Daniel 3

How does one move from the mindset of 2:46 to that of 3:1?
1. Humility dissolves naturally with time (1)
2. Humility dissolves naturally with power (1)
3. Humility dissolves naturally with Ambition (1)

What happens when humility is replaced by pride?
1. You become the center of your universe (5)
2. You become the standard of rightness (6)
3. You become impatient with others (13, 19)

But even if He does not…we will not

The mark of true humility
1. Humility is willing to be in the extreme minority (12)
2. Humility is willing to trust when the going gets rough (17)
3. Humility is willing to obey despite persecution/death (18)

The rewards of true humility
1. Humility is met by God’s presence (25)
2. Humility is met by worldly amazement (24)
3. Humility is met by increased opportunity (30)

Daniel 2

The King’s Dilemma
1. He was afraid of the future (1)
2. He conscience was troubling him (1)
3. He had been growing suspicious of worldly advice (3)
4. He realized, at last, that worldly advice was wrong (5)
5. He decided to no longer listen (12)

The Servants Solution
1. He gained a right to be heard by his character (14)
2. He took great risk because he had great confidence in his God (16)
3. He took the problem to the church for prayer (17)
4. He praised God for answering their prayers (19)
5. Lives were saved through his faith (24)

“But there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries”

The Dream Discussion
1. The servant gave all the credit to God (27)
2. The servant used his spiritual gift for God (30)
3. God wanted the King to understand his dream (30)

Closer Look (32-35)
Head = Babylonian Kingdom (Specifically Nebuchadnezzar)
Chest & Arms = Medo-Persian Kingdom
Belly & Thighs = Grecian Kingdom
Legs & Feet = Roman Kingdom
Rock = God’s Kingdom

Women in Ministry?

WOMEN IN THE MINISTRY?

A couple years ago I studied the issue of woman in ministry for a span of five days and a total of about twelve hours. I realize that this is not a thorough amount of study as far as scholars are concerned, but I am not a scholar. I do understand the debate, however, and have hardened (though not cemented) my position.

First of all, I found much confusion in the midst of this sometimes heated debate. The major confusion seemed to be the mixing of justification (God declaring us acceptable in a legal sense) with role distinction (God giving us different functions within the body of Christ). One of the major texts used by egalitarians (those believing women can minister in any area a man can) was Galatians 3:28 which reads, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (KJV). This is a wonderful passage of course, but it is dealing with justification. God clearly does not regard gender as having effect in salvation. That is what this verse, among a host of others, shows. But role distinction within the body of Christ is not the issue or context of this text.

Another unnecessary mix of subject matter involved the issue of marriage. The topic of whether a male should be head (authority) in a marriage relationship is a separate issue. There are overlapping principles, but the topics are distinct nonetheless. Ephesians 5 discusses the relationship between husband and wife. It describes the wife as submitting to her husband in a similar manner as the church submits to Christ. HOWEVER, it then goes on to discuss husbands loving their wives ALSO in a similar manner as Christ loved the church. So how did Christ love the church? He became a servant! Thus, marriage relationships should be based on dual love, respect and servitude. When a decision has to be made and the two parties disagree...well, that is where things get tricky. Thankfully, this is not the topic of my study, thus I do not have to deal with it at the moment (although I do have an opinion)!

So the issue of women being in official positions of leadership/ministry within a church does not have to do with justification and isn't the same as the marriage headship debate. Those who oppose woman in the Ministry are not (for the most part) denying that a woman is equal in the sight of God to a man in regards to salvation. This is an important consideration.

Nevertheless, the debate rages on! Every debate should start, however, with some planks upon which both sides agree. This has not occurred, unfortunately, very often within this debate within the evangelical world.

But for my purposes, I do wish to present these planks of agreement:
1. ALL people are equal in regards to salvation (Galatians 3:2)
2. ALL Christians are given gifts as the Lord wills (1 Corinthians 12)
3. ALL are to use their gifts to edify the church (1 Corinthians 12)
4. There is nothing lacking in a woman biologically or physically that would prevent them from serving in an official leadership role in a church. (This plank, however, needs further clarification. There are some egalitarians that believe that one reason there were absolutely no female priests in the Old Testament was because priests at that time had to carry and place the animal sacrifices in the appropriate places. This was a difficult task left for the physically stronger males. A recent Time Magazine conveyed that woman are actually advanced in the areas of grey matter (brain) in comparison to men...a point I would debate!)
5. Seeming scores of women have successfully served in these supposedly banned areas of ministry throughout church history. (from Deborah to Priscilla to Susanna Wesley leading Bible studies in her home).

With these planks an egalitarian may ask the valid question, "why would God play the game of banning women from a Ministry which He has specifically gifted them for?" Assuredly, if the text of the Bible TRULY DOES prohibit women from these positions then there must be an answer to that question ranging from 1. He doesn't gift women for those tasks (a cloudy conclusion at best) or 2. Their gifts are to be used in some other setting or way than the official church setting (private homes, teaching children, teaching young adults).

Having established a firm foundation for this debate, I will now comment on the three most relevant Biblical passages: Genesis 1-3, 1 Corinthians 14:26-39, 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The texts will be discussed in the following order: 1. Complementarian viewpoint 2. Egalitarian viewpoint. 3. Matthew's viewpoint. In case the words are still new to you, complementarians are against woman in authority at the church, egalitarian's are for woman in authority in the church, and Matthew...well, you know me!

Genesis 1-3
Complementarians advocate that in Genesis 1-3 the order of Creation is highly important. After all, it was the reason Paul gave for why a woman should be silent in the church (more on this when we get to Timothy). It is also important that Adam named Eve. Naming represented an authority over that which was being named. Adam had authority over the animals and named them. Thus, since he named Eve he had authority over Eve as well. Complementarians stress that Adam had authority over Eve BEFORE THE FALL. This is shown because even though Adam didn't name his wife "EVE" until after the fall, he named her "woman" before the fall.

Egalitarians stress, from Genesis 1-3, that the woman lost her equal authority position as a result of the fall. They point out that order of creation is unimportant. After all, one could make the case that God saved His best creation for last (Eve). They also point out that Adam didn't name his wife Eve until after the fall. The fall is their focus. God's punishment of Eve was that "their desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Thus, the woman's role of submission to her husband was the result of the fall, not God's good creation.

Matthew, that's me, tends to side with the egalitarians on this point. This text will be discussed further as it correlates to Timothy. But as a whole, there seems to have been mutual authority before the fall. A closer look reveals that Adam and Eve BOTH participated in naming the animals and were BOTH told by God to "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth." This description was assigned to the "male AND female" that God had created (capitalization added for emphasis, as is the case throughout this email). Thus, it is my belief that woman lost her position of shared authority as a result of the fall. The question then becomes, for me, when/where/how will she or should she get that position back!

1 Corinthians 14:26-39
Complementarians point out that this Scripture is very clear. They would most likely have their case stand as the text alone: "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church." Enough said, says the complementarian!

Egalitarians stress (as necessity would insist) that the passage must be taken as to applying to a specific context. The text was written for a specific people at a specific time during a specific situation. Their first argument would be taken from 1 Corinthians 11:5 where Paul implies that woman DID pray/prophecy in the public church setting. Thus, how could he be contradicting himself here? Other egalitarian interpretations of this passage deal with the meaning of the words present in the key verses (34-35). Keep silent may really mean show respect. There is some possibility that "not permitted" in the Greek could have been translated "not currently permitted". Egalitarians go on to describe the situation. It involved uneducated women disrupting public services with questions. Paul was advising them to learn at home (catch up) so that others would not be hindered in their public learning experience. One egalitarian took the bold position that verses 34 and 35 are actually a block quote of a false teaching that Paul is speaking against. This is shown by his question in verse 36, "Did the Word of God come originally from you". This interpretor would paraphrase that as, "Did you make up this mumbo-jumbo?"

Matthew, me again, would hesitate to say I support the egalitarian view in its fullness. I would definitely disagree with the interpretation that this was a false teaching that Paul was merely quoting. Overall, I got the feeling that egalitarians were scrambling a bit on this one. I found this text to be difficult in it's entirety. Actually Chapters 11-14 are highly decorated with verses that scholars simply don't fully get (head coverings, tongues etc.). I can see the possibility that Paul is speaking to a specific situation. I am not much into the practice of shaping the words of the text to fit my beliefs. I think Paul meant what he said the way he said it, but I am open to the possibility that he meant it for these Corinthians and any like them, and these alone.

1 Timothy 2:8-15....**most critical to debate
Complementarians find their hero in this passage. Here, the thoughts of the previous Scripture are given once again. BUT IN ADDITION is the apparent reason for Paul's imperitive language. Why should women keep silent in the church? Why should women not teach in a church? Why should women not have authority in a church? The answer is given in verse 13-14..."FOR ADAM WAS FORMED FIRST, THEN EVE. AND ADAM WAS NOT DECEIVED, BUT THE WOMAN BEING DECEIVED, FELL INTO TRANSGRESSION." If Adam's chronological priority in creation is the reason for women being commanded to keep silent, then it is an eternal principle! The order of creation is a constant truth. Case closed!

Egalitarians once again appeal to context, word meaning, and overall theme. Once again the context is thought to have been of church disorder. The woman may once again have been causing trouble in the church. Once again word meaning is looked at by egalitarians. Silence and submission could mean respect and reverence. "I do not permit" could again read from the Greek "I am not currently permitting". Thus, this command was do to the current situation of the time. And once again egalitarians point out that Paul presupposes women in authority throughout his NT writings. A most interesting find by egalitarians, however, is that their was a gnostic heresy floating around at that time stating that EVE ACTUALLY WAS FIRST IN CREATION. Adam had only been tricked into thinking he was first. Given the factual evidence for this false teaching, the text may be taken in that light. This could shed a whole new meaning of verse 13 and 14. No longer does it have to be the reason for 11 and 12. Instead it may be an illustration to support 11 and 12. Instead of "For" at the beginning of 13, the Greek could easily have been translated "For example". An illustration is much different from a reason. A reason as this would be a timeless truth. An illustration only fits in the context of which it is given. Victory is ours, says the egalitarian!

Matthew, me again (eyes getting tired at this point), was dreading this passage. I knew it was the key to this debate. Both sides have a good argument. I was impressed with the find of the gnostic heresy. I do believe context has a lot to do with these verses. My reasons are not because I WANT to be egalitarian. The reason is because Paul's statements (taken in the manner complementarians take it) seem contradictory to his other statements about women being prophets, being given gifts in the same manner of men etc.

Having completed a closer look at the Scriptures relevant to this debate, we can zoom out a bit to gain perspective. Complementarians make a valid claim when they say that no women is ever called a bishop or an elder in the Bible. Egalitarians make a valid counterclaim when they say that only 2 men are referred to as such! Complementarians make a valid claim when they differentiate between prophecy and teaching. They state that women are not allowed to teach in the church setting. Egalitarians counterclaim that Priscilla took the lead in teaching Apollos (a man) the far reaching extents of the Gospel. The debate rages on!

Another interesting feature pertaining to this contemporary issue is the nature of the early church gathering. Christians soon were banned from the Jewish synogogues and ended up meeting in homes. The home owner became a pastor of sorts as described in 1 Corinthians 16:15-16. Interestingly enough, 5 of the 6 patrons (homeowners) mentioned in Scripture as filling these roles were women (mary, lydia, priscilla etc)! And remember that in the Old Testament Miriam served as one of Israel's three key leaders after the exodus along with Moses and Aaron (Micah 6:4). And don't forget Deborah who served as one of the most successful Judges in the book bearing that name. Judges were definitely in authority positions as described in chapters 4 and 5. Women are called prophets many times over in the Scriptures (Ezekiel 13:17-24, Nehemiah 6:4, Isaiah 8:3, 40:9).

OKAY....in conclusion....given the context of which most of the Bible was written (during a time of oppression of women's rights) it is actually quite staggering the amount of women who came to the forefront of leadership! Both sides of this debate are honorable in their attempt to interpret the Bible correctly. I believe this is a debatable issue that should be treated as such. I must admit I would still be a bit uncomfortable with a woman as a senior pastor. Perhaps time will change that, who knows? But I know for sure that I wouldn't want to stand in the way of a woman who has been called by God to preach, teach, and have an authority position. After all, in Second Timothy Paul commanded the women to LEARN. If women of our day have been well instructed (and many of them have) then why wouldn't they be able to share that knowledge for the edification of the church? I'll leave the answer to that question to the reader.

Who can be a Pastor? Is ANYONE the correct answer? Certainly NOT! The criteria necessary for pastoral ministry is given in chapter 3 of Timothy. Only the most pure of people may be considered for these positions of high responsibility. If anyone reading this is aiming for Pastoral Ministry or some position of leadership in the church...know the standards are high and the responsibility extreme. Make sure your calling and election is sure! And use your gifts to edify the church with a lifetime of Ministry.

...................

60 Women Worthy of Notes in the Scriptures

Part 1: 20 Women of the Pentateuch

Eve
Cain’s Wife
Noah’s Wife
Sarai/Sarah
Hagar
Lot’s Wife
Lot’s Daughters
Rebekah
Rachel
Leah
Bilhah & Zilpah
Dinah
Tamar
Potipher’s Wife
Shiphrah & Puah
Jochabed
Pharaoh’s Daughter
Zipporah
Miriam
Zelophehad’s Daughters

Part 2: 20 Women of OT History

Job’s Wife
Rahab
Deborah
Delilah
Ruth & Naomi
Hannah
David’s Wives: Michal, Abigail & Bathsheba
Witch of Endor
Queen of Sheba
Solomon’s Wives & Concubines & the Beloved
Wisdom
The Wife of Noble Character
Widow at Zarephath
Jezebel
The Shunammite Woman
Naaman’s Wife’s Servant Girl
Gomer
Huldah
Queen Vashti
Esther

Part 3: 20 Women of the New Testament

Elizabeth
Mary (Mother of Jesus)
Anna
Peter’s Wife & Mother-in-Law
Mary & Martha
Mary (Magdalene)
The Women
Herodias & Her Daughter
The Woman with the Issue of Blood
The Gentile Woman & Her Daughter
The Woman at the Well
The Adulterous Woman
Sapphira
Dorcas/Tabitha
Priscilla
Lydia
Philip’s Four Prophetess Daughters
Phoebe & the Women of the Church in Rome
Lois & Eunice
The Harlot & The Bride

....................................

Quotes from the Cultures (Their view of women)

Plato
“It is only males who are created directly by the gods and are given souls. Those who live rightly return to the stars, but those who are ‘cowards or [lead unrighteous lives] may with reason be supposed to have changed into the nature of women in the second generation’. This downward progress may continue through successive reincarnations unless reversed. In this situation, obviously it is only men who are complete human beings and can hope for ultimate fulfillment; the best a woman can hope for is to become a man.”

Aristotle
“Her inability to produce semen is her deficiency: a woman, is as it were an infertile male...
A male is male in virtue of a particular ability, and a female in virtue of a particular inability... The relationship between the male and the female is by nature such that the male is higher, the female lower, that the male rules and the female is ruled.”

Gospel of Thomas
“Simon Peter said to them, “Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.” Jesus said, “look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Talmud
“Blessed are you Lord our God who has created me a human and not a beast, a man and not a female, an Israelite and not a Gentile, circumcised and not uncircumcised, free and not a slave.”

The Greek Culture in Paul’s Day
It was shameful for a woman to interact with other males in normal everyday life (especially among the elite, privileged). But they were much more involved in religious rituals. Appearances were more important than actual character.

The Roman Culture in Paul’s Day
Women had more freedom in Roman culture than in Greek culture (in other words, it was less shameful to take part in public functions). But, interestingly, they had less of a role in religious rituals.

Jewish Culture in Paul’s Day
Rabbinical Judaism prohibited women from leading at the Synagogue, but this was less and less true in Synagogues far removed from Palestine.

Arguments sometimes used to dismiss these texts
Paul was not the author of these words We’re not bound by them
Paul was prejudiced against women We’re not bound by him
Paul was writing to a specific cultural/church context It doesn’t apply to us

Possible Egalitarian Interpretation of 1 Cor. 14
Paul was concerned that wives speaking to men in a home, at night, would be considered shameful and he is, then, trying to protect the reputation of the Corinthian women. Paige concludes that the women in Corinth were carrying on casual conversations with the men of the church and that this was bringing unnecessary shame to families/husbands. They were doing this b/c of boundary confusion (was this religious or social event, are these men relatives (brothers in Christ), or strangers?). Paul’s command, then, has to be kept in the context of a church that was already experiencing problems when it came to marriages. It was not a universal command against women speaking in church gatherings.

Are there 7 Heavens?

INTRODUCTION
The English Idiom '7th heaven' conveys the idea of extreme happiness. But what are the origins of the idiom and, more importantly, are there actually 7 different layers of heaven? I certainly am not a qualified historian, but here is my best interpretation of the evidence I have found on the subject.

HEAVENS PLURAL
In the opening verse of Scripture, God is said to have created the 'heavens and the earth'. The Hebrew term for 'heavens' is the plural 'Shamayim'. From the standpoint of Genesis 1, the 'heavens' consists of the expanse between the waters above and the waters below. The sun, moon, stars, and birds were placed in this expanse. Later in Genesis, the builders of the Tower of Babel were trying to reach those 'heavens'. All cultures come from Babel. And it appears from history that many from that since scattered society took the concept of a plurality of heavens with them as they went.

MYSTICAL RELIGIONS
In the spirit of Babel, the later Assyrians continued to develop a map of the heavens. Though the number of heavens ranged from thinker to thinker, Ziggurats were usually built with 7 layers which represented the 7 planes of existence and corresponded to the 7 planets known at that time.

JEWISH USAGE
When the Jews were exiled to Babylon, they doubtless were made aware of Babylonian thoughts on the plurality of the heavens. These ideas fit well with their own word 'Shamayim' and so Judaism began to develop its own mapping of the heavens. 7, being the number of perfection, was the obvious choice for Jewish Rabbis. The Jews thoroughly devised purposes for each of these 7 layers. One layer closed off the light at night-time. Another stored rainwater. A third housed the planets. Higher heavens were more religious in nature, storing the souls of the righteous and unborn, angels, the heavenly city and eventually the throne of God itself.

NEW TESTAMENT USAGE
In New Testament times, Paul appears to have utilized some version of these ideas in his 2nd letter to the Corinthians. Chapter 12 verse 2 refers to a man (probably Paul himself) who 'was caught up to the third heaven'. Christian commentators are somewhat uniform in their interpretation of this. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown confidently declare, "The first heaven is that of the clouds, the air; the second, that of the stars, the sky; the third is spiritual." Matthew Henry tends to agree: "in some sense he was caught up into the third heaven, the heaven of the blessed, above the aerial heaven, in which the fowls fly, above the starry heaven, which is adorned with those glorious orbs: it was into the third heaven, where God most eminently manifests his glory."

ISLAMIC USAGE
The Jewish concept of 7 heavens found its way into Islam in the 7th century. Sura 41:12 states that God "completed seven heavens in two Days and He made in each heaven its affair." In the 1800's, the Muslim influence over British culture produced the idiom 'seventh heaven' as we know it today.

CONCLUSION
Thus, the term 'heaven' can refer to the sky (inhabited by birds), the universe (inhabited by the sun, moon & stars), and the dwelling place of God. Whether there are 7 unique 'layers' of what we call 'heaven' cannot be discerned from Scripture. Paul, in referring to the 'third heaven' was referring to 'paradise' (2 Corinthians 12:4). In my opinion, the concept of 3 heavens seems most reasonable (the 1st being the atmosphere, the 2nd being the universe, and the 3rd being God's dwelling place). But it would not surprise me if this 'third' heaven has various 'courts' like that of the former temple in earthly Jerusalem.

What were the Nephilim?

WHAT WERE THE NEPHILIM?

When a scientist comes across an unknown, one tactic he may take is to make a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Sometimes, as readers of Scripture, we come across a passage that is clear as mud. It is appropriate to use the same method in order to find a solution. One such passage is Genesis 6:1-4.

1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

This passage has created many questions for interpreters throughout history. What is meant by ‘sons of God’? What is meant by ‘daughters of men’? What is meant by ‘Nephilim’? Theories abound, but concrete solutions are seemingly impossible. Perhaps the best we can do is make a few hypothesis and see which explanation has the most going for it (or the least going against it).

HYPOTHESIS #1 THE FALLEN ANGEL EXPLANATION

This view equates ‘sons of God’ with ‘angels’, and ‘nephilim’ as the fruit of their union with human females. In this scenario, some angels in heaven began to lust after women on earth and came to earth to marry & mate with them. The women became pregnant and gave birth to a new race of angel-men who were, apparently, giant in stature.

Those advocating this view support it with the Scripture & ancient tradition. First, in defense of equating the phrase ‘sons of God’ with ‘angels’, it should be noted that this is the standard meaning of the phrase in the Old Testament. In the KJV, the phrase only occurs 3 other times in the Old Testament and in all three (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7) it seems to refers to angels. Second, advocates of this view draw from Jude’s usage of the apocalyptic Book of Enoch in which the term ‘sons of God’ is clarified ‘the angels, the children of the heaven’ (Enoch 6:2), leaving little doubt in the minds of those who accept the legitimacy of the Book of Enoch. Jude also refers to angels ‘who did not keep their positions of authority’ and this is said to speak of the same event. Third, it is true that most ancient Jewish and early Christian commentators interpreted the passage in this sense. Thus, the greater importance one places on Jewish and earliest Christian tradition, the more prone one will be to this view.

Those opposing this view attempt to minimize all three of the above mentioned arguments and proceed to argue with additional complaints against this view. First, though it is true that the phrase ‘sons of God’ only refers to angels in the Old Testament, it is not true that only angels are spoken of as God’s children. The phrase ‘sons of the living God’ is used to describe the people of God in Hosea 1:10. Additionally, the New Testament exclusively uses the phrase ‘sons of God’ for humans (John 1:12, Romans 8:14+19, Philippians 2:15, 1 John 3:1+2). Second, while Jude does quote from Enoch, this should not be seen as a complete endorsement of that work. It was common practice to quote non-canonical material in the early church (see Acts 17:28). It should be remembered that the Book of Enoch is almost certainly a pseudopigraphal (not actually written by Enoch) work created less than a few hundred years before the time of Christ. Third, opponents (dismissing the supposed biblical evidence for this view) would point out that arguments based primarily on popular tradition must bow to biblical arguments. The fourth line of argument against the fallen angel view is an argument of worldview. Opponents would question the very possibility of angels acting in this manner in light of Matthew 22:30. One must also question why God would have blamed mankind (Genesis 6:5+13) for a predominately angelic predicament. A Fifth complaint against this view would wonder how the ‘nephilim’ survived the flood as shown by Numbers 13:33. Did the angel-men survive the flood? Did other fallen angels reproduce the wickedness of the Genesis 6 angels at a later date (yet had their act go unrecorded)?

HYPOTHESIS #2 THE SETHITE EXPLANATION

This view equates ‘sons of God’ with ‘Seth’s line’, ‘daughters of men’ with ‘worldly women’. The ‘nephilim’ are understand in at least 2 ways under this theory. Some view them as the ‘wicked offspring’. In this scenario, supposedly godly men lusted after pagan women and married them. The offspring of these unholy unions was a line of people who were monstrous in terms of morality (and/or, perhaps, giant in stature). Other adherents of the Sethite view, however, consider the 'nephilim' a seperate group entirely since the passage seems to indicate that they were present both before and after the unholy unions. In this case, they were mentioned simply because they were noteworthy due to the combination of their wickedness and stature.

Those advocating this view support it with the Scripture & more recent tradition. First, the context surrounding Genesis 6:1-4 is one of the expansion and corruption of mankind. Genesis 5 shows the expansion of God’s holy line from Adam to Noah’s sons (it may even be noteworthy that this genealogy starts with God creating Adam- in a sense, ‘fathering’ the ‘sons of God’). Genesis 6 shows the corruption of men. It was man’s ‘wickedness’ that provoked God’s grief (Genesis 6:5-6, 13). It was man that God determined to annihilate (Genesis 6:7). Second, Scripture consistently speaks of God’s people as His ‘sons’ in both the Old (Hosea 1:10) and New (John 1:12) Testaments. Third, this scenario is not uncommon to the Old Testament narrative. God’s people were warned not to enter into mixed marriages from that time forward with disobedience producing devastating results in those times as well. Fourth, JFB points out that the term nephilim/giant ‘in Hebrew implies not so much the idea of great stature as of reckless ferocity, impious and daring characters’. Fifth, perhaps the majority of scholars since Augustine have chosen this explanation as the most reasonable. Thus, the Sethite view carries with it the argument of tradition as well.

Those opposing this view tend to do so on the grounds of Old Testament phraseology and ancient interpretation. First, as noted above, every time the exact phrase ‘sons of God’ is used in the Old Testament, it seems to refer to angels. Second, if the Book of Enoch is a reliable source, then the fallen angel explanation is almost certainly preferable. Third, since an inspired Jude quoted the Book of Enoch (and seemingly the very section discussing these issues), it can be argued that Jude, at least, supported its view of Genesis 6:1-4. Fourth, if ancient tradition is favorable to more recent tradition and tradition itself is emphasized as having close to the same authority as Scripture, then the fallen angel view is certainly preferable. Fifth, the Sethite explanation must also account for why Nephilim were around after the flood (Numbers 13:33) and, perhaps, why they were large in stature (if that is indeed the meaning of the Hebrew word).

HYPOTHESIS #3 THE DINOSAUR EXPLANATION

This view equates ‘sons of God’ with ‘Seth’s line’, ‘daughters of men’ with ‘worldly women’, and ‘nephilim’ as ‘giant-beasts/dinosaurs’. This scenario follows hypothesis #2, but argues that the ‘nephilim’ weren’t the offspring of the marriages, but are mentioned as an independent group living at that time.

Those advocating this view use the same reasoning as the Sethite view in regards to the ‘sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men’, but they separate from that explanation in regards to the ‘nephilim’. In defense of their view that the nephilim were beasts/dinosaurs the following arguments are utilized. First, the passage does not directly equate the nephilim with the children of the mixed marriages. It simply states that the nephilim were ‘on the earth in those days’ (Genesis 6:4). Second, this view alone gives adequate explanation as to why nephilim were seen in Numbers 13:33. If the nephilim were giant animals (perhaps dinosaurs) they would have been included on the ark and, therefore, would have survived the flood. The description given in Numbers fits with this explanation in that the Jews were comparable to ‘grasshoppers’ in the eyes of the Nephilim. Third, this view may be bolstered by Job’s description of the post-flood creatures Behemoth & Leviathan which are thought by many to be dinosaurs.

Those opposing this view would point out possibly wrongful uses of the Hebrew language. First, one may argue that the ‘nephilim’ is used synonymously with the ‘children’ of the mixed marriages and were, therefore humans. Second, it seems that the nephilim are equated with ‘men of renown’ in Genesis 6:4. Third, in Numbers 13, the men were sent to discover ‘whether the people who live there are strong or weak, few or many’. They are not told to scout the animal kingdom. Additionally, Numbers 13:32 directly states ‘All the people we saw there are of great size’ just prior to mentioning the descendants of the nephilim.

CONCLUSION

I don’t claim to have a concrete position on this issue, but I tend to side with the Sethite view for the following reasons. First, in my opinion it fits the context of the passage best. Second, in my opinion it creates the fewest problems with corresponding Scriptures. Third, I tend not to place as high a value on Jewish Tradition as some Christians do since, by Jesus’ day, they showed themselves to be poor interpreters of the Old Testament. Fourth, tradition has far less influence over me than Scripture. Fifth, even if all views seemed equally valid, I’d error on the side of the view that sounds less mystical. Sixth, most Bible teachers I respect take the Sethite view and most Bible teachers I don’t respect take the fallen angel view. Seventh, I don’t think much of the Book of Enoch since, of course, it almost certainly wasn't written by Enoch.

Tough Questions

Frequently, I respond to questions from members of our congregation, friends, or message board participants. I often find myself responding to the same questions repeatedly. In order to save time and develop better answers, I am now posting these Q&A's as a personal resource.

Are there 7 Heavens?
Arnold Murray's Serpent Seed Doctrine?
Did God Promise to Heal us Now?
Timing of Satan's Binding?
What is the Fate of the Wicked?
What Should we Think of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict?
What were the Nephilim?
Why did God command the Annihilation of the Canaanites?
Why Should I Believe in the Trinity?
Women in Ministry?

Daniel 1

The Babylonian Invasion
1. They attacked Jerusalem in 605 BC (1)
2. God delivered Judah into Babylonian hands (2)
3. The Babylonians took articles from the temple (2)
4. The Babylonians took some of the royalty & nobility (3)
5. Ashpenaz was to turn them into Babylonians (4)

The Babylonian Assimilation
1. They were taught Babylonian language (4)
2. They were taught Babylonian culture (5)
3. They were probably castrated (3)
4. They were given Babylonian names (7)
5. The training was to last three years (5)

“But Daniel resolved not to defile himself”

Daniel’s Decision
1. He refused to defile himself w/food & whine (8)
2. His refusal seems to have affected others (11)
3. His refusal seems to have pleased God (17)
4. His refusal made him a healthier human being (15)
5. His refusal resulted in increased blessing (19)

Daniel’s Influence
1. He made his boss look good (18)
2. He was equipped for future service (17)
3. He impressed the king (19)
4. He served the king (19)
5. He showed pagan magic to be foolish (20)

Introduction

Babylonian History
605BC Nebuchadnezzar invades Jerusalem (Takes Daniel & Friends)
593BC Nebuchadnezzar invades Jerusalem (Takes Ezekiel & Others)
586BC Nebuchadnezzar destroys Jerusalem (Survivors Taken Captive)
562BC Nebuchadnezzar dies
562BC Evil-Merodach (son) reigns for 2 years
560BC Neriglissar (brother-in-law) reigns for 4 years
556BC Laabashi-Marduk reigns for 2 months
556BC Nabonidus reigns for 17 years
553BC Belshazzar (son of Nabonidus) becomes co-regent with father
539BC Babylon overthrown by Darius the Mede

2 Possible Outlines
1-6 Historical Narrative
7-12 Prophetic

1 Intro (Written in Hebrew)
2-7 Written in Aramaic
8-12 Written in Hebrew

The Aramaic Section Forms a Pattern
2 The Rise/Fall of 4 Empires and Arrival of God’s Kingdom
3 God’s Supernatural Preservation (3 friends)
4 God Humbles a Proud King (Nebuchadnezzar)
5 God Humbles a Proud King (Belshazzar)
6 God’s Supernatural Preservation (Daniel)
7 The Rise/Fall of 4 Empires and Arrival of God’s Kingdom

The 5 Kingdoms
1. Babylon Gold Lion
2. Persia Silver Bear
3. Greece Bronze Leopard
4. Rome Iron/Clay Beast
5. God Stone Human