) and Utnapishtim, the Babylonian Noah, are others. Scholars of this material believe that Utnapishtim is the name from which a third giant\u2019s name (Atambish) is derived. See J. C. Reeves, \u201cUtnapishtim in the Book of the Giants?\u201d Journal of Biblical Literature<\/em> 112 (1993): 110\u201315<\/a>; Matthew Goff, \u201cGilgamesh the Giant: The Qumran Book of Giants<\/em>\u2019 Appropriation of Gilgamesh Motifs,\u201d Dead Sea Discoveries<\/em> 16.2 (2009): 221\u201353.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>12<\/a><\/p>\n

Figurines of apkallus<\/span>, the Mesopotamian counterparts to the sons of God, are known through the work of Mesopotamian archaeologists. They were buried in rows of boxes as part<\/span>s of foundation walls for Mesopotamian buildings to ward off evil powers.As is the case with biblical elohim<\/em>, some apkallus<\/em> were good and fought against the demonic powers.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>13<\/a> These boxes were referred to by Mesopotamians as mats-tsarey<\/span>, which means \u201cwatchers.\u201dSee the discussion in Annus, \u201cOn the Watchers.\u201d
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>14<\/a> The connection is explicit and direc<\/span>t.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

THE NEPHILIM<\/p>\n

One of the great debates over Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> is the meaning of the word nephilim<\/span>. We\u2019ve seen from the Mesopotamian context that the apkallus<\/span> were divine, mated with human women, and produc<\/span>ed giant offspring. We\u2019ve also seen that Jewish thinkers in the Second Temple period viewed the offspring of Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> in the same way\u2014as giants. Any analysis of the term nephilim<\/span> must account for<\/span>, not ignore or violate, these contexts.<\/p>\n

Interpretation of the term nephilim<\/span> must also account for another Jewish phenomenon between the testaments\u2014translation of the Old Testament into Greek. I speak<\/span> here of the Septuagint. The word nephilim<\/span> occurs twice in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 6:4<\/a>; Num 13:33<\/a>). In both cases the Septuagint translated the term with gigas<\/span> (\u201cgiant\u201d).The plural forms in context are, respectively, gigantes<\/em> and gigantas<\/em>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>15<\/a><\/p>\n

Given the backdrop we\u2019ve cove<\/span>red, it would seem obvious that nephilim<\/span> ought to be understood as \u201cgiants.\u201d But many commentators resist the rendering, arguing that it should be read as \u201cfallen ones\u201d or \u201cthose who fall upon\u201d (a bat<\/span>tle expression). These options are based on the idea that the word derives from the Hebrew verb n-p-l<\/span> (naphal<\/span>, \u201cto fall\u201d). More importantly, those who argue that nephilim<\/span> should be translated with one<\/span> of these expressions rather than \u201cgiants\u201d do so to avoid the quasi-divine nature of the Nephilim. That in turn makes it easier for them to argue that the sons of God were human.<\/p>\n

In reality, it doesn\u2019<\/span>t matter whether \u201cfallen ones\u201d is the translation. In both the Mesopotamian context and the context of later Second Temple Jewish thought, their fathers are divine and the nephilim<\/span> (however translated<\/span>) are still described as giants<\/em>.As was the case with the Septuagint, the Greek manuscripts of 1 Enoch use gigas<\/em> (\u201cgiant\u201d) when describing the offspring of the Watchers. See 1 Enoch 7:2<\/a>, 4<\/a>; 9:9<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>16<\/a> Consequently, insisting that the name means \u201cfallen\u201d produces no argument to counter a supernatural interpretation.<\/p>\n

Despite the uselessness of the argument, I\u2019m not <\/span>inclined to concede the point. I don\u2019t think nephilim<\/span> means \u201cfallen ones.\u201dThe translation \u201cfallen ones\u201d is based on a characterization of the behavior of the giants, not on any passage that informs us this is what nephilim<\/em> means. One Dead Sea Scrolls text says that the Watchers \u201cfell\u201d from right standing with God and that their offspring followed in their footsteps (CD [<\/a>Damascus Document<\/em><\/a>] II:19\u201319<\/a>). Note that while the verb naphal<\/em> appears in this verse, the word nephilim<\/em> does not. That is, the \u201cfallen state\u201d is not attributed to the name itself. The word nephilim<\/em> occurs only twice in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Neither instance makes a connection to any behavior. In fact, no explanation of the term is ever offered. Certain English translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls will occasionally have this \u201cfallen\u201d language elsewhere, but such instances are bracketed\u2014they have been supplied by translators but without any manuscript support (e.g., 4Q266 Frag. 2 ii:18<\/a>). The most recent scholarly work on the Nephilim and the later giant clans is the recent Harvard dissertation by Brian Doak (published as The Last of the Rephaim: Conquest and Cataclysm in the Heroic Ages of Ancient Israel<\/em>, Ilex Series 7 [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013]). Despite its many merits, Doak\u2019s book on the giants fails with respect to the meaning of nephilim<\/em>. Annus\u2019s ground-breaking article does not appear in either Doak\u2019s dissertation bibliography or that of his book. The article likely appeared after Doak had finished his dissertation work. See the companion website<\/a> for some discussion of Doak\u2019s work.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>17<\/a> Jewish writers and translators habitually think \u201cgiants\u201d when they use or translate the term. I think there\u2019s a reason for <\/span>that.<\/p>\n

Explaining my own view of what the term means involves Hebrew morphology, the way words are spelled or formed in Hebrew. Since that discussion gets technical very quickly, I\u2019ve elected to put th<\/span>ose details elsewhere, at least for the most part.See the companion website<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>18<\/a> But since I don\u2019t like to leave questions unanswered, we need to devote some attention to it here.<\/p>\n

The spelling of the word nephilim<\/span> provides a clu<\/span>e to what root word the term is derived from. Nephilim<\/span> is spelled two different ways in the Hebrew Bible: nephilim<\/span> and nephi<\/span>y<\/span>lim<\/span>. The difference between them is the \u201cy\u201d in the second spelling. Hebrew <\/span>originally had no vowels. All words were written with consonants only. As time went on, Hebrew scribes started to use some of the consonants to mark long vowel sounds. English does this with the \u201cy\u201d consonant\u2014sometimes it\u2019s a vowel. Hebrew does that with its \u201cy\u201d letter, t<\/span>oo (the yod<\/span>).<\/p>\n

The takeaway is that the second spelling (nephiylim<\/span>) tells us that the root behind the term had a long-i (y) in it<\/span> before the plural ending (-im<\/em>) was added. That in turn helps us determine that the word does not mean \u201cthose who fall.\u201d If that were the case, the word would have been spelled nophelim<\/span>. A translation<\/span> of \u201cfallen\u201d from the verb naphal<\/span> is also weakened by the \u201cy\u201d spelling form. If the word came from the verb naphal<\/span>, we\u2019d expect a spelling of nephulim<\/span> for \u201cfallen.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, there\u2019s another possible d<\/span>efense for the meaning \u201cfallen.\u201d Instead of coming from the verb naphal<\/span>, the word might come from a noun that has a long-i vowel in the second syllable. This kind of noun is called a qatiyl<\/span> noun. Alth<\/span>ough there is no such noun as naphiyl<\/span> in the Hebrew Bible, the hypothetical plural form would be nephiylim<\/span>, which is the long spelling we see in Numbers 13:33<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This option solves the spelling problem,<\/span> but it fails to explain everything else: the Mesopotamian context, the Second Temple Jewish recognition of that context, the connection of the term to Anakim giants (Num 13:33<\/a>; Deut 2\u20133<\/a>), and the fac<\/span>t that the Septuagint translators interpreted the word as \u201cgiants.\u201d<\/p>\n

So where does the spelling nephiylim<\/span> come from? Is there an answer that would simultaneously explain why the translators were consis<\/span>tently thinking \u201cgiants\u201d?<\/p>\n

There is indeed.<\/p>\n

Recall that the Old Testament tells us that Jewish intellectuals were taken to Babylon. During those seventy years, the Jews learned to speak Aramaic. They l<\/span>ater brought it back to Judah. This is how Aramaic became the primary language in Judea by the time of Jesus.<\/p>\n

The point of Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> was to express contempt for the divine Mesopotamian apkallus<\/span> an<\/span>d their giant offspring. Biblical writers had an easy choice of vocabulary for divine beings: sons of God. Their readers would know that the phrase pointed to divine beings, and other passages in the Tor<\/span>ah (Deut 32:17<\/a>) labeled other divine beings as demons (shedim<\/span>). But these writers needed a good word to villainize the giant offspring. \u201cFallen ones\u201d doesn\u2019t telegraph giantism, so that didn\u2019t help<\/span> them make the point.<\/p>\n

My view is that, to solve this messaging problem, the Jewish scribes adopted an Aramaic noun: naphiyla<\/span>\u2014which means \u201cgiant.\u201d When you import that word and pluralize it for Hebrew,<\/span> you get nephiylim<\/span>, just what we see in Numbers 13:33<\/a>. This is the only explanation to the meaning of the word that accounts for all the contexts and all the details.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

THE STRATEGY OF GENESIS 6<\/a><\/p>\n

But what does it all mean? Why is Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> in the Bible? What was its theological message? I\u2019ve already noted that the goal was polemic\u2014a dismissal of Mesopotamian religion. But that\u2019s a little vague. Let\u2019s explore it.<\/p>\n

Because the content of Genesis 1\u201311<\/a> has so many deep, specific touch-points with Mesopotamian literary works, many scholars believe that these chapters either were written during the exile in Babylon or were edited at that time.The issue of the Mesopotamian contexts for so much of Gen 1\u201311<\/a> naturally relates to the debate over Mosaic authorship of the Torah (and what that actually means). The issue is complex. I\u2019ve read or met hundreds of evangelical scholars over my career. Very few would have any trouble with the notion of the Torah reaching its final form during the exile whether they embrace Mosaic authorship in whole or in part.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>19<\/a> The scribes wanted to make it clear that certain religious ideas about the gods and the world were misguided or false.<\/p>\n

Think about the setting. The Jews, followers of Yahweh, were in Babylon, deported against their will by the greatest empire in their known world. Though captives, prophets like Ezekiel (and Jeremiah before him) had told the people that their situation was temporary\u2014that the God of Israel remained the real sovereign. He was fully in control and was the true God. They would be set free and Babylon would crumble. For Jewish scribes, their work during the exile was an opportunity to set the record straight for posterity. And that they did.<\/p>\n

Babylonian intellectuals (mostly, the priestly class) presumed that civilization in Mesopotamia before the flood had been handed down by their gods. For that reason, they wanted to connect themselves and their intellectual achievements with knowledge from before the flood. It was their way of claiming that their knowledge and skills were divine and, therefore, superior to those of the nations they had conquered. That in turn meant that the gods of those nations were inferior to the gods of Babylon.<\/p>\n

The apkallus<\/span> were the great culture-heroes of preflood knowledge. They were the divine sages of a glorious bygone era. Babylonian kings claimed to be descended from the apkallus<\/span> and other divine figures from before the flood. The collective claim was that glorious Babylonia was the sole possessor of divine knowledge, and that that empire\u2019s rule had the approval of the gods.<\/p>\n

The biblical writers and later Jews disagreed. They saw Babylonian knowledge as having demonic origins\u2014in large part because the apkallus<\/span> themselves were so intertwined with Mesopotamian demonology. The Babylonian elite taught that the divine knowledge of the apkallus<\/span> had survived the flood through a succeeding postflood generation of apkallus<\/span>\u2014giant, quasi-divine offspring fathered by the original preflood apkallus<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The biblical writers took what Babylonians thought was proof of their own divine heritage and told a different story. Yes, there were giants, renowned men, both before and after the flood (Gen 6:4<\/a>). But those offspring and their knowledge were not of the true God\u2014they were the result of rebellion against Yahweh by lesser divine beings. Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a>, along with 2 Peter and Jude, portrays Babylon\u2019s boast as a horrific transgression and, even worse, the catalyst that spread corruption throughout humankind. Genesis 6:5<\/a> is essentially a summary of the eff<\/em>ect<\/em> of the transgression. It gets little space\u2014it\u2019s a restrained account. The later Second Temple Jewish literature goes after it full bore.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

First Enoch 8<\/a> goes on to elaborate how certain watchers cor<\/span>rupted humankind by means of forbidden divine knowledge, practices largely drawn from Babylonian sciences, another clear indication that the intellectual context of the story was known to Second Temple authors. Since the Babylonian <\/span>apkallus<\/span> were considered demonic, it is no mystery why Peter and Jude link the events of Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> to false teachers (2 Pet 2:1\u20134<\/a>). While attacking their aberrant k<\/span>nowledge, Peter and Jude evoke the imagery of Genesis 6<\/a>. False teachers are \u201clicentious\u201d men who indulge in \u201cdefiling lusts\u201d (2 Pet 2:2<\/a>, 10<\/a>; Jude 8<\/a>). Like the divine beings of Genesis 6<\/a> who \u201cdid not k<\/span>eep to their own domain\u201d (Jude 6<\/a>), defecting from the loyal elohim<\/span> of Yahweh\u2019s council, false teachers \u201cdespise authority\u201d and \u201cblaspheme majestic beings\u201d whom angels dare not rebuke (2 Pet 2:9\u201311<\/a>; Ju<\/span>de 8\u201310<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Less obvious is the implication of the incident with respect to the promised seed of Eve. The biblical writers draw attention to Noah\u2019s blamelessness (Gen 6:9<\/a>). Scripture does not specifical<\/span>ly exempt Noah and his family from the sinful cohabitation of Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a>, but since the event was so heinous, it would be absurd to presume otherwise.The quandary of how anyone, including the giants, had survived the flood led some Jewish writers to speculate that Noah himself had been fathered by a Watcher. One Dead Sea scroll, The Genesis Apocryphon<\/em>, has Noah\u2019s father challenging his wife, the mother of Noah, about whether her pregnancy was the work of one of the Watchers (Genesis Apocryphon<\/em><\/a> [=1QapGen] 1:1\u20135:27<\/a>). She vehemently denies the charge. See chapter 23<\/a> for a discussion of Nephilim after the flood.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>20<\/a> As concepts like divine sonship began to app<\/span>ear in the Bible with respect to Yahweh\u2019s people Israel (Exod 4:23<\/a>), the Israelite king (Psa 2:7<\/a>), and, ultimately, the messiah, the theological messaging became important. Noah is in the line of Chri<\/span>st (Luke 3:36<\/a>; cf. 3:38<\/a>). At no point could it be claimed that the ultimate seed of Eve, the messianic deliverer, was the son of any elohim<\/span> besides Yahweh.Infecting the messianic line is never a stated goal of the Watchers in any Jewish text. Nevertheless, the theological messaging is the important issue\u2014the messiah is Yahweh\u2019s son; there is no divine rival claim on that heritage.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

„>21<\/a><\/p>\n

Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> is far from being peripheral<\/span> in importance. It furthers the theme of conflict between divine rebels (the \u201cseed of the nachash<\/span>\u201d) and humanity that will impede the progress of Eden\u2019s restoration. It is one of two passages in the O<\/span>ld Testament that fundamentally frame the history of Israel as a people and a land. The other one is the subject of the next chapter.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

weiter mit Kapitel 14<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CHAPTER 8 Only God Is Perfect Like the creation story, the story of the fall in Genesis 3 is one of those episodes in Scripture that anyone acquainted with the Bible seems to know. But there\u2019s more to the story than meets the eye. Over the next few chapters I\u2019ll draw attention to some often-overlooked … <\/p>\n

\u201eThe Unseen Realm – II\u201c <\/span>weiterlesen<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-210","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=210"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2497,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210\/revisions\/2497"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}