The Allotments Of The People (Deut. 32:8)

I recently ran across an article by Michael Heisner on the differences between the Masoretic Hebrew version of Deuteronomy 32:8 & the Septuagint reading.   

The essence of the question is “Which version is correct?  The LXX (Sons of God) or the Masoretic Hebrew (Sons of Israel)?   

He is correct that Deut. 32:8 alludes to Babel, but he’s wrong to assert that the scribes altered the text to protect God’s reputation. That’s a conspiracy theory on his part.   He ought to have known better, & in reality the scribe or scribes’ motive is irrelevant.  The doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture doesn’t specify that God protects His people from being motivated in a manner we ourselves find objectionable.   Rather, it specifies that Scripture is occasioned.  

 

Heisner theorizes that at some point, the scribe or scribes who wrote the younger text (the Masoretic) found that references to competing gods was objectionable.   Therefore, Heisner says that the older text is the preferred (correct) reading.  

By way of reply, Dr. Heisner was obsessed the composition of the Heavenly Court.   His article is a classic case of judging the text tradition in favor of his particular theological interest at the expense of the meaning of the text as a whole.     He was a continuationist, & the Bible teaches Continuationism, so I am a bit surprised that he missed what was in front of his eyes.  

The key to correctly  understanding this text works very like Matthew’s citation of Isaiah 7:14.   The Hebrew version of Isaiah reads “young woman of marriable age.”   The LXX reads, “virgin.”  Which one is correct?  

Both!  The Hebrew points us to the child born in Isaiah’s name as an answer to Ahaz.   Matthew chooses the LXX version to point us to Christ.   From a continuationist perspective, God inspired both versions & inspired Matthew to use the LXX not the Hebrew.   

With that in mind, let us consider this question: “Sons of God” is the LXX reading.  “Sons of Israel” is the Masoretic reading.  Which is correct?  Both!  I believe these 2 readings can be reconciled, insofar as God intends for us to harmonize these text variants in a way that does justice to both readings.   Remember, one of the rules for exegeting/expositng texts that are eschatological is that some words & contexts have a layered reading, insofar as they can (and often do) have more than one referent. 

The Noah narrative is a fictional story relating one or more historical events.  As to the fiction,  the story appears to include sex between fallen angels & at the root of the legendarily hybrids, the Nephilim. 

That said,  I think it’s dubious at best to conclude that the people in Genesis 6 were having sex with angels and demons on the Earth & having children with them in a literal sense. That sort of literal reading would mean that angelic or similar beings were allowed to materialize on the earth after &/or before the age of Noah.    

Sometimes modern day Christians, some of whom believe it to be necessary to defend the literal meaning of the text at all costs, act as if we’re giving away the store to the theologically liberal wing of Christendom if we agree with them that the story is fictional.  Consequently, in their desire to defend against Anti-Supernaturalism, they don’t stop to think about the biblical pattern when it comes to the appearance of angels & other such entities.  

Is there a pattern to their appearances?  How often do angels appear to people?  If fallen angels were allowed the sort of access to human beings required for a multiple pregnancies, that would mean they have had more in-person access to than angels themselves seem to have.  The biblical pattern is angelic visits are few & far between, & if demons were prone to appearing for enough to anchor the population of the Nephilim, then why doesn’t Scripture do a better job detailing these encounters?  Why do we need The Assumption of Moses or The Book of Enoch in order to equip us to handle them?   

The story is informing us that people, who were surrounded idolatry and witchcraft were dedicating themselves and their children to territorial spirits, & both demons and angels took sides.  Demons underwrote idols.  Angels defended humans and animals.  It also informs us that these were  reciprocating relationships. 

 

What does it mean for these daughters to bear children from them?  The humans on earth were dedicating children to idols through witchcraft &  demons came to both accept and reject these children.  The text is describing something akin to Molech worship, & in addition people living in that age were accustomed to their rulers claiming divine ancestry.

What sorts of activities were involved? The human “sons of God” took women and mated with them via cultic rituals.  Evil men who worshipped idols underwritten by demons, were known to kidnap, rape, & romance women who bore them children.  Sometimes the women were complicit; sometimes they were not complicit. 

They also went in to men, some of whom cross dressed & served as shrine prostitutes.  Their idols at the time took the form of animals and animalian people.  They also offered animal & human sacrifices to their gods.  Jude most certainly has this in mind when he touches on sexual immorality and strange flesh while informing us that demons do the same thing.  He is educating us about what Greco-Roman religion was doing.

Reasoning this way, we can see that from a Hellenistic (LXX) perspective, God is answering the Egyptian, Greek, & Persian pantheons & reminding them that (unlike God Himself), they are territorial pseudodeities just like those in Canaan (and anywhere else).  

From the Masorete (Hebrew) perspective, the text reminds Israel that God is the one in charge of them, the land, & everything they possess.  It also answers their competition (the Canaanites) who identify uber-closely with their tribal & territorial deities.   Remember, ancient religions worked on the principle that those pseudodeities owned & ruled different sets of people & the land & are always tribal & territorial, unlike the LORD, who is universal. 

Thus, both readings are correct.  The LXX (Sons of God)  is about competing pseudodeities and a statement about the governance of the Realm within the 24 Elders & others of whom the government of the Realm is composed.   As God has appointed & assigned the tribes of the Earth geographically, so has He assigned the members of His court any number of guardianships as an answer to the pseudodeities & others who oppose His suzerainty & the dominion of His people.  The other variant (Sons of Israel) is about the people living on the Earth —- specifically Israel & (via Representative Theology) the Nations in general.