Who Were The Nephilim? Part 2 - Sons of God, A New Testament Perspective

This is the second part of a series on the identity of the Nephilim. If you missed the first post, you can find it here: Who Were The Nephilim? Part 1

In the last post, I discussed how in order to identify the Nephilim, we must first figure out who in the world are these mysterious folks called the “sons of God.”  I gave some examples from the Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament) that showed how the phrase “sons of God” was most typically applied to angel or supernatural beings. Now, we are going to look at the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), to see how this phrase is used there, and how it can help us understand who the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were.

I also mentioned that the nation of Israel is often referred to as the “son of God.” Despite the fact that this reference is found in the Hebrew Scriptures, I waited to address that until now because I think there are some significant parallels in usage.

In the Christian Scriptures, we encounter this phrase in verses such as:

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. Romans 8:14

“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
    there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’” Romans 9:26

…for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. Galatians 3:26

And I think it is in total keeping with the spirit of the text include to see those passages that refer to the “children of God” as communicating the same basic intent. If we do this, then our points of reference broaden.

See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears[a] we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3:2

This is by no means and exhaustive list of times we find such terminology in the New Testament, but a quick internet search for these phrases in the Bible can lead you to the rest.

Now to the meat of the matter. It is blatantly obvious that these texts do not refer to angels but to humanity. In fact, they do not appear to refer to any sort of supernatural being at all…or do they?

That is going to depend on your definition of supernatural.

Notice who is being talked about in these passages. These passages do not equally apply to all of humanity, and demonstrate the distinct nature of those who have entered into a covenant relationship with God through Jesus. Those of us who have become new creations in Christ through God’s supernatural act within our lives.

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 1 Corinthian 5:17

In my opinion, it doesn’t get more supernatural than that.

So how does this relate to the passages where God calls the nation of Israel his son? To answer that we only have to remember one of the most famous stories of the Bible, God’s redemption of Israel from Egypt. Everything about that event was supernatural, from the ten plagues to the crossing of the Red Sea to the transformation of slaves into a nation. Each piece of the story tells how God supernaturally intervened in the lives of men and women to create for himself a nation through which the Messiah would come.

The story is not just about God rescuing those who are oppressed. It is about how he radically changes the identity and destiny of those who are his. A mere rescue mission was insufficient for his purposes. He did not want a nation of slaves. He wanted a nation of people who were empowered to live out a destiny greater than they could have envisioned for themselves, and through which he could be known.

Then Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.” Exodus 19:3-6

As Christians, we share in this story of redemption and radical transformation. Therefore it is fitting that we also share in the title “sons (children) of God.”

If you are still not convinced, consider these words of Jesus,

And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him.” Then some of the scribes answered, “Teacher, you have spoken well.” For they no longer dared to ask him any question. Luke 20:34-40

Did you catch that? Let's repeat it, just to be sure, "because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." The sons of God are equal to the angels. And how does one become a son of God? Through this supernatural event called the resurrection.

Based on these passages, I can only conclude that the term "sons of God" must refer to a being that is supernatural due to their original creation or through Divine intervention and transformation. For me there is little doubt that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to supernatural beings typically referred to as angels.

Agree? Disagree? Have questions? Be sure to drop a comment below.  I am looking forward to the conversations about this fascinating subject. And stay tuned, because we still have a ways to go before we can finally answer the original question.

Next Post Here: Who Were The Nephilim? Part 3

Stirring the Pot - A response to the objections on yesterday's post

Well, it seems that yesterday’s post caused as bit of a stir. Not that you would know it by the comments, for it seems that most of those who objected to what I had to say preferred to do so in phone calls and private messages. And since all the objections were pretty much in the same vein, I decided against individual responses and to address them here.

The objection went like this:

Corrective prophetic words have no place in the New Testament Church. They are restricted to the Old Testament.

The funny thing is that no one, not a single person offered up any Scriptural support for this idea. I was told that they had received a different message from leadership, books, and other believers – but did I mention that no one offered me a single passage? In case you didn’t guess, that’s kind of a big deal to me.

So not being above reproach or correction, I decided to do a little research. I mean I would really love for this to be right. Do you know how much weight it would take off my shoulders? How much responsibility I would be absolved of? There is nothing but good things in it for me if this is true. All I needed was one passage confirming what has become a popular notion in today’s church.

Here is what I found:

1 Corinthian 12, 13, and 14

I read through the passages carefully, trying to find where and how the use of corrective words in the New Testament church was forbidden. I read them again. And again. I even stop typing, right here > < to read them yet again, because if you know me, you will know that I hate being wrong. This doesn’t mean that I am never wrong. It just means I will avoid it at all costs.

The only verse that I can see that might be interpreted as a prohibition against corrective words is 1 Corinthians 14: 3 –

One the other hand the one who prophesies speaks to the people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 

Alright, let’s look at the words here, but let’s do it backwards.

Consolation is defined as comfort received by a person after a loss or disappointment by the writers of the Oxford Dictionary and Merriam Webster says pretty much the same thing, something that makes a person feel less sadness, disappointment, etc. Encouragement is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as the action of giving someone support, confidence, or hope. Merriam Webster gets a little more generous in its definition - the act of making something more appealing or more likely to happen; something that makes someone more determined, hopeful, or confident; and something that makes someone more likely to do something.

So far this all falls in line with what I have been told by concerned reader, but here is where things get interesting. Upbuilding is usually translated as edification or strengthening. Merriam Webster defines edification as teaching someone in way that builds strength or character. Oxford defines it as the instruction or improvement of a person morally or intellectually. This is where we put on our thinking caps and consider the fact that teaching and instruction are corrective by nature. The fact that Paul chose to include this word in addition to the words we see as kind and gentle, tells us that he intended for us to have a balanced view of prophecy that functions within the tension of discipline and grace.

Now, I know that no sound theological argument hinges on a single verse or word, and it was pointed out to me that all of my examples from yesterday’s post were from the Old Testament. So allow me to present two examples of corrective, even harsh prophetic words from the New Testament:

Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.  And Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.” (Acts 8:22-24 ESV)

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” (Acts 5:3-4 ESV) Emphasis added.

In each of these cases, Paul and Peter speak what the Holy Spirit has revealed to them in the hearts and minds of these men. Each instance is a demonstration of a prophetic word given that was not kind or gentle but corrective and, dare I say, a pronouncement of judgment.

We should also not overlook the fact that by relegating corrective words of prophecy to the Old Testament we are invalidating the writing of the New Testament. Revelation is blatantly a prophetic word and full of correction. Paul’s letter also full of correction, warning, and frequently describing consequences of persistent sin in the life of a believer – consequences that should be enacted within the church and consequences that will be enacted by God.

Furthermore, the distinction between Old and New Testament is flawed because it is not merely a distinction between one set of texts and another, it is distinction that we have tried to impose upon God. Declaring God to be changing and capricious in his dealing with humanity as the God of the Old Testament is all judgment and wrath, while Jesus is love and kindness, and when taken to an extreme this leads us to deny Jesus declaration that he and the Father are one. The New Testament is not a new covenant, but rather a continuation and manifestation of the original covenant given to Abraham, renewed at Sinai, confirmed in Acts, and celebrated by Peter that Abraham’s children would become a blessing to the world and priests to all nations. (Genesis 12:1-3, Exodus 19:5-6, Acts 1:8, 1 Peter 2:9).

Correction is part of being in this family faith – giving it and receiving it. There is just no way around it. I wish there were. I would love to be able to tell everyone who felt so obligated to correct me, either for yesterday’s post or for other legitimate reasons, to go jump the lake. I wish I could avoid the responsibility for acting when called, but no serious study of the prophets, be it Old Testament or New, allows us the luxury of believing that this is a matter of choice or personal desire. It is not a position of power but one of humility and perfect awareness of one’s own weakness. Moses declares, Jeremiah laments, Jonah ran from it, and Paul wrote of it – each one decrying the necessity of confrontation even as they walked towards it. They knew that leaving sin unaddressed and unchecked would only cripple the individual believer and ultimately the body as a whole.

"I Want A New Testament Church" - The Battle Cry Of The Lazy Or The Disillusioned?

Lately, I have been rather obsessed. Obsessed with trying to figure out exactly what this thing we call Church is suppose to look like. So many of us grew up in a Church in transition, steeples that now shadow flashy new signs, pews that gave way to padded chairs, hymnals that gave way to over heads which gave way to power point, music that went from the staid hymns of old to easy pop choruses, and preaching that sometimes sounds more like a philosophy lesson than the Word.

Some of the changes I really don’t like, and some I fully support. I have found that many of us who went through these changes in our teens and early twenties like to experience something new when we go to Church, and I have found a lot of us are disappointed when we don’t get it. And I have found that it has left many of us open to the discussion about what we think Church should be.

So often I hear, “I want a New Testament Church.” And to plagiarize a line from one of my former teachers, I ask, “Which one?” Most of the New Testament was written by Paul addressing problems within these infant churches as they struggled to define themselves inside an adverse culture.

When I talk to people about what Church should look like, more often than not I hear about what it shouldn’t be. After all, we have all experienced churches that fail to meet either our or God’s standards. We have all attended churches devoid of life, bound up in religion and programmed so tightly that if God himself suggested a change it would be rejected by the appropriate committee. We have been in churches who only derive their identity by what they are against, and while there is passion it is usually marked with disdain for anyone who fails to adopt their philosophies.

We have been in churches that are social clubs, filled with good people who like to get together, but forget that sipping coffee with your clique is not the reason we gather. We have been in churches where the Spirit seems to be on the move continuously, but teaching is neglected in favor of an emotional high. We have been to churches where the Bible is taught, but all the lessons are learned by rote and become sterile in the absence of compassion. We have been in churches who confuse compassion with blind acceptance, and churches where no matter how long we attend we are still the outsiders.

Maybe the smorgasbord of options have left us overwhelmed, leaving us to think that somewhere in this myriad of possibilities there has to be one that is right. One where we can find seats that don’t put our butts to sleep, or one with a preacher who doesn’t leave us wishing he would just shut up so we can get to lunch. Maybe we have become too picky and we find ourselves quick to point out the flaws without embracing the good. Or just maybe the Church is broken and has reached a time when we need to completely redefine who we are and why we are here.

A friend of my mine said she sees Jesus and his bride as that really great guy with the horrible girlfriend. The guy you want to slap because he doesn’t seem to realize that she treats him like trash, and the girlfriend you want to kill for treating him so badly. Sometimes, more often than I like, I have to agree.

I don’t think it is a bad thing that we see where we can do better. I don’t think it is horrible to admit that we get it wrong sometimes. I think that it is the only thing that saves us from hypocrisy, but when do we stop complaining and start doing something about it? And how?

Even after having gone through so much transition with the Church, many of us still think there is something more waiting to happen. I wonder if we are waiting for God to move, or if He is waiting for us.

Many of us are willing to sit back and complain about the Church, but I have seen far too many of us fail to take an initiative and pursue a solution. A lot of us armchair quarterbacks and back seat drivers will chime in about what others should do, but then blame our hectic lives, finances, kids, and global warming for our lack of involvement. It might just be me, but if you are one of these I think your griping privileges have been revoked.

And I hope that griping is not all I am doing as I work through this latest obsession. I hope that I am seeking answers and actively pursuing what God would want in this situation. I want to know what he desires for and of his Bride. I want to be a part of something larger than myself, and I want to see her operate as a fitting bride for the King.