Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Genesis 6:1-4: Sons of God and Human Beings

    These four verses provide a rather unusual interlude, coming between the genealogy of the patriarchal line in chapter five, and the story of the flood that truly begins in verse 5. I’m attributing them to the redactor who combined the J and P sources of the flood, though I think they work better with the P source. This is not the standard interpretation. The reason I suggest it is that:

    1. The style is neither that of J or P, despite the use of YHWH as the divine name.
    2. The instance of YHWH could well be the work of the redactor.
    3. The J source has explained the presence of evil in the world through the fall of chapter 3 and Cain’s sin of chapter 4.

    I could easily be wrong about all that, but it’s just a quick suggestion. Now to the interpretation.

    Wherever it started, this passage fits quite well into the final form of the story, giving us a reason for God’s action in sending the flood.

    1Now when human beings began to get numerous all over the land, and they gave birth to daughters, 2the sons of God {or “sons of the gods” or “divine beings} saw the daughters of the human beings. They saw that they were good looking, and they took wives for themselves from whomever they chose.

    There are three major suggestions for the meaning of “sons of God.” Before I list those, let me note that the translation could be “sons of the gods” as well, and that this would present the option of “divine beings.” The three major options are:

    1. The sons of the gods are divine beings such as angels. (The New Bible Commentary)
    2. The sons of God are the descendants of Seth and followers of God (Matthew Henry)
    3. The sons of God are human beings who are possessed by or under the control of demonic powers (The Bible Knowledge Commentary)

    (Commentary listings are just examples. There may be many more commentators who hold the same position.

    If the “sons of the gods” are divine beings, then the “sons of men” should be translated “human beings” or something similar, as I have done. If they are the descendants of Seth, then the “sons of men” would be the Kenites or descendants of Cain. If you take the third option, that they are human beings controlled by demonic forces, you would reverse the situation in option three, and in terms of physical form, at least, the sons of God would be the Kenites, while the sons of man would be the descendants of Seth.

    I think that the best parallel to the use of the term in this passage is Job 1:6, in which it is clear that supernatural beings are intended. In this case, the marriages between these supernatural beings and the human women result in ancient heroes and the “nephilim.” At the same time, wickedness increases, with very little in the way of limitations, because people live for so long. The long lives, as noted in chapter 5, help with passing on the patriarchal tradition, but this long life also allows some pretty incredible planning for evil.

    3Then YHWH said, “My spirit will not always work among human beings, considering that they are flesh. Their lifespan will be 120 years.” 4There were giants {Nephilim} on the earth in those days, and also after the sons of God went to the daughters of the human beings and bore children by them. These were heroes, the famous men of ancient times.

    God quickly reminds everyone that he is the one that is in charge. There’s to be a reduction in the lifespan, but don’t miss the way it happens. God withdraws his spirit, his breath of life.

    (29) You hide your face, and they are disturbed;
    You bring their breath to an end,
    And they return to their dust.

    (30) You send forth your breath, and they are created;
    So you renew the face of the ground.

    — Psalm 104:29-30 (from my paper Psalm 104: God, Creator and Sustainer

    It’s easy to forget as we rebel against God that all life, and even all existence depends on him. So rebellion against God, while it may seem to be a liberated way to live, is actually simply the way to death. As we look at the flood, we will want to consider this option of God withdrawing himself, and at the same time withdrawing his protection.

  • I’m Much Worse than That

    . . . from their point of view, that is.

    This is a kind of “take-2” on my Conscience of a Christian Publisher post. Centuri0n had a brief spurt of posting comments, but seems to have been silent since accusing me of deleting them at the very time I was restoring them from backups following a server glitch. The only really annoying damage from that glitch was that I didn’t have a backup for one of my own posts.

    Now his “sidekicks” have added a reference to me in another post, and I’ve got to say that if they really understood what I’m saying, they’d like me even less than they do. In a post More on Publishing–A Cautionary Tale, poster Gummby makes some rather odd statements.

    Referring to the publication of a particular book by the PCUSA publishing house, they ask the following questions:

    First: does the author, David Griffin, have a right to be heard? Well, the First Amendment says he does.

    We’re rather reluctant about freedom of speech, are we not?

    Second: does Presbyterian Publishing Corp. have an obligation to publish him? If you’re Henry, perhaps you think that it does. But unlike the Blogosphere, in the publishing world, just because you’ve written something doesn’t mean it is entitled to be printed.

    You know, I try to credit my opponents with good intentions, but there are moments when that is very hard. I challenge anyone to point out what I have said that would imply that a publisher would be obligated to publish a particular manuscript. In fact, in my prior post, I indicated quite clearly the boundaries of the material that I would publish. And anyone involved in publishing knows that just because one has written something doesn’t mean it’s entitled to be published, although modern technology makes it fairly easy to manage if one is determined enough. I myself have rejected manuscripts, even in the short history of my own company, and will certainly reject more. Right now as a small and new publisher, I’m more in the process of soliciting than rejecting, but soliciting is also a very selective process.

    Clearly the real problem for centuri0n and his sidekicks is not that I would accept anything, but rather that I would accept things that they would reject. Having read their blog, I admit their complaint is quite correct. It’s clear that we don’t see the same things as valuable, and we may not even see the same things as Christian.

    Third: why would a publishing house knowingly publish something that, in the words of the moderator of their own general assembly, is “too over the top to be taken seriously”?

    Well, I can’t speak for this particular publishing house, but if I was making the choice I would ask the following:

    • Is this within the subject and mission range of my company?
    • Are the questions raised worth considering?
    • Is the research properly done?

      • Is it well enough written?

    I personally don’t have much sympathy with the position of the book referenced in Gummby’s post, but I would not reject it simply because I don’t find the position taken very probable on the face of it.

    But those are just the questions I would consider if I were publishing the book myself. There are many books I would not print (would that I had a chance at such high quality manuscripts!) that nonetheless I would hope to see published, would read, and would recommend to others. A couple of examples are The Blind Watchmaker and Atlas Shrugged. Neither are Christian books, and they don’t fall into my range of materials, but both are, I think, excellent and challenging reading. Nonetheless I don’t agree with significant portions of either book. The key is that I don’t have to agree with something–and disagreeing means I don’t think it’s true, does it not?–to think something is worth reading.

    Thus I found the following statement false, shall we say.

    In other words, the ends justifies the means. The “end” of provoking a “discussion on substantive issues about faithful citizenship in this country,” justifies the “means,” which is publishing a book whether or not the claims will be convincing or are even true.

    Well, actually, the end does justify the means, when the means is the best and most appropriate way to accomplish those ends. And the free interchange of ideas is the best way to provoke “discussion on substantive issues about faithful citizenship in this country.” Apparently Gummby would prefer that people only discuss ideas approved by him, an attitude normally taken by tyrants. Fortunately, he lacks that sort of power in this country.

    A book might be convincing without being true, and it might be convincing to one person, but not convincing to another. That is the point of promoting the free interchange of ideas. Now there is nothing here that forces me or anyone else to publish anything. If Gummby submitted a manuscript to me, I could reject it based on the criteria listed above. If I rejected it on some other basis, that would be dishonest of me, because I have said I will publish things within that particular range.

    If I have an obligation, as centuri0n suggested earlier, to publish those things that I present at the truth, then I cannot foster any dialogue or conversation at all. The only thing I can contribute is my ideas as owner and editor. That idea is silly.

    I do not present things that I publish as the truth, but the author’s best effort to present the truth, and my best effort to choose things that will promote conversation.

  • The Two Flood Stories Updated

    I’ve just reposted my essay The Two Flood Stories, correcting some links, improving the notes a bit, making some verse numbering a little bit clearer, and adding a section concluding the flood story. This editing was in preparation for continuing my Genesis series here by discussing the flood story. Thus far, I’ve discussed through Genesis 5. Probably later today, I’ll make a general post on Genesis 6.

  • Reasons for Belief

    It seems that this week’s MBWR has produced an excellent crop. Bruce Alderman, whose blog is also in the Moderate Christian Blog Aggregator, wrote a post titled Why I Believe. His approach is strongly but not exclusively experiential, and in many ways resonates with my own.

    It also ties in with the current book discussion I’m hosting here on Threads on Elgin Hushbeck’s Consider Christianity books, which I publish. Elgin’s view is much more evidential, though he admits experience, and I’ve invited Chris Eyre, who is even more experiential than I am to criticize Elgin’s books. (Note that I publish Elgin’s books, so I’m not quite neutral on their value. Regard this as due alert of bias!) Chris has posted first, second, and third. I’ve also indicated that I’m willing to send free copies of the books to a reasonable number of bloggers who’d like to chime in, but that hasn’t proved popular.

    Whether you have an interest in the discussion here or not, you would do well to go and read Bruce’s entry. It should generate some good discussion.

  • Don’t Judge Discipleship by Numbers

    This post is to call your attention to a post by Beth Quick, Mark Driscoll, Mainline Churches, and The Numbers Game (Hat tip: MBWR #82, with strong second to the Best of the Methodist blogosphere! note). I’m also closing the comments here so that any additional discussion will be centered around her blog.

    I want my church to grow. But I also think people can be simply attracted to what is new, flashy, easy, convenient, socially fulfilling. I think some churches, both mainline and other, can grow for wrong reasons too.

    How do we assess growth in discipleship, really? I’m not sure we can do it by the numbers, the stats.

    Go! Read! Think!

  • New Florida Citizens for Science Web Site

    The new Florida Citizens for Science web site is now up and running. Check it out at Florida Citizens for Science.

    Not too surprisingly, the blog can be found at http://www.flascience.org/wp.

    Check out the new format and the interesting information. Florida Citizens for Science will be watching closely as Florida begins to revise science standards.

  • Allies for Evolution, not Everything

    Update: Jack Krebs has now posted a longer summary of the talk and links to audio files. I haven’t listened to the audio yet, but I don’t see anything in the summary that would alter my view on this. I’m glad Jack and Kansas Citizens for Science made sure to get good audio of this. (2nd update: I somehow left out the link to Jack’s post, and have now added it.)

    I’m regularly annoyed by angry recriminations that occur when someone discovers that the various people in favor of sound science education and specifically on the teaching of evolution don’t actually agree on all aspects of life, the universe and everything. Currently there is a flap about remarks by Kenneth Miller. Since I don’t have a transcript of those remarks I’m not going to try to critique those remarks. PZ Myers, however, has a rather angry post on Pharyngula calling Ken Miller a creationist because he suggested that creationists’ attacks were misdirected, and should be directed instead at folks like Dawkins.

    (more…)

  • Witnessing and Proselytizing

    Continuing my run through the Christian Blog Carnival, Laura has a good post Witnessing – Proselytizing – Defending the Faith.

    I think there are two important points to keep in mind:

    • Listening to the other person(s) in order to find out what their interest is. I’ve found that many people are interested in discussing my faith while I’m not trying to convert them.
    • Remembering, as Laura points out, that it’s not our mission field, and it is not up to us to “convert” people in the first place. Much rudeness results from people getting desperate to accomplish conversion. Christians are to be witnesses, not to render verdicts.

    I’d like to tie in a reference to my post Being a Witness without Being a Pest.

  • Free Speech, Gay Rights, and the Bible

    I want to call attention to this post and to the story behind it. An evangelical Christian was arrested in south Wales and charged with using “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour.”

    Ed Brayton said:

    I am obviously a staunch advocate of gay rights, but some of the people who claim to be on the same side need to get something through their skulls: you do not have a right to never encounter the opposition of disapproval of others.

    Very frequently I have to point to problems like this on the other side, i.e. as a Christian I’m busily telling my fellow-Christians that we need to support free speech for everyone, and freedom of religion for everyone. Christians should, for example, be at the forefront of the battle for freedom of religion for Wiccans in the military. We know from both sides the danger of persecution. We’ve been and still are persecuted in parts of the world. We have been, and still are persecutors. We have every reason to know it’s bad.

    I was glad to see several non-Christian posters who support the freedom of speech of this evangelical Christian. My question is will this story simply make evangelical Christians angry about a “homosexual agenda” or will it alert all of us, whatever our persuasion, to the problems of restricting freedom of speech and of expression? I hope it is the latter. We need to keep speech free, or we may be the next target.

  • Hebrews 12:1-12: The Lord’s Discipline

    (Note: I’m going to introduce this passage as a whole, but when I do a verse by verse study, I’m going to divide it in two–12:1-4 and 12:5-12 simply for convenience.)

    If you follow the participatory study method, then you may notice that I’m presenting the last step first. You’ll find that this happens quite often, as you share insights that you get from a passage with someone who has not yet studied it. It doesn’t hurt to hear someone else’s interpretation before you have done your study, but you should try to go back to the passage with an open mind, and not let someone else determine the meaning for you. You may well come back to the same result, but you need to come to your own understanding. A great deal of the value in Bible study does not come from the resulting information; it comes from struggling with God as you study.

    Hebrews 5:14 refers to those “who through practice have exercised their understanding to distinguish good and evil.” You are exercising your understanding when you do Bible study. You are also exercising your understanding when you use the knowledge gained in real life. The key here is being active. A pew-sitting understanding of the Bible is not of much use.

    Let me recommend that you come to chapter 12 after re-reading the book of Hebrews for yourself. “The whole book?” you ask. Yes, the whole book. It’s not that long. Use an easy reading version such as the CEV or the TNIV and just roll through it. Then narrow your focus and start reading word by word.

    And here we come around to the topic of chapter 12, and of these 12 verses in particular. Hebrews is an active book, and it’s also a book that challenges one to action. That doesn’t mean it contains no theology in the theoretical sense. It is, in fact, one of the most packed books in the Bible. But the focus and the goal is always on what you’re going to do about it. “How then shall we escape after neglecting such a tremendous deliverance” (Hebrews 2:3)?

    As we approach chapter 12, we have just completed chapter 11, the Honor Roll of Faith. We were presented with a group of people there who had great faith, and that great faith helped them to remain faithful through great difficulties and persecution. There’s was a faith in action.

    Thus our author starts with the challenge of this crowd of witnesses. We need to get rid of the stuff that is holding us back and move on forward. But the example he ultimately holds up is Jesus. Jesus saw the cross ahead of him. He even prayed that he could avoid it if possible. But he knew where he was going, he knew the reward, and he endured it faithfully until he came out to the final goal. His faith and trust in God brought kept him faithful in the time of trial. You should keep in mind what has already been said about Jesus as our brother in chapter 2.

    Then our author continues by telling us, in effect, that the experiences of this life are discipline from the Lord for his children. If you aren’t being disciplined, you aren’t growing, and you’re being treated not as a child, but as a stranger. The Greek word here allows a translation of either illegitimate or low born, such as a slave. Since the person clearly considers himself a son, but is not, probably illegitimate, or “not real sons/children” as many translations use, is a good translation. (I’ll discuss this a bit further when I go verse by verse.)

    The clear message is that if your life is going hard, you should not assume that there is something wrong with your spiritual life. God may be disciplining you to prepare you for greater service and for the kingdom of heaven. If things are going well, on the other hand, don’t make the assumption that all is right with your spiritual life. If you’re not tired and your muscles don’t ache, you may not even be running the race at all!

    There are Christians today who believe that faith will make your life easy and help you get rich. God does own the cattle on a thousand hills, and he does care for you. But his purpose is not for you to live comfortably. His purpose is to discipline you and make you a better person than you are. Faith doesn’t make life easy; it helps us be faithful through the difficult times. Don’t get depressed when things are hard. Keep running the race. God is preparing you.