Edwin Tillyer

Apr 122016

The Lord Jesus Christ defined the unforgiveable sin when he said: “Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” Matt 12: 31,32

This statement was made in the context of a response to the Pharisees’ blasphemous accusation: “This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.” in the preceding verse 24 of the same chapter. The Lord Jesus Christ repeated the statement in a different context in Luke 12:10.

Blasphemy is a spoken sin according to the definition given here and can only be a slanderous and maligned misrepresentation of the nature and identity of God, The Holy Spirit in particular in the instance here.

This was not the only occasion when the Pharisees blasphemed the Holy Spirit in order to try to discredit the ministry of The Lord Jesus Christ. In John 8:48 they said to him “Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?”, compounding their words in verse 52 “Now we know that thou hast a devil.”

What is so heinous about this blasphemy was that it was uttered by those who knew the truth and were attempting to deter others from receiving the truth. When Nicodemus had previously visited The Lord Jesus Christ secretly by night, he spoke for his Pharisee colleagues and declared their understanding to Him with the words: “Rabbi, WE KNOW that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.” John 3:2

Their subsequent blasphemy was therefore calculated, strategic and spoken against their foreknowledge of the truth, which are themselves additional qualifiers of blasphemy as opposed to lies which are heard, believed and repeated in ignorance. Nicodemus’ secret admission is witness against them in that respect.

I compiled this brief and to the point study after seeing one of the most misleading and convoluted presentations on the subject I have ever seen or heard, either in the social networks or elsewhere.

We are given the criteria by which to test the integrity of any spirit. These are (1) By their acknowledgement of the true identity of The Lord Jesus Christ and of His finished work in the flesh; His life, death and resurrection. (2) By the kind of fruit evident in and through the lives of those who speak by the spirit.

Speculative opinion or untested deference to the opinions of others are not options which we should ever allow ourselves to be drawn into in respect of such a matter.

Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing!

Dec 262015

The letters to the seven churches in Revelation are addressed to those whom each one applies. As a whole, they are the measure by which any church or group of fellowshipping believers ought to examine themselves.

In the letter to Ephesus, Revelation 2:1-7, Jesus commends their appraisal of apostate individuals and groups. To have done this, the Ephesus church would have known these people, observed their activities and measured them according the fruit they had borne, understanding their corruption of the teachings given by Jesus and His apostles. Their perceptions would have been confirmed by the witness of the Holy Spirit before that of any brethren.

How then might they, as an entire church, have left their first love and what bearing does this have on the warning and promise given in the conclusion of the letter?

Jesus warned of such an eventuality during his sermon which is recorded in Matthew chapter 24, verse 12: “And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” There is a clear connection in this statement. It indicates cause and effect.

When iniquity abounds, both in the world and in the church, it can monopolise people’s attention, their conversation, their studies, their preaching and even their prayers. They may begin to see iniquity in everything and everybody outside of their accepted group. They may begin to judge and reject others according to superficial things which are nothing of themselves, setting standards of equally superficial observances and ignoring the clear teaching given in Romans 14:1-14. They may judge according to whether their their arguments constrain others to their point of view rather than trust the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth. It may become progressively easier for them, by an ever increasing number of manufactured excuses, to abandon that love for others which is the very same means by which they might overcome, having become preoccupied with discernment between good and evil and seeing it as a measure of godliness.

The “candlestick” of Ephesus and every other church addressed in the letters of Revelation is its ministry, the means by which it ought to enlighten the world. This will be removed from them, as it well ought even by natural consequence, unless Jesus’ warning is heeded.

To the overcomer in Ephesus, Jesus promises the liberty to eat freely from the tree of life. This should remind us to take another look into Genesis, where Eve and then Adam forfeited that liberty by choosing to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

In 1 Corinthians 15:45 Jesus is described as the last Adam: “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” Who then is “the last Eve” and what might she be tempted by subtlety to do?

I leave any readers of this post to conclude the answer to these last questions and further, to examine their own position rather than that of others in light of this and every other letter to the churches in Revelation chapters 2 & 3.

Jul 122015

I loved this brief study on the subject of unicorns (rhinos) in the Bible. It really pulls the wraps off how cartoon mythology has been used to try to rob scripture of credibility in people’s minds.

Where did the idea of a horse with a narwhal tusk on its forehead come from? I think I’ve found the likely source in certain designs of medieval battle armour for war horses. The particular design below typifies the classic mythological “unicorn” appearance and no doubt enhanced the war horse’s aggressive functionality in battle, remembering that such horses were trained to be as functionally combatant as their armoured riders. It’s not so much mythological as historical when you look at it.

Horse Battle Armour


This design of horse armour appears to have been popularised as the image of a unicorn through its use in heraldry, the devices of recognition of medieval knights through to contemporary nobility. This is most easily recognisable in the British Royal Family’s coat of arms:



Another myth busted and the reliability of scripture confirmed yet again!

Jul 012015

The words of Jesus Christ are in ultimate authority over both the judged and those doing the judging in any matter.

He said “Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.” Matt 11:21-24

Did you get that? He told us the very thing that would have caused Sodom to repent. It is the demonstration of the power of the Gospel of the Kingdom as Jesus would have demonstrated it. This is the commission of The Body of Christ, those who believe on His name, obey His commandments and receive The Holy Spirit in empowerment to do the “greater things than these” which Jesus also promised.

Feel challenged? I know I do and so we ought! If we’re honest, we all need to be more of Jesus and less of ourselves. But please, don’t see this as a collection of individual needs and commissions. God wants to pour His Spirit out upon the entire Body of Christ in these times.The time for celebrity ministers is over.

When His called and chosen are in one accord in the place where He has commanded them to be, it will happen. What will that “one accord” be? One accord speaks of mutual agreement, whether of support under persecution or any other circumstance. I’ve heard many postulations about what the disciples might have been in one accord about on the day of Pentecost, some of them fancifully spiritual but I reckon they might all just as easily have been quaking in their sandals for fear of the Jews at the same vibrational frequency.

It matters not. What matters is that we as a unified body of people are not experiencing the day to day normality of raising the dead, healing the sick, casting out devils, preaching the living Word of God with signs and wonders following and greater things than these.

Jesus said of the Holy Spirit that He will reprove the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment (upon the prince of this world, whose works he came to destroy) see John 16:7-11. What is our expectation of God in these times? To pour out His wrath upon those whose sins differ from our own? I should hope that is not the case but rather that our mutual need for His saving power to be manifested through us be met to the overflowing.

Jun 022015

I spoke to my good friend and wordsmith, Nigel Partis, a couple of weekends ago. We don’t often get the opportunity to talk at length these days for one reason or another but, whenever we do, it is always thought provoking if not inspirational.

Nigel (aka, Nick) is a former soldier and bodyguard cum criminal turned hippie who got powerfully saved in the late 1970s. Among his more positive talents and spiritual gifts he is also a capable builder and author, the former complementing the latter in his use of vocabulary, grammar and improvisation in constructive language which is able to recount his ideas, observations and experiences in a uniquely powerful and straightforward way.

Words are his bricks and grammar, the mortar which he lays on the sure foundation of his testimony of Jesus Christ, in both spoken and written form. As a good builder, he periodically reviews his stock and usage of such raw material.

For example, some time ago, he told me that he had stopped using the words “gay” and “homosexual”, preferring instead the more correct Biblical word, “sodomite”. I could quite see the point to his abandonment of the corruption of a good English word, meaning colourful, happy, exuberant, etc., as well as the more clinical latinesque label of “orientation” which is more descriptive of a level ground option than of the perversion that it actually is. Moreover, his preferred choice of word makes no bones about its history and destructive nature. (On that subject I would add, remembering Leonard Ravenhill’s book “Sodom Had No Bible”, that someone appears to have rewritten it one, of sorts, these days!)

Getting to the point of this post, during my most recent conversation with Nigel he told me that he had recently coined the words “Christophobia”, “Christophobic” and “Christophobe” in view of the increasingly intolerant attitudes and actions being leveled and perpetrated against Christians throughout the world these days. It’s a clever way to hoist nu-speak with its own petard and a great deal more truthfully, all things considered. After all, the correct meaning of phobia is of a completely irrational fear is it not? What’s to fear about being reconciled to your creator or those who advocate it?

I tried it out the other day on a guy who challenged me to prove God to him. I’d describe him more as a skeptic than an out and out antitheist. It was a bit of a clumsy challenge which had short circuited the thread of our conversation, mainly because he knows where I’m coming from, so I replied, “Are you a Christophobe? I’ve got my proof. You get your own. He can be found by those who seek Him wholeheartedly if you’re really interested.” To his credit, the guy put a “like” to it which was encouraging, bless him!

I also saw an example of Nigel’s soldiering skill in his improvisation of these words. It reminded me of seizing an enemy’s own weapons and using them against him better than he could use them himself.

It has been said that all’s fair in love and war. This may be especially true when the one involves the other.

Apr 052015

I have long had my doubts about popularised ideas reflected in SFX presentations of how the dividing of the Red Sea took place. In particular, the idea that the Israelites walked between towering vertical walls of water caused by the strong east wind which blew all night before they crossed.

Having considered the facts presented by a number of scientific explorations of the sub-aquatic land bridge at the Nuweiba crossing point of the Gulf of Aqaba, I became convinced of certain facts.

1) A wind strong enough to carve a trench through the water at Nuweiba would have been impossible to stand against, much less walk through while transporting baggage.

2) Only a considerable tidal recession in the Gulf of Aqaba could feasibly have exposed the land bridge between Nuweiba and Arabia (Midian).

So where did the idea of walls of water come from? The two references in the Bible read:

“And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.” Exodus 14:22

“But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand and on their left.” Exodus 14:29

The descriptive phrase in both verses is identical: “the waters were a wall unto them”, but how and why “unto them“? Doesn’t this imply an obstruction or barrier? Why would any of them want to walk to the left or right when a dry path was straight ahead of them?

The word for wall in both verses is H2346 in Strong’s dictionary:

“chowmah kho-maw’ feminine active participle of an unused root apparently meaning to join; a wall of protection:–wall, walled.”

Therefore an expanded English reading of both verses would read the phenomenal description as “the waters were a wall of protection unto them on their right hand and on their left.” In other words, the waters on their left and right were no threat but were a protection from something.

The threat in this scenario was of being overtaken, outflanked and corralled by the pursuing Egyptian army. On either side of the Nuweiba land bridge are deep chasms, not shallows. It would have been impossible for the Egyptians to have overtaken the Israelites in such a manoevre.

They would have had to wait for the entire Israelite entourage to complete their crossing before pursuing hard to encircle them on the opposite shore. This would need to be done quickly before the Israelites had gone too far or dispersed into Midian. Such an incursion would otherwise be seen by the Midianites as an Egyptian invasion. A Midianite defensive counter attack would have left the entire Egyptian army with their backs to the sea with little hope of supply or evacuation.

The Bible describes this hot pursuit quite precisely along with the disastrous consequences for the Egyptian charioteers:

“And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the Lord looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, and took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the Lord fighteth for them against the Egyptians.” Exodus 14: 23

The popular notion of the Israelites walking through the dry bottom of a trench in the sea could have been supported had a different Hebrew word for wall been used. A perfectly descriptive Hebrew word for a trench wall is H7023 in the Strong’s dictionary:

“qiyr keer or qir (Isa. 22:5) {keer}; or (feminine) qiyrah {kee-raw’}; from 6979; a wall (as built in a trench):–+ mason, side, town, X very, wall.”

I therefore submit that the word wall in text is used figuratively as qualified by the Hebrew word combined with “unto them” to describe a protective barrier against being outflanked and overtaken.

I believe that the parting of the sea occurred in the following manner. A strong east wind over the main body of the Red Sea and distant from Nuweiba caused a tidal recession in the Gulf of Aqaba, exposing the land bridge between Nuweiba and Midian but leaving the flanking deep chasms full of water, thus providing flank protection for the crossing.

Exodus 14:27,28 describe a rapid returning tide. “And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.” The word “returned” used is H7725 in the Strong’s dictionary:

“shuwb shoob a primitive root; to turn back (hence, away) transitively or intransitively, literally or figuratively (not necessarily with the idea of return to the starting point); generally to retreat; often adverbial, again:–((break, build, circumcise, dig, do anything, do evil, feed, lay down, lie down, lodge, make, rejoice, send, take, weep)) X again, (cause to) answer (+ again), X in any case (wise), X at all, averse, bring (again, back, home again), call (to mind), carry again (back), cease, X certainly, come again (back), X consider, + continually, convert, deliver (again), + deny, draw back, fetch home again, X fro, get (oneself) (back) again, X give (again), go again (back, home), (go) out, hinder, let, (see) more, X needs, be past, X pay, pervert, pull in again, put (again, up again), recall, recompense, recover, refresh, relieve, render (again), requite, rescue, restore, retrieve, (cause to, make to) return, reverse, reward, + say nay, send back, set again, slide back, still, X surely, take back (off), (cause to, make to) turn (again, self again, away, back, back again, backward, from, off), withdraw.”

It is in no way descriptive of the collapse of trench walls but is appropriate to describe a returning tidal surge.

The song of Moses in Exodus 15 also gives descriptions of certain details consistent with the causes and effects of a tidal recession and subsequent return which swept the Egyptian army into the deep chasm:

“the waters were gathered together” (by a strong east wind), “the floods stood upright as an heap” (in the main body of the Red Sea, causing a tidal recession in the Gulf of Aqaba) v.8

“Pharaoh’s chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea. The depths have covered them: they sank into the bottom as a stone.” vs.4,5

“they sank as lead in the mighty waters.” v.10

“the earth swallowed them.” v.12

Drowned Egyptians were seen washed up on the shore afterwards but it is highly probable that the most heavily armoured were swept into the chasm north of Nuweiba.

It is easy to see where the English text in Exodus might be misconstrued, leading to the idea of a trench through the waters of the Red Sea but a little study and knowledge of marine meteorology reveals that no natural laws need have been defied. However, we can always depend on Hollywood SFX to make the truth seem ridiculous.

Nov 232014


Nov 20 at 2:07 AM
Nov 182014

During the early 1990s, I worked for an outsourced IT contractor doing a desktop support job in a multi-national insurance corporation headquarters in a town a few miles from my own.

The level of business this corporate group was involved in at the time was not one which would draw the attention of the average person. It was divided into several categories,  with a separate company within the group controlling each. A few examples of these are Energy/Nuclear, Special Risks, Aviation, UK, etc.

During my time there, I noted that the CEOs and other representatives of certain companies within the group were periodically visited by representatives from various government departments. I also saw documentary and other evidence linking the UK company with the introduction of town centre CCTV systems and the neo-militarisation of the police as conditional to policies covering “civil disorder risks” which became a requirement for UK local authorities to take out cover against. Indeed, the first town centre in the country to introduce a CCTV system covering public areas was the one where I live. I also saw how the local press “sold” the idea of its introduction to the general public, needless to say with no mention of the real reason for its introduction. During this time, the UK company began acquiring small local offices throughout the UK for the purpose of rolling out this business to other local authorities.

During the four years that I worked at this corporate headquarters, I gained the impression that the level at which certain companies within this group operated amounted to nothing less than an international protection racket. Their interface with the UK government was plain enough for anyone who worked there to see. Beyond that, the whole operation had a distinct masonic undercurrent and flavour to it.

One day, out of curiosity, I picked up a booklet given to all inducted employees of the group and began to read it. the very first paragraph of the first page began, “THE INSURANCE BUSINESS IS FOUNDED UPON THE BABYLONIAN PRINCIPLE OF THE MANY BEARING THE LIABILITIES OF THE FEW”. I didn’t bother to read any further.

I can well remember a conversation I had with a programmer who worked in one of the companies there. He was exasperated at having been given an idea so vague by his CEO and been expected to write a programme for it that it could have been compared to being told to tell Nebuchadnezzar his dream and give the interpretation thereof!

This whole episode of my working life was regularly punctuated with seeing things that I never went looking for, neither asked nor wanted to see. Certain things I reacted to quite openly. I was good at what I did but soon became identified as a “corporate dissident” and was subsequently engineered out of my job there. Not long after I left, what had once been a long established British controlled blue chip insurance group was bought out and taken over by a US corporation and remains so to this day.

Oct 032014


 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” Mark 8:36

Nothing has fundamentally changed in terms of the motive options of politicians and national leaders since these words were spoken  by Jesus Christ around 2000 years ago. They ought to be engraved above the entrances to every royal palace, government establishment and corporate headquarters in the world as a warning to those who are entrusted with the temporal powers of this world.

The exercise of temporal power leaves its legacy over the lives of those on whose behalf it is held by those to whom it is entrusted. Those who exercise such power are accountable for its use, whether for good or evil, and are no more exalted in the grave than any other person.

“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” Hebrews 9:27

An old proverb states that “You can fool all of the people some of the time or some of the people all of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”. I would add to this, “After death you are in no position to fool anybody at any time”. The only sure thing that any of us have in this world is that which we will surely leave behind us when we leave it. Whatever it is we have left behind will surely be disclosed however secret we may have kept it by whatever means during our lifetimes.

During a religious interrogation in one of his trials Jesus said,I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.” John 18:20,21. Sadly there isn’t another political,  corporate or religious leader in the world today who could truly lay claim to such a statement or have it included in their biographies.

A recent example of generally kept secrets is that of the late Jimmy Savile. It was inevitable that that many of his victims who were intimidated from speaking out during his lifetime would do so after his death. We continue to have the wider reaches of his activities smokescreened by the “findings” of the Savile Inquiry, which periodically throws another washed up celebrity, politician or media executive to the wolves of injustice in order to lighten the foundering ship of secrecy surrounding such activities and the people still in power who might be implicated by their full disclosure.

Barrister and Intelligence Services Consultant Michael Shrimpton has attempted to disseminate as much as he has discovered concerning the full scope and purpose of Savile’s activities and influence in the lives of those who have either occupied or still occupy seats of authority up to the highest levels in Britain today, as well as in other nations. He regularly addresses meetings of the British Constitution Group and is interviewed in local media in this country. The following is one of his interviews on Bristol Community Radio.




It would appear from this that Edward Heath was compromised and “owned” by German Intelligence Services from the time he was at university prior to the Second World War. A detailed disclosure of former Prime Minister Edward Heath’s activities and their influence on Britain’s present membership of the EU was released into the Public Records Office a few years ago under the 30 Year Rule in their original government documented form. These official documents were discovered accidentally by a guy called David Barnby who was researching public records for information relating to the curtailment of British missile projects during the time of Heath’s government. He copied around 500 pages of documentation and published them in CD form. The following presentations by former policeman Albert Burgess give a good insight into their content.




The evidence in this case is clear. It is in the public domain in its original signed and certified form as released directly from government records. By implication it renders all European treaties entered into by successive governments, since and including Edward Heath’s, null and void under international law. What the public does with this information is up to the public. It remains available for use at any time and the sooner it is lawfully acted upon, the better.

In regard to the compromising and corruption of political leaders and figures of authority in every level of society through paedophilia and other crimes, it should be demanded that the Savile Inquiry either come clean or be replaced by an independent body of inquiry representing the people of this country, fully empowered to pursue its investigations and prosecutions at all such levels. To condone such crimes or to shield or accommodate their perpetrators in positions of public office is to be an accessory complicit in those crimes by willfully permitting them to continue.

I’ll finish here as I began, with the words of the author and finisher of all such liberties by which we may indeed be blessed. It’s another truthful warning, served on the record in triplicate.

“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6 (see also Mark 9:42 & Luke 17:2)




Sep 162014

The whole matter of end times Nephilim and those of other associated times primarily hinges upon Jesus’ reference to the days of Noah and its future implications, does it not?, bearing in mind that in all things He should have pre-eminence.  In accepting that and proceeding to seek interpretation on that basis we must therefore consider His statement in its entirety and all such questions as may arise from its sum total. For the sake of brevity I will take one of the two instances of this in the Gospels, Luke 17:26,27.

Verse 26, “And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man.” Here Jesus likens one historic set of days to another in the future and ascribes to himself the title “Son of Man” as distinct from other non-human “sons”. Why should he emphasise this difference? There is more detail further along in the next verse.

Verse 27, “They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.” There are a couple of differences here which are obvious. The “Son of Man” did not marry and was not destroyed in the flood.  So let’s examine the other attributes of these other “sons”.

  • The very first word in Luke 17:27 is “they”. Who were “they”? Why are they seemingly lacking specific identity? Did they abandon it, was it taken from them or were they never assigned any identity? Were they once “sons of God” as distinct from the “Son of Man”? We could deduce that at this point, but let’s continue.
  • “They did eat, they drank”. Why is this emphasised? It is certainly a given factor in sustaining human life and was notably chronicled in regard to the Nephilim tribes in Canaan through which an exceedingly fruitful land was unable to sustain itself. “And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is A LAND THAT EATETH UP THE INHABITANTS THEREOF; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.” Numbers 13:32. Are there any other types of being by which it would be remarkable that they ate and drank? Yes there are such in the class of angels which visited Abraham in humanoid form prior to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. “ And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, AND THEY DID EAT.” Genesis 18:8. There are possibly other types of angels which could also eat and drink in physical manifestation but this one is certain.
  • “They married wives”. An unremarkable human activity in any generation to date but which would be a remarkable activity among formerly non-physical entities.
  • “They were given in marriage”. Now here is a very specific emphasis, relating in all cases to the act of covenant between a bride’s father and a bridegroom. It was an unremarkable given (no pun) in human marriage at that time, so why emphasise this? Does it contrast with any other kind of marriage seen in scripture? It certainly does and it can be found in Genesis 6:2 where the sons of God “took wives of all whom they chose”, in absence of any consent or covenant from the “wives” or their fathers.
  • “Until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all”. That’s a pretty comprehensive statement, indicating that all the previously described activity continued unabated, specifically throughout Noah’s lifetime until the flood when “they” all perished.

Jesus does not waste words on stuff that’s already well understood and let’s remember that he is the light of the world, the revealer, to those with an ear to hear, of things hidden or undocumented and previously misunderstood or misinterpreted.  His words concerning the end of the age and the days of Noah must therefore be revelatory in every respect.

He describes a class or classes of being who obtained covenant consent from human fathers to marry wives on earth in the days of Noah as opposed to the sons of God of Jared’s day who took wives without consent. The only exception to this prior to the flood was the marriage of Adam to Eve who was flesh of his flesh in the first place and therefore belonged to him by right through the specific purpose of God.

What’s so important about this difference in the terms of activity and the respective fates of the “sons” involved? The answer can be found in Genesis 1:26, where God decrees before the heavens that the will of mankind has dominion, and therefore power of veto, in all the earth from the day that man was created. “ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and LET THEM HAVE DOMINION over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Man was created a free agent and ruler over the affairs of earth according to the decree in this verse.

The sons of God in Genesis 6:2 blatantly transgressed this decree and are described in Jude as being imprisoned on death row until the day that their full judgment is executed. “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.” Jude 1:6. The “sons” of Noah’s day, described by Jesus, gained covenant permission from mankind for their procreative activities which continued until their destruction in the flood. They exploited a “legal loophole” for a time, avoiding transgression of Genesis 1:26 but were destroyed in the flood, having committed themselves to mortal physical form.

“And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: and I will remember my covenant,which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.” Genesis 9:12-17

In consideration of God’s promise never to send another all consuming flood upon the earth, there is therefore good reason to believe that further “sons of God” might be encouraged to pursue further procreative activities with the covenant permission of whoever might be deceived into giving daughters for this purpose after the flood. By this calculation they would also avoid transgression of the Genesis 1:26 decree, knowing that the means by which they were previously thwarted would not be employed against them again. All they would need would be willing participants from mankind in this venture, but who might be willing and for what reason?

God had already forseen this eventuality and taken all possible measures against those who had been preserved in the flood from falling into such temptation. “AND GOD BLESSED NOAH AND HIS SONS, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.”  Genesis 9:1. His blessing was upon the whole family who had survived the flood. They would prosper and multiply with no need to take recourse to “assistance” from elsewhere. Throughout scripture we read that men of God took responsibility to ensure that such a blessing would be passed to their subsequent generations. It would be a hedge of Godly favour around them which would be difficult to breach.

Difficult but not impossible and tragically we read how the potential for this blessing was taken from Canaan, Noah’s grandson. “And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.  And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.  And he said, CURSED BE CANAAN; A SERVANT OF SERVANTS SHALL HE BE UNTO HIS BRETHREN.  And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; AND CANAAN SHALL BE HIS SERVANT. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; AND CANAAN SHALL BE HIS SERVANT.”  Genesis 9:20-27.

(I have heard and seen mention on numerous occasions that “Noah was a drunkard”, citing this incident as an example. It should be considered that the post flood atmosphere of the earth was considerably less rich in oxygen than before the flood and would have had the effect of increasing the alcohol content in the fermentation process of wine. It is therefore likely that Noah’s first batch would have taken him unaware of its increased alcoholic strength in this instance.)

So Noah cursed Canaan into humiliating subservience while hung over from drinking wine. Ham had offended Noah but Noah couldn’t curse him because God had already blessed him. He did the next thing possible in his angry hung over condition. He denied the course of God’s blessing upon his descendants through Canaan. Subservience would follow his generations unless they could find a way to reverse their fortunes. Would they seek the Lord God after His blessing had apparently departed from them?  History would indicate that they did not but that they sought to other means to elevate themselves and what more tempting a way than to become generations of “mighty men” in the earth?

This is exactly what the Israelites encountered when they entered the land of Canaan after their exodus from Egypt. The genetics of the inhabitants of the land was so corrupted with Nephilim seed that the Israelites were instructed to completely wipe out the inhabitants of the land, man,woman, child and beast. They were also commanded not to serve the gods of the land by which such corruption had been invited and by no means to take wives of its inhabitants. The names of the tribes in Canaan reflected their various kinds of non-human mutation. The Israelites were under no illusion as to why the land needed to be purged. It must have resembled a combination of Gondor and Narnia in their worst excesses!

I have based this post entirely on biblical scripture and connective thought without the need for recourse to the extra-biblical texts of Enoch, Jasher and Jubilees, to which many other commentators refer. It has been my observation that few if any such commentators take account of the transgression of the Genesis 1:26 decree in their presentations and many, with the exception of LA Marzulli, fail to examine the whole of Jesus’ statements referring to the days of Noah. Their subsequent speculations engender much controversy on the subject.

There is no record of any specific decree by God against the congress of angels with human women per se. They were not created for that purpose but were clearly deceived in that they “saw” that the daughters of  men were fair, i.e. physically desirable, in the same way that the woman “saw” that the tree was good for food, and desirable to make one wise. The deceptions of the nachash are in evidence here.

What stands as a defining factor here is the decree given at the creation of man that man should rule over all the earth and every living thing in it in Genesis 1:26. This was clearly transgressed by the sons of God in Genesis 6:2 and their summary judgment is documented in Jude. The evidence of this decree is further reflected in the fact that God courts, and satan deceives the will of mankind throughout the ages. In every event, man gives consent in some form or other to the things which occur on earth, whether by faith and obedience to God or by acting in response to satan’s deception.  Adherence to the Genesis 1:26 decree is further illustrated by the fact that, in God’s ultimate intervention, it was necessary that Jesus come as a man. It is also prophesied that antichrist will be manifested as a man.

On the Biblical basis expounded here, there is no necessity for any Nephilim genome to have been carried by any person on the ark and sufficient indication of repetitious procreation between “angels” and mankind in three distinct and definite historical phases. The consensus view of move-countermove within a “cosmic chess match” is also upheld, if not reinforced.  We may have yet to experience the overt and widespread manifestation of a fourth and final such phase if that was what Jesus did indeed indicate in his comparative statement regarding the days before His return!