Got Questions? Selected Bible Passages

Got Questions? Things You Always Wondered About The Bible Part Three Written By ©Pastor Marty Baker August 14, 2011

ysteries. Sometimes you can explain them, sometimes you can’t. Take, for instance, what happened to me the other day. M For about the last two months, I kept hearing a bizarre noise at the rear of my 2007 Honda Civic as I drove around. And like most car noises it didn’t occur all the time. I looked the car over on more than one occasion and couldn’t isolate any issues, so I just kept driving while listening to this occasional muffled popping, thumping sound. Then one night this week I made an amazing, unexpected discovery while vacuuming the vehicle. As I moved the nozzle of my wet/dry vac around the carpet of the trunk, I noticed one, lone, white Callaway golf ball. Ah, the essence of my mystery and potential car issue. I laughed at myself, promptly removed it, and have enjoyed the cheap fix to my “mechanical” problem since last Wednesday. Yeah, it’s true. Sometimes there are answers to life’s questions, sometimes you are left guessing. This premise certainly applies to the study of Scripture. Sometimes you encounter passages possessing an air of interpretive mystery. You know, they are those texts which leave you asking yourself, “What does this mean?” “Did this really happen?” “Could this have happened?” “Doesn’t this contradict what I’ve read over here?” Many times these moments of interpretive fog are lifted upon closer analysis, study, and prayer. Other times, you encounter a passage so enigmatic you study it your whole lifetime wondering about its precise meaning, and maybe even changing you position on the text in question on more than one occasion as your biblical comprehension grows and flourishes. Today we encounter one of those mysterious, highly problematic passages. It is Genesis 6, verses 1 through 8 and I invite you to turn here in your Bibles. We’ll begin our study this morning by first reading the narrative from Moses:

1

Got Questions? Selected Bible Passages

1Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. 5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

A story like this causes many strange noises inside your interpretive vehicle. Perhaps this is why so many of you asked me to explain it. I find it interesting of all the texts in the Bible to ponder, and a number of you want the mysterious noise of this biblical account isolated and explained. Your questions are listed as follows:

Genesis 6 Is A Very Confusing Passage. Who Were The Sons Of God? What Was Their Sin? And Who Are The Nephilim? Are The Nephilim Still Around Today? Is This Passage Tainted By Greek Mythology?

The Passage I will tell you up front this is classically one of the most difficult passages to interpret in the entire Old Testament. The statements of Old Testament scholars validate this observation:

• “Few texts in the history of interpretation have aroused more curiosity and divergence of opinion than Genesis 6:1-4. It is at once tantalizing and deeply puzzling” (Hard Sayings Of The Bible). • Who were those mysterious sons of God in Genesis 6? Much controversy has surrounded these verses (Willmington’s Guide To The Bible).

Ostensibly, I can tell you I could stack the best books and articles written on this portion of Scripture and we’d have fine, reputable, distinguished biblical scholars supporting the various divergent views. Put differently, this passage isn’t like the mystery noise in my car. It’s truly a mystery in many respects, meaning God has given us some understanding as to what occurred here, yet it’s not enough information for any one person to say they definitively know how to completely explain this troublesome passage. I can, and will, tell you what I think based upon my study of it since 1979 when I had to write an exegetical paper on it in college; however, my thinking is not perfect, and I know the weaknesses of my own argument and analysis. I do, on

2

Got Questions? Selected Bible Passages

the contrary, think one of views of the passage is more tenable than the others and I will tell you which one and why. Beyond this, I think the counsel of Dr. Allen Ross, one of my former Hebrew professors at Dallas Theological Seminary, is certainly in order:

This section’s details have been the subject of endless debates, often leaving the obvious untouched. It must be remembered that it is part of the tÔoòledÔoòtÔ beginning in 5:1. Whatever view one takes of the details, it is clear that these verses show how wicked the human race had become, and that death was its ongoing punishment (Dr. Allen Ross, my former Hebrew professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, writing in the Bible Knowledge Commentary).

Or in other words, the good professor cautions us not to get so caught up in the nitty gritty details of a highly complex section of the Word we miss its intended pragmatic spiritual import. The Hebrew word toledoth (tdoßl.AT) means “an account,” or “an account of men and their generations” (The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon: 410). Moses used ten of these trip words to identify the ten main literary sections of Genesis:

• Toledoth of the heavens and the earth, 2:4-4:26 • Toledoth of Adam, 5:1-6:8 • Toledoth of Noah, 6:9-9:29 • Toledoth of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, 10:1-11:9 • Toledoth of Shem, 11:10-26 • Toledoth of Terah, 11:27-25:11 • Toledoth of Ishmael, 25:12-18 • Toledoth of Isaac, 25:19-35:29 • Toledoth of Esau, 36:1-8; Esau, 36:9-37:1 • Toledoth of Jacob, 37:2-50:26).

Within these particular sections, Moses demonstrates the advance and expanse of sin, which first entered the cosmos when man fell in this historical Garden of Eden (Genesis 3), and God’s negative and positive reaction to it. Or in other words, as God providentially works to usher in the promised “Savior-seed” of Genesis 3:15, a battle rages as sin and Satan attempt to derail and destroy God’s holy purpose; however, as the ten historical passages definitively reveal, God is always at work to preserve the lineage of the seed, the Messiah Jesus, and to give man hope and grace even in the face of dark and chaotic moral disintegration on a personal and a societal level. Enter the toledoth, viz., historical account, of Adam, first introduced in Genesis 5:1 and ending in Genesis 6:8. Moses clearly teaches in this portion how Adam’s sin brought death and destruction to the world at all levels, culminating, of course, in the historical Noahic flood divinely designed to judge the rapid proliferation of sin and sinners, and to preserve the Messianic line by delivering one lone godly family left on the planet: namely, the family of Noah (Genesis 6:9-9:29). God’s warning can’t be missed: Sin will be divinely judged, yet in His righteous judgment, God will always remember mercy and grace. It’s a message our culture and 3

Got Questions? Selected Bible Passages

our world need to get reacquainted with as our national greed destroys our economy, as riots engulf London, as blood-thirsty religious warriors destabilize governments, as large groups of hoodlums indiscriminately attack innocent people on the streets of Pittsburgh, and as, well, you fill in the blank. Hence, no matter which view you hold of this problematic passage, the careful interpreter will realize the pivotal nature of verse five of chapter six:

5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The Hebrew for “wickedeness” and “evil,” as used here, are from the same root, ra’ ([r;), a main word for sin denoting action totally unacceptable to God (Theological Wordbook Of The Old Testament, Vol. 2: 855). Frequently in the OT ra’ is juxtaposed with the word “good,” to show how it denotes activity which is the antithesis of holy, godly living (2 Samuel 14:17; 19:35; 1 kings 3:9; Isaiah 7:15). In Noah’s day, man enjoyed ra’ more than anything else. In fact, according to verse 11, wickedness was the order of the day:

11Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.

This second statement about the conditions of Noah’s time is followed, just like the first one in verse 5, with words of divine displeasure and impending, life-altering judgment (cf. vv. 6-7 and v. 13). God’s holiness had been challenged beyond measure. Man had traversed moral boundaries he should have never crossed. A world-wide watery wrath was about to be revealed so God’s salvific plan wouldn’t be thwarted. Now I posit these rudimentary and foundational statements to say this: The Noahic flood was triggered by the immoral action(s) of Genesis 6:1-4. I think this is highly important, for whatever occurred on a global scale was so heinous, insidious, and grotesquely godless it prompted God to bury man, beast, and plant life under tons of rock and sedimentation during the tumultuous deluge of all deluges. This point, in and of itself, can help guide us toward seeing which view might better qualify as the most tenable one to embrace.

The Possibilities The OT Hebrew scholars Keil and Delitzsch are right when they say it is imperative for the interpreter to isolate and identify the meaning of the term “sons of God.” Who were they will determine how you view the ensuing verses. Historically, there are three main views of this portion of Scripture, viz., Genesis 6:1-4. We will work our way through each of them, showing their strengths and weaknesses. I will close this section by telling you which one I adhere to. The three views are as follows:

• The godly line of Seth intermarried with the godless line of Cain, thus polluting the messianic line and thwart the redemptive purposes of God.

4

Got Questions? Selected Bible Passages

• Powerful despotic/pagan rulers, who were typically seen in ancient times as gods, lustfully strove for fame and sexual fertility, thereby leading the way in decadent living. • Demonic beings cohabitated with human women in a brazen attempt to pollute the messianic line and thwart the redemptive purpose of God.

The helpful book The Hard Sayings Of The Bible couches these viewpoints in this manner:

The three positions may be labeled “the cosmologically mixed races view” (angels and humans), “the religiously mixed races view” (godly Sethites and worldly Cainites) and “the sociologically mixed races view” (despotic male aristocrats and beautiful female commoners).

We will treat these in the order first presented above. View one identifies the “sons of God” with the godly line of Seth, through which the Messiah would come. Their sin was intermarrying with unbelieving, godless women from Cain’s perverted, spiritually twisted line, thus polluting the godly messianic/seed line. One day, therefore, one Sethite married one too many Cainite women (possessing godless harems could possibly be in the background) and God’s patience reached its end, resulting in the Noahic flood. Support for this position is as follows: • The angel intermarrying with woman view seems to fly in the face of Christ’s teaching in Matthew 22:30: “For in the resurrection they [saved human beings in heaven] neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Angels supposedly can’t marry, hence they must be sexless. Anyway, having an angel function in this capacity is loaded with problems: Could their half-breed children be saved? There is no other place in the entire Bible where we see angels operating like this. • God created things to produce “after [their] kind according to Genesis 1:11, 12 etc. How, then, could angels do this? • In 1 Corinthians 15:38-40, Paul teaches there are different kinds of bodies in the cosmos: “There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial …” Makes one think a celestial body couldn’t procreate with a terrestrial body. • The typical word for angel, viz., malak, is not used by Moses here when it is used elsewhere, hence angels must not be in view (Genesis 16:7, 9, 10, 11; 21:17; 22:11, 15; 24:7, 40; 31:11; 48:16). • The “mighty men” produced by this union between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” are called “mighty men” (Genesis 6:4). In Hebrew this word, viz., gibbor (rABG) denotes men of flesh and blood who are valiant warriors and powerful people (The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew- Aramaic Lexicon: 150, Judges 5:13, 23; 1 Samuel 2:4; 1 Kings 1:8-10; Isaiah 3:2).

The weaknesses of the view are as follows:

5

Got Questions? Selected Bible Passages

• Nothing in the opening verses of chapter six tells us we are dealing with the lines of Seth and Cain. This is a contextual assumption. • The passage in Matthew doesn’t say angels are sexless, only that they cannot marry. This is an assumption. Further, if Jesus is saying angels are sexless, then perhaps He is referencing the angels of that time. The other class of angel which might have had sexual potential was locked up when He made this statement, hence His words wouldn’t have applied to them. • Angels weren’t part of this created order, hence the “after its kind” statement doesn’t necessarily apply to them. Further, they are beings with powers and abilities far superior to ours, as is easily attested to in the Scriptures. • Just because Moses didn’t use the typical word for angel here in Genesis 6 doesn’t mean angels aren’t in view. Additionally, the phrase “sons of God” in Hebrew (~yhil{a/h'(-ynEb.) is used exclusively for angels in the Old Testament (cf. Job 1:6 and 2:1). • True, the word “mighty men” in Hebrew is used of men; however, it is also used of animals as in Proverbs 30:30 (in reference to the prowess of a lion). Also, Genesis 6:4 says the fearsome race called the Nephilim were a product of this union, and passages like Numbers 13:33 clearly states this was some type of giant race of ultimate warriors: 33“There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.” Goliath was a descendent of this race (1 Samuel 17:4), along with Ishbi-benob (2 Samuel 21:15-22), and Og, King of Bashan (Deuteronomy 3:11). Goliath alone was nine feet tall (1 Samuel 17:4). Og was nearly 13 feet in height (Deuteronomy 3:11). Imagine warriors of this stature. Where did they come from?

Based on these salient points, I don’t give much credence to this position. Its sinful trigger for the Noahic flood, while terrible, isn’t off the charts. Further, it fails to account for the presence of the Nephilim, which Moses directly relates to this union and speaks about elsewhere in the Pentateuch. View two also has its support.

• The Hebrew word “gods,” i.e., elohim, is used in the Bible of men who served in a political capacity (Exodus 21:6 where the word is translated “judges” in the NIV and the KJV. See also Exodus 22:8 and Psalm 82:1 and 6). • The activity of the godless Cainite Lamech of Genesis 4:19-24 fits the account of Genesis 6:1-4 in so far as he is a polygamist and a violent man, actually one who boasts about a murder he committed. Obviously this dovetails with the sexual promiscuity and violence denoted in Genesis 6. • “Near Eastern discoveries have validated the pagan use of all sorts of gods and goddesses’ names in order to give more clout and prestige to the governments of Egypt and Mesopotamia, hence the title ‘sons of God’’ (Hard Sayings Of The Bible).

6

Got Questions? Selected Bible Passages

• The “mighty men” (rABG) in Genesis 6:4 originates from the term gibbor, a term used in to OT for great leaders and warriors, not giants (Psalm 78:65; Isaiah 3:2; Obadiah 9). The giant terminology comes from the later translation of the Septuagint (LXX or Greek version of the OT), which used gigantes (γιγαντεσ) for nephilim.

This view is somewhat palatable to me. It doesn’t get us into the tricky interpretive waters of how we account for angels cohabitating with women. It also is correct in relating “mighty men” and “men of renown” to men, per se, thus speaking about an out of control warrior class, crazed with violence and furthering their kingdoms (Sounds like many leaders around the world today, does it not?) This viewpoint, however, is not without issues:

• “Sons of God” is strictly used of angels in the Old Testament, not of men. • Moses equates the Nephilim which came from these unions with giants. These two points, in and of themselves, seem to tell us that something occurred here which was beyond normal behavior, something which was entirely abhorrent and the epitome of evil.

Once more, I don’t think this serves as a viable trigger for the flood. I think activity more ominous occurred. I will say that Dr. Allen Ross gives this viewpoint an interesting twist. He argues based on the fact that demons do work behind kings and mighty men in particular, as illustrated in Daniel 10:13, 20 and Ezekiel 28:11-19, and the ancients did, in fact, believe their leaders were half- divine or demigods, what we have here might be possession at an alarming rate, followed by mass deception as people were called to worship these men or suffer the consequences (Creation and Blessing: 181-183). Moses’ purpose, then, would be to show Israelites that the mythological stories of the day were not based in history or fact, but in demonic teaching, and that the pagan leaders of the day were far from gods. They were mere men. If this is the case, then the sin in question is more flagrant, as these demonically controlled and sexually fixated men basked in their so-called divinity. God’s judgment arose to make a major statement about such thinking and teaching. I think this is a viable position to a degree, but I still don’t find it completely convincing. View three teaches a certain class of angels cohabitated with women, resulting in the pollution of the line of Seth in the most alarming, disgusting fashion, followed by the emergence of a race of wicked people like the world had never seen before. Of the three views, this one is the oldest and possesses wide support. I’ll let Willmington’s Guide To The Bible summarize the main points:

• The Hebrew language seems to favor it. o (a) The Hebrew phrase “bne-elohim” (Sons of God) always refers to angels in the Old Testament. (See Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Dan. 3:25.) o (b) The Hebrew word “nephilim” (translated “giants” in 6:4) actually should be rendered “fallen ones.” The normal word for a huge man is rapha. Thus, men like Og and Goliath were described by the word rapha. (See Deut. 3:11; 1 Chron. 20:6.) 7

Got Questions? Selected Bible Passages

• There is almost always a basis for commonly held ancient legends, however weird and distorted they might have become. In 6:4 we read concerning the “men of renown,” which some believe is the historical basis for the legends of Hercules and other children of the gods of mythology. This later corresponds to such Babylonian figures as Gilgamesh, the supposed son of a goddess and a mortal. He was called “two-thirds god and one-third man.” • The common opinion of Jewish scholars: Josephus, the great Jewish historian, brings this out in his writings. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Bible used by Jews) translates Genesis 6:2 as the “angels of God.” • Various New Testament passages seem to support this view. For example: 1 Peter 3:18-20—

19in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

It is thought by some that these spirits here were those sons of God in Genesis 6. The reason for their iniquity was a satanic attempt to corrupt human flesh and thus prevent the promised Incarnation (Gen. 3:15) from taking place. But here Peter describes Christ as telling them their foul plan didn’t work! This passage is, however, as problematic as Genesis 6:1-4. I, Marty, realize this. Wayne Grudem has an excellent discussion the viewpoints of this thorny passage in his excellent commentary on Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, 1 Peter: 163-174. • To this I, Marty, would add that Jude’s teaching may just, in fact, reference this event in Genesis 6:

5Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. 6And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, 7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

Like Genesis 6, Jude is teaching that sin, viz., false teachers/teaching, will be judged, and has been judged by God. He gives three illustrations of the premise. Only one time in biblical history can we say that angels “abandoned their proper abode,” and that is in Genesis 6:1-4. God had set boundaries for them and they crossed those sacred boundaries. Interestingly enough, the following illustration from the homosexuality of Sodom and Gomorrah, says that these sexually sinful people, like the angels, went after “strange flesh.” 8

Got Questions? Selected Bible Passages

Hence as it is wrong for man to be intimate with a man, it was wrong for an angel to do likewise with a woman. God judged both, then. The one with fire from heaven and the other with escape proof chains until the day of judgment.

[For additional reading cf. Expositor’s Bible Commentary:

6 The second example is of the fallen angels. The most likely reference here is to the angels ("sons of God," cf. Gen 6:4; Job 1:6; 2:1) who came to earth and mingled with women. This interpretation is expounded in the pseudepigraphical Book of Enoch (7, 9.8, 10.11; 12.4), from which Jude quotes in v. 14, and is common in the intertestamental literature and the early church fathers (e.g., Justin Apology 2.5). These angels "did not keep their positions of authority" (ten heauton archen). The use of the word arche for "rule," "dominion," or "sphere" is uncommon but appears to be so intended here (cf. BAG, p. 112). The implication is that God assigned angels stipulated responsibilities (arche, "dominion") and a set place (oiketerion). But because of their rebellion, God has kept or reserved (tetereken perfect tense) these fallen angels in darkness and in eternal chains awaiting final judgment. Apparently some fallen angels are in bondage while others are unbound and active among mankind as demons.

7 The third example of judgment is that of the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah. In v. 7 NIV is so concise that it slides over the significance of the pronoun "these" (toutois). Kelly (p. 253) translates this verse thus: "Just as Sodom and Gommorah and the surrounding cities, which practiced immorality in the same way as these and lusted after different flesh, stand out as an example, undergoing as they do a punishment of everlasting fire." The key factors are "these" (toutois—masculine, referring to "angels" [v. 6], not cities [feminine], and the words "different flesh" (sarkos heteras). Thus the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was seeking union with "different flesh" in a way similar to what the "sons of God" (angels?) did (Gen 6:2) when they mingled with "the daughters of men" (humans).

Normally angels do not marry, nor do they have substantial bodies, though at times they have assumed bodies or appeared in a bodily form as divine messengers (Gen 19:1ff.; Zech 1:9ff.; 2:1ff.; Matt 28:2ff.; Mark 16:5; Luke 24:4ff.; John 20:12ff.; Acts 1:10f.). In Genesis 19 angelic messengers in the form of men visited Sodom; and the men of the city, motivated by their homosexuality and supposing the messengers to be men, desired them. So they "went after different flesh." God destroyed the cities of the plain by raining fire and brimstone from heaven on the cities (Gen 19:24)—possibly the divine use of a natural catastrophe associated with the volcanic activity of the area.]

Talk about the ultimate sin to move God to usher in the global flood! This would be it, to be sure. But, I will not die on my sword either. The view does have its issues:

9

Got Questions? Selected Bible Passages

• Angels are just dropped into a non-angelic context. (This wouldn’t be the first time, however: cf., Genesis 28:10ff and the story of Joseph at Bethel). • The statement in Genesis 6 that these “sons of God” “took wives for themselves,” the word “took,” Hebrew laqah, is typically used in the OT of marriage between a man and a woman. Since Christ said that angels don’t marry, then, it doesn’t appear angels are in view in Genesis 6. (Christ, however, might be referring to good angels, not fallen angels). • Genesis 6:6ff does say that God’s judgment fell up mankind for their corrupt activities. Had angels really started this particular sin then it’s odd they are not mentioned in the judgment. (They might not be mentioned because God was/is focusing on what sin has done to mankind in particular, not the angelic realm.) • If this angelic sin is what prompted the flood, then why do we find the same giants on the earth post-flood (Numbers 13:33; Deuteronomy 2:20-21; 3:11; 1 Samuel 17:4; 2 Samuel 21:15-22? How do we account for them? (Genesis 6:1- 4 recounts God’s judgment upon mankind for their sin. God does not tell us when He judged these angels. Obviously, they must have continued their activity post-flood and then God judged them at some unknown point after the beginning of the period of the kings, when they drop from view.)

Based on all of this reasoning, I still lean toward the third view. And as I said in the introduction, we must be careful not to get lost in all of these mysterious details. This is where the last point comes into play.

The Practicality No matter which view you take, two themes run through each of them:

• Sin, when left unchecked, spreads like a cancer, negatively destroying everything it touches. • God will not always tolerate ever-increasing sinful activity, but will eventually move to judge it decisively. • God’s power will never let anything derail His redemptive program for mankind. Satan’s best work to pollute the messianic line was doomed to failure in light of who God is. • In wrath God always remembers mercy. “8But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD” (Genesis 6:8) shows you God’s heart. Favor is the Hebrew word for grace, and this is its first occurrence in the Bible. Dr. John Davis, the renowned OT scholar, captures its presence well: “… in the midst of colossal human failure, which it seemed would result in total annihilation of the race, comes the expression of unmerited divine favor” (Paradise To Prison: 117). Shocking. Noah chose to be a godly man at a most godless time, and God chose to be gracious to him by sparing him and his godly family the brunt of His fierce wrath by providing an ark.

10

Got Questions? Selected Bible Passages

What happened in Noah’s day is prophesied to occur again. As Jesus said in His Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24:

36“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. 37“For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38“For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. 40“Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. 41“Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left.

Once again, the world is descending into darkness and chaos. We, as saints, see it. We, as saints, sense it. But as in Noah’s day, the godless party on, living large and loose, as if there is no God and mocking those who do. The question is, “Will you be a Noah in your day? Will you oppose evil and embrace the gospel and Word of Jesus Christ? Will you tell folks who don’t know God about His holiness and His grace? Oh, how I thank Him for the grace. Makes me want to sing in worship to Him …

Wonderful grace of Jesus, Reaching the most defiled, By its transforming power, Making him God's dear child, Purchasing peace and heaven, For all eternity; For the wonderful grace of Jesus reaches me.

Chorus: Wonderful the matchless grace of Jesus, Deeper than the mighty rolling sea; Higher than the mountain, sparkling like a fountain, All sufficient grace for even me; Broader than the scope of my transgressions, Greater far than all my sin and shame; O magnify the precious Name of Jesus, Praise His Name!

“Wonderful Grace of Jesus” was written and composed by Haldor Lillenas in 1918. Born in Norway, Mr. Lillenas came to the United States as a child. He married Bertha Mae Wilson, also a songwriter, and together they traveled extensively, furnishing songs for many of the leading song leaders in the country, including Charles Alexander. Mr. Alexander found this hymn, among the approximately 4000 that Lillenas wrote, to be particularly useful as a mass choir 11

Got Questions? Selected Bible Passages selection in the great crusades in the early years of the 20th century (www.scriptureandmusic.com).

Additional information on Nephilim from Easton’s Bible Dictionary:

Anakim

The descendants of Anak (Josh. 11:21; Num. 13:33; Deut. 9:2). They dwelt in the south of Palestine, in the neighbourhood of Hebron (Gen. 23:2; Josh. 15:13). In the days of Abraham (Gen. 14:5, 6) they inhabited the region afterwards known as Edom and Moab, east of the Jordan. They were probably a remnant of the original inhabitants of Palestine before the Canaanites, a Cushite tribe from Babel, and of the same race as the Phoenicians and the Egyptian shepherd kings. Their formidable warlike appearance, as described by the spies sent to search the land, filled the Israelites with terror. They seem to have identified them with the Nephilim, the “giants” (Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33) of the antediluvian age. There were various tribes of Anakim (Josh. 15:14). Joshua finally expelled them from the land, except a remnant that found a refuge in the cities of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (Josh. 11:22). The Philistine giants whom David encountered (2 Sam. 21:15-22) were descendants of the Anakim. (See GIANTS.) Giants

(1.) Heb. nephilim, meaning “violent” or “causing to fall” (Gen. 6:4). These were the violent tyrants of those days, those who fell upon others. The word may also be derived from a root signifying “wonder,” and hence “monsters” or “prodigies.” In Num. 13:33 this name is given to a Canaanitish tribe, a race of large stature, “the sons of Anak.” The Revised Version, in these passages, simply transliterates the original, and reads “Nephilim.” (2.) Heb. rephaim, a race of giants (Deut. 3:11) who lived on the east of Jordan, from whom was descended. They were probably the original inhabitants of the land before the immigration of the Canaanites. They were conquered by Chedorlaomer (Gen. 14:5), and their territories were promised as a possession to Abraham (Gen. 15:20). The Anakim, Zuzim, and Emim were branches of this stock. In Job 26:5 (R.V., “they that are deceased;” marg., “the shades,” the “Rephaim”) and Isa. 14:9 this Hebrew word is rendered (A.V.) “dead.” It means here “the shades,” the departed spirits in Sheol. In 2 Sam. 21:16, 18, 20, 33, “the giant” is (A.V.) the rendering of the singular form ha raphah, which may possibly be the name of the father of the four giants referred to here, or of the founder of the Rephaim. The Vulgate here reads “Arapha,” whence Milton (in Samson Agonistes) has borrowed the name “Harapha.” (See also 1 Chron. 20:5, 6, 8; Deut. 2:11, 20; 3:13; Josh. 15:8, etc., where the word is similarly rendered “giant.”) It is rendered “dead” in (A.V.) Ps. 88:10; Prov. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16: in all these places the Revised Version marg. has “the shades.” (See also Isa. 26:14.) (3.) Heb. 'Anakim (Deut. 2:10, 11, 21; Josh. 11:21, 22; 14:12, 15; called “sons of Anak,” Num. 13:33; “children of Anak,” Num. 13:22; Josh. 15:14), a nomad race of giants descended from Arba (Josh. 14:15), the father of Anak, that dwelt in the south of Palestine near Hebron (Gen. 23:2; Josh. 15:13). They were a Cushite tribe of the same race as the Philistines and the 12

Got Questions? Selected Bible Passages

Egyptian shepherd kings. David on several occasions encountered them (2 Sam. 21:15- 22). From this race sprung Goliath (1 Sam. 17:4). (4.) Heb. 'emin, a warlike tribe of the ancient Canaanites. They were “great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims” (Gen. 14:5; Deut. 2:10, 11). (5.) Heb. Zamzummim (q.v.), Deut. 2:20 so called by the Amorites. (6.) Heb. gibbor (Job 16:14), a mighty one, i.e., a champion or hero. In its plural form (gibborim) it is rendered “mighty men” (2 Sam. 23:8-39; 1 Kings 1:8; 1 Chr. 11:9-47; 29:24.) The band of six hundred whom David gathered around him when he was a fugitive were so designated. They were divided into three divisions of two hundred each, and thirty divisions of twenty each. The captains of the thirty divisions were called “the thirty,” the captains of the two hundred “the three,” and the captain over the whole was called “chief among the captains” (2 Sam. 23:8).The sons born of the marriages mentioned in Gen. 6:4 are also called by this Hebrew name.

13