Who were the Nephilim?

Since the question is back on the table with this weekend's release of the Noah flop film, here is an answer deep from the archives.

As it turns out, the Nephilim have everything to do with Christian boys who lust after the Emma Watsons of the world and nothing to do with fantastic CGI rock giants or prurient alien angel-demons.

WHO WERE THE NEPHILIM?

An exegetical study of Genesis 6.

CONTEXT

According to the O and NT’s, Moses was the author of the Torah[1].  His audience was a post-Exodus, pre-conquest Israel.  His main spiritual concerns would have been: 

A. education – Israelite [and Canaanite] history and that of the land she was to inhabit; 

B. Faith in God through hardship and uncertainty [grumbling vs perseverance - especially while traveling; trusting God as He works in time and processes; being subverted by the temptations of food, idolatry, and compromise with powerful empire-builders]; 

and C. Purity through separation [ethical and marital; being subverted by women].  

All three of these themes are nearly omnipresent subtexts undergirding every portion of Genesis.  They explain the content and emphasis of nearly everything contained therein. 

To answer the question at hand, I would like to key in on the third concern – spiritual purity and marriage.  At the risk of overstating my case, if Genesis were written today as a sensational political paperback, it would be called something like: “Setting the Record Straight: The true history of the Israelite Nation: how women, paganism, and faithless compromise almost destroyed God’s people, why Canaan is rightfully theirs and why the bloodthirsty, idolaters must be driven from it.” 

True Grit

The past few days I've been reading True Grit to my sons before bed.  Not a single time have I been able to get through it without bursting into loud laughter at least once.

Just last month, The Big Read released an audio episode devoted to this great American novel and it is well worth a listen, here.

I was surprised and tickled last night to read this paragraph:

The Indian woman spoke good English and I learned to my surprise that she too was a Presbyterian.  She had been schooled by a missionary.  What preachers we had in those days!  Truly they took the word into “the highways and hedges.”  Mrs. Bagby was not a Cumberland Presbyterian but a member of the U. S. or Southern Presbyterian Church.  I too am now a member of the Southern Church.  I say nothing against the Cumberlands.  They broke with the Presbyterian Church because they did not believe a preacher needed a lot of formal education.  That is all right but they are not sound on Election.  They do not fully accept it.  I confess it is a hard doctrine, running contrary to our earthly ideas of fair play, but I can see no way around it.  Read I Corinthians 6:13 and II Timothy 1:9, 10. Also I Peter 1:2, 19, 20 and Romans 11:7.  There you have it.  It was good for Paul and Silas and it is good enough for me.  It is good enough for you too.

Somehow that part didn't make it into the film.
There is a tremendous amount of Biblical imagery present in the book.  The theme teeters back and forth on the line between vengeance and justice.  I don't think it is an accident that with the Lex Talionis at its core, the Marshal is a one-eyed man.
The book is emphatic that these events took place in winter.  Arkansas becomes Narnia.  Additionally, the woman falls into a pit with serpents, but her deliverer descends into the earth to bring her up out of captivity, shooting the serpents [at least several of them] and then using her humble pony "little Blackie" to pull their rope and lift them up to salvation.
Upon seeing that it was "Little Blackie", Maddie references the Messianic Psalm lyric - "the stone which the builders rejected has become the chief Cornerstone."
Finally, the wicked Tom Chaney ends up being cast down into that serpent's pit and destroyed [different than the Coen brothers movie ending].
Don't ask me where LaBeouf figures into things.  I have no clue on that one.
Have you noticed any of these themes from the book or films?  I talked further about some of them a while ago in my review of the film here. I'd love to hear your thoughts and invite your comments below.

Form and Content in Film and Liturgy

"Film affects us by marrying form and content and then style influences their meanings ... the meanings we get from film really come through the cinematics of the picture.  Really good films use cinema, more than just words, to convey ideas to us."

- Raphael Shargel, Understanding Movies: the art and history of film

Book List [what I've been reading lately ...]

You are what your mind eats ...

Book List [what I've been reading/listening to lately] ...

You are what your mind eats ...

Book List [What I've been reading lately ...]

you are what your mind eats ...

The VOYAGE of the DAWN TREADER: My Review

I have to admit that this is the first time I can remember having seen a movie made from a book I really like.  My poor wife had to endure about a thousand whispered objections like, "What! ... that's not in the book!" or "This is not how it happened at all!"  But overall, my grade for the movie would be something like a C or ... on a good day, maybe even a bit better.

I fully admit that this score is somewhat lower than it might have been if I'd never read the book, or if I had but didn't really care for it all that much.  As it is though, I love this book and there were a few parts of the film that really annoyed me ... hence, the C.  I tried [in vain] not to be "that guy" who insists on fidelity in every detail.  I refrained from reactions like, "That didn't happen on this island" or "It did but not in that order" or "The bracelet was on Eustace's left arm, not his right [duh!]" ... well, okay, I did mention that one one [or a dozen] times. 

But I realize that liberties have to be taken.  And don't get me wrong, some of the changes/additions were quite fine. 

The Real Robin Hood

Though modern-day versions of the Robin Hood story often portray the man as the original Socialist, Ridley Scott’s new film, starring Russell Crowe, is purported to be provocatively more authentic. Here is are some shortened excerpts of Kathy Young's fine article about it:

Scholars note, the earliest [13/14th century] Robin Hood ballads do not mention ‘robbing the rich to give to the poor’.
The one person Robin assists financially is a knight who is about to lose his lands to greedy monks at an abbey. (Corrupt clerics using the political power of the Church are among Robin Hood's frequent targets in the ballads.) The Sheriff of Nottingham is Robin's chief opponent; at the time, the sheriffs' role as tax collectors made the object of loathing by peasants and commoners. Robin Hood is also frequently shown helping men who face barbaric punishments for hunting in the royal forests, a pursuit permitted to nobles and strictly forbidden to the lower classes in medieval England; in other words, he is opposing privilege bestowed by political power, not earned wealth.

A Collision of Lives: Collision Reviewed

“A debate like this is more a collision of lives than it is an exchange of mere views.”  Those were Doug Wilson’s words at the start of the film and the entire movie took shape accordingly.  The literary term for this is ‘foiling’- pitting two characters together in a way that makes their contrast more vivid … and vivid may be putting it mildly.  We see Wilson in his home, hands raised, singing the doxology before a Sabbath dinner with several children and dozens of grandchildren [as is his weekly habit], while Hitchens introduces the camera crew to those with whom he shares his home – books – every corner of his living space is crammed with them.  With grandfatherly affection, he shows off every printed word by George Orwell and – his pride and joy – the complete 20-volume edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. 

COLLISION DVD - released date: October 27

If this trailer doesn't give you goosebumps, find out what God thinks of you here.

Collision Movie Trailer from Gorilla Poet Productions on Vimeo.

What Makes a Classic?

DOUBLE INDEMNITY [1944]

"How could I have known that murder could sometimes smell like honeysuckle?" - Walter Neff, Double Indemnity

He could have known this and a lot more if his father had read him the Proverbs ... and if he talked to him about them ... and maybe watched movies about them too.

That was an immortal line from Double Indemnity, #38 on the AFI's list of the top 100 films of all time. But what makes a film a classic? Isn't a black and white job like this too boring and outdated to cut it in the age of computer-generated mid-air nuclear UFO collisions?

I say, no. Here's are 3 brief reasons:

1. It still kept me interested, even riveted - The fact that since its release in 1944, probably hundreds of thousands of movies have been made, and I’ve seen probably a few thousand of them in my life … yet, not only did it keep my interest until the last minute, I was genuinely shocked and surprised by the twists of the plot at least 5 times. That is a quality movie – one that doesn’t fall back on glitzy computer-generated special effects to keep my interest. It’s a quality movie, with a quality plot, directed in a masterful and discrete way that still seems fresh and interesting 65 years [and how many hundred thousand more movies] later.

2. It's artistic touches and pioneering innovations- The movie started with the beginning of the last scene then tracked backward until the final scene resumed for the conclusion. Now, I realize that 3 years before, Citizen Kane began in a similar way, but this one seemed to take that idea and improved upon it. The information we were given in the first 60 seconds provided the critical questions that carried our interest through the rest of the movie … he worked in insurance, he was desperate, everything had fallen apart in his plan, he had been shot, he was confessing to his friend, he had been seduced and probably betrayed … we take this kind of intro for granted today, but I think it was probably much more experimental in ’44 … and they pulled it off without a hitch in a way that seems flawless to me today.

3.The moral - the bad guys don’t get away; they get what was coming to them. Though this film is thought to be the first real example of dark film noir, it incarnates the 6th and 7th chapters of the Proverbs wonderfully, warning against the temptress. The downward spiral of the man is complex but clear and the characters are believable, not flat.

Cons: This is a dark film about the fall of a man who gives in to temptation and sin. There is no happy ending and there is no other character to model redemption. Because of this, the focus of the movie is on the schemes of this man, and you may at times actually find yourself rooting for him. If that is the case, snap yourself out of it. If you can't, don't watch the film.

And of course, there are a ton of solid-gold one-liners:

Do I laugh now, or wait 'til it gets funny?

Walter: You'll be here too?

Phyllis: I guess so, I usually am.

Walter: Same chair, same perfume, same anklet?

Phyllis: I wonder if I know what you mean.

Walter: I wonder if you wonder.

His name was Jackson. Probably still is.

"Margie"! I bet she drinks from the bottle.

… they got to ride all the way to the end of the line and it's a one-way trip and the last stop is the cemetery. Murder's never perfect. Always comes apart sooner or later, and when two people are involved it's usually sooner.

This movie is a true classic, and I give it four out of five stars.