Who are the Nephilim? The Giants of Genesis Chapter 6.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. Genesis 6:4

This week's study is prepared by Rev. Steve Clifton and we reflect together on a question asked by a member of Rideau Park : Who are the Nephilim?

This question takes us outside the world of Biblical scholarship. Nephilim and other giants are a staple in popular culture and in much contemporary literature.

Nephilim in Popular culture: The mythology and legends of many different cultures include monsters of human appearance but prodigious size and strength. "Giant" is the English word commonly used for such beings, derived from one of the most famed examples: the gigantes (Greek γίγαντες) of Greek mythology.

In various mythologies, gigantic peoples are featured as primeval creatures associated with chaos and the wild nature, and they are frequently in conflict with the gods, be they Olympian, Hindu or Norse.

There are also other stories featuring giants in the Old Testament, perhaps most famously Goliath. Attributed to them are superhuman strength and physical proportions, a long lifespan.
Fairy tales such as Jack and the Beanstalk have formed much our modern perception of giants.

Steve Quayle on Coast to Coast, the most popular overnight radio show in the US, a show filled with UFO’s, conspiracy theories etc talks about Nephilim and Giants ... A phone call on the show has a pilot talking who is an informant to Steve re: a shipment he flew from Afghanistan that the cargo was the corpse of a 12ft man – who weighed upwards of 1500 lbs , had 6 fingers and toes. This 12 ft giant attacked a small squadron of US soldiers who had ventured into the mountains of Afghanistan in search of Taliban. 9 soldiers were killed – ripped apart and eaten by this thing before it was finally killed. The soldier reports that it was able to run up to 40 km in 2 footsteps and incredibly strong – in smell and strength! These are the NEPHILIM… this being a small one.

Giants are a staple in fantasy, and also appear in other genres.
The Brobdingnagians, from the book Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift.
The giant, Giant Rumblebuffin from the book The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, revived by Aslan to fight the White Witch.
Hagrid in the Harry Potter series is a half-giant, as is Olympe Maxime. Hagrid's half-brother, Grawp, is a full-blooded giant.
Paul Bunyan is a popular giant lumberjack in American folklore.

Names/Races of Giants
Daitya (Sanskrit)
Gigantes (Greek)
Titans (Greek)
Cormoran (Cornwall)
Cyclopes/Cyclops (Greek)
Upelleru (Middle Eastern)
Azrail (Armenian)
Anakim (Hebrew)
Enim (Hebrew)
Rephaim (Hebrew)
Zamzummim (Hebrew)
Neringa (Balt)
Nephilim (Hebrew)
Gog (Hebrew/British)
Magog (Hebrew/British)
Goliath of Gath (Hebrew)
Og of Bashan (Hebrew)
Fomorians (Celtic)
Wrnach (Welsh)
Bendigeidfran (Welsh)
Jotuns (Norse/Teutonic)
Frost Giants (Norse/Teutonic)
Fire Giants (Norse/Teutonic)
Earth Giants (Norse/Teutonic)
Ice Giants (Finnish)
Yak (Thai)
Puntan (Micronesia)
Albadan (Spanish)
Famangomadan (Spanish)
Dehotgohsgayeh (Iroquois)
Gedegwsets (Coos)
Inugpasugssuk (Netslik)
Kiwahkw (Maliseet)
Yeitso (Navajo)
Nunhyunuwi (Cherokee)
Si-Te-Cah (Paiute)
Dzoo-Noo-Qua (Kwakiutl)
Nahgane (Slavey)
Chahnameed (Pequot)
Paul Bunyan (USA)
Hewiixi/hewietari (Huichol)
Cawr (Welsh)
Kaour (Breton)
Dasa Maha Yodayo (Sri Lanka)
Gotaimbara (Sri Lanka)
Mahasena (Sri Lanka)
Higante also Kapre (Talgalog) and Agta (Visayan) (Philippines)
Kæmpe (Danish)
Jättar (Swedish)


Giants in Scripture: The Bible tells of men of extraordinary size in the pre-flood world, calling them Nephilim. The Nephilim are said to be the hybrid offspring of angels materialized into human form that had sexual relations with women on Earth (Genesis 6:1,2,4); however, the 'sons of God' mentioned in those verses may simply be righteous men. The global flood of Genesis was said to have destroyed all life on earth which would include the Nephilim (Genesis 6:17; 7:17-21), still, in Numbers, some of the spies of Israel suggest that the Anakites were descendants of the Nephilim, still living in Canaan (Numbers 13:28-33).

The Anakites (Numbers 13:28-33), the Emites (Deuteronomy 2:10), and the Rephaites (Joshua 12:4) were giants living in the Promised Land. The Bible also tells of strife between David and the giant Goliath, ending with the defeat of the latter. According to the King James Bible, Goliath was "six cubits and a span" in height—over nine feet tall, (over 2.75 m) (1 Samuel 17:4 KJV). The much older, original Septuagint Hebrew Bible (Greek), followed by the historian Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls gives Goliath's height as "four cubits and a span," (approximately 2.00 m or about six feet seven inches).

Anakim: Anakim (or Anakites) are the descendants of Anak, and dwelt in the south of Canaan, in the neighbourhood of Hebron. In the days of Abraham, they inhabited the region afterwards known as Edom and Moab, east of the Jordan river. They are mentioned during the report of the spies about the inhabitants of the land of Canaan. The book of Joshua states that Joshua finally expelled them from the land, excepting a remnant that found a refuge in the cities of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod. The Philistine giant Goliath of Gath was supposedly a descendant of the Anakim:The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. 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.

It is more commonly suggested by traditional Jewish sources (such as the Midrash) that the spies saw large and powerful inhabitants in Canaan and because of their own fears, cowardice, and inadequate faith in Yahweh, saw themselves as grasshoppers in the eyes of the Canaanites, whether they were actual "giants" or not.

1 Chronicles 20:5-75And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.6And yet again there was war at Gath, where was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six on each hand, and six on each foot and he also was the son of the giant.7But when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea David's brother slew him.

2 Samuel 21:2020And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.

Deuteronomy 2:19-21 19And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession.20(That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims;21A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead:

Deuteronomy 2:10-12 10The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims;11Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites called them Emims.

The Nephilim: The Son's of God
Mentioned in the Bible is the phrase “nephilim” ; there are different understandings of just who these beings really were. One usage of the phrase occurs in Genesis 6:1-4. Certain "sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose" (v. 2).

The offspring of these unions are described as "giants," "mighty men," and "men of renown" - nephelim(v. 4).

The Nephilim are offspring of the son’s of God. So, the first thing to consider as we study the nephilim centers on the true identity of these "sons of God". Who were these men mentioned in this passage of Scripture? There are presently three mainstream theories on the identity of the fathers of the nephilim.

First Interpretation: The first, and oldest interpretation, belief is that "the sons of God" were actually fallen angels who consorted or mated with human women, which produced giant offspring called in the Hebrew (nephilim). This view was widely believed in the world of the first century, and was supported by such men as, Flavius Josephus, Philo, Eusebius, and many of the "Ante-Nicene Fathers," which included Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria,Origen, Tertullian…

From the Book of Enoch:
And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it...

Arguments for view 1:
The phrase "sons of God" is used in Job 1:6 and 2:1 to describe angels, and apparently early Jewish writers interpreted this passage as referring to angels. In support of the idea that angels came to live on earth and married human women, Jude 6 refers to "angels who...abandoned their own home," and other passages describe angels as being able to assume human form (Heb 13:2, Gen 19:1-3). In Numbers 13:33, the Nephilim are described as giants.

Arguments against view 1:
"Sons of God" in the Job passages refers to "good" angels, and distinguishes them from Satan, the fallen angel. Since only fallen angels would be marrying humans, they wouldn't be referred to as "sons of God."

Mark 12:25 and Matthew 22:30 state that angels don't marry. (Supporters of this view respond that these passages say that angels don't marry in heaven, not that they can't marry on earth.)

Num 13:33 could be an exaggeration of the faithless spies.

God seems to condemn mankind for the intermarrying in Gen 6:3, but says nothing about the angels, though they were at least as responsible for it as the humans.
"So the angelic interbreeding story appears to be nothing more than an attempt to put the blame on angels rather than man. The passage in Genesis 6 speaks only to the wickedness of humanity, and places no blame at all on angels. Humanity had turned their back on God, and did it on such a scale that God was moved to destroy them. Yet, God in His mercy, amid all the wickedness, still did not act hastily to exact his judgment. He gave humanity a period of probation. A time of 120 years, during which Noah could preach the message of God, of repentance and faith. Through that period of probation, people heard the word of God, that they might be saved. Eventually Noah and 7 members of his family were saved in the ark. "

The second interpretation is one which was suggested by Africanus and later advocated by Augustine. Augustine rejected the concept of the fallen angels having any kind of a relationship with women and producing any offspring. In his early fifth century book entitled, "The City of God", he promoted the theory that the "sons of God" simply referred to the genealogical line of Seth, who were committed to preserving the true worship of God. He interpreted Genesis 6 to mean that the male offspring of Adam through Seth were "the sons of God," and the female offspring of Adam through Cain were "the daughters of men." He wrote that the problem was that the family of Seth had interbred with the family of Cain, intermingling the bloodlines and the result was the corrupting of pure religion.

This view or interpretation has become the dominate belief among most biblical scholars today. "The sons of Seth (that is the professors of religion) married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done. They inter- mingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain." Matthew Henry

Arguments for view 2:
Humans are referred to as children of God elsewhere in the Bible (Deut 14:1, Is 43:6, etc.)

Genesis 5 describes godly descendents of Seth (Enoch, Noah), while Lamech, one of Cain's descendents, was also a murderer (Gen 4:23).

To support the "Nephilim weren't offspring of the marriages" view: Gen 6:4 doesn't explicitly say the Nephilim were offspring, only that they showed up at the same time the intermarriage was happening.

Arguments against view 2:
The Sethites don't sound very godly, since only Noah and his family were spared from the flood. (However, "sons of God" may refer to generations previous to those whose sin brought about the flood.)

This interpretation requires that the phrases "men" and "daughters of men" have two different meanings within the same sentence. "Men" and "daughters of men" in v.1 would refer to all mankind and their daughters, but "daughters of men" in v. 2 would refer to Cainite women.

Now, the third interpretation is that "the sons of God" were actually the sons of pre-Flood rulers or magistrates. This belief became the standard explanation of rabbinical Judaism after Rabbi Simeon ben Yochai pronounced a curse in the second century C.E. upon those Jews who believed the common teachings that the angels were responsible for the nephilim. Furthermore, this interpretation was advocated by other respected Jewish rabbis of the Middle Ages, and became the standard explanation of rabbinical Judaism. However, this interpretation is not widely accepted by modern scholars today.

We know that there are those who strongly believe that the "sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4 were actually angels who took for themselves wives, who had physical relationships with women. There are several Scriptures in the Bible used to try and prove their point. Against this are the words of Jesus who said in Luke 20:34-36, " The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God. being the children of resurrection."

Arguments for view 3:
Contemporary rulers referred to themselves as sons of God - the Egyptian king was called "son of Re."

The Hebrew word in the phrase "sons of God" is Elohim, which is elsewhere in the Bible translated as "judge" or other human authority (Ex 21:6, Ps 82:1)

Early translations of "sons of Elohim" rendered it as it as "sons of nobles" or "sons of kings"

The word "Nephilim" is associated in Gen 6:4 with "gibborim", which means "mighty man of valor, strength, wealth, or power."

Arguments against view 3:
While pagans referred to royalty as sons of God, Israelites did not, and nobles were not referred to as "sons of God."

Giants?
In looking at Genesis 6, one commentary reads:
So rather than being perhaps physical giants, in contrast to the meek people of God, these people were rebellious bullies and tyrants, forceful in character and great in their sins. This same phrase of "giants" is also used to describe the Canaanites following the exodus (Num 13:33). Again, this probably referred to their godless and lawless character, as much as their physical stature.

Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
Noah was the exception, and he was given the task to build the ark, that would be the refuge from the flood for those obedient to God.


Rabbi Stanley – A modern Jewish understanding
Gen. 6:1-4 Concerning the Nephilim: The word “nephil" means "giant". The masculine plural form is “nephilim". All masculine plurals in Hebrew end in “im" (pronounced "eem"). Were there giants in ancient days? Yes there were. We know of Goliath in 1 Sam 17. But here's the misunderstanding. We often think of giants in the way of the giant from say "Jack and the bean stalk." Some humanoid form the size of a small skyscraper, or some other medieval conception. This was not what a giant was. Goliath was by most estimates nine feet tall. This term would include some of our NBA players of today, although they'd be a little short. There are some new excavations that have verified the existence of these "giants." Not far from Sardinia in Italy they have uncovered tombs that are over nine feet in length. This place is called "The Tomb of the Giants." The tribe of Philistines from this area are called the "Shardana". This very well may have been where Goliath was from. The Philistines prior to that were from farther north. We do know they were Caucasian and blue eyed (originally probably Nordic). We can tell from the bones and the pigmentation of ones skin. From their paintings of themselves we see the color of their eyes. The Philistines that settled in Israel were mostly in the Gaza area. Today you will see, from time to time, Palestinians from that area who still have the blue eyes and that is from when the Philistines mixed with the Arab populace centuries ago. What happens with Genesis 6 is some will see the term "sons of G-d" and interpret that as meaning spirit beings. This is in no way true. The sons of G-d simply mean righteous men. We see Jesus use this same term in a very well known passage but those propagating a "super human race" haven't connected the dots. You may remember this passage in Mt 5:9: Blessed are the peacemakers, because they will be called what??? The sons of God!!! If the sons of G-d are some super human race who has faded out, then what does this mean? That they have come back? LOL No, it means righteous men. So, what happened here in Genesis 6? Well, back in the ancient days of Noah when there were still groups or tribes of large people who were around 12 feet tall, there were some righteous men who fell and began marrying these women even though they were not girls who followed G-d and they had families with these women and they themselves turned their back on G-d. That's it. Nothing more than that. We know that spirits cannot have sex with people! The Bible says in Matt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. So angles do not marry or reproduce, there's no need for them to. There are no "baby angels"! Demons are fallen angels (angel means, "messenger" in Greek) so they too don't have reproductive organs. So the idea that demons were having sex with women is simply ridicules. The Bible is full of wonders, so we don't need to look for anything more fantastic then it already is. There's no super-human race unless of course you add some of the members of the NBA.

Are Angels Sexless? Some Internet debate...

Below are excerpts from some web discussions:

• Interpreting the "sons of God" as fallen angels, the question immediately arises--do angels marry? In Matthew 22:30, Jesus said angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. This seems a clear and emphatic negative. However, it does not preclude the possibility of such a thing happening--obviously contrary to the will of God. And it does not preclude fallen angels, who had rebelled against God already, from cohabiting with women of Earth, as the Scriptures state. Some interpret the words of Jesus as meaning that angels do not marry among themselves. Is it because they are all male? Or is it because celestial beings are deathless and thus need no offspring. Only terrestrial beings need to find immortality in their children. (17) But if they do not need to marry and procreate, is it still possible that they could engage in sexual acts? If not among themselves then with human spouses? Jude seems quite explicit on the matter: the angels left their own habitation, and gave themselves over to fornication, going after strange flesh. In other words, they were capable of performing human functions--eating, drinking, walking, talking, even sexual activity and fathering children.
  
• The fact that angels do not marry does not in itself prove they are sexless. Throughout the Bible, angels are referred to only as men. Finis Drake writes: "It is logical to say...that the female was created specifically for the human race in order that it could be kept in existence; and that all angels were created males, in as much as their kind is kept in existence without the reproduction process. Angels were created innumerable to start with (Hebrews 12:22) whereas, the human multitudes began with one pair." (18)
  Even in the next world, when the saints will dwell in their resurrection body and live forever, it does not imply that they will be sexless. The Bible teaches that everyone will have his own body in the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:35-38). No suggestion is made that they will be unsexed. Furthermore, Christ remained a man after His resurrection.
  The increasingly popular interpretation of the following passage is that it relates a story of angels interbreeding with the human race, and that this was a primary reason for God destroying most of humanity with the great flood.
  
• First of all, it should be pointed out that angels are not humans, they are quite different creations of God. Satan and the other angels are spirit beings, and simply cannot have physical offspring (children). They do not marry (Matt. 22:28, Mark 12:25), they are incapable of procreation, and so are genderless creatures.

Fallen angels? Since one of the popular theories about the nephilim mentions fallen angels, it is useful to consider what these are. (Fallen angels also figure prominently in popular culture)Fallen angels are those angels who rebelled against God along with Lucifer, an archangel who became the devil. Following are verses often quoted as reference :
· "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! 13"But you said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. 14'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High,'" (Isaiah 14:12-14).
Most scholars agree that one third of the angels fell into sin and became demons.
· "And another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems.4And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven, and threw them to the earth . . . " (Rev. 12:3-4).

Wednesday March 3, 2010

Our question for this week is about "original sin". Where does this idea come from? Do newborns have "original sin?" This week's study is led by Rev. Steve Clifton and we reflect together on the doctrine of original sin.

Original Sin

No doctrine inside the precincts of the Christian Church is received with greater reserve and hesitation, even to the point of outright denial, than the doctrine of original sin. Of course in a secular culture like ours, any number of Christian doctrines will be disputed by outsiders, from the existence of God to the resurrection of Jesus. But even in those denominations that pride themselves on their adherence to the orthodox dogmas of the once-universal Church, the doctrine of original sin is met with either embarrassed silence, outright denial, or at a minimum a kind of halfhearted lip service that does not exactly deny the doctrine but… Edward Oakes

…all men, born according to nature, are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without confidence towards God and with concupiscence, and that this original disease or flaw is truly a sin, bringing condemnation and also eternal death to those who are not reborn through baptism and the Holy Spirit" (Article II). - Augsburg Confession of Faith (1530)

“Original thought is like original sin: both happened before you were born to people you could not have possibly met.” Fran Liebowitz

“Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.” GK Chesterton

Charles Hodges: Original sin is the only rational solution of the undeniable fact of the deep, universal and early manifested sinfulness of men in all ages, of every class, and in every part of the world”

John Calvin: Original sin, therefore, appears to be a hereditary, depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused through all the parts of the soul, rendering us obnoxious to the divine wrath and producing in us those works which the scripture calls 'works of shame.”

Dictionary definition: Original sin (a sin said to be inherited by all descendants of Adam) "Adam and Eve committed the original sin when they ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden"… the Christian teaching that all humans are sinful at birth or are born with a tendency to sin.

What is Sin?

The word sin is used in different ways. Sin is:

· An action: All monotheistic religions agree that sins are actions that violate God's law. By behaving in ways that contradict divine will, a person sins. In Judaism and Islam, sin is always an act, a wrong act, and an immoral or impure act.

· A thought: In Judaism, a thought cannot be a sin, but a thought can lead to a sin. In Christianity, can a thought be a sin?

· A state of being: In some Christian traditions, sin is not only a thought or an act; it is also a state of being, represented in the concept of original sin. Original sin is a condition that humans are born to because of Adam's disobedience (he ate the forbidden fruit) in the Garden of Eden.
The doctrine of original sin does view sin as a condition or state of being rather than as an act.

“Whether sin is an act, a thought, or a condition, it is, at its heart, distance from God.”

Biblical Origins

The doctrine of original sin is not explicitly established in Scripture. There are texts that are seen as a source for the doctrine.

Genesis 3: The story of Adam and Eve
Questions:
What in this story supports the doctrine of original sin?

Does the text suggest that the sin and punishment of Adam and Eve is to be passed on to future generations?

Do you consider the Creation story of Genesis 3 to a literal/historical story? If it is a theological tale and not a historical account, what difference does this make to the idea of original sin?

We can note that Judaism has no doctrine of original sin.

Romans 5: 12-21
What in this story supports the doctrine of original sin?

“Eastern Christianity, acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for mankind but never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt. The act of Adam is not the responsibility of all humanity, but the consequences of that act changed the reality of this present age of the cosmos.” How is this view different from original sin? Does the Romans passage support this Eastern view?

What is Paul arguing in this passage? What is his essential point? (Hint: It has to do with the law and with grace.)



1 Corinthians 15:22: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive…

How might these words support the doctrine of original sin?

What is Paul’s main point in this passage? Is he talking about sin or something else?

Note: Early theologians and the rabbis of old debate whether Adam and Eve were immortal before their temptation.

Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

How might these words support the doctrine of original sin?

Looking at the whole Chapter, what do you notice?

There are some texts that would seem to refute the idea of Original Sin. Consider these:
Ezekiel 18:1-4
Ezekiel 18:19-20
"God hath made man upright." Ecclesiastes 7:29
"God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…And God saw everything that he had made, and…it was very good." Gen. 1:26, 31
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Genesis 1:27
"Who so ever sheds another’s blood, so shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made God made human beings." Genesis 9:6
"human beings…are the image and glory of God." I Corinthians 11:7

Origins of the Doctrine of Original Sin
There are wide-ranging disagreements among Christian groups as to the exact understanding of the doctrine about a state of sinfulness or absence of holiness affecting all humans, even children, with some Christian groups denying it altogether.

The doctrine of original sin was first developed in second-century Bishop of Lyon Irenaeus's struggle against Gnosticism. The Greek Fathers, the early thinkers of the Church, emphasized the cosmic dimension of the Fall, namely that since Adam human beings are born into a fallen world, but held fast to belief that man, though fallen, is free. It was in the West that precise definition of the doctrine arose.

Augustine of Hippo taught that original sin began with the trespass of Adam and Eve. The sin of Adam and Eve wounded their nature, affecting human intelligence and will, as well as affections and desires, including sexual desire. The consequences of the fall were transmitted to their descendants in the form of concupiscence (having to do with desire), which is a metaphysical term, and not a psychological one. Adam and Eve's "human nature depraved of original holiness and justice" is "transmitted by propagation to all mankind".

Thomas Aquinas explained Augustine's doctrine pointing out that the libido (concupiscence), which makes the original sin pass from parents to children, is not a libido actualis, i.e. sexual lust, but libido habitualis, i.e. a wound of the whole of human nature. Augustine insisted that concupiscence was not a being but bad quality, the privation of good or a wound. The original sin have made humanity a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd). In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all humans inherit. As sinners, humans are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace. Grace is irresistible, results in conversion, and leads to perseverance.

Saint Anselm of Canterbury defined original sin as "privation of the righteousness that every man ought to possess".Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin equated original sin with concupiscence, affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed the human ability to be morally free.

The Council of Trent was home to the first of a series of declarations in the Catholic Church, which stated that baptism was sufficient to remove the concupiscence of the Fall.

From about the 18th century, belief in original sin has tended to become softened.

Eastern Christianity
Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy which together make up Eastern Christianity, acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for mankind but never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt. The act of Adam is not the responsibility of all humanity, but the consequences of that act changed the reality of this present age of the cosmos. The Greek Fathers emphasized the metaphysical dimension of the Fall of Man, whereby Adam's descendants are born into a fallen world, but at the same time held fast to belief that, in spite of that, humanity remains free.[ Instead of accepting the Lutheran interpretation of Augustine's teaching, Orthodox Churches accept the teaching of John Cassian, which rejects the doctrine of total depravity by teaching that human nature is "fallen", that is, depraved, but not totally unredeemable.

Restoration Movement
Restoration Movement Churches, such as the Churches of Christ, Christian Churches, and the Disciples of Christ, reject the notion of original sin, believing only in the sins for which men and women are personally responsible. Such churches do not object to the idea that Adam and Eve brought sin into the world by introducing disobedience. Disobedience influenced further generations in much the same way other ideas spread, thus making sin likely in any individual above "The Age of Accountability."
In the Old Testament, in the Book of Ezekiel, God's people are rebuked for suggesting that the children would die/suffer for their father's sins:
The word of the Lord came to me: "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: 'The parents eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'? As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die. —Ezek. 18:1-4, TNIV
The Lord then gives examples of a good father with a bad son, of a good son with a bad father, etc. and states:
"Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. —Ezek. 18:19-20,
God concludes: "house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to your own ways … Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit" (Ezek. 18:30-31, TNIV).

Celtic Christianity: Pelagianism
Pelagius (AD 354 – ca. AD 420/440) was a British monk trained in law. His concern was the moral laxity he found among Christians and the widespread excuse for moral laxity being that they are not on the same level of spirituality as monks or priests. The excuse was “I can’t help it; this is just the way I am”. Pelagius sought to formulate an understanding of God’s law and salvation that placed moral responsibility on the
shoulders of the average Christian. God being just would not give us laws that we were not capable of fulfilling. God would not demand an ought that we were not able to do. By putting the power of moral/spiritual transformation back in the hands of people, Augustine asserted that Pelagius undermined the biblical understanding of law and made Christ’s atonement an empty work.

Celtic World View: There is good along with the bad
In the bible, Matthew 13:24, Jesus tells a parable of a property owner who sowed wheat in his fields. An enemy of the property owner, at night, scattered the seeds of Tares, (a weed) to mix in with the wheat. While growing, both the wheat and the Tares look alike. When the Tares were discovered by one of owner's servant, they offered to take the weeds up so that it wouldn't choke the wheat. The owner, using sound judgment, didn't panic. He knew that if the servants weeded too soon, they may also pull up the wheat. He instructed them to wait until the wheat was full grown. They could then tell the difference between the wheat and Tares. The weeds were to be pulled up, bundled and burned, and then the wheat would be harvested. The owner knew that he had put in true hard work. Although someone else may have come to hurt or destroy his work, there still was some good to be had. If the owner acted foolishly, and just worried about what looked like wheat, he would have lost that which was good too.


Extraterrestrial Original Sin?
Quoted in the Vatican newspaper, Father Gabriel Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory, stated: "In my opinion this possibility (of life on other planets) exists"; "intelligent beings, created by God may exist in outer space" and "some aliens could even be free from original sin" concluding "there could be (other beings) who remained in full friendship with their Creator".

Unbaptized infants
Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin. The Latin Church Fathers who followed Augustine adopted his position, which became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages. In the later mediaeval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine's view, others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness. Starting around 1300, unbaptized infants were often said to inhabit the "infants”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 declares: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,'[ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." But the theory of Limbo, while it "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium ... remains ... a possible theological hypothesis". (It is interesting to note that the current Pope Benedict XVI recently demoted the idea of limbo, putting it outside the official teaching of the Catholic Church)

Some Final Reflections
A number of social forces impact on any discussion of original sin.

Evolution- As modern people we tend to think that things are ever moving, progressing and improving. Original sin speaks of a static and inescapable circumstance.

Individualism – Our society encourages us to think that we are self actualized individuals. The idea of original sin, that we are part of a great collective and that our individual actions are of lesser significance is a challenging one for us.

Liberalism – In our western society we tend to believe that education, programming, activism and intervention can lead to redemption. This model of reality tends to have trouble with the ideas of evil and depravity.

Encounters with human evil – What do events like the Holocaust, the Somme, Hiroshima and Rwanda say to us about the nature of humanity? Where we are in the world and in history may impact on our views of human depravity and on our understanding of the human capacity for evil:
In the twentieth century, when human beings have already killed well over one hundred million of their kind, disenchantment [with an optimistic view of human nature] has set in. Two world wars, the Gulags, the Holocaust, Korea, Vietnam, the nuclear and ecological threats form a somber litany that makes the optimism of the liberals ring hollow and naïve. Despite technological progress, evil, far from vanishing, has only become more powerful and more fiendish. . . . And artists like Conrad, Camus, Beckett, Golding, and Murdoch contend that because of our hearts of darkness there may be countless nice men and women but few if any genuinely good ones. In all these perspectives evil is held to be inherent, somehow structural, ingrained. And it’s terrible power defies explanation and solution. paradoxically, the silver wings of science and technology, on which soared the hopes of the industrialized societies, carry the ultimate menace to the human prospect. Steven Duffy

Final Note: While “Original Sin” seems to project a dark view of humanity it is intended to project a positive view of God. The God of this doctrine is a God of grace. We cannot save ourselves. Our own actions are always inadequate; we are saved through unmerited love. God in Christ dies for our fallen world. God saves us as we cannot save ourselves.

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth... What does this mean?

Our question of the week concerns the beatitude taken from Matthew 5:5: “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.”

What does this really mean?

Take a moment to centre yourself with this beatitude, written by P. Jacob, from Chile:

Blessed are the poor …
not the penniless
but those whose heart is free.
Blessed are those who mourn …
not those who whimper
but those who raise their voices.
Blessed are the meek …
not the soft
but those who are patient and tolerant.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice …
not those who whine
but those who struggle.
Blessed are the merciful …
not those who forget
but those who forgive.
Blessed are the pure in heart …
not those who act like angels
but those whose life is transparent.
Blessed are the peacemakers …
not those who shun conflict
but those who face it squarely.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for justice …
not because they suffer
but because they love.

The Beatitudes are a passage of contradictions – they reveal our judgements and preconceptions about what is “best”.

· The word beatitude means something blessed or holy, from the Latin. Latin also uses the word benedictus, literally the good word. In Greek to English translations of both OT and NT texts we have makarios, which means fortunate, and is translated as blessed in Matthew .
· Bless in English comes from blood, sprinkled on the ground in sacrifice.
· If you look up the definition of beatitude, sometimes you will find references to “supreme happiness.”
· Herein lies the contradiction: blood sacrifice involves dying, to achieve something good or holy, but the whole experience is not necessarily happy, particularly for the one being sacrificed!

Other beatitudes found in the Bible:

Hebrew scriptures: generally from the wisdom tradition, ie. Psalm 1:1-3; 41:1-3; Proverbs 8:32-36. Generally the message is “Be good and you will have a good life.”

Other Christian sources:
Luke 6:20-23: Luke’s beatitudes are more pointed and political, and are partnered with curses aimed at those who are rich, full of food and laughing. Paul uses the form of a beatitude in Romans 4:7 to teach about forgiveness. Beatitudes also appear seven times in the book of Revelation, primarily the blessing of salvation for those who heed God’s word and are faithful (Rev 1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7, 14.)

Three parts to Matthew 5:5:
1) What does it mean to be blessed?
2) What does it mean to be meek?
3) What does it mean to inherit the earth?

1. “Blessed”:

A friend of mine once berated me after a prayer I led, saying “You’ve got to stop thanking God for our blessings. It makes us rich people think that we have what we have because God wants us to have it, and it lets us off the hook for benefitting from an unjust global economy!”

That stopped me in my tracks. Do I really believe that God specifically predestined me to be born in Canada, to a privileged and educated family, and predestined others to be born in poverty, in nations beset by war or debt or injustice? Is that what I mean when I speak about how God has blessed me? Is that how others misunderstand the word blessing in my prayers of thanksgiving?

“Blessing” means a good or holy thing that comes to us, presumably from God. It might not always be “happy”.

Matthew uses makarios in the beatitudes. It was a term originally used for the (greek) gods, then was extended also to the dead, who were living in the world of the gods. Finally, it came to be applied to those who prospered in life and were “above” ordinary humanity. So it combines a sense of good fortune with holiness, spirit.

Biblically, in the wisdom tradition ,“blessed” came to mean righteous (on good terms with God) or ethical – and therefore prosperous.

Jesus’ gospel turns this convention on its ear. In both Matthew and Luke, those who are “blessed” are the ones that society has trampled down, not raised up. Jesus’ blessing of the marginalized is a radical revisioning of what “wisdom” might mean for the people of God.

2. “Meek”:

To summarize an article handed in with the question, J. Upton Dickson said he was writing a book entitled Cower Power. H also founded a group of people called DOORMATS: Dependent Organization Of Really Meek And Timid Souls – if there are no objections. Their motto was “The meek shall inherit the earth – if that’s okay with everyone.” Their symbol was the yellow traffic light.

That is how many people understand this beatitude. In English, “meek” can mean submissive, weak, powerless. Applied in translation to the original Hebrew or Greek, however, it sends the wrong impression of this important spiritual quality.

Numbers 12:3 –
“Now the man Moses was very meek, more so than anyone else on earth.” (from the KJV – our more contemporary translations, NIV or NRSV, say humble or devout.)
Clearly Moses might have been meek, yet as the leader of God’s people, not weak.

Matthew 11:29 –
“Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and you shall find rest for your souls.”
Likewise, Jesus was a leader passionate about God’s mission and ministry. Yet he knew that he needed gentleness and compassion to really demonstrate God’s spirit.

The Greek word used in both the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures) and in the Christian scriptures, which we translate meek is praos.
Beyond the Bible, it was used to describe (1) a soothing medicine, or (2) by sailors to describe a gentle breeze, or (3) by farmers to describe a broken colt. All describe power or energy channeled under great control.

Ephesians 4:1-2 – (KJV)
“I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation wherewith you are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love.”
Paul called the early Christians to “meekness”, knowing that it would take self-control to live together faithfully, with all their differences. Christian witness required courage, not wimpiness! But to work together in a ministry that crossed boundaries of class, ethnic origin and gender, “gentleness” (NRSV) was also required.

3. “inherit the earth”:

Inherit – the English word comes from French (heredité) and possibly connected to the greek khera – meaning widow, derived from empty or left behind.
- Emphasizes that “to inherit” is a passive verb, one receives an inheritance
- Does it make sense, then, that one who inherits, MUST be “meek”?

There is also a sense of identity – the one who inherits is the “true” child of the one who gives – the chosen one, whether by biology or other bond. God created the earth and wills it to the one/s who reflect God’s own spirit and compassion.

Psalm 37:11 (NRSV) – “But the meek shall inherit the land, and delight in abundant prosperity.” Again, in wisdom tradition – those who do good, receive good.
This is a very physical understanding of the earth as land, farmland, capable of sustaining those who inherit it. Jesus’ beatitude includes a more eternal understanding of “inherit the earth”. When the reign of God on earth begins, the faithful (everyone?) will have what they need, there will be no more poverty, we will share in creation’s wealth with justice.

We end with a quote from A.W. Tozer about Christian “meekness” – note that I have left the exclusive male imagery from his original quote!

“The meek man is not a human mouse afflicted with a sense of his own inferiority. Rather he may be in his moral life as bold as a lion and as strong as Samson; but he has stopped being fooled about himself. He has accepted God’s estimate of his own life. He knows he is as weak and helpless as God declared him to be but, paradoxically, he knows at the same time that he is, in the sight of God, of more importance than angels. In himself, nothing; in God, everything. That is his motto.”

Who is Satan?

Welcome to the first installment of Rideau Park United Church's Lenten Study 2010. This week it is our Minister of Worship and Community, Elizabeth Bryce, who will lead the session.

We asked our members to submit questions about passages of scripture that puzzled, stumped or mystified them. Ash Wednesday's question is: Who is Satan? with reference to the story of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness, from Mark 1:12-13. Another question was asked about Matthew 6:13 - "lead us not into temptation."

I found a great story by Lori Brandt Hale, a professor at a Lutheran theological college, in Feasting on the Word, vol 2, Year C.

It is a story about her three year old son, going off to a children’s program and learning about the temptation. On their way home, her son suddenly asked: “Mom, what do you know about the devil?” Remember, this mother is a professional theologian – it’s fair to say that she knew A LOT about the devil. But she was talking to a 3 year old, so instead she answered his question with a question: “What do YOU know about the devil?” “I know that the devil talked to Jesus.” He said “The devil was mean. Like, if we were shopping at a store, and you and Dad were in the next aisle, and I was in the aisle with all the candy, the devil would say to me “You should take some of that candy!”

She writes: I thought about telling him that the story is about the responses Jesus made more than about the temptations themselves. Obedience to God will bring persecution, misunderstanding, and the cross – not an attractive prospect to a young child. Many of his followers wanted Jesus to restore an earthly kingdom with much honour and glory. To say yes to the world’s temptations would have meant saying no to God. I didn’t know whether my son had absorbed that part of the message: “So, what would you say back to the devil?” I asked.

A genuinely sweet grin lit up his face, and without hesitation, he replied: “Oh, Mom, I know my manners. I would say thank-you!”

We have the impression that temptation is being invited to do something clearly immoral, like commit adultery or steal or murder. But the real test is when the end is something good, and it is the means that are the problem.

Temptation: the encouragement to commit wrong, through the hope of achieving or getting something “good” a definition by Roy Davison, who continues: temptation itself is not sin. It is an enticement to do wrong by a promise of pleasure or gain. Being tempted is not a sin. The sin only occurs when we give in to temptation.

But think of the tenth commandment: “You shall not covet….” Exodus 20:17
Matthew 5:27-28 – goes even further: “You have heard that it was said: “you shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Is even being tempted a sin?

Is it wrong to want something that tastes or feels good? Or is it what we are prepared to do to get it that is the temptation? – ie. disregard a marriage covenant, disrespect a neighbor, steal, lie, cheat…

Question for Reflection: Is it human nature to want more? Jesus was tempted with bread, power, security – what are we tempted with today?
Where do you believe temptation comes from? God? Satan? Advertisers?

Who is Satan?

What are your images of Satan or the devil?

Mark uses the legal term the satan, tou satana, which in secular terms means the adversary or prosecutor – not a personal first-name, but a descriptive noun.
Matthew and Luke use diabolos – which literally means “to tear apart” – ie. the force that makes our choices absolutely clear – you cannot have both, you have to give something up.

A similar name is found in the Hebrew book of Job, where “Ha-satan”(in Hebrew – meaning the accuser) is a heavenly being, one whose role is to point out to God all the contradictions and weaknesses of human nature. Ha-satan has no power, unless the human being chooses to DO evil or be unfaithful to God. In Job, ha-satan sets the stage for Job to be tempted to do a particular evil, which is condemn God, but Job will not.

Another tradition that gets mixed in is the apocryphal tradition (Book of Enoch) of the “the fallen angels” who mingle with humanity and lead them astray in the story of Noah. So, in our minds, the adversary who works alongside God to trip up humanity blends with the fallen angels who lead humanity into evil and “Satan” becomes personified as a supernatural being who is God’s adversary or opponent.

Lucifer, comes from Latin, meaning Light Bearer, or Morning Star – the first sign of dawn’s light in the darkness of night. In Isaiah 14:3, 12, the prophet describes the king of Babylon in this way – one who sets himself up as a light that will fall to the depths. In 2 Peter, in the Latin traslation, the noun lucifer is actually applied to Jesus Christ. John Milton used this imagery and made it popular among Western Christians as the proper name of the devil.

Tradition also blended the notion of devil/satan with eternal punishment in hell,
Tartarus – where demons (never humans) were imprisoned (2 Peter 2);
Sheol – where ALL human souls go after death (Hades in greek);
Gehenna – the garbage dump outside Jerusalem where fires burned continually and sometimes bodies were cremated if considered beyond God’s care.

What are some other names “the devil” gets labeled with?
- The serpent in Adam and Eve (Gen 3)
- Beelzebub – after the Philistine god Baal
- The dragon (in Revelations)
- Mephistophiles – from Faust
- Old Nick – from the Dutch demon Nikken
- Old Scratch – from a Norse myth about “scrat”

Whatever we may call him, however, it is clear that the gospels' perspective on satan and temptation always start with the Spirit – that it is the Spirit that drove Jesus out into the wilderness and his encounter with “Satan” – it is a battle of wills, between good and evil, somehow ordained by God. We always have the Spirit with us, and had better choose the Spirit over satan or give in to the temptation to choose against God’s will.

3 Temptation stories: Matthew 4, Mark 1, Luke 4

We cannot survive temptation without the Spirit – like an antidote or immunization against temptation, the strength to resist evil or choose faithfully must come from spiritual depth. In Luke, Jesus is “full of the spirit”(4:1, 14.) The Spirit is not beyond but within him.

Question for Reflection: In what way does your spirituality provide you with strength to resist temptation or choose faithfully?

A Prayer to close:

Gracious God, it is so easy to fall into patterns of behavior that separate us from you and others. We want to do the right thing, the good thing, the loving thing, but temptation stalks the rim of our lives like a prowling animal. Before we know it, we’ve fallen into the grasp of wanting more and more, for less and less effort and thus we begin the downward spiral into what is less than full life. Help us, O god, to see when temptation is near, and our choices are being tested. Give us the strength and fortitude to make choices for health and spiritual wholeness, for a stronger relationship with you. Keep us faithful in our love for you and faithful to the wonder of being given the gift of life. We ask this for the sake of your love, for the assurance of forgiveness when our choices are unfaithful, for the name of Jesus, in life and in new life, Amen