Carl Gallups’ book Gods and Thrones contains some interesting statements about Carl Gallups on Angels, Satan, Nephilim, and Gibborim and I wished to review.
We “know from the Scriptures that even the angelic beings are subdivided into classes. We read of the seraphim (Isaiah 6), the cherubim (Genesis 3:24), and the archangel Michael—one (apparently of others) of the chief princes (Daniel 10:13, 1 Thessalonians 4:16), and Gabriel—the announcing angel (Luke 1).”
Such a statement is very, very common and yet it is a common misconception. The common parlance term “angelic” is used to generically refer to God’s main administrators. Yet, the fact is that, by definition, angelic can only refer to Angles. Angels, Cherubim and Seraphim are different categories of beings as they have different job titles, they look different from each other, etc. Thus, Angles are angelic but Cherubim and Seraphim are not.
Thus, angelic would apply to Michael who is an archangel—one, and I would not say “apparently” of others but that there may be others of which we are not aware as no other Angle is referred to as such within the Bible. It would also apply to Gabriel of whom Gallups employs the descriptive term “announcing angel” due to him having interacted with Mary regarding Jesus’ birth.
If we are to generically term Angels, Cherubim and Seraphim as angelic then why not refer to Angels and Seraphim as cherubic or to Angels and Cherubim as seraphic—or what have you.
In short, generalizing by compounding causes problems just as it would cause problems if we refer to humans and bovines as humanoid just because both categories of being are Earth dwellers.
Carl Gallups also writes, “We know angels can appear as humans.” This is also very, very common and yet it is somewhat of a common misconception. It could be said that they “appear” as humans because they are not human but appear as such (in every single biblical instance wherein something about how they look is elucidated). Yet, as far as we know, they “appear” as humans because just that: they “appear” as humans.
And here is where we get to the somewhat of a common misconception as by “appear as” some mean that they shapeshift, take on human forms/bodies when they interact with us, etc. Yet, the Bible knows nothing of any such thing.
By “appear as” what should be meant is that Angles look just like human beings (males) ontologically/by nature. That is to say that all we can conclude from the Bible is that Angles and humans look the same (no wings, etc.) and yet, they can do that which we may term traverse dimensions.
Similar to this issue is that Gallups writes, “We also know Satan can appear as an angel of light if he so desires (2 Corinthians 11:14).” We again are dealing with the issue of what is meant by “appear.” Does it mean that he shapeshifts from his Cherubim body (as he is not a fallen Angel but a fallen Cherub) to look like an Angel (a human form rather than his four faced, four winged Cherubic form)?
The text reads as follows with v. 15 included for a key to the context, “Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.”
Thus, regardless of if the translation reads “is transformed,” “transforms himself,” etc. the point is that whatever it is that Satan does in this regard is just that is done by “his ministers” who also are “transformed as the ministers of righteousness” and the greater context tells us that these ministers are not demons but human false teachers/prophets.
The term Angel means messenger and is thus a descriptive job title. Thus, “appear as an angel of light” means pretending to be delivering a message from God when he is really delivering his own—his own which are generally corrupt copies of God’s.
Gallups adds to this, “Satan can even appear as an ‘angel of light,’ and there is little doubt in the mind of many students of God’s Word that this is exactly what he will do in the last days (2 Corinthians 11:14; 2 Thessalonians 2:11).” Well, we just reviewed the 2 Corinthians text and the 2 Thessalonians reads “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.”
V. 10, as well as the previous 9, elucidates that “this cause” refers to that “with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” Thus, Satan will certainly be delivering his own messages in the last days as he has done all along.
Lastly, Carl Gallups writes, “In Genesis 6:4, the word translated ‘heroes’ comes from the Hebrew word #1368 (gibbor). The word means, ‘A powerful warrior, a tyrant, a mighty man—and a giant of a man.’ So, in both cases, Nephilim and gibbor, we find the connection to giants in the most literal sense of the word. The word translated as ‘renowned’ simply means ‘well-known.’ So, what we truly have here are: notorious tyrant-warriors who were overwhelmingly powerful and huge—even gigantic in stature.”
This is also a very common and also requires a lot of background to unpack so that I will direct the interested reader to my succinctly all-encompassing article on this issue found here. Also, see my books On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? subtitled “A survey of early Jewish and Christian commentaries including notes on giants and the Nephilim” and In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.
Now, Genesis 6 tells us that “the sons of God” married and had children with “the daughters of men” and then the translational problems begin since, for example, the KJV has that “There were giants” when or as a result of “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them” and that “the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
So, the term “giant” is for the Hebrew Nephilim, “mighty men” is for the Hebrew gibbor and “men of renown” is simply literally of name as in just that: well known, famous, etc.
It is my opinion that the English term “giant” does not belong in English translations for, at least, two reasons: 1) it is a generic term that merely means taller than average and 2) it is a word that is used to translate various Hebrew words. For example, the term Nephilim is sometimes translated as giant but only due to the Septuagint/LXX which reads gigantes (literally “Earth born”) and yet, the text knows utterly nothing of them being any taller than the average human (the average Hebrew male of biblical days was 5.5 ft.).
Thus, in both cases, Nephilim and gibbor, we find absolutely no connection to giants in any sense of the word—we are never told anything about the height of Nephilim and, as noted, gibbor is generic and we know that it is used for humans who are mighty warriors, etc. Thus no, there is no indication that Nephilim were “huge—even gigantic in stature.”
This is so even if a concordance, lexicon, dictionary, etc. include the generic term “giant” in their definition of the words Nephilim or gibborim. This is because such reference materials are just that: references which provide generic definitions that, by necessity and by definition, are uncontextual. Any given context will ultimately determine meaning and so, in this case, the context does not at all imply giant and so we cannot pull the term from a generic definition and insert it into the text.
Lastly, Gallups also makes arguments for the original sin having been sexual in nature—sex between Adam, Eve and Satan or between someone else—and yet, he argues this 99% but stops shy of affirming it 100% because, as he well knows, the Bible knows of no such thing.
Thus, I am including my reply to his arguments in that regard within my book Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. III: Considering the Claims of Various Promulgators of this Theory (published circa mid-2018 AD).
I include him therein even though he does not actually claim that view 100% because he does employ serpent seed arguments and since they fail, so do his.
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
–>Continue reading →