The Gap Theory VII
Who can forget Sylvester Stallone as Rambo? This guy was a pure war machine. An unsuspecting hick sheriff pushes Rambo to the limit and arrests him for vagrancy; an obviously trumped-up charge. Rambo has enough of their abuse and busts out of the small police station with nothing but his knife and the clothes on his back. He steals a motorcycle, ends up in the mountains and hides in a cave. Before he brutalizes the local law enforcement, he communicates, via a radio he stole, with his special forces commander from the Vietnam war. While explaining to Colonel Troutman why he is in this mess, Rambo offers this excuse: “He drew first blood”.
In the Bible, first blood means something completely different. We all understand that a Messiah would need to come to take the place of fallen man and take on God’s wrath. However, there are some big questions that need to be answered. One of the big questions throughout history has been was Jesus a real man? There are three possibilities; yes, no, and sort of. Was He really the “last Adam”? On that note, who was Adam? Who named his wife? Let us start with the easy one; Who named Adam’s wife?
Genesis 3:20 “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living”.
Adam named her Eve because she was the mother of all living humans that were to come. God told them to replenish the earth and they were preparing to do so. If Adam named her Eve, what did God call her?
Genesis 5:2 “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created”.
God called “their name Adam”. That is odd. Was Adam his last name and they were Mr. and Mrs. Adam? When peeling back the layers, we see it is not a male thing or a female thing; it is a blood thing.
In biology, the baby’s blood comes from the father. While the baby has DNA from both parents, and blood types from both parents (which comes from the DNA), the actual blood trail comes through the father. This is crucial in the system God put in place as we will see going forward. Well, wait, the umbilical cord is attached to the baby and the mother. False. The umbilical cord is attached to the baby and the placenta. The umbilical cord has two small arteries to transfer blood to the placenta from the baby and one major artery to flow blood from the placenta back to the baby. The mother’s blood never touches the inside of the baby.
According to Leviticus 17:13, the blood is the life of the living being.
“And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.”
With that in mind, did Adam have blood? Adam definitely had blood. The real question is not did he, but whose? Just as He gave him all the other perfect body parts, God provided Adam with pure, perfect, and uncorrupted blood.
All Hebrew names have a specific meaning. Because they do, what does Adam mean? When breaking down the name Adam, it has two parts. Starting with the second part, the meaning of dam in Hebrew is blood. This leaves the first part “A”. In English, “A” is the first letter of the alphabet. The first letter of the Hebrew alphabet is Aleph. In Greek, the first letter is Alpha. This information is important in that Jesus said He was the “Alpha and the Omega”. In Zechariah 12:10, we see the Hebrew counterpart Alpha and Omega.
"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn".
There are two letters not translated from the original language surrounding the part of this verse that says, "whom they have pierced. They are the Aleph and the Tau; the first and last letters of the Hebrew Alphabet. If one were to read the part of the passage with this translated, it would read as follows:
“… and they shall look upon me (the aleph and the tau) whom they have pierced”
Jesus is eternally first in everything. In John 8:58, Jesus tells the Pharisees the following during a heated debate.
“Before Abraham was, I am”. He is the first in everything, as well as the last.
Adam’s name means pure, holy, and uncorrupted, God provided, blood. When looking up Adam in Strong’s Concordance, it is defined as ruddy; a human being; to show blood; flush or turn rosy; be red. The best way to look at this is that the blood creates the color in the skin. When you see someone flush, they have a rush of blood to their head. When someone is dead, their skin is ashy because of no blood.
What about Eve? Whose blood did she have?
Genesis 2:21 “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
While the woman was made from man, he was not her earthly parent. Note that Adam did not say she was part of his blood; just bones and flesh. Is it clear why God “called their name Adam”? They both had God’s blood.
In 1 Corinthians 15:45-47, Jesus is referred to as “the last Adam” and “the second man”. It is very interesting that Paul does not call Jesus the “second Adam”. He could not call Him that because Eve was the second Adam; albeit Jesus was the “second man” in the context for his comparison between earthly and heavenly. There were three individuals on this planet in human form with God’s blood; Adam, Eve, and Jesus.
This brings us to the importance of the blood being God’s. With pure blood, Adam and Eve lived in perfection. However, when they sinned their blood became corrupted. When they rebelled against God, they changed gods. Hence, throughout history Adam’s blood has been passed down to us. Father to father, their blood in a corrupted state has been passed down to every human who ever lived. Because of this, we are born into sin because of corrupted blood. This is why the emphasis is on the blood as the saving element of Christianity. This begs the question that has been debated since Jesus died on the cross; was He a real man?
The easy answer is yes. However, to save you hours of research, only a man could have taken your place on the cross. Jesus drained Himself of His glory to come here and take our place and absorb God’s wrath upon Himself. In order to redeem us, He had to redeem Adam. Jesus had God’s blood when He was born to Mary. The Holy Spirit impregnated her; Joseph, Jesus' step-father, did not. Jesus was protected from Mary’s blood via the umbilical cord. He lived a sinless life. This kept God’s blood pure. He shed that blood on the cross and died. All would have been in vain without the resurrection. From His birth until his last breath at 3 p.m. on Thursday, April 6th, 30 A.D., He was 100% man. The fact that He was 100% God as well is very difficult for some people. He drained Himself of His glory (kenosis) in order to take on the flesh of a man. This does NOT mean He drained Himself of being God. Because He was in a fleshly body, He could have sinned. I stress "could have", but the good news is He did not. It is my contention that Jesus gave His authority to the Father because He would be in the flesh. This may further illustrate that Jesus could have sinned but did not. In John 5:19-20 and John 8:28-29, He says He “can do nothing of myself”. Would God say that? No, but Jesus would if He had given His authority to the Father knowing that there was a possibility He could sin. Jesus remained sinless hence redeeming mankind’s tainted blood; which is his life.
While it is no secret that Noah’s flood was a judgment upon the earth, few truly understand the basis for it. When reading the sixth chapter of Genesis, it is not until the seventeenth verse that God tells Noah He will be flooding the earth. The previous sixteen verses tell the story of why. The short version is judgment. God is going to judge the earth and its inhabitants and tells Noah to build a vessel in which he will basically ride it out. While good scholars are on both sides of the debate concerning chapter six, the views put forward here make sense to the overall theme of this series in general. I feel it is important for the reader to understand the reasoning behind God’s decision to judge as it will help with the fuller understanding of the criminality of Lucifer and his objectives. The short version is he wanted to taint the blood of all humanity to prevent the Messiah from coming to save that which was lost.
The following is Genesis 6:1-4 –
“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives all of which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man; for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men which were of old, men of renown”.
In fairness to those scholars that believe in a Sethite Theory to explain the above, I will give a brief synopsis of it. However, it is my opinion and the opinion of many scholars that this theory takes the text and stretches it to an impossible level. I feel that making the case for Nephilim is not only correct but requires a lot less faith in something that makes no sense otherwise. According to most commentaries, the Sethites were the children and descendants of Seth. They contend that when God states the “Sons of God” took “the daughters of men”, He is referring to the Sethites being Godly. In contrast, because Cain killed Abel, the daughters of men are the children of Cain. How this makes sense is beyond me, but it is much easier to believe this than to deal with the facts that are presented. Their contention is because Cain killed Abel and God put a mark on Cain, that his lineage would forever be cursed. This theory also contends that God told Seth’s children to not comingle with Cain’s children. Because they did, according to the Sethite theory, God judged the earth. A simple question comes to mind at this point. Why did God not judge the earth when the Israelites comingled with other nations after being told not to. They were told many times by God not to intermarry in the text, yet still, they did. Nowhere does the text say that Seth’s children were not to comingle with Cain’s. If your argument as to why no judgment on a grand scale for the Israelites comingling with other nations is that God promised not to judge the earth again, that is incorrect. He stated He would not flood the earth again. He never said judgment was not coming nor could come at any time; even on a local scale, He just said it would not be through a flood on a global scale.
It is interesting to note that in chapter four of Genesis, Cain’s great-grandson and great-great-grandson had the name of God in their names. Could it be that God’s grace saved people even then? Why would someone name their children Mehujael and Methusael if they were cursed and had no hope of glory? If they were truly a cursed people and named their children with the name of God referenced, it would be akin to a Jew naming their son Adolph. A bigger question arises as to the son of Seth that is never addressed. In the fourth chapter of Genesis, Seth has a son he named Enos.
Genesis 4:26 “And to Seth, to him also was born a son; and he called his name Enos; then began men to call upon the name of the LORD”.
When reviewing this passage, there seems to be more here than meets the eye in the original language. In the Hebrew, the word chalal is used for then began men. The word chalal means to profane, defile, desecrate. In Leviticus 19, chalal is translated as profane in verse 12. I point this out to show that the word translated in Genesis 4:26 as call is translated profane in Leviticus. Enos, as it would appear, led men to begin to profane the Lord; not to worship Him. On the flipside, it seems as though Cain had a “come to Jesus meeting” and took advantage of the grace given. Flimsy? Maybe, but it is amazing how doctrine and tradition can be built on such twisting of scripture as is done in the “Sethite Theory”.
Now we will do a review of Genesis chapter six and its first four verses in a way that is translated from the original text and common usage in scripture. Which considering our blood discovery, makes a lot more sense. In verse one we see “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply”. In the original language there are only three Hebrew words for all of these in English. Our word chalal reappears in between Adam for man, and rabab for to multiply. The reason this is important is it lets the reader understand that already in the multiplying of humans, there is some ugliness going on. If we were to read those three words, Adam chalal rabab, in their original meanings it would sound like this:
“a human being profaned, defiled, and desecrated, in their multiplying or casting together”
What an odd way to talk about the replenishment of the earth as was Adam commanded to do just a few chapters earlier in Genesis 1:28. This is how chapter six opens letting the reader know there is trouble. When addressing the reader about daughters being born, nowhere does it say that these were only daughters in Cain’s lineage. The Holy Spirit makes it clear that since man was created, they have been multiplying and their daughters were the vessels used.
The “sons of God” is only two words in the original language. They are ben and elohiym. This phrase “sons of God” is used four other times in the Old Testament. It is used in Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7. Each time this phrase is used, it refers to angels. What makes any scholar believe it should be changed for this one passage only? It clearly is referring to angels, a direct creation of God. While not a very palatable subject to think that angels had sex with women and created an offspring, it is exactly what happened.
In the book of Jude 1:6, there is a reference to this.
“And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day”.
While there is a lot here in this verse to unpack, we will only be looking at two words in the original language. They are the following; first estate and habitation. The word in the original language for first estate is arche. It means a commencement. The other is the word for habitation. In the original language, it is oiketerion. It means a residence, habitation. Now, before you think that the angels simply left where they were living, look a little closer. The word oiketerion is only used in one other place in the New Testament. In 2 Corinthians 5:2, Paul alludes to the heavenly body that we, as Christians, long to put on when we pass from this life to the next. In essence, the angels that sinned unzipped somehow from this heavenly body, to participate in this mischief we read in Genesis six.
Most will cite Matthew 22:30 to prove otherwise but fail to see what it is saying.
“For in the resurrection they neither marry or are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven”.
It says they do not marry, it does not say they are not capable of leaving their heavenly bodies and participating in some weird goings-on. Marriage is God-ordained so obviously, this would not be God-ordained as evidenced by the judgment of Noah’s flood.
The last word to look at from Genesis six is giants. While it is true they were very large, the word means something else. The word for giants in the original language is nephiyl. It means earth born or fallen. Interesting choice of words. It is only used one other time in the Old Testament in Numbers 13 when referring to the giants in the land. This entire passage in Genesis 6:1-4 lets you know that because of the sexual perversion between angels and women, this strange offspring were produced. Any logical person would ask why. The answer is really quite simple; Jesus.
Satan was told by God that a Messiah would be born to save the world in Genesis chapter three while He was doling out punishments. While Satan probably did not understand fully what that meant, he did understand that a Messiah would have to come from a pure bloodline if He would be the Messiah. His goal was to obviously disrupt the bloodline. By disrupting the bloodline, it would keep the Messiah from coming. When God judged the earth and the inhabitants of it, there was a gene pool problem. The biggest clue can be found in Noah. Have you ever asked why him? Why Noah? Genesis 6:9 gives us the answer.
“These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God”.
How many people that have ever walked this earth have been perfect? I think it is safe to say just one and His name was Jesus. What does it mean that Noah was “perfect in his generations”? The word for perfect in the original language is tamiym. It means without spot or blemish. This is the same word that is used for the Passover lamb. In the context of what is going on, Noah was not corrupted; his gene pool was good. While not everyone was corrupt, for God to judge the entire planet, that possibility must have been real. This reference could read “Noah was a righteous man and was without spot or blemish in his revolution of time”. The Holy Spirit is letting the reader know that it was bad and that Noah was not tainted while most of those during his time was. God judged the earth and mankind; plain and simple.
While understanding this string of events, it makes it a little easier to understand that it could have happened once before. This could be why God said He would not do it again. He made a promise to Noah, and because of that Satan was off and running again. When the Hebrew children were held in Egypt for 400 years, this gave plenty of time for a land mine field to be laid down in the promised land. It took Joshua about five years, with God’s help, to get rid of all the mess in the promised land; the Nephilim. Satan is continually active, and you should never forget that. When asking why God would command Joshua, or whomever to kill every man, woman, child, and beast in a village, now you know. Eventually, the land was cleared of the Nephilim, but there are instances like Goliath and his brothers from Gath that were still there. Of the twelve spies that Moses sent into the promised land, only two, Caleb and Joshua, came back and said they could take the land. The other ten were scared to death. Numbers 13:33 states, “we were as grasshoppers in their sight”.
Just for added measure, remember that Jesus said the following in Luke 17:26: “As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the coming of the Son of Man”. By the way, it looks like the process may have begun again. Maybe when “genetic testing” and “stem cell research” is talked about, they mean something else? A question now is, if Satan was defeated at the cross and Adam was redeemed, why does Satan continue or is allowed to continue his attacks. To what end? For what purpose now?
With all due respect to Rambo, the REAL: Special Forces fighter was to come, and we are certainly glad He did.