Man’s Royal Status as God’s Image and God’s Son

Posted by deangonzales on August 23, 2010
2 Comments

As a symbol of their authority, ancient Near Eastern kings would sometimes erect a personal statue in the geographical spheres of their jurisdiction (Dan. 3:1ff.).¹ Even the king himself was viewed as the image and vice-regent of the territorial deity. The following examples range from the sixteenth through the thirteenth century B.C. Pharaoh Ahmose I (1550-1525 B.C.), for instance, is depicted as “a prince like Re, the child of Oeb, his heir, the image of Re, whom he created, the avenger (or the representative), for whom he has set himself on earth.”² The Egyptian Queen Hatshepsut (1479-1457 B.C.) is styled, “The superb image of Amon; the image of Amon on earth; the image of Amon-Re to eternity, his living monument on earth.”³ Several texts refer to Amenhotep II (1427-1400 B.C.) as an “image” of the gods.⁴ Later, Amon-Re is represented as saying to Amenophis III (1390-1352 B.C.): “You are by beloved son, who came forth from my members, my image, whom I have put on earth, I have given to you to rule the earth in peace.”⁵ The earliest known parallel in Mesopotamia is found in the Tukuklti-Ninurta Epic, which depicts the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta (1244-1208 b.c.) as “the eternal image of Enlil.”⁶ Reading the Genesis account of man as God’s “image” and God’s “son” (1:26-27; 5:1-3) in light of ancient Near East kingship ideology, with which Moses and his original readers were well-familiar, suggests that man not only resembles God constitutively and relationally but also functionally, in the capacity of a vice-regent with dominion over the creation.⁷ Hans Wolff agrees and writes,

Man is set in the midst of creation as God’s statue. He is evidence that God is the Lord of creation; but as God’s steward he also exerts his rule, fulfilling his task not in arbitrary despotism but as a responsible agent. His rule and his duty to rule are not autonomous; they are copies.⁸

Does this mean that Moses simply borrowed ideas from his pagan neighbors and incorporated them into his doctrine of humanity? By no means! Rather, many pagan institutions, ideologies, and myths derive in part from truth imprinted on the conscience of every man and/or from revelation imparted in primeval history. This in-created truth and primal revelation is distorted over time and incorporated into false worldviews. Accordingly, God’s revelation of man’s royal status as his “image-son” in Genesis serves a polemic that “sets the record straight,” ascribing royal status not merely to kings and emperors but to every human being.⁹

But does the Scriptural data support this understanding of man’s identity and function? I believe it does. Consider, first, the syntax or sentence structure of Genesis 1:26. Some English versions may give the impression that God’s creating man as His image and God’s assigning man the task of ruling are two separate, unrelated things: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image … and let them have dominion … over all the earth” (ESV; see also KJV, NAS, NIV, NLT, CSB). But the Hebrew construction suggests a consequential relationship.¹⁰ The verse could be better translated, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule …” (NET). Thus, ruling is a function of God’s image, which is further underscored in verse 28.¹¹ One should also consider the teaching of Psalm 8:3-8:

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas (emphasis added).

Obviously, David sees an intimate connection between man’s identity and his God-given function as ruler over creation. Therefore, in light of the biblical data, we should not exclude the function of ruling from a definition of God’s image.¹² Indeed, man’s functional role as God’s vice-regent is likely the primary facet of man’s identity highlighted in the Genesis creation account. In this important respect the Biblical view of creation and mankind differs from the other cosmogonies of the ancient Near East. According to the creation accounts of Egypt and Mesopotamia, the creation of man is an afterthought. Humans are normally viewed as the slaves or “the cattle” of the gods.¹³ The Scriptures, however, present all mankind as God’s royal son and co-regent over creation. No wonder the Psalmist is moved to grateful praise: “Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!” (Ps. 8:9).

How does man accomplish this function of dominion? What does it entail? It does not just mean that man is the boss over animals. According to Genesis 1:28 it involves “filling” the earth by means of procreation, and it entails “subduing” the earth by means of vocation. The word translated “subdue” signifies to bring under one’s control and into one’s service. This is what Adam did by tending the Garden of Eden. This is what Abel did by shepherding sheep. This would include mining, metallurgy, medicine, art, music, literature, science, and other technological advancements. By these pursuits men bring the resources of creation under their control and into their service. This has sometimes been called man’s “cultural mandate.”

According to Genesis 2:5-25, God assigns mankind two distinct roles for carrying out this mandate. Although the man and the woman possess equal worth and dignity as the image of God, yet God created them distinct in order to function in distinct roles—the man is to function in the role of a leader, and the woman is to function in the role of a helper. There are several features of the Genesis creation account that support this distinction of roles between the man and the woman. First, God created the man and the woman in a different manner and for a different though complementary purpose. God took the man from the ground in order to cultivate the ground (vv. 5-17). On the other hand, God took the woman from the man in order to help the man (vv. 20-23). The woman is to be man’s “helper comparable [‘corresponding’] to him” (v. 20). Second, the man and woman were not created simultaneously. God created the man first and gave him instructions concerning the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Then God created the woman and brought her to the man. This historical order of man’s creation preceding the woman’s creation forms the basis of Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2:11-13: “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” Thus, according to Paul, the man’s role in relation to the woman is to be a leader-teacher, and the woman’s role in relation to man is to be a fol lower-learner. Third, the man not only names the animals, demonstrating his authority over them, but he also names the woman, demonstrating his authority over her.¹⁴ And he gives her two names, each reflecting her distinctive role. He names her “woman” because she was taken from “man”¹⁵ in order to serve him (v. 23).¹⁶ Then, after the fall, he names her “Eve” (hwh), which means “giver of life,”¹⁷ because she would be the mother of all living (3:20). This certainly seems to underscore her role as a mother and probably also highlights her role as the channel through whom a Deliverer from the curse would arise.¹⁸ So on the one hand, men and women are of equal value and worth since they are both created as the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27; 5:2). On the other hand, men and woman as the image of God have distinct roles through which they each resemble a complementary role of God himself. Man is to resemble God primarily in the capacity of a head. Woman is to resemble God primarily in the capacity of a helper. The Hebrew term translated “helper” (‘tsr) in Genesis 2:18, 20, refers to someone who assists another in a particular need. Interestingly, the term is used most often of God in the OT (e.g.s., Pss. 10:14; 30:10; 54:4). Thus, the role of a “helper” is not a demeaning or inferior kind of role. It is a God-magnifying role! But just how does woman as a subordinate to man resemble God and bring Him glory? I believe Philippians 2:5-8 provides an answer:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

It’s true that this passage calls all Christians, men and women, to mutual deference (2:1-5). Nevertheless, it is the woman’s special role and privilege to highlight the disposition of Christ in this particular facet of the Godhead. If this is true, then feminism is not the mark of social improvement, but rather another indication of human depravity. And so-called “evangelical” feminism has no place in the Christian church (1 Cor. 11:1-16; 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-15).

I think it would be wrong, however, if we only viewed the creation mandate as a cultural mandate. The mandate that God gave to mankind was also religious or cultic in nature. Mankind was to serve as God’s royal priesthood, advancing the divine kingdom beyond the boundaries of Eden and transforming the entire earth into a cosmic sanctuary for his holy Suzerain-Creator. In fact, it can be argued that the Great Commission that God gave to Christ (Isa. 42:1-4), the Second Adam, and which Christ fulfills with His church (Matt. 28:18-20), the Second Eve, is an extension of that original mandate that God bestowed upon the First Adam and First Eve.¹⁹ And when that imperial commission is fulfilled, we, as God’s royal images and sons, shall rule and reign with Christ forever (1 Cor 4:8; 6:3; Rev 5:10; 20:6: 22:5).²⁰

Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary

1. David Clines, “The Image of God in Man, Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968): 83; Edward Mason Curtis, “Man as the Image of God in Genesis in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Parallels” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1984), 117-20; J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005), 104-08; Hans Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 160. [↩]
2. Cited by Clines, 85. [↩]
3. Cited by Curtis, 226. [↩]
4. Ibid., 227. [↩]
5. Cited by Clines, 85. [↩]
6. Cited by Middleton, 112. For more examples, see Clines, 83-85; Middleton, 108-22; Curtis, 143-245. [↩]
7. See Clines, 95-99; Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:146-47; Wolff, 160-61. [↩]
8. Wolff, 160-61. Walter Brueggemann remarks in a similar vein, “It is now generally agreed that the image of God reflected human persons is after the manner of a king who establishes statutes of himself to assert his sovereign rule where the king himself cannot be present.” Genesis, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, ed. James Luther Mays (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 32. [↩]
9. This is precisely how Gregory Beale understands the parallels between the temple in ancient Near Eastern religion and the temple in biblical theology: “We should not think that Israel’s temple was like those of here pagan neighbors because she merely copied the religious traditions around her. Rather, the likeness of the Israelite temple to pagan temples should be viewed, at least, from two perspectives. First, the similarity is intended at times to be a protest statement that, while the pagan nations think that they have cornered the market on divine revelation from their gods who dwell in temples, their gods are, in fact, false and their temples purely idolatrous institutions–the den of demons (Deut 32:17; Ps 106:37; 1 Cor 10:19-20). From another perspective, it is appropriate to ask whether anything in ancient pagan religion and its institutions resembled the truth about the true God and his designs for humanity. Certainly, pagan nations had not received any special revelation to draw them into saving relation to the true God, Nevertheless, just as the image of God is not erased but distorted in unbelieving humanity, it is plausible to suggest that some of the affinities in ancient pagan beliefs and religious institutions to that of Israel’s may be due to the fact that they are garbled, shadowy representations about the being of the biblical God and of his design for his dwelling place.” The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2008), 175. [↩]
10. Here the waw plus the jussive is translated best as a purpose clause. See Job 21:19; GKC § 165. [↩]
11. Even the 18th century commentator John Gill, who had no knowledge of ANE kingship ideology, saw a clear connection between man’s identity as God’s “image” and his royal status and function: “[God's image] consisted … in his dominion, power, and authority over the creatures, in which he was as God’s viceregent, and resembled him.” An Exposition of the Old Testament (London: William Hill Collingridge, 1852), 8-9. [↩]
12. Clines remarks, “No definition of the image is complete which does not refer to this function of rulership” (97). [↩]
13. As noted above, the concept of the image of a deity constituted part of the ancient Near Eastern royal ideology. Two early Egyptian texts, however, serve as exceptions to the general rule and apply the concept of “image” to all humanity. An except from the Instruction for Merikare (circa 2100 B.C.) reads, “Well directed are men, the cattle of the god. He made heaven and earth according to their desire, and he repelled the water-monster. He made the breath of life (for) their nostrils. They who have issued from his body are his images [snnw]. He arises in heaven according to their desire. He made for them plants, animals, fowl, and fish to feed them.” (lines 131-33). A later text, Instruction of Ani, which dates to the middle of the 2nd millennium b.c., reads, “Men are in the image of the god <in> their custom of hearing a man in regard to his reply. It is not the wise alone who is in his image [snnw], while the multitude are every kind of cattle.” Cited in Middleton, 99-100. For the most part, however, the texts of the ancient Near East reserve the concept of image of deity for figures of royalty. For a helpful assessment of the parallels and contrasts, see John Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 19-44. [↩]
14. In the same way, parents demonstrate their authority over their children when the parents name their children. [↩]
15. The English terms reflect the Hebrew word play between ‘isshah and ‘ish. [↩]
16. Matthew Henry appropriately notes, “That the woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.” A Commentary on the Whole Bible (Reprint, Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell, n.d.), 1:20. [↩]
17. The Hebrew name Eve (hwh) occurs only here and in 4:1. The LXX translates the name here as “Life” (zoe), but in 4:1 transliterates it (Euan), which the apostle Paul follows (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13). In light of the reason given for Adam’s assigning her this name and in light of the apparently etymological relationship to hyh it seems likely that the name derives from the Hebrew noun for “life.” The fact that the Hebrew hwh has a median waw rather than a median yod may suggest that it derives from a more primitive form of the word. In support of this possibility, it may be noted that the Ugaritic verb “to live” contains the medial consonant yod in the Qal form but the medial consonant waw in the Piel. This fact suggests a factitive meaning for Eve, such as “giver of life,” or the intensive idea of “propagator of life.” [↩]
18. Despite the curse, the woman will bear children. Moreover, she will mother an offspring who will realign himself with the interests of Yahweh’s kingdom and eventually over come the works of the Serpent (Gen. 3:15). It is likely that Adam discerned these redemptive implications in Yahweh’s punishment of the woman and responded by assigning her a new name (3:20). Waltke refers to Adam’s naming his wife “Eve” as “the beginning of hope” (95). [↩]
19. This is the basic thesis of Gregory Beale: “[Adam and Eve] were to reflect God’s kingship by being his vice-regents on earth…. It is plausible to suggest that they were to extend the geographical boundaries of the garden until Eden covered the whole earth…. They were to extend the smaller livable area of the garden by transforming the outer chaotic region into a habitable territory…. God’s ultimate goal in creation was to magnify his glory throughout the earth by means of his faithful image-bearers inhabiting the world in obedience to the divine mandate” (81-82). Beale traces out the many biblical links between the Garden of Eden, the OT Tabernacle/Temple, the NT Church, and the New Heavens and New Earth. He argues persuasively that the Great Commission should be viewed as extension of the creation mandate of Gen. 1 and 2. What the first Adam failed to do, the Last Adam will successfully accomplish, and the holy Garden will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. See The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, NSBT, ed. D. A. Carson (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004), John Fesko follows Beale’s reading of redemptive history and suggests the NT church’s identity as the “Second Eve.” Last Things First: Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology (Ross-Shire, U.K.: Mentor, 2007), 145-82. [↩]
20. This is an excerpt from my article “Man: God’s Visible Replica & Vice-Regent,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review (2009). [↩]

Angels, Sethites, or Human Despots: Who Are the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6?

Posted by deangonzales on August 18, 2010
23 Comments

After two millennia of debate,¹ three basic interpretations have emerged concerning the identity of the bene-Elohim and their crime. Some early rabbis, church fathers, and modern interpreters view the “sons of Elohim” as a reference to supernatural beings (angels or demigods), who took human wives, produced semi-divine offspring and thereby fell from their first estate and precipitated God’s judgment on the earth.² Thus, the resultant sin has both a human and an angelic dimension—a mingling the Bible forbids (Lev 19:19; 20:16; Deut 7:3; 22:9–11). More precisely, the sin involves angels and men transgressing divinely imposed limits, with the latter attempting to attain immortality.³ A few proponents of this view, sensing the apparent incongruity between a rebellion initiated by angelic beings and a retribution aimed primarily at humans, either attempt to lay the blame chiefly on “the daughters of men” (or their fathers)⁴ or suggest a case of demon possession whereby fallen angels took possession of evil men.⁵ A second view, advanced among some of the church fathers⁶ and popularized by some of the Reformers,⁷ holds that the “sons of God” represent the godly line of Seth and the “daughters of men” represent the sinful line of Cain. Hence, the precise sin in view is that of intermarriage between the righteous and the wicked, resulting in a breakdown of religious beliefs and values, which in turn served to advance the proliferation of evil in the world.⁸ Finally, a third position, represented in some Targums⁹ and recently refined by modern scholars acquainted with the divine-kingship ideology of the ancient Near East, interprets the “sons of God” as human rulers who arrogantly assume divine prerogatives.¹⁰

None of the three views is totally free of interpretive challenges. Yet, the immediate and larger canonical context interpreted in light of the current archaeological evidence available favors the third view. Moses’s readers would have been familiar with the kingship ideology of their ancient Near Eastern cultural milieu, which identified rulers or kings as the “images” and “sons” of the deity.¹¹ This royal sonship ideology is even reflected in the Israelite theocracy where the king is also viewed as Yahweh’s son (see Psalm 2:6-12). Hence, the bene-Elohim or “Sons of God” of Genesis 6 are ancient suzerains who engage in unrestrained polygamy (or even rape!?, 6:2b),¹² build royal harems, and exercise despotic tyranny. Their offspring, the hagibborim¹³ perpetuate their evil, filling the earth with corruption and violence (6:11, 13), and thus earn the epithet, “men of fame [infamy!]” (‘anshe hashem) (6:4).¹⁴ The story of Cain and Lamech continues, and its tragic plot thickens.

Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary

1. For a survey of early interpretations of this passage, see Newman, “The Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6:2, 4,” 13–36; P. S. Alexander, “The Targumim and Early Exegesis of the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6,” 60–71; Wickham, “The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men,” 135–47. [↩]
2. See Enoch, 13–26; Jubilees, 43; Philo, 2:449–55; Josephus, Antiquities, 28; Clement of Alexandria, Christ the Educator, 3.2.14, and Ambrose, On Noah 4.8, in ACCS, 1:124, 126; Brueggemann, Genesis, 70–73; Cassuto, From Adam to Noah, 291–94; Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis, 222–26; Fretheim, Creation, Fall and Flood, 105; Merrill, Everlasting Dominion, 144–45; von Rad, Genesis, 114; Sarna, Genesis, 45; Wenham, Genesis 1–11, 140–41; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 372. For a thorough defense of this view, see VanGemeren, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1–4 (An Example of Evangelical Demythologization?),” 320–48. [↩]
3. Fretheim remarks, “The strict separation between God’s world and man’s world had been broken down; the orders of creation had become confused. Evil is not confined to men; it is cosmic in scope.” Creation, Fall, and Flood, 105. VanGemeren suggests, “Being under God’s judgment since the Fall, man made an attempt to circumvent God’s plan (Grenzüberschreitung) by being enticed to the Satanic scheme of intermarriage with demonic beings with the hope of ultimate prolongation of life.” “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1–4 (An Example of Evangelical Demythologization?),” 347. [↩]
4. So Wenham writes, “Here the fault of the daughters of men lies presumably in their consenting to intercourse with ‘the sons of the gods.’ It ought also to be borne in mind that the girls’ fathers would also have been implicated, since, if there was no rape or seduction, their approval to these matches would have been required. The obvious avoidance of any terms suggesting lack of consent makes the girls and their parents culpable, the more so when the previous chapter has demonstrated that mankind was breeding successfully on its own.” Genesis 1–15, 141. [↩]
5. See Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis, 226; VanGemeren, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1–4 (An Example of Evangelical Demythologization?),” 348; Waltke, Genesis, 117. [↩]
6. Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on Genesis 6.3.1., ACCS, 1:124; Augustine, City of God, 510–14. [↩]
7. Luther, Lectures on Genesis, 2:7–13; Calvin, Genesis, 1:237–40. [↩]
8. Modern proponents of this view include Bush, Notes on Genesis, 1:116; Currid, A Study Commentary on Genesis, 1:173–75; Hamilton, Genesis 1-17, 264–65; Hartley, Genesis, 95–96; Keil and Delitzsch, The Penteteuch, 1:127–34; Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, 1:249–54; Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 329–32; Murray, Principles of Conduct, 243–49; Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament, 205–7; Robertson, The Genesis of Sex, 35–43; Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis, 97–98; Vos, Biblical Theology, 46–49. [↩]
9. Targum Onkelos reads, “the sons of the great ones [i.e., nobles],” Onkelos, 50–51; Targum Neofiti reads, “the sons of the judges.” Neofiti, 71. [↩]
10. Note especially Kline, “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1–4,” 187–204. See Millard, “A New Babylonian ‘Genesis Story,’” 12; Clines, “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode (Genesis 6:1–14) in the Context of the ‘Primeval History’ (Genesis 1–11),” 42; Walton, “Are the Sons of God in Genesis 6 Angels? No,” 184–209; Blocher, In the Beginning, 200–203; Ross, Creation & Blessing, 181–83; Waltke, Genesis, 115–17; Ward, Foundations in Genesis, 141–45. [↩]
11. See my post, Man’s Royal Status as God’s Image and God’s Son, which is an excerpt of a larger article entitled “Man: God’s Visible Replica and Vice-Regent,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review (2009). [↩]
12. The linking of the verbs “they saw” (wyr’u) and “they took” (wyqhu) is found elsewhere in contexts of forced or illicit sex (Gen 34:2; 2 Sam 11:2–4). But the verb lqh can also refer to taking a bride (Gen 4:19; 11:29; 12:19; 20:2, 3; 25:1; 36:2, 6; Exod 34:16). Most likely, the reference is to marriage but not to monogamous marriage. The Hebrew reads, wyqhu lhm nshym mkl ‘shr bhru. This construction may simply mean that they chose any single wife of their liking. In this case the sin, if there is a sin implied, would be indiscriminate u based on physical attraction rather than spiritual affinities. On the other hand, the plural nshym followed by the phrase mkl ‘shr bhru may suggest that they chose each and every bride they wanted. In favor of the latter, the reader should note the close parallel in Ecclesiastes 6:2, where Qoheleth describes a wealthy man who “lacks nothing of all that he desires” (w’ynnu hsr lnpshu mkl ‘shr-yt’uh). The text in Ecclesiastes employs the verb ‘wh (“desire”), whereas the text in Genesis 6:2 uses bhr (“choose”). The two verbs, however, appear as synonyms in Psalm 132:13. Moreover, the increase in Lamech-like violence (see Gen 6:11, 13) leads the reader to expect a concomitant increase in Lamech-like marital practices, i.e., polygamy (see also Gen 12:10–20; Gen 20:2–7, 17–18). The grammatical and contextual indications combined have led Blenkinsopp to conclude that here we have a description of “titan promiscuity.” The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, 40. See also Kline, “Divine Kingship,” 195–96; Kraeling, “The Significance and Origins of Gen. 6:1–4,” 197; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 366–68. [↩]
13. It is not clear whether the nplym identified in 6:4a were merely contemporary with the hagibborim, or whether they were among the offspring of the bene-Elohim. and therefore numbered with the hagibborim. Elsewhere in the OT, the same expression is used to describe men of gigantic stature (Num 13:33). It may be that Moses is using the term here to refer to the presence of such “giants” who lived both before and after the Flood, and who were also often employed in the service of those military powers that opposed the people of God (Num 13:33; Deut 1:28; 2:10; 3:11; 9:2; 1 Sam 17:4–7, 47; 2 Sam 21:20–22; 1 Chr 11:23). In this reading, the narrator may be introducing them here not as the offspring but perhaps as the mercenaries of hagibborim [↩]
14. Arguments for this position include the following: first, modern archaeological evidence suggests that ancient Near Eastern monarchs were viewed as sons of deities. See especially the works of Engell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East; Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods; and Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel. Second, the primeval account has already depicted humankind as God’s royal vice-regent and son, that is, his image whose kingly commission is to rule over and to subdue the earth (Gen 1:26–28; 5:1–2; Ps 8). This biblical and primeval reality provides the historical root from which later sacral kingship theology developed (of course, in a form corrupted by sinful ideology that tended to deify the human potentate). Third, Scripture elsewhere applies the term Elohim to human rulers (Exod 21:6; 22:8, 9, 27 [Heb 7, 8, 28]; 2 Sam 7:14; Pss 2:7; 82:6; John 10:34–35). Fourth, the preceding and subsequent context lends weight to this view. The earlier reference to Lamech, the bigamist tyrant, provides the prototype of this multiplication of Lamech-like rulers who transgress the bounds of monogamous marriage and promote oppression and violence in the earth. Nimrod’s empire-building and heaven-assaulting Babel enterprises (10:8–12) also echo the despot-like depiction of the bene-Elohim and their offspring, hagibborim. Moreover, the descriptions of the Pharaoh of Genesis 12 and the Abimelechs of Genesis 20 and 26 depict them as human rulers that were known for their attraction to beautiful women and their habit of harem building. Indeed, we find the verbs “to see” (r’h) and “to take” (lqh) in Genesis 12:12, 15. What is more, the concern for an enduring “name” (6:4) is tied to Cain (4:17) and to the Tower builders (11:4) who were empire-builders (compare 10:8–12). Finally, this view is preferred in light of the objections inherent in the other views. Though the phrase “sons of God” could arguably refer to the line of Seth (cf. 5:1ff.), the phrase “daughters of men” does not naturally lend itself to a narrow interpretation of daughters born in the line of Cain. The reference to “mankind” (generic) multiplying in the land and giving birth to “daughters” (6:1) is more naturally interpreted as inclusive of all humanity, not one portion. Furthermore, until now, there has been no clear prohibition against intermarriage among families or clans. Moreover, the clause “they took wives for themselves from any they chose,” as noted above, probably refers to polygamy—a theme already introduced in 4:17—rather than to intermarriage. And the fact that the “Serpent’s seed” may be found even among the holy family (Gen 4:5–8) seems to render an identification of all those in Seth’s line as “godly men” in contrast to the “ungodly men” of Cain’s line questionable. Since the Genesis narrative is primarily focusing on the origin, spread, and consequences of human sin, it seems unlikely that Moses would introduce fallen angels into the picture. In Genesis 3, the Serpent tempts mankind to sin, and Adam and Eve acquiesce. As a result, both the Serpent and the humans are cursed and judged. However, here there is only judgment pronounced on man (6:3) as well as animal life under his dominion (6:7). Finally, it should be noted that Scripture elsewhere implies that angels are not given in marriage, do not procreate (Matt 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34–36), and therefore are not inclined towards the practice of sexual intercourse (Gen 19). The boundaries of multiplying according to one’s “kind” established at creation would also seem to discount this view (compare Gen 1:11, 12, 21, 25; 2:19–20). In sum, the evidence seems to lean in favor of viewing these beings as human despots who viewed themselves and who were viewed by others as semi-divine. Perhaps, as some have suggested, fallen angels did play a part in exerting an unseen influence on these rulers (Jude 6 [?]). However, demon possession is too strong a concept, since in that case the demon takes over the human consciousness. Better to see the “principalities and powers in heavenly places” (Eph 6:12) as working “behind the scenes” exerting an influence on human rulers that in no way suspends the rulers’ own consciousness or moral responsibility before God (compare Daniel 10:10–14). See Blocher, In the Beginning, 202–3; Ross, Creation & Blessing, 182. [↩]

2010 Summer Theological Module: The Doctrine of Christ

Posted by deangonzales on February 22, 2010
6 Comments

Reformed Baptist Seminary will host a summer theological module on Christology or the Doctrine of Christ from Saturday through Friday, August 21-27 at its new facilities at Grace Baptist Church in Taylors, South Carolina. The module will serve to fulfill the lecture requirements for the seminary’s three-credit course ST 701 Christ. The course instructor, Pastor Greg Nichols, is a graduate and former professor of Trinity Ministerial Academy, Montville, New Jersey. He’s the author of What Does the Bible Say about God? The Biblical Doctrine of God (Truth For Eternity) and “The Emotivity of God,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 1:2 (July 2004): 95-143. He is currently a pastor of Grace Immanuel Reformed Baptist Church, Grand Rapids, Michigan, where he and his wife, Ginger, reside. The course covers much more than the person and work of Christ. First, it reaches back into eternity and considers God’s predestined plan for a Redeemer and a people. Second, traces the development of the God’s redemptive promise through the historical covenants of Scripture–covenant theology from a Reformed and Baptist perspective! Third, the course systematically explores the revelation of the Person and Work of Jesus the Messiah. Professor Nichols has provide the following abstract, which summarizes the three major segments of the course material:

Part 1: The Eternal Plan of Salvation: Predestination

Before the creation of the world God resolved how he would embark on the greatest rescue mission conceivable. This plan includes his predestination of the redeemed, “he chose us in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4), and of the Redeemer, “Christ foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world” (1 Pet. 1:19). Thus we begin with eternal election and reprobation and the eternal counsel of redemption.

Part 2: The Solemn Promise of Salvation: God’s Covenants

Immediately after the fall God solemnly declared war on Satan. He pledged to send a Redeemer to rescue sinners and crush the devil thoroughly (Gen. 3:15).  This pledge to apply and accomplish salvation is his covenant of grace. He fulfills his pledge to apply salvation through his gospel; to accomplish salvation through his covenants. Over some four thousand years of redemptive history he sets up a tapestry of pledges that frame the Person and work of the Redeemer. These are: the two Noahic covenants, the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants, and the Messianic and New covenants. Thus, we study the covenant of grace and God’s covenants.

Part 3: The Accomplishment of Salvation: Christ’s Person and Work

In the fullness of time God sent his Son into the world to accomplish salvation from sin. God the Son became flesh and entered the world as Jesus of Nazareth: “you shall call his name Jesus, for he it is that shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). Thus, we first study his Person, his deity and humanity. In his work Christ fulfills God’s solemn promises. As the promised Redeemer, Christ crushes Satan by his perfect life and atoning death. As Abraham’s heir, Christ blesses believers from every nation with every spiritual blessing through the gospel. As David’s heir, the theocratic king, Christ rules God’s people, builds his temple, and subdues his enemies. As high priest, in keeping with the Messianic covenant, Christ makes atonement for his people, intercedes for them, and eradicates their sin. As prophet and mediator of the new covenant, Christ reforms God’s people and reveals his Word. This course concludes with the profound impact of Christ’s Person and work: “neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Don’t miss out on this important module! Auditors are also welcome. The module fee is $70 for students and $100 for auditors. The members of Grace Baptist Church will provide lodging for those who register early and meals will be provided. The deadline for registration is August 6. To download the PDF module flier, registration form, or lecture schedule, click on the links below:

2010 Summer Module-Christ Flier 1.1

2010 Summer Module Registration Form

2010 Summer Module Schedule

ST 701 Doctrine of Christ Syllabus (2010)

If you tentatively plan to attend, please send an email letting us know so that we can begin to formulate a headcount. You can also contact us if you have more specific questions about the module (email: info@rbseminary.org/phone: 864-322-4633).

Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary