The Bible Nerd

Sometimes I wonder if the students get together and decide to make Melchizedek the main question throughout their time in Bible schools.  It is almost as if there is a conspiracy to drive their teachers clinically insane with endless arguments about if he is Jesus or not.  I have even had students make T-shirts that said, “Melchizedek is my homeboy”.  No life whatsoever.  If we only had the Genesis and Psalms reference to Melchizedek, I am sure that none of this would be an issue.  We could go ahead and stow Mel’s name away with such Bible name treasures like Shear-jashub and Abimelech.  Hebrews insured that Melchizedek would not go silently into that dark night.

Genesis 14:18-20 is where we encounter Mel for the first time (and yes that is a whopping 3 verses if you are counting).  He really is a side note to the more important story in chapter 14 of Abram rescuing his nephew Lot from raiding kings.  On his way back from the victory, we are told,”And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) And he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!”  Even if this was all we had, it brings up some great questions.  How is Mel a “priest of the Most High”?  How does he know about Yahweh (the Lord)?  I thought only Abram knew.  How many others were there like Mel in history that we have no knowledge of?  Did God appear to all of them like Abram?  Mel’s story challenges me that often I have such a narrow view of God and the Gospel (it isn’t fair that He only appeared to the Jews is a complaint I often hear).

Salem is the same site that David will take about 1,000 years later from the Jebusites, and he turns it into his capital of Jerusalem.  The Jebusites are an idolatrous people group, so whatever was happening in Mel’s time is long over.  Abram did recognize Mel’s authority and priesthood since he gives one tenth (which is what the Hebrew word for tithe means) of the spoils of battle.  The mystery deepens with Mel in Psalm 110, the only other Old Testament passage to mention him.  Psalm 110 is a Messianic prediction of Jesus that says, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” In speaking about Jesus, the author has the revelation from God that the Messiah will be a priest, but after the order of Mel.  This is a surprise first of all because the Messiah is supposed to come from the line of David (Judah) and be a king, not a priest.  Secondly, if the Messiah was going to be a priest, why wouldn’t he be in the line of Aaron (Levi) like the other high priests of Israel?  Psalm 110 never explains this.

The author of Hebrews heavily utilizes Psalm 110 in his argument about the priesthood of Jesus.  Some scholars believe the whole letter of Hebrews originated from the author’s revelation of what Psalm 110 meant.  In chapter 7 of Hebrews, the author compares Jesus and Melchizedek, and then contrasts this order of priesthood with the Levitical order, with the clear conclusion that the priesthood of Mel is superior.  The big debate comes in here, as some believe that the author is not comparing Jesus to Mel, but that he is stating that Mel was Jesus (is Jesus since He is eternal).  Mel was a Christophany!  (an appearance of Jesus as a man before the incarnation; different from a theophany which is an appearance of God the father).

As the author connects Jesus and Mel, he says in 7:3, “He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.”  If Mel was just a man, how could he have no beginning or end, no mother or father?  It must be Jesus then according to some.  However, there are two main problems with this view.  First, verse 7:3 says specifically, “resembling the Son of God” and verse 17 says, “This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek.”  Both of these are clear in English and the Greek that a comparison is being made between two different people!  The author’s main argument is based on a comparison, so it doesn’t work if you are saying that he is comparing Jesus to Jesus.  That isn’t a comparison.

Second, it is a misunderstanding of the way in which Jewish rabbis taught by using “arguments from silence”.  Genesis 14 never says that Mel didn’t have parents or that he had no beginning or end.  The author adding that to Hebrews 7 is an “argument from silence” and it is used to promote the comparison between Mel and Jesus.  You can’t push this in the way of Mel being Jesus, because Jesus most definitely had a father (God), a mother (Mary), and a genealogy (both in Matthew and Luke).  The comparison comes because Mel was a priest/king like Jesus, and because Mel was a priest called directly by God instead of being born into it (again like Jesus).

I know it is a cool thought that Jesus came around 2,000 BC and ran a whole city.  He has a name that screams to be put on a T-shirt.  My favorite moment in a Bible class came the moment that one of my students asked our teacher for the week if he thought Melchizedek was Jesus.  Our teacher just happened to be Dr. Ronald Youngblood, the Dr. Youngblood who was on the NIV translation team and edited the Nelson Bible Dictionary (in other words, not a normal schlub like me).  Dr. Youngblood didn’t skip a beat, didn’t go through several options, he just looked at the student and said, “No.  It is clear in the Greek that this is a comparison.”  That was it.  No debate.  Just the sweetest student got shut down by a teacher moment ever!  Thank you Dr. Youngblood.  You put an end to the # 1 Bible Urban Legend.

Why, O why is the Nephilim the number two Bible nerd question?  If I had a dollar for every minute I have wasted on this topic, I would be able to buy a Nephilim.  I mean, seriously, the story is beyond belief:  angels came down, had sex with human women, creating a race of half human, half angelic giant people called Nephilim.  You can’t buy that kind of entertainment.  And we wonder why non believers think we Christians are nuts! I even had a group of students one time intentionally put a whole teaching about the Nephilim on their homework to see what their graders would say (and again, you know who you are, please report to the principal’s office).

We can thank three main Scriptures for all of this fun: Genesis 6:4, Numbers 13:33, and Jude 6 (and connected is Jude 14).  Genesis is where the fun begins, so let’s start there. Genesis 6:1-3 says, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” ⁴ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”  We began to discuss this chapter in the post on Cain, where chapter 4 gives us the ungodly line of Cain, and chapter 5 gives us the righteous line through Seth.  Immediately following this passage about the Nephilim is the whole story of the flood and God’s judgment on man for his violence and sin.  Nestled in between the genealogies and the Flood are these verses about intermarriage.  When we looked at spiritual warfare, we discovered that “sons of God” can refer to either angels or God’s people (usually men).  The main question here would be which one is God talking about?

The Hebrew word “Nephilim”‘s meaning is debated by Hebrew scholars.  Many say that it comes from the root word “to fall” therefore meaning that these men are the “fallen ones”.  Others translate it as “giants” going back to the King James translation.  King James used “giants” based on the Numbers 13:33 verse, so that isn’t proof of etymology either.  The text says that the “Nephilim” were “mighty men” and “men of renown”.  Other translations call them “heroes of old”.  The context of Genesis would point to the sons of God being the godly line of Seth and the daughters of men being the ungodly line of Cain.  The intermarriage of the two lines brought the ruin of all people, ending up in mankind being totally evil and deserving of the flood (except Noah).  The most contextual, common sense interpretation has nothing to do with angels.  Boo, no fun.

We could drop the whole thing, but Numbers 13:33 won’t let us off that easy.  “And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”  When the scouts of Israel went into the promised land after leaving Egypt, they reported back the unusually tall people called the Anak, who descended from the Nephilim.  It doesn’t give their height or anything about the origin of the Nephilim, but does connect them with the Anakim.  If we are to believe that these are the SAME Nephilim as in Genesis, then it means that Noah was a Nephilim!  Only he and his family survived the flood (I guess his wife could have been one and then his children were half Nephilim???)  It could be that these were a tall people group (yes, some people are taller than others) and the name Nephilim was used due to Jewish tradition about the legendary heroes of old.  The name then was borrowed from the past and was not intended to mean the group mentioned in Genesis.

Jewish tradition you say?  The plot thickens.  Extra biblical, Jewish literature contains a Jewish tradition that believed that the “sons of God” referred to angels (as in Job 1 -3).  The most famous of these “stories” is in the Book of Enoch.  Talk about a wacky read!  The Nephilim are said to be REALLY TALL, in one text being around 135 meters tall.  Trippy.  There is so much in this book that is completely made up and unbelievable.  Finally, we find the dead end.  Nah!  Jude keeps this alive by not only referring to fallen angels, but then goes on to quote from the actual book of Enoch!  Jude 6 says, “And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day.”  Jude 14 says, “It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones…”    Ok, so what does it mean that these angels left their “proper dwelling”?  Could that refer to the sons of God in Genesis 6?  If that is in Jude’s mind, it makes sense that later he would go on to fully quote from the Book of Enoch to provide more backing to final judgment.

First, the part about angels never mentions the Nephilim, or anything specific enough to connect it to Genesis.  Second, quoting from the Book of Enoch doesn’t mean Jude was saying everything in it was correct.  Paul quotes from pagan poets in Titus 1:12 and isn’t saying that everything that poet wrote was correct.  Third, Jesus says of angels in Matthew 22:6, “But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”  Does this Scripture lead us to believe angels are asexual beings?  The bottom line is that there is lots of weird stuff in Jewish extra biblical literature, so we can’t use that as support for what the Jews believed about Genesis 6 with the same authority as the Bible.  Other Rabbinic writing agree with the interpretation that the sons of God were the line of Seth.

This would make a really cool movie though, right?  Fallen angel babies turning into giant, super power bad guys?  That is why this Bible Urban Legend just won’t die, but I am giving this legend a firm “lame” conclusion.  Not true.  Sorry.  The point of Genesis is that man’s sinful nature almost led to the destruction of our whole race if not for the mercy of God extended through Noah and his family.  What fun is that lesson though compared to giants?  Next up, Bible Urban Legend #1 —  Melchizedek.  Someone please shoot me now.

I warned you that these questions would not be the kind of questions that change your life.  Well, they could I guess, but that would be a little messed up.  Anyway, Bible Urban Legend #3 is Cain married his own sister.  Right behind the more comical, “Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?”, comes this question about who Cain would have married.  The obvious answer of his sister grosses most people out today, so they want to hear a different explanation of what could have happened.

Let’s review Genesis 1:1 – 4:15 so we understand where we can go with this question.  God creates Adam and Eve, and their rebellion brings their expulsion from the garden of Eden.  As chapter 4 begins, Eve gives birth to two sons, Cain and Abel, and they grow up to work the land and fields.  Cain kills Abel out of jealousy and anger, and God curses the ground so that Cain will no longer be able to have good harvests.  Cain’s reply is that God has doomed him to be a wanderer who will eventually be killed.  God gives Cain protection and Cain leaves from where Adam and Eve are living.

The next thing we know in 4:16 is, “Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.”  Where did his wife come from?  Why would he build a city for three people?  are there other people out there already?  As Genesis does to us several times, it gives us the bare minimum of information, leaving us with tons of questions.  The author of Genesis is merely trying to show how the line from Cain became an ungodly group of people.  These people are contrasted with the righteous line of Seth in chapter 5.  The author wasn’t trying to answer all of our other questions.

One prevalent theory that I have often heard is that Adam and Eve were the first humans God created, but not the last.  This assumes that God created other people who were instructed to be fruitful and multiply.  These people settled in the “land of Nod” instead of the area around Eden, and from them came Cain’s wife and those who would inhabit the city Cain eventually builds.  The main problem that I have with this theory is that IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE AT ALL!  It is a complete guess based on no evidence.  No where else in Scripture does it talk about God creating other people.  The genealogies of Genesis show the race of man descending only from Adam (through Seth and Cain).  The New Testament in passages like Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 seem predicated on Adam being the first and only man created instead of born.

What do we know then from the Bible?  People like Adam, Eve, Seth, and Cain lived for a VERY long time.  This means that they would have been able to have A LOT of children, and if they obeyed God’s command, they should have been being fruitful and multiplying.  Genesis 5 is only showing the line of leading patriarchs, and is not meant to imply that each man only had one son in the line of Seth.  In fact, 5:4 says of Adam, “The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters.”  Genesis 1 – 4 seems unclear often when it comes to when things happened.  How old were Cain and Abel when they fought?  How much time from when Cain left to when he “knew his wife” and then built a city?  The reality is that it could have been hundreds of years between these events.  Seth could have also children in that time, and perhaps even Abel had children, although that seems unlikely based on the genealogies.

The most obvious answer then is that Cain either married one of his sisters or nieces.  We just don’t like that answer for two reasons: 1) the book of Leviticus seems to prohibit having sexual relations with close relatives like a sister or mother; and 2) we have our own cultural taboo against what we call incest.  Leviticus 18:6 and following prohibits Israelites from these kind of relations, although the Old Testament is full of Israelites marrying people they are related to (cousins), as ancient tribes often married within their own clan.  The cultural taboo also comes from genetic defects that often happen when close relatives have children (see European monarchies for numerous examples).  Without the genetic defects would we still have these cultural taboos?  Before the fall, genetic defects didn’t exist and it seems they were slowly increased with time after that fall.  That is why people lived so long, and God eventually lowers that ability in Genesis 6 (how He does that is unclear).

So, Bible Urban Legend #3 seems to be most likely TRUE.  Shocker, I know, but the evidence points to Cain marrying a close relative, although how close, we aren’t sure.  I believe the Leviticus laws against incest are right, and we are wise to see effects of genetic issues with close relative child bearing.  If it makes you feel better that God created other people for Cain to marry, then go ahead and do that.  It won’t make you a heretic, and probably shouldn’t make or break your faith.  The truth is that we live in a fallen world that is full of evil and sin.  Who knows how many things that we see as “normal” were not always that way?  At least in heaven, Jesus says we will be like the angels (seemingly implying we won’t be having kids anymore or possibly even “married” in the earthly sense), so we can bury this question in the afterlife.

Coming up next, Bible Urban Legend #2 the Nephilim were a race of half angel, half human giants.  Bring it on!

Bible Urban Legend #4:  there are dinosaurs in the Bible.  I have to confess that this is one Bible nerd question that I love.  Mainly, because I grew up fascinated by dinosaurs.  Every Sunday after church, we would go to my grandmothers to eat lunch.  I rushed through my meal, because I knew that the Godzilla movie would start right at 1 p.m.  My most repeated nightmare as a kid was being chased by a dinosaur.  I have seen Jurassic Park waaaaayyy too many times, as we used it for a demo dvd when I worked at a television store (Circuit City if you must know, which will not go down as a highlight experience of my life…).  Some actually ask this question from a serious standpoint, as they are trying to think through how their faith and Christianity go together with science.  Science has proven that dinosaurs existed, and it would seem if Genesis starts with creation, then dinosaurs should be in the Bible somewhere, right?

The classic Scripture claimed to be talking about dinosaurs is Job 40:15-24.  Job is full of poetry and imagery, and the context of this chapter is that God finally answers Job’s complaints about his suffering.  God’s answer really isn’t the answer Job is wanting, but God challenges Job’s ability and right to question God’s plan and will.  He does so by asking Job where he was when God created the world, including a creature called in verse 15 “Behemoth”.  Most translations will confess that Hebrews scholars are unsure of what this large animal actually was.  The description of being a “grass eater” with a strength and a “stiff tail” could fit some of the dinosaurs scientists have discovered, but it could also fit an elephant or a hippopotamus.  In verse 19, it says it was “the first of God’s works” leading some to see a dinosaur, but again, the evidence is not conclusive.

There are two other Old Testaments creatures said to be dinosaurs.  One is often translated as “dragon” or “serpent”, and the other is the “leviathan”.  In Job 41:1, the “leviathan” is described as a strong creature, but could easily be talking about a number of different animals, including the crocodile.  The Isaiah 27:1 reference puts them together as “In that day the Lord with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea.”  Using synonymous paralellism of Hebrew poetry, it would seem that these three creatures are one in the same.  But does this verse show a dinosaur?  We need to remember that the Bible’s poetry uses common symbols and pictures from the original reader’s day and age.  Ancient mythology used several creatures to symbolize evil, such as dragons, “leviathan”, and a creature called “Rahab” in Isaiah 30:7, Job 26:12, and Psalm 89:10 .  The sea was a symbol of chaos and evil because of the unknowns associated with it.  When God destroys these creatures, He is destroying evil, not a T-Rex.

If we start saying that dragons and leviathans are actually dinosaurs, and not mythic creatures, where do we stop?  How about gryphons?  Some would say that these mythic creatures were based on dinosaurs, and while that may be true, it still wouldn’t be evidence of dinosaurs in the Bible.  We are challenged with bringing our faith together with science, but we can’t allow that process to try to force dinosaurs into the Bible!  Were there dinosaurs on the ark?  were dinosaurs nice to Adam and Eve before the fall, and then they had to hide from them afterward?  Good questions, but remember that the Bible is NOT a book of science.  That doesn’t mean that the Bible doesn’t contain scientific truth, but it is NOT the main goal of the Bible.  The Bible’s main goal is to help us to know God, understand His plan of redemption through Jesus, and how to make this world a better place until Jesus returns.

There are some great resources out there like “The Genesis Question” by Hugh Ross, or if you happen to be in Ohio, there is a well done Creation Museum you can visit with dinosaur exhibits and information.  Theories range from dinosaurs on the ark to dinosaurs living and dying out before man is even created.  The reality we face is that in science, there is insufficient evidence to fully know when the dinosaurs lived and why they became extinct.  We may not have dinosaurs in the Bible, but we do know that God created EVERYTHING (Genesis 1 -2), and it was all “good” and that would include dinosaurs.  God must have felt that was enough information for us to lead godly lives today, so we have to trust that.  Bible Urban Legend #4-  weak on evidence, so we must put in the “interesting only” category.  Coming up next, Bible Urban Legend #3- Cain married his sister (yuck!).  It keeps getting better.

I know you don’t have a “P.S.” in a blog, but that is where this comment belongs.  My own personal theory about dinosaurs is that they were in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve.  In fact, I think Satan possessed one of them to talk to man, and that the “serpent” of Genesis 3 was some type of dinosaur.  When God judged the “serpent” in Genesis 3, He made the serpent go on it’s belly in the dust from then on, implying that it walked upright before this time.  So, because Satan used a dinosaur, the whole species was changed by the curse into reptiles that we know today as snakes, crocodiles, etc…  That is also why the term “dragon” is equated with Satan and the “serpent” in Revelation 12 and 20.  You are wondering right now, “is Sean serious about this whole theory???”  Another good question.