RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I take the phrase afterward. Also the passages in Joshua and Deut
The Soteriological Status of the Nephilim?
- Thread starter TryingToLearn
- Start date
- Status
Here is what the NET Bible (2nd ed.) says in its notes:
This explanation seems reasonable to me. I know the NET Bible is not an in-depth scholarly resource, but it is a valuable set of notes written and compiled by high-caliber scholars who are recognized and credentialed experts in their particular fields in biblical studies. Here is a list of scholars who produced the Pentateuch:
Gen. 6:4 The Nephilim[1] were on the earth in those days (and also after this)[2]...
[1] The Hebrew word נְפִילִים (nᵉfilim) is simply transliterated here, because the meaning of the term is uncertain. According to the text, the Nephilim became mighty warriors and gained great fame in the antediluvian world. The text may imply they were the offspring of the sexual union of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of humankind” (v. 2), but it stops short of saying this in a direct manner. The Nephilim are mentioned in the OT only here and in Num 13:33, where it is stated that they were giants (thus KJV, TEV, NLT “giants” here). The narrator observes that the Anakites of Canaan were descendants of the Nephilim. Certainly these later Anakite Nephilim could not be descendants of the antediluvian Nephilim (see also the following note on the word “this”).
[2] This observation is parenthetical, explaining that there were Nephilim even after the flood. If all humankind, with the exception of Noah and his family, died in the flood, it is difficult to understand how the postdiluvian Nephilim could be related to the antediluvian Nephilim or how the Anakites of Canaan could be their descendants (see Num 13:33). It is likely that the term Nephilim refers generally to “giants” (see HALOT 709 s.v. נְפִילִים) without implying any ethnic connection between the antediluvian and postdiluvian varieties.
This explanation seems reasonable to me. I know the NET Bible is not an in-depth scholarly resource, but it is a valuable set of notes written and compiled by high-caliber scholars who are recognized and credentialed experts in their particular fields in biblical studies. Here is a list of scholars who produced the Pentateuch:
Richard E. Averbeck, Ph.D. (Dropsie College)
Robert B. Chisholm, Th.D. (Dallas Theological Seminary)
Dorian Coover-Cox, Ph.D. (Dallas Theological Seminary)
Eugene H. Merrill, Ph.D. (Columbia University)
Allen P. Ross, Ph.D. (Cambridge University)
Doesn't say after the flood. Not that hard.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
It might be as well to remember the end of the original post. These are speculative matters that build inferences upon specific interpretations of obscure texts. Jacob's position is not without its supporters, but there are plenty of alternative interpretations of the passages that don't require anyone outside the ark to survive the flood (and even if the flood was believed to be local rather than universal, it's unclear why the "Fallen ones" (which is literally what nephilim means) would have been able to survive it). I haven't reached this point yet in my commentary on Genesis, so am not ready to proffer an opinion on this speculative topic, but I'm pretty sure it won't involve anyone outside the ark surviving the flood. That point seems to me much more clearly established in Scripture.
Just a thought; this discussion illustrates why authoritative commentary on controversial passages like Genesis 6:4 should be left to faithful, Reformed, recognized theologians that hold to confessional standards, love God’s word and his church, and fear the Lord. We naturally want to make such passages fit our own preconceived prejudices.
There are plenty of resources on this passage from such men. John Gill for one, https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/geb/genesis-6.html
There are plenty of resources on this passage from such men. John Gill for one, https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/geb/genesis-6.html
Dr. Duguid, thanks for this comment.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Since I am not a Roman Catholic, I don't believe in an "authoritative commentary." As to making the text fit our own presuppositions, I can literally say you are doing the exact same thing. By itself that line means nothing. Now on to Gill:
He doesn't even make an argument. He just lists some options and chooses one. He should have mentioned that the beney elohim are also found in Psalm 89 and Job 1-2. How he missed that is beyond me, since he was a decent Hebraist.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Then you will have to explain what the Nephilim were doing in Num 13.
Jacob, faithful, Reformed, confessional pastors and teachers in the church speak for Christ, and the cumulative teaching from those men over the centuries on these issues are the authoritative teaching I mean. It is authoritative for the visible church, insofar as it’s thus far the teaching of the church on the subject. Sure, there can be private speculation on the part of individuals. If a private person, or even a minister of the gospel, has good reason to believe the Reformed commentators have been wrong, then it should remain a matter to be explored within the teaching office of the church. My opinion.
Jacob, in thinking about this, do you hold to a worldwide flood of such depth that it completely covered the highest elevations? Or do you perhaps hold to localized flooding?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I assure you I will answer that question in an upcoming book review on John Walton's The Lost World of the Flood. Expect it early next week. Let's assume I hold to a worldwide flood. Here is the problem: the texts I am quoting unequivocally say the descendants of the Nephilim are still around. This isn't a Jacob problem. This is what the Bible is actually saying.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
A Baptist minister has no authority over me If he did, he would discipline me for baptizing my daughter (or having a minister baptize her, to be more specific). Gill offers no argumentation for his position.
I understand that it is your opinion that disagreeing with the Reformed commentators should be explored within the church. It's just an opinion, though. And I am sure I can find Reformed commentators of the 20th century who agree with me, but that's not how truth is determined.
Jacob,
Humility is a good thing. You have an OT Proffessor on this thread agreeing that the Scriptures show you are wrong. Plus what I already said. You don't want to accept other people's commentary but you want us to except yours. A little charity would be nice.
No pastor or teacher has authority over our private opinions. We are free to hold them and free to be wrong. But we’re not free to espouse unbiblical doctrines to other member of Christ’s body. We get away with it, but that doesn’t mean we should do it.
The truth is determined by God’s word, which is exposited by faithful men called to the teaching office of the visible church. If you have a novel view that falls outside the confessional and Reformed teaching that has thus far been given to the church, you could perhaps get with such men and present it for their consideration.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I am not being arrogant. I don't know how you got that. Actiually, Prof Duguid said he wasn't at that point in his commentary. I am simply asking everyone's systems to take the entirety of verses into account. That's all.
As to Gill:
We do not have to run any disagreement with any single verse in a past commentary through our church. No one seriously acts like that. Now, if I were teaching Neo-Arianism, for example, like those with Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, then the teaching office of the church should be involved.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
My view was the view taught in the church until Simplicius, Victorinus, and Augustine. Just read Irenaeus and Justin Martyr and Tertullian (though I really dislike Tertullian). Origen also agrees with me, though I hesitate to use him for obvious reasons.
No, we are free to disagree, as I said above. However, we should maintain those disagreements privately and carefully.
The teaching office of the church is involved in every doctrinal matter. This is a doctrinal matter.
Apparently you also have a problem reading things correctly. You're wrong. Just admit it already and move on.
"I haven't reached this point yet in my commentary on Genesis, so am not ready to proffer an opinion on this speculative topic, but I'm pretty sure it won't involve anyone outside the ark surviving the flood. That point seems to me much more clearly established in Scripture." DR. D
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Okay. Well, I've covered my ground on that. I actually introduced my pastor to Michael Heiser and he had no problem with it. Very open, actually. And I don't consider this a first-order doctrinal matter. But even if it were, my view was the original view by authoritative figures like Irenaeus.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I see. We are talking past each other. I never denied a worldwide flood. I literally just quoted Bible verses that said the descendants of the Nephilim were still around.
Ha...ok.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
Jacob, I think you've done to much study in this area to really mean that statement in such sweeping terms. The only two texts that speak about Nephilim (both of which are somewhat cryptic) can easily be understood in a different sense (probably several different senses). Numbers 13:33 does not necessarily say that the Anakites were descended from the Nephilim: it says they were "of the Nephilim" (min hannephilim), which is the classic way to describe members of a class (see e.g. Lev. 1:3, 10 etc). That is, they shared the characteristics of the Nephilim in being extremely tall and terrifying. "Descended from" typically uses the pual of yld (2 Sam 21:20, 22), a point that is all the more relevant since your theory (though not all scholars) wants to connect the rephaim mentioned in these verses with the Nephilim. See Timothy Ashley in the NICOT for a similar view.
So it would be more accurate to say, "according to some interpretations of the data, this is what the Bible is saying". It's true that there are some scholars who agree with you, but it isn't simply "a plain reading of the text" (whatever that may be).
Brother, these comments are unhelpful.
Ok, how? Notice what Dr. D said and then look at how Jacob try to present it. I'm note sure why you are defending him. It's obvious he needs a lesson in humility. Not my problem.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Thank you. I understand the nuances. Others in this thread just ignored those passages for the most part.
I know there is no such thing as a "plain reading of the text." I was just throwing a bone out for the biblicists who might be reading this thread. I understand the difficulty with the Rephaim. In some passages, like that of Og, they are kings (albeit very large and gigantic ones). In others they take on a more sinister, underworld connotation (which fits with Ugaritic parallels). I don't really know how to connect the two, though I have some ideas.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Wow. This reminds me of the old Sean Gerety days on PB. As to needing humility, I actually agreed with Dr Duguid, so I am not sure what you are getting at. My arrogance might be my refusal to submit to Gill's interpretation unless I run Gill by my session, which I have no intention of doing.
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
I'm not denying the value of academia and learning in the fields of study related, even tangentially, to Scripture - it is useful. That said, it is not, generally speaking, strictly necessary in order to understand the meaning of Scripture (the teaching of the Holy Ghost in the hearts of God's people, and especially in the hearts of those he has set apart to expound his word is what is necessary). Further than that, I will say that it can be positively harmful, if we apply our learning about, for example, the various beliefs and superstitions of ancient peoples as a grid to interpret Scripture with.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I get all of that, though the ancient people lived in an ancient context, not in a post-medieval context. That's why I try to begin with their questions.
Reformed people used to not have a problem with the "historical background" section of commentaries. That's what I am doing and pointing to.
I’m not defending anyone. I’m simply asking you to use more temperate speech and utilize a more cordial and meek demeanor toward your brother. You feel Jacob is being arrogant, and that is your right. However, it is not your place—nor mine, nor anyone else’s here—to “give him a lesson in humility.” You are not his pastor, and that’s not what this board is for. If you really have that much of a problem with him, or if you think he is out of place, then send him a private message, or speak with the moderators, or both. But what you’re doing right now is not moving this thread anywhere except downward.
I don't need to be his pastor in order to show him his error. Where in the bible is that? I don't need to speak with anybody. There's a moderator and member of the staff on this thread that thinks he's wrong too. What's so bad about me telling him he needs to learn humility? Not that hard to see.
- Status
