After the Flood: Globalism and World Conflict

Posted on:

Modified on:

  1. The Flood
  2. After the Flood
    1. Noah’s offerings
      1. How did they know that?
      2. The altar
      3. The sacrificial animals
      4. The offerings
      5. God’s response
      6. The promise
      7. How long will earth exist?
    2. Man’s commission
      1. Version 1.0 (looking back)
      2. Version 2.0 (looking ahead)
      3. Estrangement
      4. “All About that Blood”
    3. The Noahic Covenant
      1. Rainbows
      2. The intoxication of Noah
      3. The curse of Canaan
  3. Return to Shinar
    1. The Toledah
    2. Babel
      1. Migratory beginnings
      2. Babel colonized
      3. The Tower
      4. The scattering
  4. “Prehistoric Genesis” conclusion
    1. Nimrod
      1. The language of sonship
      2. Why ancient Biblical dates are unreliable
      3. Sargon of Akkad
      4. The characters of Nimrod and Sargon
      5. The conquests of Nimrod and Sargon
    2. A final toledah
    3. Abram’s calling
  5. Genesis prehistory and the End Times

Technically, this is the last installment of my “After the Dreams” series.

Mostly, I’m skipping over the Flood, because I’ve already written quite a lot about that. I will spend a bit of time on the aftermath of the Flood, but the main focus of this post is on the first half of Genesis 11, concentrating on the Tower of Babel and Nimrod. Those are two separate stories, but together I believe they present a good picture of the “last days”—globalism and world conflict!

The Flood

Genesis 6:9–8:19

This section of Moses’ narrative is separated from the previous by a very brief toledah.

Reminder–a toledah (pl. toledoth) in Moses’ writings is a short genealogy, introduced by “these are the generations of” and designed to separate two unrelated or loosely related topics.

10 And these are the generations of Noe [Noah]. Noe was a just man; being perfect in his generation, Noe was well-pleasing to God. 11 And Noe begot three sons, Sem, Cham, Japheth.
Genesis 6:10-11 (LXX-B)


I will not cover the flood in much detail here, because I have already written several articles on the subject. Click on the arrows to expand the embedded content:

Young Earth Creationism is currently dominated by followers of the late Henry M. Morris, who visualized the Great Flood as a cataclysmic worldwide flash flood with a supernatural volume of water falling mostly from heaven, and dried up by destructive high winds. This post presents a far more likely scenario for a global flood.
As much as I respect the folks who operate the Ark Encounter site in Kentucky, I disagree with almost every element of their depiction. Beginning with the giant ship model itself, which has anachronistic features; has features that wouldn’t work on a real ship; and by the way is by definition not by any stretch an ark!
From my own professional background, I know that there are a large number of geological features on earth that simply cannot be explained by a flood, whether regional or global in scope. Here I present a short list of examples.
In this post I examine Henry Morris’ lack of credentials for his claims about geology and the flood. I also explain my own background and how it bears on the subject.

We all know that the flood was God’s response to increasing corruption on the earth.

[11] Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. [12] And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. [13] And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
—Genesis 6:11–13 (ESV) emphasis mine

That humans are capable of deliberate, rebellious sin is a result of Adam’s sin in the Garden. But the presence of major, outlandish, organized sin around the globe got its start from the example set by the rebellious angels and their offspring, the Nephilim, after which it was promulgated for millennia by the demon spirits of those same Nephilim.

If you think things are bad now, it was much worse in those days! But hang on, it is presently getting worse, not better. History is repeating itself.

This time, God will spare us another flood, just as He promised Noah. Instead, we will go straight to a modern Babel situation, which He will not stop this time. I believe that the new Nimrod, like Satan, is even now alive and well on Planet Earth…

After the Flood

Genesis 8:20–9:29

Noah’s offerings

20 Noach built an altar to ADONAI. Then he took from every clean animal and every clean bird, and he offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 ADONAI smelled the sweet aroma, and ADONAI said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, since the imaginings of a person’s heart are evil from his youth; nor will I ever again destroy all living things, as I have done. 22 So long as the earth exists, sowing time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night will not cease.”
— Genesis 8:20-22 (CJB)

How did they know that?

Immediately after leaving the Ark, Noah and his family gave thanks to God by staging a massive burnt offering. The passage describing it, quoted above, seems entirely anachronistic in that it accords well with parts of the Torah sacrificial system, which was not announced until centuries in the future.

The Bible gives us absolutely no information on how the relevant instructions were delivered to pre-Sinai humanity. We know that God spoke directly to the Patriarchs. We also know that “angels” routinely spoke to humans—the Serpent, a cherub, spoke to Adam and Eve, and these two humans weren’t at all surprised. Evidently, they knew, or as it developed, thought that he was on God’s team.

The Ancient Near East produced a huge amount of lore regarding gods and demigods that frequently communicated with early humanity. In particular, Babylonian legends of the Apkallu imply to scholars like Michael Heiser that one of the pre-Flood sins of the Watchers was that they talked too much! By imparting arcane knowledge that caused civilization to advance at too rapid a pace, human pride became bloated and consciences seared.

Rather than speculate endlessly on how and why, let’s just examine this sacrifice…

The altar

Noah built an altar. (מִזְבֵּחַ mizbēaḥ, pronounced miz-BAY-akh), meaning a “place of sacrifice.” This is the first mention of a sacrificial altar in the Bible, though Abel may have prepared something equivalent for his offering.

The sacrificial animals

He offered every kind of clean land animal and clean bird. Noah had been told before the Flood to take with him seven pairs of each of the clean animals and one pair of each of the unclean. It is assumed, probably correctly, that the six extra pairs of clean beasts were for sacrificial purposes. God most likely did the collecting and herded the animals to the Ark, so how Noah knew which were clean and which were not is immaterial to what was actually done.

The offerings

Moses called them “burnt offerings.” Some scholars argue whether the burnt offering, here and later, was for reconciliation (forgiveness), atonement (temporary pardon) or thanksgiving, but they all miss the point.

In reality, it is none of the above. It was a promise of complete surrender and devotion to God, symbolized by completely burning up the animal sacrificed, except for the hide, which under Torah is donated to the priests.

Under Torah, a number of burnt offerings were offered up by priests for all the people or groups of the people, but individuals or families could provide their own animals and conduct their own sacrifices. Although other symbolism has been rightfully added to Christian baptism (particularly by Paul), I view baptism as preeminently identical in meaning to the individual burnt offerings.

Reformed churches, probably the majority of Protestants, equate baptism with circumcision, which is the reason they practice infant baptism. My soteriology is basically Reformed, but I reject pretty much all other distinctives of their theology, including their baptism.

God’s response

God smelled the “sweet (or pleasing) aroma.” Everyone who, like, me, enjoys a good steak, will agree that nothing smells better than freshly barbecued meat. To say that God “smells the sweet aroma“, or, in KJV, “the sweet savor”, is anthropomorphic. Biblically, it means that He is pleased with the offering and with the offeror.

God rewarded the offeror. Because He smelled the sweet aroma of Noah’s offering, God promised to “never again curse the ground…[or]…destroy all living things” because of the sins of mankind—Noah’s descendants.

Verse 22, in essence, promises that, as long as the earth remains, God will neither repeat nor add to the curse pronounced on the ground in Genesis 3. Specifically, He will not destroy the productivity of the ground.

Does the wording, “since the imaginings of a person’s heart are evil from his youth”, mean that God is excusing our sin? No, never, but it means that He understands that not all sin is committed with “malice aforethought.”

I think He cursed the ground in Genesis 3 because Adam’s sin brought to an end the prospect of spreading the idyllic conditions of the Garden to the outside world, and only a harsh environment would teach mankind skills needed to survive in a sin-cursed environment.

I also think that the rebellion of the Watchers and the spread of the Nephilim in Genesis 6 made a completely fresh start via the Flood unavoidable.

But now God makes allowance for hormones!

Do not confuse this promise with God’s covenant to not repeat the Flood.

The promise

“So long as the earth exists” in this verse implies that it will not always exist. While it does, we are promised that God will maintain for us the basic necessities for life on the planet. Pay attention, Gretta, there will be no more extinction events on earth!

How long will earth exist?

God and His celestial Host have no need of “homes.” In that sense, I don’t believe that “heaven” is a specific place. In 2 Corinthians 5:8, Paul suggest that when we as believers die, we will “be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” So, at that time, we too will be spirits, with no need of a “mansion over the hilltop.”

At the resurrection, though, we will acquire version 2.0 of our corporeal body, which will have physical needs. From that time, I believe that “heaven” for us will be a fully renovated earth with New Jerusalem hovering over it. As described in Revelation.

This will probably not last forever.

At about 4.6 billion years old, the sun is currently, but very slowly, expanding and getting hotter as it burns up the hydrogen fuel in its core, forming helium as a byproduct. Helium, being a heavier ion, migrates toward the center of the sun, gradually quenching the hydrogen reactions there. Through a complicated, but fairly well understood sequence, the helium, too, begins to burn and form still heavier ions. These heavier elements eventually begin burning as well.

About 5 billion years from now, the sun’s core will suddenly collapse, and its outer shells will simultaneously expand. It will become a huge “red giant” star, with Mercury, Venus, and possibly earth all swallowed up inside its volume. In yet another 10 billion years, another collapse will result in the sun becoming a very hot, but gradually dimming, “white dwarf” surrounded by a so-called “planetary nebula.”

Astrophysical diagram of the life of a “Main Sequence” yellow star like the Sun.

About a billion years from now, long before the red giant phase, earth will become uninhabitable. Never fear, though. God knows all this and has a plan. By that time, I’m sure we’ll all be ready to move to different quarters.

Hubble image of a planetary nebula surrounding a bright central star. ibtimes.co.uk.

Man’s commission

Version 1.0 (looking back)

My readers know that I am an Old Earth Creationist, that I believe Day 6 in Genesis 1 was a prophetic view backwards at ancient animals and hominids that preceded the unique formation “from dust” of Adam in Genesis 2.

In the relevant Genesis 1 passage, God delivered a commission to pre-Adamic mankind:

28 God blessed them: God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air and every living creature that crawls on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Here! Throughout the whole earth I am giving you as food every seed-bearing plant and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. 30 And to every wild animal, bird in the air and creature crawling on the earth, in which there is a living soul, I am giving as food every kind of green plant.” And that is how it was. 31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed it was very good.
— Genesis 1:28-31a (CJB)

Who precisely this commission was delivered to is unstated and irrelevant. It simply tells us the expectations that God had for the ancient peoples. He wanted them to rule and administer the earth, in much the same way that the angelic host rules and administers the rest of the universe.

It is obvious that God’s preference was that neither man nor beast should feast on flesh. But…

Did that have the force of command?

Probably not. God explicitly granted permission for man and beast to eat flora, but I see no actual prohibition against eating flesh. God sometimes allows things that He doesn’t prefer. You might say He’s a realist. Just the fact that He gave angels, men and animals “free will” guarantees the existence of sin. Even the inanimate universe has free will of a sort, in the face of quantum uncertainty.

Did God design animals and hominids as herbivores?

Perhaps He initially designed them to be herbivores, but the fossil record unambiguously shows that adaptation eventually produced meat eaters, and He let it happen. In fact, I believe that there are limits to what adaptation can achieve. Beyond those limits, surely God has to intervene, yet still we see species that can’t survive long on leaves alone.

One more objection has to be addressed:

The final phrase in verse 30 is “And that is how it was”, or “And it was so.” I confess that this reaches the absolute tip of my ability to translate Hebrew, but through research and digging at it, I have come to the conclusion that “and it was” is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew וַֽיְהִי, which better translators than I call a “Conjunctive waw verb of type Qal Consecutive Imperfect, 3rd person masculine singular.”

Very roughly, that means, “Given that A is true, then at some time in the future, B shall also be true.” If I am not precisely correct in phrasing it that way, then at least what I’m saying is that “and it was so” was not intended to present it as a done deal.

Finally,

“It was very good” means that God was happy with the results. Those who insist that “good” precludes death and mortality are engaging in specious arguments that second-guess the Creator!

Version 2.0 (looking ahead)

1 God blessed Noach and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will be upon every wild animal, every bird in the air, every creature populating the ground, and all the fish in the sea; they have been handed over to you. 3 Every moving thing that lives will be food for you; just as I gave you green plants before, so now I give you everything — 4 only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you are not to eat. 5 I will certainly demand an accounting for the blood of your lives: I will demand it from every animal and from every human being. I will demand from every human being an accounting for the life of his fellow human being. 6 Whoever sheds human blood, by a human being will his own blood be shed; for God made human beings in his image. 7 And you people, be fruitful, multiply, swarm on the earth and multiply on it.”
— Genesis 9:1-7 (CJB)

This version of the commission, given specifically through Noah, is a similar commission to “be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth”, but if differs in important respects:

Estrangement

While “subdue and rule” are implicit, this statement introduces an unpleasant, adversarial element that was totally absent before. There is animosity here that didn’t show through in Genesis 1. Instead of a peaceful co-residence on earth (and in Eden), we are now the enemy and enslaver of the animals.

Note that while granting explicit rights to exploit the animals, there is nothing here about “clean” vs. “unclean.” This suggests to me, once again, that God is drawing away from close fellowship with mankind in general. This will come to a head at Babel, where God separates mankind, while making provision for a People of His Own (see below).

The humans who I believe existed before the Garden were omnivorous, as are we, and so consumed meat, but wanton slaughter was probably rare or nonexistent. They were just another set of predatory species, among many.

What God intended for His Adamic line was fellowship between them and at least the animals formed after Adam in the Garden. Those animals were not made to be eaten or exploited!

Life outside the Garden was tough, by design, and I can’t imagine that Adam’s kin were vegetarian for very long. I am pretty sure that the corruption that developed later extended to all sorts of abuse of animals. The animals released from the Ark scattered with a dread of humans that never disappeared.

With the help of the rebellious Watchers and instigation by their demonic offspring, the Nephilim, the world from Jered to the Flood must have been totally dystopian and utterly barbaric.

What I think that God was communicating with Noah and his family here was, “I know that my flood was not the final word. I’ve given you an opportunity to regroup and establish some order, but humanity will always be corruptible. I know that you will continue to eat flesh, and I know I can’t stop that without destroying you, but I’m going to set a limit...

“All About that Blood”

Apologies to Meghan Trainor…

God stated emphatically, “You will not be allowed to consume the blood of animals, and you won’t be allowed to kill other humans at all. This is a symbolic prohibition to emphasize that critters aren’t veggies, and all life including animals, is sacred.

I do not at all agree with the common Dispensational claim that verse 6 is a charter for human government!

Together with verse 5, God is simply pronouncing a curse on any creature, man or beast, that sheds human life. There would be no more “mark of Cain” to protects killers from just vengeance.

God does not like human government! He permits it! Ideally, vengeance belongs to Him. We were created to recognize Him and Him alone as king. When the Israelite inhabitants of Canaan demanded a human king, God warned them that they would regret it.

The Noahic Covenant

8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, 9 “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” 12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: 13 I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”
— Genesis 9:8-17 (ESV)

God now established an important covenant, not with Israel, which didn’t yet exist, but with mankind as a whole (represented by Noah and his sons) and with animal life. No more global flooding.

Rainbows

In verses 9:12ff, God appointed the rainbow as a sign of His promise.

“Rainbow flags” don’t represent me or my views, but they also don’t profane God’s covenant with Noah, his family, and “every animal on earth.”

A sequence of colors on cloth is not “the sign of the covenant I am making between myself and you and every living creature with you, for all generations to come.”

Neither is a spectrum refracted from a prism. In fact, we may choose to call that spectrum a “rainbow”, but that isn’t the Biblical definition. Read God’s definition here, and don’t get so bent out of shape over some supposed misappropriation of a physical phenomenon:

13 I am putting my rainbow in the cloud — it will be there as a sign of the covenant between myself and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth, and the rainbow is seen in the cloud; 15 I will remember my covenant which is between myself and you and every living creature of any kind; and the water will never again become a flood to destroy all living beings. 16 The rainbow will be in the cloud; so that when I look at it, I will remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of any kind on the earth.”
— Genesis 9:13-16 (CJB) emphasis mine

I’ll point out also that God did not create rainbows at this time. He created them at the time He imbedded the laws of physics into the young universe. When a stream of photons is diffracted through a mist, a spectrum is cast. God told Noah, “When you or I see such a spectrum in the clouds under these conditions, from now on it will remind us both of my promise.”

The intoxication of Noah

18 The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the people of the whole earth were dispersed.

20 Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. 21 He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent.
— Genesis 9:18-21 (ESV)

In view of what follows, we have to ask if there was a sin here? Wine consumption? Drunkenness? Nakedness in his tent?

I’ve written about alcohol before but not reached a firm conclusion. I’ve never been drunk, but almost everyone has, and I’m not willing to draw a firm conclusion here, either. Drunkenness obviously contributed to his nakedness, but not knowing what he was thinking of, by himself in his private quarters, I can’t judge that either.

The curse of Canaan

Perhaps the only sin here was in Hamm’s reaction. One has to think he was disrespectful to Noah.

Roughly speaking, after Babel Shem’s descendants spread throughout Mesopotamia, south into Arabia, and southeast into India. Ham’s descendants mostly ended up in northern and eastern Africa, as well as western Arabia and the southern Lavant. Japeth’s descendants tended to migrate westward into modern Europe, and north and northeast into Asia Minor and the Steppes.

Given those movements, how do we interpret the following?

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,
“Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem;
and let Canaan be his servant.
27 May God enlarge Japheth,
and let him dwell in the tents of Shem,
and let Canaan be his servant.”
— Genesis 9:22-27 (ESV)

We have all heard of “the curse of Ham”, but it was not Ham who was cursed; it was very plainly Ham’s son, Canaan. Why Canaan and not Ham? It wasn’t God’s curse, it was Noah’s, and I suggest that Noah was thinking, “You disgraced your father, now your son will disgrace his father!”

Protestants in America and elsewhere, early colonial through Civil War, in an effort to make this passage “relevant” to the slavery debate then raging, read all kinds of self-serving nonsense into this passage. Though the racist element is largely gone from most of these churches, shabby theological processing has largely prevented reevaluation of the interpretations.

The three names mentioned in the passage, Canaan, Shem and Japheth, could be a reference to the actual three persons, or to their descendants. The latter is almost universally assumed, and that would probably be my assumption, too, except that I am viscerally opposed to basing doctrine on unproven assumptions. Either way, perhaps at some point Canaan did serve Shem and Japheth. It isn’t clear from history.

Given the preponderance of Hamite tribes in Africa, the temptation for pro-slavery Christians was to ignore the fact that Ham was not the cursed party and to posit that, by golly, Ham is the father of the black Africans, so God destined them to be slaves!

Clearly there is nothing to that interpretation, but honestly, it’s difficult to detect the curse in anything we know from Biblical or secular history. One thing we do know that might be relevant in some way is that God eventually took the land of the Canaanites and gave it to the Hebrews, a Semite tribe.

I’m not sure that it’s important that we even attempt to understand the content of the curse, in any case. It apparently wasn’t God’s curse. It was Noah’s, and I don’t think a curse uttered by a drunk or hungover Noah had any teeth.

Return to Shinar

Genesis 10:1–11:9

This is another section of Scripture that is little understood by Christianity at large but yet is vitally important in world history. It is a picture of human pride and globalist ambition.

The Toledah

Like all of the toledoth in Genesis, the one written in Genesis 10:1–39 is extremely informative and helpful to the Biblical historian. In my opinion, there is none more important for showing the pivotal role that the people listed played in early civilization and the development of all civilization to the present day.

The chart shown below is one of a large number showing graphically the data of the toledah. I elected to use this one because its columnar format emphasizes the generational development of ancient society. The date ranges at the top put it into a useful perspective, but I’m not at all convinced of their accuracy, as I will discuss below.

Lineage of the Patriarchs, descendants of Noah, and Table of Nations. Per Genesis 10. http://www.cookancestry.com/Biblical%20Genealogy/02.

I’ll make just a few comments on the data as introduction for the final two sections of this post:

  • Note that the first name entry at the top of each column is the direct patriarchal lineage from Noah to Jacob.
  • Verses 4 and 5, concern Japeth’s grandsons via Gomer. The language in verse 5 refers to the dispersion at Babel, which I’ll discuss in some detail below.

From these were the islands of the Gentiles divided in their land, each according to his tongue, in their tribes and in their nations.
— Genesis 10:5 (LXX-B)

  • Verse 6 lists the sons of Ham, “Kush, Mitzrayim, Put and Kena‘an.” Anglicized, those are Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan. Those names are easily associated with the Nile Valley, the Eastern Sahara, and north into the Lavant.

    Cush, though, is a bit more complicated. Most scholars recognize that name as applying to the region of Somalia, Eretria, and Ethiopia, but I believe that Cush and his offspring also settled a large area of central Mesopotamia and eastward, well into India.
  • According to verse 8, “Kush fathered Nimrod”, the subject of the last major section of this post. Christian tradition credits Nimrod with founding Babel and building the Tower. Verse 10, however, only credits him with being king of Babel early in his life. I think that Nimrod most likely had nothing to do with building the tower. See below.
  • Some translations render verse 11 as, “Ashur went out from that land and built [Nineveh], [et al]”, but in context, a better translation would probably be, “From [Babel] he [Nimrod] went into Assyria and built Nineveh, [et al].”
  • Verses 15–20 list a number Canaan’s sons, some of whom you will recognize as the names of tribes that Joshua fought during the Conquest years.
  • Verses 21ff mention a 3rd-great-grandson of Shem, Peleg, a name that means “to split or divide.” He got that name because, “in his days the earth was divided…”. Again, see below.

    I’ve seen the silly suggestion by a Young Earth Creationist that verse 25 refers to a time after the Flood when God broke up the primordial supercontinent, Pangea, into the present scattered continents. Sorry, no! That statement can only refer to the dividing of the nations’ inheritance at Babel, Moses’ very next topic.
  • Peleg’s father, Eber, is the man from whom the clan-name “Hebrew” is derived.

Babel

Migratory beginnings

I imagine that it probably took many years for the sea level to return to its pre-Flood normal. In that regard, we were told in the Flood story itself:

1 But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided (שְׁכַךְ, shakak, “were caused to abate”). 2 The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, 3 and the waters receded (שׁוּב, shub, “to turn back or retreat”) from the earth continually. At the end of 150 days the waters had abated (חָסֵר, chaser, “to decrease or make lower”), 4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters continued to abate (chaser again) until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.

6   At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made 7 and sent forth a raven. It went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided ( קָלַל, qalal, a very linguistically fluid term that here seems to imply that the flooding was a relative trifle compared to what it had been) from the face of the ground. 9 But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him. 10 He waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark. 11 And the dove came back to him in the evening, and behold, in her mouth was a freshly plucked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth. 12 Then he waited another seven days and sent forth the dove, and she did not return to him anymore.

13 In the six hundred and first year [of Noah’s life], in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried (חָרַב, charab, “To be dry, to be desolate, to lay waste, to destroy”) from off the earth (הָאָ֑רֶץ, ha-aretz, usually means a portion of the earth or land mass, not the whole). And Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry (charab again). 14 In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth had dried out (יָבֵשׁ, yabesh, “dried up, seared, withered”).

— Genesis 8:1-14 (ESV) emphasis and explanation mine

In that passage, none of the underlined terms for the receding flood imply a completed process.

Because Moses wrote the Flood story in the form of a highly structured symmetrical poem, interpreting the sequence of its phases as described in Genesis 7 and 8 is extremely difficult. The following table from World Bible Commentary does it as well as I think it can be done.

Interpretation of the Chronology of the Flood, per World Bible Commentary.
The column on the right is an attempt at dating the events—format: day.month.ageNoah
Dates in italics are from the text; other dates are interpreted.

From the start of the deluge until Noah left the Ark was a year and 10 days. Apparently, it took only 40 days for the water to rise to its peak, 45 feet above the highest mountain. It then took about 6½ months to drop the flood level by those 45 feet, and nearly 5 more months before they could safely leave the Ark.

What I envision is that at the close of this period, the ground in the highlands of Armenia around the Ark’s resting place had dried out, but the lowland plains and the lower reaches of the mountains were most likely still submerged. Surely God could have removed the excess water instantaneously, but I don’t think it is ever good exegesis to assume more than is stated. See God with the Wind for the significance of God’s wind in Scripture.

I think it likely that Noah’s family hung around the Ark while long distance travel was greatly impeded. Then perhaps years later, as plant life reemerged in the wake of the falling water, it became easier to move, and they began scattering along the highlands and living as nomads over a larger and larger range.

Babel colonized

1 Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. 2 And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3 And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.”
— Genesis 11:1-4 (ESV)

Note that “everybody speaking the same language” doesn’t necessarily mean that “all the earth (or land)” lived in the same place. That is an assumption from verse 1, but the Hebrew בְּנָסְעָ֣ם in verse 2 translates to “as they (3rd person masculine plural) journeyed, traveled, or moved.” The ESV translators chose not to assume that “everyone” in verse 1 traveled together in verse 2, saying merely that “people migrated.”

Nor does “speaking the same language” imply that dialectical differences had not developed. Only that they could still understand each other. Language drift is normal over long periods of time.

Eventually, at least one group of them made its way down the Zagros Mountains in today’s western Iran and noticed the lush plain below. They had rediscovered Shinar, the ancient region of the Garden. This area is probably the area known to secular history as Sumer, in southern Mesopotamia near the Persian Gulf. The Gulf probably extended farther north then, as shown in gray on the following map.

How you go from Armenia in the far north and enter Shinar “from the east.” You traverse southeastward down the Zagros Mountains, then turn west. Image from Google Earth™, annotated by Ron Thompson.

Sooner or later, some of these hunter-gatherers and nomadic farmers and herdsmen decided to settle down. Settling down involves permanent structures, commerce, and usually religion. Babel was the city they founded. I now think that Babel was the ancient city of Eridu (see below), which is much farther south than I showed it on the migration map.

The Tower

When the Flood survivors left the region of Ararat, they probably did not all travel together. They fanned out. By the time of Peleg, humanity has been “fruitful” for generations. They have become tribal and competitive. When tribes meet, they probably fight. Babel may or may not have been the first city built after the Flood, but by then, mud bricks had clearly been invented and brick structures erected.

By that time Yahweh was once again mostly forgotten. The settlers in Shinar recalled distorted stories of the ancient “gods” who created the world and later destroyed it again in a flood.

Drawing of the Etemenanki Ziggurat, based on ancient sources.

Many Christian archaeologists believe that the Tower of Babel was the ancient Babylonian Ziggurat of Etemenanki. Babylon is probably way too far north to be ancient Babel, though. According to Dr. Petrovich (see below), Babel was probably the ancient Eridu. However, there were eventually many ziggurats, and each had similar design.

Those who scoff at the “ancient fools who thought they could build a tower all the way to heaven” are overthinking the story. The goal, as stated, was to build, “a city and a tower with its top in the heavens.” To the ancient people, that just means tall! The tower was to be as tall as they could build it, not to leave the planet and reach the god in heaven, but to attract him to a nice penthouse in the city. The top tier of a ziggurat was a small chapel with a bed and other accouterments suitable for a god and his consort to hang out in.

The ultimate goal at Babel was that the city and tower together would be so impressive that they, and the threat of a resident protector god, would discourage marauders (their kin who left Ararat in different directions) from attacking them and driving them out.

Wikipedia, of course, calls the Tower of Babel a myth, but without the mile-high space needle that most people envision, this is just a normal piece of history. The concept of building a tall tower to attract the god and impress enemies made perfect sense. By their perspective, the tower did indeed reach into the heavens.

But what Yahweh saw was arrogance and more rebellion!

In support of Eridu as the city of Babel, a Sumerian myth called Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta presents a parallel account of Babel. It states that, “Enki … Lord of Eridu, changed the languages in their mouths, as many as he had put there, the languages of mankind, which were one.”

The scattering

Following is an English translation from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament that 1st century Jews in Judea used:

6 And the Lord said, Behold, there is one race, and one lip of all, and they have begun to do this, and now nothing shall fail from them of all that they may have undertaken to do. 7 Come, and having gone down let us there confound their tongue, that they may not understand each the voice of his neighbor. 8 And the Lord scattered them thence over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city and the tower. 9 On this account its name was called Confusion, because there the Lord confounded the languages of all the earth, and thence the Lord scattered them upon the face of all the earth.
— Genesis 11:6-9 (LXX-B)

For the third time in Genesis, we see Yahweh speaking to His angelic Divine Council: “Let us…” This is certainly not the Trinity conferring together. What one thinks, they all know. It is the triune God speaking to His Divine Council.


To review:

The Divine Council is a panel of probably 24 high-ranking angelic spirits, seen in several Biblical prophetic visions on secondary thrones around Yahweh’s throne. As explained in Gods and Demons, the function of this council was to assist Yahweh in administration of the created universe. Not because He needs help, but because He values their fellowship.


As stated above, language drift is ongoing over time, so there were probably dialect differences from place to place, but everyone could understand each other. After God’s action, different peoples in different areas ended up with incompatible languages. Presumably this division was along clan lines.

One takeaway from this story is that God does not value human globalism or multi-culturalism. In a reverse of wedding ritual, one might say, “what God has ripped asunder, let no man join together.”

Another consequence

Aside from confusion of tongues, something else of huge importance happened at the Babel scattering. There are hints throughout Scripture, particularly in Daniel and the writings of Paul, that the nations of the world are supervised in some way by angelic “princes.”

Moses doesn’t mention it here in Genesis, but he does in his final statement, delivered at the foot of Mt. Nebo and known as “The Song of Moses.”

8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.
9 But the LORD’S portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage.
— Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (ESV)

“Prehistoric Genesis” conclusion

We have now reached the end of my chronological coverage of what I have dubbed, “Prehistoric Genesis”, which more or less ends with Genesis 11:9. I want to wrap up the series by discussing three additional topics from Genesis 1–11 that rightfully belong to what I call the historical part of Genesis, but that tie the historical to the prehistorical.

Nimrod

The toledah of Genesis 10 served as both:

  1. a “cinematic fadeout” to chronologically separate the Flood story from the Babel story, both of which I view as of essentially equal theological importance; and
  2. a “clan-centric” view of humanity going into Babel and the separating of nations.
The language of sonship

Embedded in that toledah and arguably out of chronological sequence is a brief discussion of Nimrod:

6 The sons (וּבְנֵ֖י, ubəne, literally, “and the sons”) of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan. 7 The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan. 8 Cush fathered (יָלַד, yalad, “begat”) Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD. Therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.” 10 The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 From that land he went into Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, and 12 Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.
— Genesis 10:6-12 (ESV)

The image of Sargon on his victory stele. Wikipedia Commons

From this genealogy, you see that Cush had five sons (וּבְנֵ֖י, ubene, “and the sons”) and at least a couple grandsons. But then Nimrod is mentioned separately from the other sons, and using a different term: Yalad, the familiar “begat“, or rendered as “fathered” above. Yalad is used around 490 times in the Old Testament, and like many Hebrew words, it has a broad range of related meanings. Here is a sampling:

  • Mostly the word is used to establish a line of descent, as A begat B, who begat C, who begat D, etc.
  • It can also skip generations if those coming in between are irrelevant to the discussion, as A begat D.
  • It can also be said of motherhood, as the wife of A begat B.
  • It can be used of animals, as Cow begat calf.
  • A midwife can be said to beget a child she helps deliver.
  • Godly kings have been said to be begotten of God, a symbolic relationship.
  • God says that He begot Israel, again symbolic.
  • Of course, the Son, Jesus, is begotten of the Father. This is again symbolic, because the eternal Son was never literally born.

Given the above, Nimrod may possibly have been a remote descendant of Cush, not a literal son.

In his 2023 Book, Nimrod the Empire Builder: Architect of Shock and Awe, Dr. Douglas Petrovich of Brookes Bible College has shown, fairly conclusively in my opinion, that Nimrod was none other than Sargon of Akkad, aka, Sargon the Great.

Why ancient Biblical dates are unreliable

Not all of Dr. Petrovich’s arguments are clear. He thinks that Sargon’s reign was generations later than the Scattering, but he doesn’t provide much in the way of date evidence.

The fact is that all dates that far back in time are questionable. Ancient peoples did not have a continuous calendar like our Gregorian. Secular dating is limited to archaeological and philological data that may be very unclear. Biblical dating is better, but subject to misinterpretation of “begats”, for example.

Sargon is a historical figure whose reign is dated roughly to 2334–2279 BC. How does that match with allusions to the Scattering in Genesis 10? Referring to the chart below, Peleg was apparently contemporary with Sargon but died shortly before Sargon’s accession as King of Akkad. But since it seems the Scattering occurred during the time of Peleg, how could Sargon have come decades later as Petrovich contends?

Genealogy, Adam to Joseph, through Shem. Based on Masoretic Text.

To address that question, I decided to do a comparison of the ages of Shem’s descendants in the Masoretic, as compared to the Septuagint (LXX) and the Samaritan Pentateuch (SamPent).

©Ron Thompson

In my last post, I presented a similar chart, from World Bible Commentary, for Seth’s descendants. WBC provided something similar for this period but presented less data, and it contained numerous errors. So, I felt compelled to do my own chart, which meant digging into the Hebrew language source documents.

Sure enough, I find that there are major discrepancies between these source documents, though the differences aren’t quite the same as WBC presented before. If one uses the SamPent and LXX numbers instead of MT, it changes a lot of genealogical charts done over the centuries.

Archbishop Ussher calculated the date of the “creation week” by starting with an assumed known date, say, the approximate date of Joseph’s entry into Egypt when he was sold into slavery at 17 years old; and then, using something like the Adam to Joseph Genealogy, above, to add up the ages of the fathers at first son’s birth to count back to Adam’s creation. When he did this using Masoretic dating, he came up with a creation date of 4004 BC.

But what if the ages recorded in the Masoretic text are wrong? Then the calculation is incorrect. My charted numbers for this period are mostly consistent for SamPent and LXX, but the MT numbers are a hundred years shorter. Also, LXX introduces another generation, Kainan, that the others skip. Using these bigger numbers pushes Adam’s “birth” and the Flood back many centuries.

So, which is true? Christian inerrantists like me would prefer for everything in the Bible to be crystal clear and unambiguous, but that just isn’t the way it is. Consider the following:

  • Aside from the folks who believe that KJV is an inerrant translation, even most Young Earth Creationists understand that the “begats” might skip over some generations.
  • It seems obvious to me that there are numerous roundoffs in the age data, some to the nearest five years, and some to the nearest hundred!
  • In Gen 5:32, Noah was 500 years old when he fathered Shem. In 7:16, he was 600 at the Flood. But in 11:10, Shem fathered Arpachshad when he was 100, two years after the flood. The 2-year discrepancy is simple round-off error, but it really troubles some Christian writers.

And also, regarding the source texts:

  • Most English translations are based on the Masoretic text because it is a compendium of what for centuries were the only available Hebrew manuscripts.
  • In general, older texts and fragments are considered more trustworthy because until Gutenberg, all copies were done by hand and therefore subject to copy errors.
  • The SamPent is a risky source because it was edited for sectarian purposes.
  • The LXX is a Greek translation of one or more older Hebrew texts that are no longer extant. It has to be considered accurate, because it was the Old Testament used by Jesus and the NT writers, but the Greek language obscures some of the Hebrew terminology and nuance.
  • The Hebrew language has no numerals. Instead, like Roman Numerals, Hebrew assigns numeric values to the Hebrew letters. For example, yesterday (as I write) was the Hebrew “New Year of the Trees”, TU B’Shevat. The “T” is Hebrew letter tet, with a value of 9, and the “U” is Vav, with a value of 6.

    9 + 6 = 15, so TU B’Shevat literally refers to the date 16 Shevat.
  • The Masoretic OT text is even more complicated. In Gen 11:12, the number 35 appears in a more primitive form, spelled out, as חָמֵ֥שׁ וּשְׁלֹשִׁ֖ים, which translates as “five and thirty.”
  • The same verse in the SamPent and (presumably) the source for the LXX, reads “five and three and hundred years”. One wonders if some key medieval scribe copyist working on the Masoretic text didn’t think the “and hundred” entry (ומאת) was nonsense, where it appeared, and dropped it.

Whatever the reason(s) for the mismatched age data, in my opinion scholars should abandon attempts to compute accurate dates from it, because quantitative results can only be guesses.

Since Shem and Ham were brothers, Cush was probably in the same generation as Arphaxad. Note that if Nimrod was a direct son of Cush, then he would have been roughly contemporary with Shelach, much too early to have been Sargon.

Sargon of Akkad

Because of age discrepancies in the source texts, it is a step too far for me to say that dates compiled from the toledoth prove that Nimrod lived generations after Peleg. What those discrepancies do allow me to say is that it is possible.

The descendants of Sargon of Akkad (Sargon the Great), ©John D. Croft.

Petrovich offers two other lines of support for Nimrod as Sargon.

The characters of Nimrod and Sargon

Moses wrote, “10:8b [Nimrod] was the first on earth to be a mighty man. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD.” As translated, this sounds like a complimentary description of an admired hunter and hero, but Dr. Petrovich takes issue with a number of choices made in the translation. His reasoning is too complicated to repeat here, but the bottom line is that:

  1. “He was the first on earth to be a mighty man” should be rendered as something akin to “He acted in a profane manner in his quest to become powerful on earth.”
  2. “He was a mighty hunter before the LORD” should be “He was a brutal slaughterer before the LORD.”

In other words, far from being an admired hunter of game, he was a feared and ungodly butcher of men. Like most conquerors. Like Sargon.

The conquests of Nimrod and Sargon

Moses is presenting Nimrod as the first empire-builder in history, which is Sargon’s claim to fame in secular histories. Verses 10:10–11 list cities conquered by Nimrod, beginning at Eridu (Babel?) and moving northwest in Sumer (Shinar?), then north of that into Assyria. This is the basic pattern followed by Sargon. See the two maps that follow.

Nimrod’s Empire, ©geography.bible-history.com. Compare with Sargon’s Empire, below.
The Akkadian Empire under Sargon the Great and his successors.

A final toledah

This is the genealogy of Abram/Abraham, covering his patriarchal line up to Shem. I quote it here in full because of its importance.

10 Here is the genealogy of Shem. Shem was 100 years old when he fathered Arpakhshad two years after the flood. 11 After Arpakhshad was born, Shem lived another 500 years and had sons and daughters.

12 Arpakhshad lived thirty-five years and fathered Shelach. 13 After Shelach was born, Arpakhshad lived another 403 years and had sons and daughters.

14 Shelach lived thirty years and fathered ‘Ever. 15 After ‘Ever was born, Shelach lived another 403 years and had sons and daughters.

16 ‘Ever lived thirty-four years and fathered Peleg. 17 After Peleg was born, ‘Ever lived another 430 years and had sons and daughters.

18 Peleg lived thirty years and fathered Re‘u. 19 After Re‘u was born, Peleg lived another 209 years and had sons and daughters.

20 Re‘u lived thirty-two years and fathered S’rug. 21 After S’rug was born, Re’u lived another 207 years and had sons and daughters.

22 S’rug lived thirty years and fathered Nachor. 23 After Nachor was born, S’rug lived another 200 years and had sons and daughters.

24 Nachor lived twenty-nine years and fathered Terach. 25 After Terach was born, Nachor lived another 119 years and had sons and daughters.

26 Terach lived seventy years and fathered Avram, Nachor and Haran. 27 Here is the genealogy of Terach. Terach fathered Avram, Nachor and Haran; and Haran fathered Lot. 28 Haran died before his father Terach in the land where he was born, in Ur of the Kasdim.

— Genesis 11:10-28 (CJB)

We already know that the scattering from Babel happened in the lifetime of Peleg. Since this provides no additional information on that, we still don’t know if Peleg was physically in Babel when it happened, or who the leader or leaders of the city at that time were. Peleg is only a marker for us.

Abram’s calling

29 Then Avram and Nachor took wives for themselves. The name of Avram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nachor’s wife was Milkah the daughter of Haran. He was the father of Milkah and of Yiskah. 30 Sarai was barren — she had no child. 31 Terach took his son Avram, his son Haran’s son Lot, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Avram’s wife; and they left Ur of the Kasdim to go to the land of Kena‘an. But when they came to Haran, they stayed there. 32 Terach lived 205 years, and he died in Haran.
— Genesis 11:29-32 (CJB)

The martyred deacon, Steven, gave a more detailed account of Abraham’s early movements than did Moses. This was without doubt from lore passed down verbally.

2 and Stephen said:
“Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to Avraham avinu (Abraham our father) in Mesopotamia before he lived in Haran 3 and said to him, ‘Leave your land and your family, and go into the land that I will show you.’ 4 So he left the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. After his father died, God made him move to this land where you are living now.
— Acts 7:2-4 (CJB)

Genesis prehistory and the End Times

Most Christians are interested in Creation, the Garden of Eden and the Flood. Most are not interested, particularly, in the genealogies, the millennium between Cain and Abel and the Flood, or the millennium between the Flood and Abraham. Thinking about these old things to most is like watching old Black and White Japanese Godzilla movies on TV. It’s just the “weird part of the Bible”. Monster stories for kids’ comic books.

Well, what’s it even there for?

First of all, for the ancient Israelites, coming out of the pagan Egyptian culture and preparing to enter the pagan Canaanite lands, it was a polemic against all they had been taught since childhood.

All the stories were familiar, but the heroes weren’t the pagan gods and kings they’d always been taught to revere. Yahweh was infinitely greater, more powerful, and more benevolent than any of them.

For the Israelites about to cross the Jordan, He is the God who can control the most powerful forces of nature, He can wipe out all life on earth if He chooses, and He can scatter and isolate all humanity to quell rebellion.

And while He alone is the personal God of His chosen people, He has placed all other peoples under the rule of angelic overseers that He created. Although they became corrupt over time and presented themselves as gods, they serve His purposes and He can easily control them as He desires.

The same lessons are there for all other peoples of all times, both those among His elect and those who are not.

But there is another layer to this that applies to those of us living in the acharit hyamim, the End of Days..

The Serpent is still the Deceiver and the Accuser. He still has his hordes of rebellious celestial spirits and the temporarily dormant demonic Nephilim spirits.

As it was in the days of Noah, hedonism and rebellion against God are on the rise. Yahweh promised never again to destroy all flesh, but even after the flood, mankind plotted to unite in rebellion. Though He scattered them and divided them, countless Nimrods have attempted to once again unite the world against Him.

Modern rulers, through technology, persuasion, and economic globalism have renewed the effort to build a “tower to heaven”, and it is only a matter of time before a new Nimrod rises to “take control” in the name of peace and prosperity.


Prophetic Visions: Through a Glass Darkly

Posted on:

Modified on:

  1. Introduction
    1. The mirror analogy
    2. The purpose of prophecy
    3. Prophetic Applicability
    4. The role of visions
    5. The office of Prophet
  2. Interpretive challenges
    1. Throne visions
      1. Common elements of the throne visions
      2. The 24 elders
      3. The Divine Council
    2. The suffering servant
    3. Ezekiel
      1. Ezekiel 10 – 11 (God Leaves the Most Holy)
      2. Ezekiel 38 – 39 (Gog and Magog)
      3. Ezekiel 40 – 42 (The Millennial Temple)
      4. Ezekiel 43:1–12 (God Returns to the Most Holy)
    4. Revelation
      1. Chapter 8–9 (trumpets)
      2. Chapter 10 (the angel with the little scroll)
      3. Chapter 12 (a woman and a war)
      4. Chapter 13–14 (the two beasts)
  3. A pair of Dreams
    1. Joseph and the sheaves
    2. Peter and the sheet
  4. Conclusions

Introduction

The mirror analogy

Chances are you’re familiar with the following verse:

[12] For now we see through a glass [mirror], darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
—1 Corinthians 13:12 (KJV)

This is part of an extended passage in which Paul is discussing the interrelationships between believers in the church, including the interplay between their various natural abilities and spiritual gifts. He then stresses that what is most important is their mutual love—ἀγάπη (agapé), affection, good-will, benevolence, or (KJV) charity, all in an atmosphere of mutual preference for one another.

The “glass”, or “mirror” of verse 12 is the Greek ἔσοπτρον (esoptron), a noun that technically denotes any smooth, reflective surface that can function as a mirror. Undoubtably, what Paul had in mind was the polished brass, copper, or occasionally iron, silver or gold mirrors used in his time. Back in my camping days, I carried an unbreakable polished aluminum mirror, which works better than brass, but still reflects much less efficiently than a modern silvered glass mirror. These metals are all more or less prone to tarnish, and the polishing technology of the Roman Empire was unable to achieve the fine finish possible now.

Roman silver mirror, 1st century. Public domain. This, of course, is the back side of the mirror. The front is polished smooth, and this particular specimen has a maker’s mark etched at the bottom front.

By the frequent (but unfortunate) Christian custom of basing doctrine on individual verses pulled out of context, many Christians are taught that Paul is promising here that when we get to heaven, we will all instantly recognize everyone we see. That may or may not be a part of our glorification, but in his analogy, Paul is conveying a more general picture of how weak our knowledge is now compared to what we will know and understand after our imperfect lives end and we come face to face with God.

The same analogy serves well to illustrate how little we can learn from prophecy compared to a face-to-face encounter with the real thing. The point I pursue below is that prophecy should never be dogmatically relied on to tell us, literally, exactly what we can expect in the future.

The purpose of prophecy

It seems to me that Biblical prophecy, in the main, performs three primary functions:

  1. It warns God’s people of coming judgement, either impending or far in the future. For example, the “blessings and curses” of the Mosaic Covenant (Deut. 28ff) warn of the consequences of disobeying the precepts of the Covenant and contrast those consequences with the blessings they could expect for keeping the Covenant. Virtually all of the prophets predicted Israel’s failure to keep the Covenant and forecast the terrible price they will pay for their disobedience.
  2. It provides comfort in times of woe. The prophetic books that forecast terrible judgement on Israel almost always end with promises that, despite their failure and subsequent punishment, God will ultimately bring them back to Himself and give them final bliss in their own land.
  3. It also forecasts events in the future that, though usually at least partly unclear in the telling, will become obvious in the fulfillment. It is this forecasting role that I will emphasize below.

Prophetic Applicability

What most Christians fail to realize is that all of the Old Testament prophesies and promises, beginning with the Abrahamic Covenant, were for Israel—the Jews. Humanity in general was already condemned. Only eight humans escaped The Flood. The descendants of those eight, the second chance for humanity, immediately returned to a state of rebellion that God quickly dealt with in Shinar, at Babel:

since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
— Romans 1:28 (ESV)

I view the Church as a Jewish “family” with gentile children “fostered in.” Those of us who are gentiles in the Church are excused from most of God’s requirements for genetic Israel (see Acts 15), so shouldn’t expect all of their blessings and promises either. But that doesn’t mean we are second class in God’s eyes, and it doesn’t mean we don’t go along on the ride when God comes for His own.

The role of visions

1 In days gone by, God spoke in many and varied ways to the Fathers through the prophets. 2 But now, in the acharit-hayamim*, he has spoken to us through his Son, to whom he has given ownership of everything and through whom he created the universe.
— Hebrews 1:1-2 (CJB)

*[a•cha•rit-ha•ya•mim—Literally, “the end of the days”, i.e., The End Times or “latter days,” when the ‘olam hazeh (the present age) is coming to a close and the ‘olam haba (the age to come) is about to begin.]

While some prophecy was delivered to the prophets verbally by God or angels, and some was no doubt simply an idea placed the prophet’s head or perhaps even a subtle guiding of the pen, the most striking prophecies often came through dreams or visions. Visions were apparently all in the mind of the prophet, while dreams were sometimes imparted to others, to be interpreted by the prophet.

For the purpose of this post, I’m going to lump dreams with visions. Both are highly symbolic—often obscure, surreal, distorted, or iconographic. Both involve subjective imagery that is typically suggestive rather than immediately definitive.

The office of Prophet

The office of Prophet, like that of Apostle, has ceased!

The Apostles were a specific group of twelve men who were individually selected and trained by Jesus and then instructed to act as His official agents to begin the mission of evangelizing the world. Eleven were His closest disciples, who accompanied Him during the 3-1/2 years of His earthly ministry, remained faithful to the end, and were verbally commissioned by Him at His Ascension. The twelfth was Saul of Tarsus, who was selected and commissioned on the road, trained in Damascus and Arabia, and, like the others, served to the end of his life.

The Prophets were also selected by God. I reject the idea that modern preachers are “prophets.” The prophets preached and wrote, but their message was supernaturally imparted to them and therefore infallible, in the same sense that we regard the canonical books of the Bible as infallible.

Literally hundreds of times I’ve heard preachers and evangelists say, “God placed this message in my heart,” or “I was going to teach on … but God told me to do this instead“.

Sorry, no! I don’t for an instant deny that God calls some people into a preaching ministry and gives them appropriate spiritual gifts and a general inclination and wisdom to minister in a Godly fashion. But I have no Biblical or observational reason to believe that God, in this age, speaks directly and with total clarity to any human. No mere preacher, no matter how devout or scripturally knowledgeable, is inspired in the Biblical sense. If that were the case, then the first time he repeats a flawed interpretation he is revealed to be a false prophet. Verses that differentiate between true and false prophets include: 1Ki 22:8; Jer 14:14; 23:16; 28:9; Ez 13:3; Mat 7:15-20; 24:24; 1Jn 4:1; Pet 2:1.

Interpretive challenges

All visionary prophecy is, by its nature, difficult to interpret until its fulfillment, and sometimes even then its fulfillment might be obscure to most. Was it already fulfilled in the past? Is it completely fulfilled now? Is there more fulfillment to come? And if dreamlike imagery isn’t explained, how do we read the mind of the prophet? Did even the prophet himself know the interpretation? I suspect that the answer to that final question was often a negative.

While prophecy derived from visions and dreams is most difficult to interpret, there are challenges in interpreting prophecy derived by other means, too. End-times prophecy, no matter its source, is going to use terminology appropriate to ancient peoples at the time of writing. For example, 21st century vehicles might be described in prophecy as “horses”, aircraft as “clouds” or some flying creature, rifles as “swords”, etc. We can make that interpretation, but we might be completely wrong.

In the rest of this article, I’ll mention some mistakes that I think people—even theologians—make in their attempts to interpret prophecy and prophetic visions. Because some of the passages discussed are lengthy, I’ll usually provide only the Biblical references.

Throne visions

The Bible reports several very explicit prophetic visions of God seated on a throne in heaven: Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1 and 10, Daniel 7, and Revelation 4 being most striking.

Ezekiel 1 vision of God’s heavenly throne, aka, His Chariot Throne. By rive6-d7dtasm1. This is one of many hundreds of attempts by various artists to depict Ezekiel’s vision.

I previously wrote about these visions in Monotheism and the Trinity:

don’t think that these visions [as described] can be reconciled with God as an omnipresent spirit. Instead, I think that what the prophets are “seeing” are representations of preconceptions popularly held by ancient peoples. [Allegory], not reality! This is more or less how the pagan deities would have been visualized in contemporary surrounding cultures. If 21st century American Christians can’t visualize the Christian Trinity, how much less would primitive denizens of the Ancient Near East be able to set aside their ingrained preconceptions? And how important could it have been to ask them to do so? In my opinion, not very!

In other words, what I believe that these visions have in common is that God is giving each of the prophets a sense of His grandeur in heaven as He rules in and through His Divine Council (see below). But because God and the angels are all spirit beings, they are in reality not visible to a human eye and can’t be described in human terms. For that reason, God left the prophets with mental impressions that could be roughly described in human-like terms, rather than accurate visual representations of something fundamentally alien to human conceptions.

Common elements of the throne visions

What the throne prophecies depict is the presence of the following:

  • An omnipresent, invisible, Almighty God. See Implications of God’s Omnipresence and Eternity in Space-Time.
  • He is revealing Himself at a specific point in space and time—what physicists call an “event in spacetime”.
  • He is metaphorically seated on a grand throne, reminiscent of kings and the pagan gods who rule the kings.
  • He is surrounded by “24 elders” (see below).
  • They are metaphorically seated on lesser thrones.
  • God is metaphorically protected by a few (usually 4) guardian seraphim/cherubim.

Not all of those elements are included in all of the descriptions. The perceptions of the different prophets were similar to each other, but not totally the same.

My advice when reading the throne prophecies and other baffling prophetic descriptions is to forget about the detail, like the “wheels within wheels”, because all of that is just the prophet’s abstract impressions of things that can’t actually be seen with the eye.

The 24 elders

John, in particular, speaks of “24 elders” seated at “lesser thrones.” The identity of these elders is not revealed:

2 At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne. 3 And he who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian, and around the throne was a rainbow that had the appearance of an emerald. 4 Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clothed in white garments, with golden crowns on their heads.
— Revelation 4:2-4 (ESV) emphasis mine

In verse 4, the “twenty-four elders” are usually interpreted to be the twelve sons of Jacob and the twelve apostles. That is flat-out guesswork, because the Bible offers no clarification. Another guess often heard is that they are representatives from the twenty-four divisions of priests who served in the Temple.

A third guess is that they are angels. Since this is a vision, not an absolute reality, any of these guesses is possible, but this one is the one that I would go with, without reservation, because it is what John’s contemporaries would have immediately assumed. Specifically, these elders would be angelic members of God’s Divine Council, discussed in the next section.

This view is borne out by

8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
9 And they sang a new song, saying,
“Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,
10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on the earth.

— Revelation 5:8-10 (ESV)

“They”? If any of the elders are humans, then why are they excluding themselves here?

The Divine Council

Chances are, you’ve never even heard of the Divine Council, but it is well-attested in Scripture. I believe that God created the host of angels when He created the universe. In general, their function was to tend and monitor the cosmos, in much the same way as humans were told to have dominion over the earth. God governs this host by means of a council of senior angels.

God doesn’t need angels or humans to tend earth or the cosmos, but because of His divine love, he chose to share and delegate responsibility. For further explanation of the nature and purpose of angels in general and the Divine Council in particular, see Gods and Demons.

The suffering servant

How you treat Isaiah 53 depends on your presuppositions (as does a lot of Biblical interpretation).

Most Christians reading Isaiah 53 will be astounded that Jews of the Centuries following Jesus‘ life, death and resurrection didn’t immediately recognize that it was speaking of Him. How could they have missed the obvious prophetic connection?

Well, it isn’t that simple. The Jews of those days were looking for the Messiah, most famously predicted by Daniel, and best described by:

13 “I kept watching the night visions,
when I saw, coming with the clouds of heaven,
someone like a son of man.
He approached the Ancient One
and was led into his presence.
14 To him was given rulership,
glory and a kingdom,
so that all peoples, nations and languages
should serve him.

His rulership is an eternal rulership
that will not pass away;
and his kingdom is one
that will never be destroyed.

— Daniel 7:13-14 (CJB) emphasis mine

During His ministry, Jesus consistently spoke of Himself as “the Son of Man,” which under the circumstances was an unmistakable claim to be Daniel’s “someone like a son of man,” that is, someone who appeared to be a human being and who would be given an eternal Kingdom. Most (but not all) of the Jewish Scribes interpreting Daniel missed the implication in verse 13 that “like a human” might mean “more than a mere human,” so what they were looking for then and now was a human Messiah, who in order to become king over “all peoples, nations and languages,” would obviously have to first be a great conqueror.

Therefore, when they looked at Isaiah 53, it wasn’t at all obvious that the Suffering Servant would be that same Son of Man, the Messiah. Because we Christians insist that the two are one and the same, some Rabbis over the last two millennia have chosen to simply remove Isaiah 53 from their scrolls, but for the most part Jews since as early as the Babylonian captivity have speculated that the Servant was either another human (the Yahad peoples of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, possibly a splinter group of Essenes, took this approach) or, more frequently a symbolic reference to Israel as a whole under the many persecutions they have suffered over the ages.

Acts 1 shows us the “progressive revelation” of the dual advents as the are unfolding:

9 After saying this, he was taken up before their eyes; and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10 As they were staring into the sky after him, suddenly they saw two men dressed in white standing next to them. 11 The men said, “You Galileans! Why are you standing, staring into space? This Yeshua, who has been taken away from you into heaven, will come back to you in just the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”
— Acts 1:9-11 (CJB) emphasis mine

Ezekiel

Ezekiel, Michelangelo painting in the Sistine Chapel

Ezekiel is possibly my favorite book of the Bible because of the richness of the prophecy. Virtually the entire book is prophetic, presented sometimes as poetry, sometimes as prose, and sometimes acted out in front of his audience, at God’s direction.

I have enough of an affinity for Ezekiel’s writing that I feel I have as good an understanding of the man and his prophecy as one can have at this distance. I have already commented on his (and others’) throne visions, above. I have also written about several of his prophecies in previous articles, which I’ll link below.

Ezekiel’s prophecies are apparently written chronologically, in the order of their future fulfillment, though not necessarily in the order he experienced them.

Timeline of Ezekiel, showing the date of the prophecy, not the fulfillment. ©Biblehub

Christian tradition contains a number of misconceptions that are taught by pastors who aren’t necessarily theologians and don’t necessarily have a good grasp on Bible history. Some of those misconceptions are propagated by Israeli tour guides, and the tour sponsors (often pastors) who learn from them. The tour guides are mostly Jewish Israeli citizens, who have learned what they know from manuals prepared and taught at trade schools, not necessarily by folks with religious backgrounds.

Ezekiel 10 – 11 (God Leaves the Most Holy)

One of the common misconceptions about Ezekiel concerns his prophesies about the Glory of the Lord departing the temple, discussed in this section. Much of the following is reproduced from Opening the Golden Gate, which I first posted on May 12, 2022. In that article I presented a brief history of the Temple and its Eastern Gate and then discussed some of the common misconceptions about that gate.

Then the glory of the LORD went out from the threshold of the house, and stood over the cherubim.
And the cherubim lifted up their wings and mounted up from the earth before my eyes as they went out, with the wheels beside them. And they stood at the entrance of the east gate of the house of the LORD, and the glory of the God of Israel was over them.
—Ezekiel 10:18–19 ESV

Then the cherubim lifted up their wings, with the wheels beside them, and the glory of the God of Israel was over them.
And the glory of the LORD went up from the midst of the city and stood on the mountain that is on the east side of the city.
—Ezekiel 11:22–23 ESV

God is omnipresent, both in space and in time. As our infinite, Almighty God, He can’t be contained in a tent or a building. But because He chose to deal with humanity, as represented by the primitive Israelites, He picked a form in which to appear to them. An “interface”, so to speak. In the desert, it was “a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.” In the Tabernacle, and later the Temple, His “Divine Presence,” in whatever visible form it appeared, was in the Holy of Holies, above the Mercy Seat of the Ark.

Chapters 8 through 11 of Ezekiel record a vision that came to him while he was sitting in his house with “the leaders of Judah”. In the vision, he was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem and shown men in leadership positions performing “disgusting” idolatrous religious rites in the Temple precincts. God then ordered a scribe to pass through the city and put a seal on the foreheads of innocents, while six other presumably angelic beings followed him and executed anyone not so sealed. The six beings were then told to set fire to the city. After the return of the scribe, God’s Sh’kinah Presence left the Temple, rose above its threshold, paused for a bit over the “east gate of the Lord’s house” (this could be the gate of an interior courtyard, or it could be the Shushan Gate overlooking the Kidron Valley), and then “stood” over the mountain on the east side of the city (no doubt the Mount of Olives).

Most visitors to Jerusalem who have read Ezekiel or have taken the tour guide’s explanation as Gospel truth, are certain that God lived in the Holy of Holies and that He moved out through the Golden Gate. That’s very sloppy theology!

Also, the part about Jerusalemites being “sealed” and those without seals being executed most likely did not happen. I take it as a homiletic description of “sinners in the hands of an angry God,” so to speak.

Ezekiel described an allegory, not reality. Yet it was a prophecy of something that was very real, which came very soon thereafter. Because of corruption reaching even into the Temple, God withdrew His protection from the city and the Temple, and both were sacked and burned by Nebuchadrezzar’s army, with many people killed.

Ezekiel 38 – 39 (Gog and Magog)

Beginning around Ezekiel 34, the prophet begins to shift from prediction of judgement to prediction of restoration. Chapter 37 is the famous “dry bones” prophecy, which I have to think brings us to our own age and the return of Jews to Israel starting in the late 19th century, and culminating with a declaration of independence in May 1947. The next event on Ezekiel’s calendar is the Gog and Magog War, which I believe will occur before the Tribulation period, and possibly before the Rapture.

I wrote a compete article about this prophecy in 2015, in The Coming World War: Gog and Magog. There is no indication whether this prophecy originated from a vision or by some other means, but I think it is appropriate to include it here to demonstrate that even prophecies that were not delivered as visions or dreams can be tricky to understand if you want to insist that every word must be taken in a literal sense.

Players in the Gog & Magog War. Base map annotated by Ron Thompson

I stand by that article as amended from time to time, though I may have taken the participant nations too literally. Populations move around over the centuries, and today’s nations may not occupy the same territories as those of Ezekiel’s day.

Also, my view on the motivations for the attack have changed a bit since the October 7 terror attack in Israel. In a November 2023 update, Did Ezekiel Prophesy the October 2023 Israel/Gaza War?, I stated that the Gog/Magog war would “of course” be precipitated by Iran’s proxies. That cause appears to be pretty much off the table for a while, but I went on to speculate that Russia might take the initiative in an effort to bolster Putin’s waning reputation.

And now President Trump, NATO, and new trade and defensive alliances are backing Putin into a very tight and embarrassing corner. Very interesting!

It frequently happens that prophecy has to be reevaluated when conditions change!

Ezekiel 40 – 42 (The Millennial Temple)

In 573 BC, Ezekiel was given a vision of a new Temple to be built in Jerusalem. He records that vision in great detail in chapters 40 and following of his prophetic book. In an excellent 20th century book entitled Messiah’s Coming Temple, John W. Schmitt and J. Carl Laney analyzed both the design of this temple and the use to which it will be put. It bears a superficial resemblance to previous Temples, but is by far the largest, and in even some of the “essential characteristics”, it differs from them in ways that do not correspond to Jewish law. This is because its purpose will be different in many respects, as outlined in the Schmitt/Laney book.

Model of the Millennial Temple, ©John W. Schmitt

The lesson here is less about sloppy reading than it is about neglect.

Judaism mainly ignores this passage because the design of this Temple differs from the Mosaic instructions in several key elements. They claim it can’t possibly be a legitimate design since it doesn’t match the required specs for the Tabernacle and Solomon’s Temple. Of course, the reason for the differences is that Jesus’ death and resurrection changed significant parts of the cultic practice, as mentioned in the book of Hebrews.

Christians, however, neglect it for the opposite reason: they can’t see any use at all during the Millennium for a Temple with an alter and other features needed for any part of the Mosaic Covenant observance.

Both sides are wrong, but I wonder how many of my readers have been even slightly curious about this portion of Scripture. It is God’s Word, so it is important to me!

Ezekiel 43:1–12 (God Returns to the Most Holy)

Then he led me to the gate, the gate facing east.
And behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the east. And the sound of his coming was like the sound of many waters, and the earth shone with his glory.
And the vision I saw was just like the vision that I had seen when he came to destroy the city, and just like the vision that I had seen by the Chebar canal. And I fell on my face.
As the glory of the LORD entered the temple by the gate facing east,
the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the LORD filled the temple.
—Ezekiel 43:1–5 ESV

Again, see Opening the Golden Gate.

Beginning in chapter 40, Ezekiel has been once again taken to Jerusalem in a vision, but this was to show him events far in the future, during the Millennial Reign. The vision shows him a new Temple (see the previous section), to be built presumably at the start of the Reign. In chapter 43, suddenly God’s Glory returns to the Temple, but this time through the gate facing east, not above it. The assumption that many people make is that “God’s Glory” here refers to Jesus. The parallels between this and the earlier vision indicate it is God’s Sh’kinah returning—the Father, not the son.

The sequence in chapter 43 is as follows: God’s Glory returns, through the “gate facing east.” God goes into the Temple itself and fills it with His Glory. Ezekiel is standing outside the Temple with the angel who has been showing him around. God calls out from inside, saying that He will now dwell with His people forever, and never again will they defile His house.

So, if it wasn’t Messiah entering through the eastern gate, is Jesus “the prince“, who is mentioned several times in the prophecy? Clearly, He is not! This prince, whoever he is and whatever his function, has sins to atone for, and evidently, he has children. I surmise that he is to be a senior Zadokite priest, over the other priests but reporting to the new permanent High Priest, Messiah.

We know from other prophecies that Jesus will reign from Zion. But nowhere does scripture say that it was Jesus who entered through the eastern gate! And incidentally, there does not seem to be a throne room in Ezekiel’s Temple.

Once again, sloppy reading makes sloppy theology. It is the visible, localized sh’kinah Glory of God, the Father, entering the Temple. But He is entering through a new Eastern Gate, not the Golden Gate, which will no longer exist.

Jesus does return in clouds to Mt. Olivet, but nowhere does scripture say that He enters the Temple to reign. Most likely He’ll reign from a Palace.

Revelation

Of course, most of Revelation is prophetic imagery. I’m only going to hit some high points here. I need to mention that I am not a Dispensationalist, but I am premillennial, and in general, I pretty much agree with the Dispensational interpretation of Revelation. But not everything…

Chapter 8–9 (trumpets)

First, there are no trumpets in this passage! I plan to show in a future post that shofarim (animal horns used for blowing) are in view here. A shofar is blown like a trumpet, but it is not a trumpet, and the two have different functions in the Bible. In reality, therefore, this chapter is about the Seven Shofar Judgements!

Two shofarim. The large one on the top shelf is a traditional Yemenite shofar, made from a Kudu horn. The small shofar on the lower left is made from a ram’s horn. ©Ron Thompson

In verse 8:1, the Lamb opens the 7th Seal, which releases “thunder, lightning, [sounds or voices] and an earthquake“, 8:5. The “sounds or voices”, (translated “rumblings” in ESV) are part of the vision, and unexplained. The Seal sets the context for the 8 shofarim to follow, and suggests that the judgements are connected in some way to powerful tectonic and atmospheric forces on earth.

The first shofar judgement is hail and fire, mixed with blood, resulting in “a third of the earth … burned up, and a third of the trees … burned up, and all green grass … burned up” , 8:7. Using the hermeneutic principle of taking the plain sense of the verse if it “makes common sense,” we might then opine that the storms of verse 5 will produce the hail, and the lightning will set the fires. The third of the “earth” burned up might simply be a reference to the location of the burned portion of the vegetation. The blood mixed with the hail is harder to explain.

The second shofar judgement is “something like a great mountain burning with fire” causing the death of sea creatures and destruction of ships. That much is easy to explain as a large asteroid hit, but once again there is unexplained blood that casts doubt on the interpretation.

The third shofar judgement would appear to be a comet rather than another asteroid. Asteroids mostly originate in the Asteroid Belt, between Mars and Jupiter, and have compositions similar to those of the inner planets. Comets usually come from the Keiper Belt outside the orbits of the planets, and some “long-period” comets don’t originate in the solar system at all. A naturalistic explanation of “Wormwood” would be such a comet containing an unfamiliar compound that scatters in the wind and turns water sources bitter.

The fourth shofar judgement would seem to follow naturally from either or both of the “falling stars”.

While the first four shofar judgements, chapter 8, may possibly have a more or less naturalistic mechanism, judgements 5 and 6, chapter 9, are clearly supernatural from start to finish. I won’t attempt to explain them here, except to speculate that they should probably be taken at face value.

Note, however, that the “star” of 8:10 is no doubt an inanimate orbiting body (as opposed to a literal star), but the star of 9:1 is angelic. Angels are frequently referred to metaphorically in Hebrew literature as stars.

The 7th shofar, like the 7th Seal, is introductory for what follows it.

Like the shofar judgements, many Biblical prophecies can be interpreted naturalistically, while others can’t. It’s not always possible to know which is the case. Unfortunately for those of us who crave to understand every word spoken by God, both naturalistic and supernaturalistic prophecies can have an ultimate meaning that is either literal or metaphorical, or even both!

Chapter 10 (the angel with the little scroll)

This angel is also described, in verses 2 and 5 as the angel with his right foot on the sea and his left foot on the land.

Most scholars will tell you that prophetic references to the sea are speaking of chaos. The sea is chaotic. The land is not or is relatively free of chaos. I totally disagree with this interpretation!

All Bible prophecy is at its core Jewish. To the ancient and classical Jews, “the land,” when used metaphorically in prophecy, almost always refers to Eretz-Yisra’el, the Land of Israel, and “the sea” refers to all other lands on earth. Thus, the angel and the little scroll are going to effect both Jews and gentiles in some way.

At least portions of some Biblical prophesies can be interpreted with a high degree (though less than 100%) of certainty if certain key words or phrases are detected. Conversely, missing these keys may lead to completely erroneous conclusions.

Chapter 12 (a woman and a war)

This is a hotly contested passage that I will not say much about here. I believe it is partly a flashback to Jesus’ birth, and partly a discussion of Israel’s disposition going into the second half of the Tribulation.

Verses 1–5 are seen by some of the more radical (in my view) prophecy teachers to be signs that will appear in the zodiac at the close of the Trumpet Judgements. There are whole books written on this interpretation. There have always been Jewish and gentile Christian teachers who dabble in astrology, but that, in my opinion, is a pagan practice that has no place in God’s prophetic scheme.

What the passage is to me, is a highly figurative description of Messiah’s birth, not to Mary, but to Israel in general, and of His death and ascension into heaven.

Verses 7–12 is description of an angel-versus-angel war in heaven following the incarnation of The Son. A large number of disgruntled angels, led by Satan (Lucifer, if you will), enraged by this affront to the power they had gained on earth since the dispersal from Babel, waged war in heaven with the faithful angels, led by Mikha’el (Michael, see Daniel 10:21), the champion of Israel.

Prior to this outright war, the first recorded angelic rebellion was when Satan contradicted Elohim in the Garden. Subsequently, there were several angelic rebellions, but the “bad guys” were still given access to God at His Divine Council in heaven. This war marked the end of that access:

7 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, 8 but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.
— Revelation 12:7-8 (ESV) emphasis mine

Chapter 13–14 (the two beasts)

Once again, I will not try to dig for everything in these chapters, but I do want to mention a few points about Antichrist and his realm.

The “Beast from the Sea”

Jerry Falwell, Sr. famously stated that the Antichrist will “definitely be Jewish.” On the contrary, Antichrist’s origin in “the sea” unmistakably marks him as gentile (see the previous section).

Naming the Antichrist can’t be done using only this passage. Other passages in Revelation, Matthew, and elsewhere in the NT must be considered, along with various OT prophecies, especially in Daniel and the Minor Prophets. Still only guesswork is possible.

Counterfeit Christ?

Many commentators and pastors describe Antichrist as “a counterfeit Christ,” and that may be a big part of why Falwell decided he is Jewish. That is a misunderstanding of Antichrist’s role. Without question there are some parallels between the Trinity and the realm that Satan tries to establish here, but I see Antichrist as simply a false God, a pagan deity opposed to Jesus.

“Anti-Christ” means “opposed to the Messiah”, not a fake or a negative image of Messiah.

Antimatter is not counterfeit matter. A positron is an antielectron, meaning it is an electron with a positive, rather than negative, charge. If an electron and a positron come into contact with each other, both are instantly annihilated.

Fatal wound

Verse 13:3, speaking of Antichrist, says:

One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed, and the whole earth marveled as they followed the beast.
— Revelation 13:3 (ESV)

“Seemed to have a mortal wound” translates the Greek phrase, ὡς ἐσφαγμένην ἐσφαγμένην θάνατον, literally, “[was] as having been slain to death.” Similarly, “mortal wound” is πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου, literally, “wound of death.” The phrasing here convinces me that this is not saying Antichrist was killed, but merely that he had a wound that at least briefly seemed to have been fatal. The timing of the event is also not addressed. He could have survived a wound as a child and the press coverage later flaunted as he gained power. Or he could have survived an assassination attempt during his rise in power.

The “Beast from the Land”

The “Beast from the Land”, aka, the “Second Beast”, aka, the “False Prophet” will more nearly take on the role of a false Messiah. And by the way, his origin in “the Land” identifies him as Jewish.

Horns and Heads

Revelation 13 and Daniel 7 both speak of the Antichrist as having ten horns (each with a diadem) and seven heads. Rev. 12 and 17 also speak of Satan (the Red Dragon, identified as the Serpent) as likewise having 10 horns and seven heads, so the two (Dragon and Satan) are connected in some way, presumably master and servant. No surprise.

Dan. 7:24 and Rev. 17:12 identify the horns as “kingdoms” from which the Antichrist will rise. In Rev. 17:9, the seven heads are identified as “seven mountains on which the woman is seated”, and at the same time, “seven kings.”

Despite numerous attempts that I have personally read going back at least to Hal Lindsey’s Late, Great Planet Earth and Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth, nobody has ever done better than guess as to the identities of those 10 “kingdoms.” Back then it was the Common Market, but that quickly outgrew ten nations. Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind books, Biblically dubious in so many ways, picked the United Nations.

My own guess is that the Gog and Magog War, which God Himself will end, will leave both sides hugely weakened but will not quell the centuries of compounded hatred in the region. A powerful world leader will then gather a group of ten heads of state around a table to produce the peace treaty that guarantees Israel’s safety going forward—and sets The Tribulation in motion. More or less in the pattern of President Trump’s August 2025 initiative to stop the Russia/Ukraine War.

In other words, the 10 horns need only be powerful entities. It would make sense to me if they were ten individual members of the larger European Union or NATO, a political or economic cartel, perhaps even huge corporations, or megarich Oligarchs. I suppose we’ll know them when they become obvious.

A Revived Roman Empire?

News Flash: The Roman Empire is dead! It ain’t coming back! I’m not ruling out that Antichrist’s empire could have similar characteristics, similar membership, or even the same general location (which might be around Rome, Istanbul, or Even Aachen, Charlemagne’s medieval capital in the Holy Roman Empire.

The notion of a “Revived Roman Empire” comes from a modern view of Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadrezzar’s statue dream in Daniel 2. I agree that we are correct in seeing the gold, silver, bronze and iron segments of the statue as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, respectively (many Christians have other views). But where others see a Revived Roman Empire, I see the feet and toes made of iron mixed with clay as merely the fragmented post-Roman world from the Middle Ages on through the present:

Daniel 2:43 (CJB)
[43] You saw the iron mixed with clay; that means that they will cement their alliances by intermarriages; but they won’t stick together any more than iron blends with clay.

A pair of Dreams

Since this post is now becoming insufferably long, I’m going to close with just two more examples…

Joseph and the sheaves

Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and stood upright. And behold, your sheaves gathered around it and bowed down to my sheaf.”
— Genesis 37:7 (ESV)

Everyone is familiar with Joseph’s older brothers’ hatred for him because of the favoritism shown to him by their father. The intricate (from פַס, pahs, a difficult to pronounce guttural adjective if your language is English) robe given him by Jacob, probably “long-sleeved” rather than “multicolored”, greatly exacerbated the problem. When he then naively repeated his dream to the brothers, it was certainly a (forgive me) last [bundle of] straw.

Nobody needed to interpret that dream! Clearly, they recognized that it was a metaphorical picture of them, bowing down abjectly to their snotty young brother.

There is a tendency among Christian interpreters of Jewish Scripture to read literal meanings into visions and dreams even when it is clearly the symbolism that is vital. In this case, we understand that the brothers are right—the dream is indeed picturing them bowing to their brother.

Because of the absurdity of the dream itself, we understand that it is an allegory for Joseph’s relationship with his brothers, not a prediction that their crops will worship his!

Peter and the sheet

Here is another Biblical dream that uses an allegory to illustrate a Jewish premise. In this case, though, most gentile Christians (which today means most Christians) have a very weak understanding of Judaism and the Mosaic Covenant, so they take both the allegory and its premise literally.

10 [Peter] became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.
— Acts 10:10-16 (ESV)

When Peter woke from his trance, did he immediately run to the kitchen and shout, “Halleluiah, hold the falafel and hummus on pita and bring me a ham and cheese sandwich!”? No, he “was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision that he had seen might mean.” He knew that his God would not tell him to violate Kashrut (the dietary laws under Covenant), so he thought that it made absolutely no sense.

But by the time he met with Cornelius, he’d figured it out:

And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.
— Acts 10:28 (ESV) emphasis mine

As with Joseph’s sheaves, the sheet here is a picture, not the actual subject under discussion. I’ve stated in other articles that I believe the Mosaic Covenant, including its dietary laws, is still in force for Godly Jews. This passage by itself cannot prove me wrong (or right), because it is not about food, it’s about people.

Conclusions

Dogmatic interpretations of visions and dreams is seldom, if ever, possible unless corroboration is provided elsewhere—by means, for example of:

  1. Interpretation by the prophet himself, if provided.
  2. Direct interpretation by statements elsewhere in Scripture.
  3. Clear fulfillment elsewhere in Scripture.
  4. Parallelism, where two or more passages each contribute information.
  5. Ancient Jewish thought from Hebrew literary sources.
  6. Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) thought from ANE literary sources.
  7. Ancient history.
  8. Post-Biblical History.
  9. Current events.

Prophetic understanding sometimes comes slowly, and sometimes in bits and pieces. The Old Testament alone was not clear on the fact that the Messiah would come twice, with different agendas.

Prophecy has to be reevaluated when conditions change. Which goes along with my main purpose in writing this article—to urge against being too dogmatic about prophetic interpretation.

Over-interpretation by modern-day Christians is risky, though it may be entertaining!


Similarity Breeds Contempt

Outline:
Which came first?
Common origin?
What constitutes a myth?
The Egyptian creation myth
The Bible’s use of non-Biblical sources

Yes, indeed it does! Contemporary scholarship is aware of many, many undeniable similarities between historical events, cultural traditions, and even cultic practices (temple construction and ritual) as recorded in the Bible and those recorded in the sometimes-earlier legends of various ancient pagan civilizations. Does this mean that the Biblical material is stolen, copied, or derived from pagan sources? Is the Hebrew Bible copycat literature? If so, should we question the Bible’s inspiration, inerrancy and authority?

The Flood Tablet. This is perhaps the most famous of all cuneiform tablets. It is the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic and describes how the gods sent a flood to destroy the world. Like Noah, Utnapishtim was forewarned and built an ark to house and preserve living things. After the flood he sent out birds to look for dry land. Photo by Mike Peel.

Which came first?

There may be copying, but it isn’t always clear who copied whom.

Most of you will have either heard or read somewhere that the Genesis Flood story is similar to pagan legends such as the ancient Gilgamesh Flood Myth. Since “everyone knows” that the pagan work is mythological and came first, then “surely the Biblical record must be mythological as well, and so it should not be believed by intelligent people.” The Hebrew Bible is copycat literature, right? Plagiarized!

Did the Babylonian Flood Myth really precede the writing of Genesis? The pagan myth resides primarily on Tablet 11 (of 12) of the Standard Babylonian Version of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which contains gaps (lacunae) but is the most complete version known. This version is dated to the period 1300–1000 BC. Wikipedia claims that this is hundreds of years before Genesis was written, but by conservative Evangelical dating, Genesis can’t have been written any later than around 1406 BC, 40 years after the Exodus, when Moses died. However, earlier Gilgamesh tablets dated to as early as the Third Dynasty of Ur, 2100–2000 BC seem to contain an abbreviated version of the Flood Myth.

Common Origin?

For me, it isn’t worth quibbling about who scooped the story, because the actual event preceded both the Genesis account and all the flood myths in the world—of which there are a great many. A key reason for the existence of any cultural parallelism was that the different cultures shared a common ancestry.

Although writing began to appear as early as 3200 BC, history and legends were mostly propagated by mouth until well after Ur III. Everyone on earth was descended from Noah, and the story would certainly have spread from Babel along with humanity itself.

According to Ussher, the Flood occurred about (circa) 2350 BC and the Tower of Babel c2200 BC. I think those dates may be just a bit off. History records the 1st Dynasty of Egypt beginning c3100 BC. That had to be years after the Flood, and likely years after the Tower. Sargon the Great (probably Nimrod of the Bible) began ruling from Akkad from c2350 BC, and that would necessarily be some years after the Tower dispersion.

Whatever the dates, knowledge of the Flood would certainly have persisted as cultural lore for hundreds or even thousands of years—dinner-table tales passed from generation to generation.

Perhaps as important is the possibility that the immortal “sons/angels of God” that He placed over the scattered nations would always know of the Flood and would have engineered religious observances that exaggerated their own roles in His cosmos. This is a topic that will be foreign to most of you. I wrote about it in detail in Gods and Demons. Here I will just include one relevant passage:

8 When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God.
9 And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of his inheritance.
—Deuteronomy 32:8–9 LXX-B

I would suggest that, instead of viewing such parallels as evidence that Scripture is mythical, it is more productive to view them as evidence that there may be more truth in the pagan writings than previously realized.

What constitutes a myth?

In a short blog I just released a day or two ago, titled Religion vs. Mythology, I endorsed an Egyptologist’s definition of “mythology” as allegorical stories about primordial events, which aren’t necessarily meant to be believed, but are rather intended to convey a particular worldview.

The Biblical Flood story, whether myth or history, is clearly a polemic (a “controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine”—Webster) against pagan flood mythologies. The ubiquity of the mythologies supports belief that the Flood was real. I see nothing in the Biblical story to make me think it is not historically accurate. I’ve written a number of articles on the subject (see, for example, Fountains of the Deep and Ships, Boats, Floats and Arks).

What about creation stories? Like the Flood stories, they are ubiquitous in the ancient world. We observe a universe, in which we all reside. Obviously, it exists, so that ubiquity is not surprising. I believe in causality. If something happens, including creation, then it was caused. I have way less confidence in the idea that the universe just popped up spontaneously, or that it has simply always existed, either on its own or as a bud on a multiverse that has always existed, than in the idea that it was created.

The pagan creation stories are clearly mythology. Is Genesis 1?

The Egyptian creation myth

In my article Genesis 1:1–5, Day 1, I presented an artist’s conception of the Mesopotamian version of creation and described how it also seems to picture the Genesis 1 account. One way that historians differentiate between “religion” and “mythology” is that religion is meant to be believed in all its detail, while mythology is intended to impart lessons or principles, without requiring slavish belief in the story itself. Though I didn’t word it quite this way, what I suggested was in a sense that Genesis 1 deliberately presents a mythological picture, obvious to Moses’ audience, in order to teach the superiority of the God of Israel over the gods of the pagans. By definition, that constitutes a polemic.

Here, I will go into a bit more detail on the specifics of the Egyptian version.

Egyptian version of creation. Note the vaguely organic shapes on “earth” and the stars on “sky”, with the sun suspended in “air”.

In the beginning, there was the Ogdoad, a group of eight frog-headed “primordial gods”, in four pairs (both brother/sister and husband/wife):

  1. Hok and Hoket, whose defining attribute was Formlessness.
  2. Amun and Amunet, whose defining attribute was Invisibility.
  3. Kuk and Kuket, whose defining attribute was Darkness.
  4. Nun and Nunet, whose defining attribute was Fluidity.

As a group, the Ogdoad represents a chaotic state, reminiscent of Genesis 1:2 (“without form, and void (or hidden), and darkness on the face of the waters“).

Out of this watery chaos rose a primordial hill, on which stood Atum, from whom all else arose. He created himself and is the father of Shu (air) and Tefnut (moisture).

Shu and Tefnut had two children, Geb (earth) and Nut (sky). This pair is pictured above wearing brown and blue, respectively. In some versions, their father, Shu, is jealous of the incestuous relationship of Geb and Nut and has squeezed himself in between them—”air” between “earth” and “sky.”

Moving beyond the creation of the cosmos, Shu and Tefnut have four children, the pairs Isis and Osiris (the good guys) and Seth (evil) and Nephis (good).

Genesis 1 in the Bible clearly describes the same cosmos as the Egyptian version (and those of other ancient pagan cultures). Clearly, the Bible teaches that the God we worship is Creator of all that exists. To me, that is indisputable. But at the same time, the description presented in Genesis 1 is too much like the pagan myths (but with Yahveh replacing all the pagan gods) and too little like the universe we live in to be taken literally. I would describe it as a polemic against the pagan versions, presented allegorically, like prophetic vision and Jesus’ parables.

The Bible’s use of non-Biblical sources

Still scandalized that the Bible stoops to make use of non-Biblical sources?

In the same way that modern scholarly writers frequently cite earlier sources, so did the Biblical writers. As I mentioned in some detail in Gods and Demons (under “Source Materials”), there are some 100 Biblical references to non-canonical sources actually cited by name by the Scriptural writers. A list can be found on Wikipedia.

Since few of these are now extant, you will often hear them referred to as “lost books of the Bible.” This terminology is unfortunate because it implies that they are inspired works that have somehow slipped through the cracks of history. Not so—I’m pretty sure that if God cared enough to oversee their writing in the first place, He would have protected them from loss.

But what if some of those lost writings were inspired? Then I’m quite comfortable assuming that they were written for a specific time and/or place in history and are no longer relevant. I refuse to waste my energy speculating on possibilities like that since it is all in God’s hand.

Another “but”: If inspired text references other writings, shouldn’t we consider them as inspired as well? Consider the following, for example,

[19] Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.
—1 Kings 14:19 (ESV)

What this tells me is that the Biblical writers researched their material. It wasn’t merely whispered in their ears by the Holy Spirit. When Christian writers today cite Josephus, they are acknowledging that he was a 1st Century historian who had access to sources that are now unavailable. We believe that Josephus was mostly pretty accurate, so we use what he says where it makes sense, even though we know that (a) he did make occasional demonstrably incorrect statements; and (b) he did write with certain political biases, for a Roman audience. When we cite him without qualification, we are endorsing (at least provisionally) the material applicable to our own work, but not at all the rest of his writings. When a Biblical writer does the same, we aren’t to think that the source material is infallible, just that the Holy Spirit has infallibly endorsed the ideas gleaned from it.

Another use of the term “lost books of the Bible” is in reference to the so-called deuterocanonical (“second canon”) books. These include the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books found, for example, in Catholic bibles. Also sometimes included are various “gospels” that some folks think should be regarded as canon. They are not “lost” in the sense of being non-extant. All I’ll say about these is that many good books have been written about the selection of Christian canon, and I’m happy to take the position that the Church Fathers did the best possible job in setting the official canon. Though there is much I think can be learned from these sources regarding historical and cultural issues, and common beliefs that were held by ancient peoples, I agree that they cannot be considered inerrant.

Random pages from The Complete 54-Book Apocrypha: 2022 Edition with the Deuterocanon, 1-3 Enoch, Giants, Jasher, Jubilees, Pseudepigrapha & the Apostolic Fathers. ©Covenant Press

The Bible also contains a number of actual quotations from extrabiblical sources like the Book of 1 Enoch. That a non-canonical source was quoted does not mean that the source was Spirit-inspired, only that the Spirit approved the material from that source that was used by the Biblical author. That a passage from 1 Enoch was quoted by Jude and Peter likewise does not imply that the Book of 1 Enoch was inspired; but it does invest the quoted passage with a “seal of authenticity.” In other words, Jude and Peter were inspired in their restating of the quoted words.

I think that we sometimes err in not paying enough attention to such quoted material. Consider, for example,

14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,
15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
—Jude 1:14–15 ESV

Jude may be the most underrated book of the Bible. At first glance it seems to have a very simple theme: In times past, and still today, God condemns heresy and wickedness. We are familiar with most of the historical examples of bad behavior given in Jude. Most studies treat them as simple examples of sinful humanity. I think there is way more to it than that. Pending a future blog on the subject, I’m just going to state now that the verses quoted above can’t be understood without also reading the source material, which in this case is still available.