Melchizedek is Shem, the son of Noah...
... well, it's not explicit in Scripture but it is very plausible, Scripturally. (Also, the Talmud, a central text of Rabbinic Judaism, holds this view, and some Church Fathers have promoted the idea.) Genesis 14 describes the meeting of Abram & Melchizedek. Looking at the ages of Abraham & Shem, we find that Shem was still alive at the time, even outliving Abraham.
According to Genesis 11 Shem lived 600 years and the Flood happened when he was 98 so he died 502 years after the Flood. Abram was born about 292 years after the Flood. Abram-Abraham lived to be 175 (Genesis 25), dying in 467. So, Shem lived 35 years after Abraham died.
One thing supporting the idea that Melchizedek is Shem is because of the way in which God's blessing would be handed down to subsequent generations. The normal custom was for the first-born son to grow up and lead the family when the patriarch died. The patriarch would give the blessing to that son at some point. (Although, in the OT, most of the first-born sons forfeited their right and a younger son would get the blessing (ie Cain, Esau)). Noah gave the blessing to Shem. The scene with Melchizedek & Abraham is seen as continuing the line of Godly men, bridging the Old World (Shem who was born pre-flood) to the New World (Abram post-flood).
more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek
http://www.bibletruthonline.com/melchizedek.htm
http://www.thesacredpage.com/2007/10/who-was-melchizedek.html
Sunday, May 19, 2013
"Sons of God" = Angels? or Aliens?...
"Sons of God" = Angels? or Aliens?...
Genesis 6 informs us the "sons of God" bred with the "daughters of men" and produced "mighty men...men of renown". Some folks see in this pericope evidence that angels copulated with humans and their kids were bigger and stronger than humans because of that. Some others see this as supporting their notion that aliens bred with humans resulting in superhuman beings. (Gigantic skeletal remains purportedly support one of these theories.) Both of these interpretations fail when scrutinized in the light of the rest of Scripture.
Angels are non-material beings and so have no physical sexual components with which to inseminate a material creature. Neither do they have the creative power to generate human equipment and God would not give them that power because He said to Adam and Eve, not an angel, "be fruitful and multiply". Humans and animals reproduced only "after their own kind" and so angels would not be allowed to attempt it.
Aliens? Not likely. They'd be genetically incompatible. People and animals only breed "after their own kind". But if they were human it might work. Perhaps God whisked away some of Adam's kids to another planet... whatever...
The likely-true interpretation is less dramatic than either of those probably-misinterpretations. In context, "sons of God" refers to the Godly line of descendants from Seth and "daughters of men" refers to the unGodly line of people descended from Cain. Look at Genesis 4, through Genesis 5, into Genesis 6. (Some disputer might refer you to Job where "sons of God" does refer to angels, but that's just there, the context everywhere else is pointing to humans.) Chapter 5 describes the Godly line. The Godly line was that which began to "call on the name of the Lord." (4:26). Then in Chapter 6 the narrative goes on to say how "the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."(6:2). Verse 4 says the children were "mighty men...men of renown." Now, they could easily have been large powerful men, but this doesn't primarily mean they were famous, though they could certainly have been the stuff of folk legends in the centuries after them. The phrase "men of renown", in Hebrew, more literally says "men of the name". That implies they tried to make a name for themselves, instead of glorifying God's name, as the Godly line of Seth did.
The sons of God did a bad thing by marrying into the unGodly line. God was not happy with that nor with their polygamy. The Flood was the result, eliminating those who would never accept Him and were doing bad things, the remnant of Godly folk being preserved.
In conclusion: Genesis 4-6 does not describe generation of other-worldy hybrid creatures (whether angels or aliens). It describes the two sides of the battle between Good & Evil. The "sons of God" refers to the good side, those who "called on the name of the Lord", which means they worshiped God and gave Him glory (even though the ended up sinning grievously). The "daughters [& sons] of men" refers to the evil side, those who were, effectively, sons of Satan, who preferred to glorify themselves and not God. (That same sin was the sin of the builders of the Tower of Babel. They wanted to "make us a name" (Gen11:4)).
Here's an article touching on both sides of this issue... "Nephilim, Incubi, and Succubi"...
http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2014/04/14/nephilim-incubi-and-succubi/
Genesis 6 informs us the "sons of God" bred with the "daughters of men" and produced "mighty men...men of renown". Some folks see in this pericope evidence that angels copulated with humans and their kids were bigger and stronger than humans because of that. Some others see this as supporting their notion that aliens bred with humans resulting in superhuman beings. (Gigantic skeletal remains purportedly support one of these theories.) Both of these interpretations fail when scrutinized in the light of the rest of Scripture.
Angels are non-material beings and so have no physical sexual components with which to inseminate a material creature. Neither do they have the creative power to generate human equipment and God would not give them that power because He said to Adam and Eve, not an angel, "be fruitful and multiply". Humans and animals reproduced only "after their own kind" and so angels would not be allowed to attempt it.
Aliens? Not likely. They'd be genetically incompatible. People and animals only breed "after their own kind". But if they were human it might work. Perhaps God whisked away some of Adam's kids to another planet... whatever...
The likely-true interpretation is less dramatic than either of those probably-misinterpretations. In context, "sons of God" refers to the Godly line of descendants from Seth and "daughters of men" refers to the unGodly line of people descended from Cain. Look at Genesis 4, through Genesis 5, into Genesis 6. (Some disputer might refer you to Job where "sons of God" does refer to angels, but that's just there, the context everywhere else is pointing to humans.) Chapter 5 describes the Godly line. The Godly line was that which began to "call on the name of the Lord." (4:26). Then in Chapter 6 the narrative goes on to say how "the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."(6:2). Verse 4 says the children were "mighty men...men of renown." Now, they could easily have been large powerful men, but this doesn't primarily mean they were famous, though they could certainly have been the stuff of folk legends in the centuries after them. The phrase "men of renown", in Hebrew, more literally says "men of the name". That implies they tried to make a name for themselves, instead of glorifying God's name, as the Godly line of Seth did.
The sons of God did a bad thing by marrying into the unGodly line. God was not happy with that nor with their polygamy. The Flood was the result, eliminating those who would never accept Him and were doing bad things, the remnant of Godly folk being preserved.
In conclusion: Genesis 4-6 does not describe generation of other-worldy hybrid creatures (whether angels or aliens). It describes the two sides of the battle between Good & Evil. The "sons of God" refers to the good side, those who "called on the name of the Lord", which means they worshiped God and gave Him glory (even though the ended up sinning grievously). The "daughters [& sons] of men" refers to the evil side, those who were, effectively, sons of Satan, who preferred to glorify themselves and not God. (That same sin was the sin of the builders of the Tower of Babel. They wanted to "make us a name" (Gen11:4)).
Here's an article touching on both sides of this issue... "Nephilim, Incubi, and Succubi"...
http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2014/04/14/nephilim-incubi-and-succubi/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)