Reinventing Jesus (Pt. 4)

If we take away all the miraculous events surrounding the story of Jesus to reveal a human, we would certainly find no one who could have garnered huge crowds around him because of his preaching. And the fact is that this crowd-drawing preacher finds his place in "history" only in the New Testament, completely overlooked by the dozens of historians of his day, an era considered one of the best documented in history.

- Acharya S,
The Christ Conspiracy, 100

Continuing on in section four of the book Reinventing Jesus that we have been discussing, they look at the evidence for Jesus in history, from sources outside of the New Testament writings.

Comments like those of Archarya S that imply that Jesus never existed because he is not mentioned outside the New Testament are remarkable for their bluster. This would be an interesting topic to pursue fully, but our goals are more focused. (pg 195-196)


It is a remarkable thing that we have any statements about Jesus by non-Christian writers. After all, he was a Jewish carpenter who spent most of his time on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, occasionally journeying to Jerusalem with his disciples. What's more, writers in the Roman Empire were typically upper-class men who looked down on Eastern religions and gazed back on Rome's celebrated past. So why would they ever pay attention to a Nazarene who founded a religion embraced by the lowest rungs of society? Simply put, be couldn't be ignored. (pg. 196)

Reinventing Jesus (Pt. 3)

The holiday weekend allowed me to catch up on a bit more reading than usual, so I was able to finish this book I have been discussing, Reinventing Jesus. Picking up with part four of the book, this section deals with the divinity of Jesus. Some of these modern writers like to claim that Jesus was only "declared" diving centuries after his death at the council of Nicaea. I found this, as well as section five to be probably the highlight of this whole book, as far as things I really wanted to know more about. OK, so I think I could probably say the same thing about part three. Actually, this whole book has been a fascinating read, and I highly recommend it.

Jesus' establishment as "the Son of God" was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.

- Dan Brown
The Da Vinci Code, 233

There is nothing recorded in the Gospels showing that Jesus clearly affirmed his own divinity.

-Shabir Ally
Muslim apologist on PAX's Faith Under Fire program
November 27, 2004

I Feel Like Such a Gentile: Grief & the Early Church

Since, then, there is certainty as to the resurrection of the dead, grief for death is needless... For why should you grieve, if you believe your loved ones have not perished? ... We wound Christ when we do not accept with equanimity the summoning out of this world of anyone by Him, as if they were to be pitied. - Tertullian (c. 200)

Although the death of a children leaves grief for the heart, it is not right to either go forth in black garments, or to bewail them. The Lord prudently says that you must grieve with the mind, not with outward show... Are you not ashamed to lament your children without restraint, like the Gentiles do? You tear your face, beat your breast, and take off your garments. Do you not fear the Lord, whose kingdom you desire to behold? - Commodianus (c. 240)

When the dear ones whom we love depart from this world, we should rejoice rather than grieve. Remembering this truth, the blessed apostle Paul in his epistle lays down , saying 'To me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.' - Cyprian (c. 250)

Our brethren who are freed from this world by the Lord's summons are not to be lamented. For we know that they are not lost. Rather, they are sent before us. Departing from us, they precede us as travelers - as navigators are accustomed to do. They should be envied, not bewailed! The black garments should not be taken upon us here, when they have already taken white garments there... The Gentiles can deservedly and rightly criticize us that we mourn as though our dead were extinct and lost. For, we say they are alive with God... There is no advantage in setting forth virtue by our words, but then destroying the truth by our deeds... The Holy Spirit teaches by Solomon that those who please God are taken from here sooner and are more quickly set free. Otherwise, while they are delaying longer in this world, they might be polluted with the pollution of the world... - Cyprian (c.250)

Words of wisdom and comfort from the early church.

Jonathan, you are free from the pains and weaknesses of this world; your days are now full of joy and life and comfort with our Lord. I miss you terribly but will see you soon, son.

Descended into hell? (Pt 10): J.I. Packer on the Apostles' Creed

My last post on this topic, was way back in November. Much has happened since then to turn my life all around, but I recently was provoked to post another quick post on the topic, as I have recently purchased a new book that touched on the subject. If you are new to this whole line of discussion, jump back to the previous part (menu at bottom).

In brief summary, I started writing this series because I find that many modern churches explain away the "descended into hell" clause of the Apostle's Creed, saying ti was simply a way of saying he suffered greatly on the cross. Not only is that false when viewed from the understanding that the early church (who formed the creed) believed, but it does great harm to the aspect of salvation that it pertains to.

J.I. Packer's 2008 book Affirming the Apostles' Creed is yet another modern Reformed author that thankfully does not follow the typical line of thinking mentioned above.

He starts as we did, by differentiating between Hades, and Gehenna (what we typically think of when saying "hell." Though Packer doesn't say he "physically" descended anywhere...didn't actually go down, to imply the "place" was down, but seems to feel it meant Jesus really actually died, and that Hades, "the place of the disembodied, is lower in worth and dignity than life on earth..." (pg 87).

He says when Jesus entered Hades, his presence made Hades into "Paradise" to fulfill what he told the penitent thief in Luke 23. This kind of goes against what we have read about the historical Hebrew understanding of the separate section of the Hadean realm, but doesn't take him way off track like some moderns get. He goes on to say that while Jesus' was in Hades for three days, it was for the purpose and benefit of the faithfully who had departed prior to his atonement. He says that 1 Pet. 3:19 shows that Jesus proclaimed his kingdom news to "the imprisoned "spirits" who had rebelled in antediluvian times" and even goes so far as to say that it would presumably include "the fallen angels of 2 Pet. 2:4ff, who are also "the sons of God" of Genesis 6:1-4" which is another great admission, considering the who modern "sons of God" debate (see my series of posts on that HERE).

So, I share this just because it excites me to find other within the Reformed denominations who espouse the historic view on these issues, rather than explain them away and do great harm to areas of understanding in the salvation scheme of Christ.

I also just last week obtained an old copy of an 1890 book by Frederic Huidekoper which is actually two separate books in one, with the one of interest being entitled "The Belief of the First Three Centuries Concerning Christ's Mission to the Underworld." If it adds any additional worthy tidbits to this topic, I will be sure to share them.
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10
 

---

The Book of Enoch (Pt 8) - Angels & Objections (Pt 2)

This week I purchased a copy of The Genesis Debate: Persistent Question about Creation and the Flood for the sole purpose of reading debate section nine between F.B. Huey, Jr. and John H. Walton on "Are the 'Sons of God' in Genesis 6 Angels?" but in having it will be much interested in many of the other topics discussed.

I immediately jump into reading the John H. Walton section who took the negative position on the discussion, hoping to find some additional theological objections to the angels view of Genesis 6. Unfortunately, this book has proved to be of little to no use in my quest on this topic. However, I will share what Walton does discuss.

He starts by laying out the three basic views that are associated with this discussion (see my previous post for a breakdown of them again), and he states his adherence to the position that the "sons of God" were rulers or princes, and the daughters of men simply the commoners. I breezed over this view in part 7 because it was basically thrown out by the book I was quoting from, as the least substantiated position.

He says he is setting out to "indicate the weaknesses in that (angels) position" and will then "proceed to a defense of position three," (the rulers/prince position). He begins by setting out to establish the principal defenses of the angel view, first quoting from U. Cassuto's "The Episode of the Sons of God and the Daughters of Man" from his book Biblical and Oriental Studies:

Firstly it is impossible that the words benoth ha'adam [daughters of man] in verse 2 should be used in a different sense from that which they have in verse 1 (ha'adam...ubenoth)[man began to multiply and daughters were born...]; and since in verse 1 the human species as a whole is certainly referred to, it cannot be doubted that in verse 2 it is human beings in general that are intended. Since, moreover, the expression bene ha'elohim [sons of God] is employed in antithesis to benoth ha'adam [daughters of man], it is clear that the former pertains to beings outside the human sphere. Secondly, wherever bene (ha)'elohim or bene'elim [literally 'sons of Gods'] occurs (Psalm 29:1; 89:7 [Eng. 6]; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; also Deuteronomy 32:8 according to the text of the Septuagint) angels are referred to. When, therefore, we find in our section the expression bene ha'elohim without any explanatory addition, we have no right to attribute to it a connotation other than that which it normally has in the Bible.

Maybe you are not as dense as me, but I had to re-read that quote about three times or so before it really sunk in what was being so eloquently said. In summary, he is saying the two terms are set against each other to represent two different "types" of beings, not just two different "classes" of humans. He then says that in all of the other places the terms are used it is clearly in reference to angels, and therefore we have no exegetical reason to interpret the term differently in this one verse simply because no clear cut mention of angels is present. To my knowledge, this is one of the foundational and basic exegetical/interpretation principals of interpretation...let the Bible interpret itself. If the Bible defines a term in one place and then uses it in multiple other places, we can easily assume it has the same meaning. Well, surprisingly, Walton takes such an application of interpretation with a grain of salt:

The treatment of the phrase "sons of God" in the history of interpretation provides us with a good example of the potential that exists for the misuse of lexical data. (Now, catch this - JM) It is true that the phrase "sons of God" refers to angels every time that it is used in the Old Testament, but what is the significance of that piece of information? (emphasis mine - JM)

So, he admits that every other place in scripture it does means angels, but that such a fact has no bearing on its use here in Genesis 6. Wow, I find such a statement to be shockingly ridiculous both logically and biblically. His defense of such a statement is simply because "that phrase only occurs three times in the form that occurs in Genesis 6" and that "This makes for a very small lexical base and cannot be considered sufficient to make broad sweeping statements about exclusiveness in the semantic range of the phrase." So, because it is used consistently to means angels in the other three times it is used, that has no bearing on the fourth use of it, simply because it is only three other times being defined. Three or three hundred times, how can that make a difference? If it is clearly defined the all other cases, why would we even try to assume it to be different in the fourth case, especially when there is nothing in the text of Genesis 6 to imply it should be interpreted differently?

As we have previously pointed out, the evidence from other Jewish writings, from the understanding of it in history, from the quotes referencing it in the NT, this angel view is the prominent interpretation, and I personally still see no reason why so much trouble is being made to dismiss it. A question that is likewise brought up in the defense of the angel position by Walton's opponent in this book, F.B. Huey, Jr. In his section he quotes from another writer who makes this comment about interpretations of this section by liberal and conservative scholars:

Liberal scholars who usually are associated with denial of the supernatural generally accept Genesis 6:1-4 as an account of a liaison between divine beings and humans, whereas conservative scholars, who believe implicitly in angels, are the ones who tend to disallow any such import to this passage.

I find this to be the case in most conservative churches that I attend. They openly believe in angels, yet as we have seen, seek to dismiss this position in Genesis 6. But why? He continues on by quoting another author, W.A. Van Gemeren, who points out this inconsistency with these unsettling questions:

Why does the theology in which creation, miracles, the miraculous birth and resurrection of Jesus have a place, prefer a rational explanation of Genesis 6:1-4?...Normally, the goal of interpretation has been the elucidation of the word of God so the community of faith may know what to believe and what to do. When, however, the object of interpretation becomes the removal of apparent obstacles to which the passage may give rise, reinterpretation is introduced, and one may wonder how this differs from demythologization...Is the difficulty so great that it must be removed as something offensive? Is it possible that theology has taken the place of exegesis? ("The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 (An Example of Evangelical Demythologization?)," Westminster Theological Journal 43 (Spring 1981) 320.

In short he is asking what the big deal is that we have to reinterpret a verse rather than accept the interpretation as the Bible lays it out? Has our theological and belief systems overthrown proper exegesis/interpretation of the text?

Getting back to Walton's opposing position he goes on to say "it must be admitted that from a theoretical point of view it is still possible that the phrase "sons of God" was limited to angels in ancient Hebrew idiom." But of course follows by saying though, that the narrow range of examples cannot give us conclusive evidence. He then goes through a couple other examples where the individual words (mainly 'elohim) are used to refer to humans, implying that since it can be used to speak of human judges, that it weakens the position that it must always be referring to supernatural beings. He admits a bit of the weakness of this part of his argument by stating "This is of course speculative, but the main point is that there is no sound basis for placing strict limitations on the semantic range of the phrase "sons of God".

In his conclusion on this section of the term, he says "Our conclusion is that there is no element of the text that requires that the sons of God be understood as angels, although we would admit that understanding as one of the possible readings of the text if no other suitable or preferable explanation can be found (emphasis mine - JM). Since when do we interpret the texts based on our "preferable" views? Is that why there is such a fuss...because the angel view is not preferred by some? I still ask WHY?

This is a similar argument that we find in the discussion of eschatology, when one side says that the word "generation" is always used referring to the current, living generation of people hearing the message, except when it comes to Jesus' words in Matthew 24 for example, where it obviously has to mean something totally different than a reference to his generation being spoken to...but hey, that is a topic for another day ;-]

I must say the second part of his discussion, attacking the historical understanding of the term, gives even less insight or help on the matter. Built upon his idea that 'elohim can refer to human judges/kings, he starts a comparison of the attributes revealed in the "well-known Gilgamesh epic" to show that this ancient poem about the fictitious king displays attributes similar those of the Nephilim mentioned in Gen. 6. This basically implies that such terminology was common in pagan literature, and could easily have been likewise used in biblical literature. His concluding points on this are:

I have attempted to demonstrate that each element of Genesis 6:1-4, however vague it may be, has a parallel of sorts in the Gilgamesh epic, as follows: (1) Gilgamesh qualifies as a "son of God" by virtue of titulary; (2) as a hero of old he personifies the biblical category of gibborim [hero], and as a giant he qualifies as one of the nephilim (if such an understanding of nephilim is considered accurate); (3) through the exercise of jus primae noctis [law of the first night] Gilgamesh takes wives (whichever ones he wants), and even in the Gilgamesh epic this is used to characterize his unjust behavior; (4) Gilgamesh is frustrated in his attempts to gain immortality.

He admits that the parallel in itself is not the point, but that this story shows the ancient royal motifs that may have been influential in the Genesis writer's use of terms.

This interpretation makes sense of the elements of Genesis 6:1-4 in the context of its ancient Near Eastern background. The fact that it fits does not of course prove that it is right. In the case of this difficult passage, however, anything that even fits is worthy of consideration.

A couple questions on his last statement there: (1) Why is this passage so difficult in light of the other clear uses in Scripture? in History? in other Jewish writings? (2) Why go to such extremes to rationale another view as "worthy of consideration" to begin with...I still wonder that.
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
 

---

Descended into hell? (Pt 9): Testimony from the Church Fathers

In this part, I pick up sort of where I left off in the previous part, looking again at what the early church fathers had to say on the topic of Jesus descending into Hades, as we have been examining this often misunderstood phrase from the Apostle's Creed.

The book on the church fathers that I have been using gives four main "proof texts" for the understanding of Jesus' descent into Hades, one of which being Ephesians 4:9 as discussed in the last part, and the others are:

For David says concerning him, “‘I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh also will dwell in hope. For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption. (Acts 2:25-27)

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. (1 Peter 3:18-20)

For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does. (1 Peter 4:6)

Again, the purpose of my quoting of the early church fathers is not so much because they have more authority, but because of the light they shed on the reason and purpose and teaching surrounding the phrase in the Apostle's Creed. So many churches seek to explain it away, and have all but ignored the original intent, and have caused much confusion. Here is what the historic church has believed concerning the subject:

Christ rose from the place of the dead, and raised up the race of Adam from the grave below. Melito (c.170).

They fully believed and understood the Scriptures to teach that when Jesus rose, he rose from somewhere. He had not simply ceased to exist for three days, nor had he been asleep, and he had not yet gone to the heavenly realm, but he had been busy and had returned from his work.

For their benefit, "He also descended into the lower parts of the earth," to behold with His eyes the state of those who were resting from their labors...For Christ did not come merely for those who believed on Him in the time of Tiberius Caesar. Nor did the Father exercise His providence only for the men who are presently alive. Rather, He exercised it for all men altogether, who from the beginning...have both feared and loved God.

It was for this reason, too, that the Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, preaching His advent there also. And he [declared] the remission of sins received by those who believe in Him.

He gathered from the ends of the earth into His Father's fold the children who were scattered abroad. And He remembered His own dead ones, who had previously fallen asleep. He came down to them so that He might deliver them.

For three days He dwelt in the place where the dead were, as the prophet said concerning Him. "And the Lord remembered His dead saints who slept formerly in the land of the dead. And he descended to them to rescue and save them." The Lord Himself said, "As Jonah remained three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so will the Son of man be in the heart of the earth." Irenaeus (c.180) - four separate quotes

I could go on with multiple other quotes, but I think after all the previous parts of this series, that ending the topic with a few additional quotes would be sufficient to show that we as a modern church have strayed far from the original and historical understanding of this (among other) doctrines. I will end with just one more:

Hades is not supposed by us to be a bare cavity, nor some subterranean sewer of the world. Rather it is a vast deep space in the interior of the earth...For we read that Christ in His death spent three days in the heart of the earth...He did not ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth. This was so that He might there [in Hades] make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself. Tertullian (c.210)

As high of an importance as most Reformed churches place on adherence to the Apostle's Creed as a test of orthodoxy, I find it odd that they would reinterpret parts of it to their liking in the face of such overwhelming information against the view. This understanding of these verses was the common doctrine of those instrumental in forming the early creeds. Most modern churches strike out at and/or reinterpret this very doctrine of Christ's descent into Hades as taught in the Creed and history; are we to assume they feel the framers of the creed were in error on this point; and if they were in error on this phrase, how can we hold any of the other parts of the creed as a irrefutable, beyond discussion, test or orthodoxy?
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10
 

---

The Book of Enoch (Pt 6) - Genesis 6, Angels & Objections (Pt 1)

OK, so we have gathered a few objections to the angels and women understanding of Genesis 6. However, we have also received some from a reader, so I wanted to deal with them a little also.

But first, let us turn to the early church fathers again. I gave a couple quotes from them in the two part discussion on the Nephilim (see HERE), but here is quite a few more, only a couple I will share here:

The other angels were created by Him, and entrusted with the control of matter and the forms of matter...Just as with men, they have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice...Some of them have continued in those things for which God had made them. They have remained over the things to which He had ordained them. But some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the oversight entrusted to them...These angels fell into impure love of virgins and were subjugated by the flesh...Those who are called giants were begotten from these lovers of virgins. Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.142

The angels are likewise possessed of personal freedom. For we can be sure that if the angels had not possessed personal freedom, they would not have consorted with the daughters of men, thereby sinning and falling from their places. In like manner, also, the other angels, who did the will of their Lord, were raised to a higher rank because of their self-control. Bardesanes (c. 222, E), 8.725.

But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards
subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness. Justin Martyr (c. 160) 1.190

...in the days of Noah He justly brought on the deluge for the purpose of extinguishing that most infamous race of men then existent, who could not bring forth fruit to God, since the angels that sinned had commingled with them... Irenaeus (c. 180) 1.524

To which also we shall add, that the angels who had obtained the superior rank, having sunk into pleasures, told to the women the secrets which had come to their knowledge... Clement of Alexandria (c. 195) 2.446

I could quote many, many more as evidence that this was pretty much the common understanding amoung the Ante-Nicene fathers, but I will stop at this point. Like I said before, I do not hold the early church up as an infallible rule, but since so many other people look to them for defending other historic doctrines, it is at least prudent to look at their teachings in such matters as these.

Now, the first objection is edited and summed up like this:

Objection #1

How could a spiritual being, an angel, impregnate a woman. Angels do not have physical bodies, they cannot take on physical bodies at will, and they do not have the creative power of God to beget life on their own. In the case of mortals, God has determined how mankind shall reproduce, and it is He who gives life. In the case of these depraved angels, it would seem impossible for them to beget children through women, or any other creature.

Now of course this objection was a quick post summed up by the writer from a lecture heard on the topic, and does not provide much depth or defense for this position, but let us briefly look at it as it is simply stated.

Where do we find in the Bible any support for these claims:

1) Angels are spiritual beings and can't impregnate women
2) Angels do not/cannot have physical bodies (or not take them on at will)
3) Angels do have the ability to beget life on their own

Interestingly, we can easily dismiss part of point two from the Scripture. Genesis 18 tells of Abraham meeting three angels, in human form, whose feet he washed, and then sat eating and drinking with them. So they obviously can take on physical bodies when needed. Most commentators agree these three visitors were angels, and I will mention just one esteemed commentator:

Before Moses proceeds to his principal subject, he describes to us, the hospitality of the holy man; and he calls the angels men, because, being clothed with human bodies, they appeared to be nothing else than men. - John Calvin

This is further enforced as being the case when just one chapter later we find:

The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth (Genesis 19:1)

And again, we find them in physical form, being touched, and eating with Lot. And then what are we to make of the exhortation in Hebrews 13:2:

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

It seems plain that angels can, have, and will take human form to appear to us for various reasons. Do they have power to do so at anytime as they will? Who knows. I don't believe the Scripture says much of anything relating to this, for or against, so how can we just throw the whole topic out based on silence? We have evidence they can become physical, so that is enough to dismiss the second part of this objection.

So, if they are indeed able to take human, physical form, who says they cannot have relations with or procreate with mankind? Who says they are totally unable to procreate? How do we know they indeed cannot beget life on their own? Where in the canon of Scripture is this topic even addressed?

Such objections seems solely based on speculation, and as we see, these speculations fly in the face of the church historic.

You have sometimes read and believed that the Creator's angels have been changed into human form, and have carried about so real of a body that Abraham even washed their feet and Lot was rescued from the Sodomites by their hands. An angel, moreover, wrestled with a man so strenuously with his body, that the latter desired to be let loose. Tertullian (c. 210, W), 3.523.

So, we see the Scriptures do reveal that while angels are spiritual beings, some in the order of angels, can, have, and still do take on physical form to interact with mankind. We find no evidence from canonical Scripture that these beings are incapable of sexual relations or procreation, and therefore can make no clear doctrine on the topic.

So, in my mind, this objection is no real objection based on Scripture at all.
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
 

---

The Book of Enoch (Pt 4) - Genesis 6 "Bonus Tracks"...?

We've made a case so far that the Book of Enoch is a worthy read due to its historical context, and its acceptance by most in early church history, including the writers of the Greek Scriptures. So, I turn now to pulling tidbits from this book that are worth looking at for some of the interesting pieces they add to some "gaps" in Scripture.

As a follow up to our previous digression of the two parts dealing with the early church's understanding and acceptance of the "sons of God" of Genesis 6, I now turn to quote a portion of the Book of Enoch that offers additional information - filling in a back story to that brief mention in Genesis 6. This is information that the early church leaders knew and from where they probably received most of their understanding for their view we discussed in the previous two writings (found HERE). From the Book of Enoch:

And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations5 not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Samlazaz, their leader, Araklba, Rameel, Kokablel, Tamlel, Ramlel, Danel, Ezeqeel, Baraqijal, Asael, Armaros, Batarel, Ananel, Zaq1el, Samsapeel, Satarel, Turel, Jomjael, Sariel. These are their chiefs of tens.

And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjaza taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, 'Armaros the resolving of enchantments, Baraqijal (taught) astrology, Kokabel the constellations, Ezeqeel the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiel the signs of the earth, Shamsiel the signs of the sun, and Sariel the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven. (Book of Enoch, Ch. 6-8)

So this section reveals the "behind the scenes" story of Genesis 6, as understood and promoted by the Jewish community at least as far back as a couple hundred years before Jesus came on the scene, and for the first few hundred years of early church history. The story continues with the response from heaven to the cries of mankind, and we'll look at that in upcoming sections.

What makes such a story so impossible to believe by most today? Why in more recent history has this view been utterly outcast from orthodox theological circles? Those are some of the questions I would like to look into, and will try to dig up some of the objections to this line of thinking to discuss in future segments.
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
 

---

Genesis 6, Sons of God, & Nephilim (Pt 2)

As we continue our look at the alternative history that was held by most of the early church, but denounced nowadays, we turn to some extra-biblical Jewish writings to see a fuller picture. In you go back and read Genesis 6, you find a quick jump of action with little details shared. Men multiplied, "sons of God" multiplied with women, creating giants, and then God says the world is evil and sets out the plan to destroy it and save Noah.

Looking ahead in 2 Peter, we find a connection there too:

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2 Peter 2:4-5)

So, here we again have a connection of angels sinning, followed by the mention of Noah and the flood. Then again, we have a similar hint in Jude:

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jude 6-7)

I think many people often miss what is being said and compared here. It compares the sin and judgment of Sodom to that of the angels, in that both the angels and Sodom gave "themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh" and are both therefore held in chains for judgment.

Of course, we can tie in Enoch with all of this, as he was taken to be with God shortly before Noah came on the scene, being Noah's great grandfather. We have no real way of knowing when the Genesis 6 procreation account took place or how long the giants corrupted the world, but we see right before Noah comes on the scene, Enoch has been taken away to be with God. This all flows with what has been mentioned in my previous series on Enoch (link below), it is believed he was taken to be a representative of sorts in the case between God and the angels who sinned. Before going further into that branch of the story behind the scenes, let us look further down the road at the judgment handed down for these actions. This will help us see how both the Scriptures and the words of the church fathers mentioned in part one of this topic tie together.

And the Lord said unto Michael: Go, bind Semjaza and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them in all their uncleanness. And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations (*note, 70 generations brings us to the time of Jesus - JM) in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgment and of their consummation, till the judgment that is for ever and ever is consummated. In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: and to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. And whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound together with them to the end of all generations. And destroy all the spirits of the reprobate and the children of the Watchers, because they have wronged mankind. (Enoch 10:11-16)

So the same type of judgment is related in the book of Enoch that is later spoken of in the exact same language by Peter and Jude. Now, in looking at how the church fathers discussed demons and how they come from this unholy procreation, the Book of Enoch also addresses that:

Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants as your sons? And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die and perish. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling. And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men and from the holy Watchers is their beginning and primal origin; they shall be evil spirits on earth, and evil spirits shall they be called. (Enoch 15:3-10).

So it appears pretty evident from all signs, as I stated in the other series on Enoch, that the Book of Enoch was very influential to both the biblical writers, as well as the early church fathers. Because of this influence, the early church followed in the footsteps of belief that these Jewish writings set forth, and we have no evidence of any command in the Greek scriptures to refute or negate this thought pattern; yet scholars in the past century have explained it away for some reason. Why is this historic view so offensive to theologians today?

At this point, I will return the discussion back to the already established and ongoing thread on Enoch, as I explore deeper into the story, history and life of this great man of God, as contained in the book bearing his name, and others of similar Jewish origin. So if you started here, go to the beginning of the Enoch discussion to proceed on this matter by clicking HERE.

Or proceed with the next section on Enoch and this Sons of God idea by clicking HERE.

Genesis 6, Sons of God, & Nephilim (Pt 1)

When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.”

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. (Genesis 6:1-4)

I have read numerous commentaries and small articles set forth to attempt to explain away the historical understanding of these verses, that the "sons of God" referred to were angels, and the offspring produced were giants called Nephilim. I have read very little so far though, that states why commentators are so opposed to this view, however. What is gained or lost with accepting this view?

Historically, per many other extra-biblical Jewish writings, the angel view is predominant, and if accepted, opens up and reveals much more detail to the biblical record from these non-canonical writings. Sometimes I wonder if some of these other writings got denied as canon due to including these views of the angelic realm (the book of Enoch for example).

The earliest datable exposition of Genesis 6 known is 1 Enoch 6-11, usually dated c. 200 B.C. It clearly identifies the "sons of God" as angels. This interpretation could in fact have originated long before 1 Enoch was written. It continued without challenge for the next three hundred years.

The book of Jubilees (dated no later than 100 B.C.) describes the "sons of God" as angels sent to earth to help mankind. They became consumed with lust, cohabited with women, and fathered a race of giants...Other early exponents of the belief that Genesis 6:1-4 describes a supernatural-human union include Philo of Alexandria (early first century A.D.), Flavius Josephus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Lactantius, Ireaneus, Cyprian, and Ambrose. (F.B. Huey, Jr., "Are the 'Sons of God' in Geneis 6 Angels? - Yess," The Genesis Debate: Persistent Questions about Creation and the Flood, ed. Ronald F. Youngblood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990), 189, 190.

So, we have a long history of this belief in Jewish and church history, by some of the big names in the early church fathers. And if we accept the teaching, then through the many other writings surrounding the teaching, we fill in gaps to Genesis 6 that have caused many people to question and misinterpret these verses, the flood, and more.

The Septuagint is one of the translations that makes the verse more plain by saying:

that the angels of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose.

As mentioned, the early church fathers held to the same belief that was historically the position. Let us now look at some of their quotes:

From the seed [of the fallen angels and women], giants are said to have been born. By them, arts were made known to the earth. They taught the dyeing of wool and everything that is done. Yet, because they were of an evil seed, the Almighty did not approve of their being brought back from death when they had died. For that reason, they wander and they now subvert many bodied. And it is they whom the [pagans] presently worship and pray to as gods. Commodianus (c.240, W), 4.203.

However, those who were born from [the relations of angels and women] - because they were neither angels nor men, but had mixed nature - were not admitted into Hades [when they died]. Similarly, their fathers had not been admitted into heaven either. Thus their came to be two kinds of demons; one of heaven, the other of earth. The latter are the wicked spirits, who are the author of all the evils that are done. Lactantius (c. 304-313, W) 7.64

The angels are likewise possesed of personal freedom. For we can be sure that if the angels had not possessed personal freedom, they would not have consorted with the daughters of men, thereby sinning and falling from their places. Bardesanes (c.222, E), 8.725

By the power of those angels, they conceived the giants as their children, by whom wickedness reached its peak on earth. Finally God decreed that the whole of the living should perish in their impiety by the deluge. Julius Africanus (c. 245, E) 6.131.

All of these things [i.e. the making of jewelry] the sinning and apostate angels put forth by their arts, when, lowered to the contagious of earth, they forsook their heavenly vigor. They also taught women to paint their eyes with blackness drawn around them in a circle and to stain their cheeks with a deceitful red. Cyprian (c.250, W) 5.434.

There are more, but this should be enough to see that the general consensus in the early church was that angels had indeed procreated with women, and their offspring were later killed and became what is known as demons.

In part two we will take a look at the way the story plays out in the Book of Enoch.

Click HERE to continue to part two
 

Descended into hell? (Pt 8): Church Fathers on Sheol and Ephesians 4:9

OK, shifting gears ever so slightly in this conversation. After writing part seven yesterday, I started kind of flipping through other books on my shelf that might contain related material on this topic, and I found quite a few interesting comments in this early church fathers reference guide A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (not sure why I never went to this book before now). This book has nearly six pages loaded with quotations from these men regarding the intermediate state of Hades; I will only touch on a couple of them.

I do not quote the church fathers because I hold that they have a more correct understanding like some, and I do not hold them up on a pedestal of orthodoxy as some are known to do. I just share these quotes to show what some of the common teachings were in the days when the "descended into hades" clause was supposedly written/added to the Apostle's Creed. But more astonishing to me, was the quotes dealing with Ephesians 4:9, and just how totally opposite the view was from that which is normally held since the Reformation. So I wish to deal specifically with those surrounding verses, which state:

Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) Ephesians 4:8-10 (ESV)

Now it appears from the commentators and Bible study notes I have read on this section of Ephesians, the modern, common position in the Reformed world, is that the "he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth" refers to his original descent from heaven to earth, and his low estate while on earth. So it is assumed to mean the lower parts of the earth is life above ground as we know every day. A few examples should hopefully suffice for this point regarding the clause Into the lower parts of the earth. of verse 9:

To the lowest state of humiliation. This seems to be the fair meaning of the words. Heaven stands opposed to earth. One is above; the other is beneath. From the one, Christ descended to the other; and he came not only to the earth, but he stooped to the most humble condition of humanity here. Some have understood this of the grave; others of the region of departed spirits; but these interpretations do not seem to be necessary. It is the earth itself that stands in contrast with the heavens; and the idea is, that the Redeemer descended from his lofty eminence in heaven, and became a man of humble rank and condition. (Barnes NT Notes)

The point that I seem to see so clearly that seems missed here, is the ascending and descending are being spoken to in reference to Christ's work (and the relation to the hearer should not be discounted) on the earth. From earth he ascended, but before he ascended from earth, he descended below the earth. The other view is seeking to jump backwards in time to show that before he could have ascended from earth to heaven, he had to first have come down from heaven to earth. Well, that is an obvious point, and does not seem to be what Paul is getting across here, that I can see. John Calvin get a bit more agitated when dealing with this passage in his commentaries:

These words mean nothing more than the condition of the present life. To torture them so as to make them mean purgatory or hell, is exceedingly foolish. The argument taken from the comparative degree, "the lower parts," is quite untenable. A comparison is drawn, not between one part of the earth and another, but between the whole earth and heaven; as if he had said, that from that lofty habitation Christ descended into our deep gulf.

Again, it seems Calvin misses the timing of the issue. Christ stood on earth and is said to have ascended, but that before he ascended from earth to heaven, he descended from earth to the lower parts of the earth. Why would Paul be telling the Ephesians something so obvious - that Christ came to earth long before? Plus, as we have seen in the earlier parts of this series, "lower parts," "beneath the earth" and such terms as that have always been used to refer to the hadaen realm, and not to the above ground earthly living.

Some prime examples of this: "But those that seek my soul, to destroy it, shall go into the lower parts of the earth." (Ps 63:9) which obviously speaks of his enemies going to the place of the dead. The same can be understood from many verses in Ezekiel

"When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living" (26:20)

"...for they are all delivered unto death, to the nether parts of the earth (same Hebrew word), in the midst of the children of men, with them that go down to the pit." (31:14)

See also Ezekiel 31:16, 18, 32:18, 24 if you need more similar examples, they all portray the same concept.

Some will put more weight on the one verse of Ps 139:15 to imply that the term simply refers to being given life through birth, and says "lowest parts of the earth" refers to the womb. But in light of the overwhelming amount of other scriptures for this term, I don't see how that single verse in Psalms cannot be made the measuring rod for the meaning here.

Now for the final example of the understanding of the phrase, this time from Baptist preacher John Gill, who gets even more defensive when dealing with this phrase, and practically strikes out at every point made through this entire series so far:

This the Papists understand of his decent into a place they call Limbus Patrum, which they make to be contiguous to hell; and where they say the patriarchs were detained till Christ’s coming; and that he went thither to deliver them out of it; and that these are the captivity he led captive; all which is fictitious and fabulous: for certain it is, that the place where Abraham was with Lazarus in his bosom was not near to hell, but afar off, and that there was a great gulf between them, and the spirits or souls of the patriarchs returned to God that gave them, when separated from their bodies, as the souls of men do now, nor did Christ enter any such feigned place at his death, but went to paradise, where the penitent thief was that day with him; nor were the patriarchs, but the principalities and powers Christ spoiled, the captivity he led captive and triumphed over: some interpret this of Christ’s descent into hell, which must be understood not locally, but of his enduring the wrath of God for sin, which was equivalent to the torments of hell, and of his being in the state of the dead; but it may rather design the whole of his humiliation, as his descent from heaven and incarnation in the virgin’s womb, where his human nature was curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth; and his humbling himself and becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, when he was made sin and a curse for his people, and bore all the punishment due to their transgressions; and his being in Hades, in the state of the dead, in the grave, in the heart of the earth, as Jonah in the whale’s belly. (John Gill's Expositor)

So, this view point was the basic understanding that most in the Reformed faith have believed in the past and the present in most cases. But let us turn now to the early church fathers for support for or against such a view. One reference directly deals with many of the issues we just discussed:

The Lord observed the law of the dead so that He might become the First-Begotten from the dead. And He waited until the third day "in the lower parts of the earth." ... [Accordingly,] these men [the Gnostics] must be put to confusion, who say that "the lower parts" refer to this world of ours...The Lord "went away in the midst of the shadow of death," where the souls of the dead were. However, afterwards, He arose in the body. And after the resurrection, he was taken up [into heaven]. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.560.

So to Irenaeus, it was the Gnostic's who believed the "lower parts of the earth" referred to earth. Irenaeus also stated:

For their benefit, "He also descended into the lower parts of the earth," to behold with His eyes the state of those who were resting from their labors. (c.180, E/W), 1.494

It was for this reason, too, that the Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, preaching His advent there also. And he [declared] the remission of sins received by those who believe in Him. (c. 180, E/W), 1.499

And similarly we find Tertullian stating:

For we read that Christ in His death spent three days in the heart of the earth... He did not ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth. This was so that He might there [in Hades] make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself. (c.210, W), 9.316

There are many other quotes that reference the belief in the intermediate state after death, more than enough to show that common belief not only during the time of Jesus, but for the first couple hundred years, the church believed and taught of the hadean realm, and the belief that Christ did indeed "descend into hades" after his death on the cross.

According to church history, and logic itself, I have always been kind of perplexed by all of this as it fits the current belief system. Maybe such a confusion as mine is why the later church counsels and preachers began to explain the whole system away, and began teaching an immediate ascension to heaven of Christ and all mankind. My confusion goes like this:

If all mankind goes to the hadean realm awaiting the return of Christ, a physical resurrection in our future; then logically, no one has yet to ascend to the heavenly realm at all. As further back-up for this, Christ said in John 14, that he goes to prepare a place for us and would return to take us to be with him; and again, since he has not returned, then logically he has not taken anyone to be with him yet, and so heaven has yet to be open. Tertullian and others would agree:

How indeed, will the soul mount up to heaven, where Christ is already sitting at the Father's right hand? For the archangel's trumpet has not yet been heard by the command of God...To no one is heaven opened...When the world indeed, will pass away, then the kingdom of heaven will be opened. (c. 210, W), 3.231.

Justin Martyr states it was the Gnostic belief that stated there is no intermediate state, and that mankind upon death are immediately taken to heaven:

You may have fallen in with some [Gnostics] who are called Christians. However, they do not admit this [intermediate state], and they venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham...They say there is no resurrection of the dead. Rather, they say that when they die, their souls are taken to heaven. Do not imagine they are Christians. (emphasis mine) (Justin Martyr, c. 160, E, 1.239)

So which is it? Do we die and go to heaven now, in a "naked" (2 Cor 5) state, awaiting a time of being fused back with our dead body, changed, and then to re-enter heaven? Do we die today and continue in the resting place of hades, awaiting the resurrection and judgment in the future, while heaven stands empty for centuries? Maybe I'll get more into that in a future study...who knows?!?
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10
 

---