Who was Nimrod?

Nimrod the Mighty One

Out of all the men listed in the tenth chapter of Genesis, the name of Nimrod seems to stand out more than all the others. Nimrod was a “mighty hunter before the Lord,” a “mighty one in the earth,” who founded Sumer in Babylonia and instigated the Tower of Babel.¹ But what does all this mean? Who was Nimrod, really?

The name Nimrod means “the rebel” or “let us rebel,” so it seems unlikely that he was righteous and in favor with the Lord; he appears to have been bred and raised for rebellion, in the shadow of his rebellious grandfather Ham. Also, when we read that Nimrod was “a mighty hunter before the Lord,” we should note that this means not that he was a mighty hunter in the favor of the Lord, but that he was rather a hunter against the Lord, perhaps even seeking to usurp Yahweh's position by attempting to come “before” Him in rank.²

The Hebrew phrase used to describe Nimrod as a “mighty one” is the same as that used to describe the “mighty men” of Genesis 6:4.³ These “mighty men,” these “men of renown,” were the giants or Nephilim produced between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men”. So it would appear that Nimrod was at least similar to these Nephilim. However, this knowledge does us little good unless we know who the Nephilim were. In light of this, I wish to suggest that these mighty men of renown, and indeed even the “sons of God” themselves, were tyrannical rulers claiming divinity for themselves.

Divine Kingship

Divine kingship, in which an all-powerful ruler declares himself to be either the god, the god's son, or the god's earthly representative, was very common among the ancients. Such systems existed all across the ancient world, in Egypt, Babylonia, Sumer, and Palestine. It was a belief system that told the people that they were created to serve the gods, and which thus held them in bondage and servitude to the king they believed was the son of God, a sort of god in human form. So they were the property of the king, and he was free to do whatsoever he wished with them.⁴

But what evidence is there that the “sons of God” and the “mighty men of renown” were such “divine” kings, claiming godship for themselves? The first evidence is the pattern that we already see developed in the early chapters of Genesis, the pattern of rebellion against God. We see this with Cain, who refused to follow God's will regarding the manner of sacrifice but sought to create his own sacrificial system. This is continued with Lamech, who arrogantly issued his own type of divine decree, his protection for himself, that “if Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and seven fold.” Cain's protection had been issued by God, and Lamech had no right to issue such divine protection for himself. Besides this, Lamech also rebelled against God by taking two wives, thus starting his own marital system of polygamy.

So we see clearly that pride already was prominent, causing men to lift up themselves while disobeying God. Their pride of life was also accompanied by the lust of the flesh and of the eyes, by the desire for pleasure and for power. These three characteristics, when combined, make a wonderful recipe for self-worship, for worshiping mankind in place of God (see the article “Ancient Man” for greater detail on this). In fact, some scholars even translate “then began men to call upon the name of the Lord” from Genesis 4:26 as “then men began to call themselves by the name of Jehovah.”⁵

In light of these things, the “sons of God” could indeed have claimed to be just that—the sons of God. In a rather ironic manner, scripture could almost sarcastically be giving them the name that they claim, though their claim would be far from the truth. Genesis 6:3 humbles this claim as God points out that He will “not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh.” In other words, despite arrogance and claims to divinity, man is yet nothing but flesh. The Hebrew phrase used here for the “sons of God” also implies that, rather than being strictly “sons,” the description may refer to beings of the class of god(s). (For example, a nobleman could be called a son of nobility.) If this is the case, then the “sons of God” are clearly those who claim to be divine.⁴

We also read in Genesis 6:2 that the “sons of God” “took them wives of all which they chose.” This, too, fits perfectly with the description of a tyrannical divine king. Scripture itself tells several accounts in which kings did this; the stories of Sarah and Esther, both taken by kings, are just two of these accounts. The Genesis 6:4 description of the children of these “sons of God” as being “mighty men which were of old, men of renown,” also fits with the divine kingship model, for the sons of such men would certainly have had plentiful opportunity for such greatness.

Unlikelihood of the “Sons of God” being Non-Human

Although some believe that the “sons of God” refer to either angels or a specific, non-angelic group of heavenly “lesser gods” of pagan and idolatrous type (and that it is these whom the pagans worship), these theories pose little harm to my argument. For, firstly, the usual understanding from scripture seems to be that the gods of the pagans are demonic, fallen angels leading men into idolatry and away from God. Secondly, why would God create a whole class of lesser “gods” if He did not want us to worship them (which He clearly doesn't)? It makes no sense that He would have deliberately created false gods. And if you wish to say that these “lesser gods” were only intended to glorify God, and not to be worshipped themselves, then is that not the purpose of the angels? Are not gods for worshiping?

Besides all of that, how would any such heavenly beings (either angels or something else), presumably spirit beings, have produced children with mankind? That makes no sense. Some claim that the “sons of God” could not have been humans because, in their view, humans are incapable of producing giants as Genesis 6:4 appears to say that these beings did. However, Jude 1:6, a verse often used in support of the angels as the “sons of God,” in fact makes the view illogical. The verse says that the angels which “kept not their first estate” (supposedly those angels that reproduced with mankind) were “reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” But, if the mention of not keeping the first estate is truly a reference to angels leaving their heavenly spirit world for sexual relations with mankind, would God not have given the stated punishment immediately, at about the same time as the flood? And if God did this (and the giant-producing angels were thus unable to reproduce any longer with mankind), then how were the giants (such as Goliath) of the early days of Israel produced? Also, the Bible tells us that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve, all of “one blood”.⁶ Scripture makes no mention of any sort of angelic or other interbreeding.

As for the ability of mankind to produce giants, we can easily say that man originally began with much greater genetic potential. (This is similar to the fact that a mixed-breed dog has greater genetic potential than a very fine-bred dog. For example, a dog whose mother had long ears and whose father had short ones would have the genetic potential of either type of ear, whereas a dog parented by two short-eared dogs would be unlikely to manifest anything but short ears.) Around the world we can see evidence of this—fossils not only of pygmy men (and a few of these still living), but also of men with giant stature. To be sure, mankind could have produced giants. And, in any case, the argument that the “sons of God” were some sort of heavenly or spirit being certainly does not mean that the they and their children could not have been “divine” kings setting themselves pridefully up to take the position of God. The pagan gods do this anyway, and this is also what Lucifer attempted.

Origin of Divine Kingship

Divine kingship must have had an origin, some point in time when it first began. It also must have had some cause and basis, and there certainly must have been a reason why the people tolerated it's tyranny. Perhaps, as I will suggest, it all has its basis in a terrible perversion of the truth.

The Bible tells us that mankind was originally in commune with God (before the fall), and thus it is not unreasonable to suppose that man at this time had knowledge, writings, and traditions of God, much as we have today in our Bible. Much of this, however, must have been corrupted, twisted into false religions and wickedness. It is not unreasonable to say that the claim to divine kingship and “son-or-representative-of-God-ship” was based upon knowledge of the future Son and representative of God. Indeed, even the very first chapters of Genesis hint at the coming Messiah. And what better way for a power-hungry rebel against God to win over and control the people than by claiming that he was the son of God, the promised Messiah? Little did these first “divine” kings understand that the true Messiah was not be loved, followed, served, and idolized, but to be hated, scorned, mocked, and eventually crucified. And, not surprisingly, their version of the story of the son of God would also be different. Their story would raise up themselves as the giver of absolutes, and would glorify wrong in the place of right.

Actually, the very first “divine” king may have appeared outwardly righteous. This is the case with many in this modern world who claim to be Christ or a Christian. Such an early king could have fooled people into believing that he was the Messiah by his outward righteousness. But how easy it would be, once the people were firmly in control, to change that righteousness to wickedness! After all, who would go against the king that they all believed was the son of God?

And yet, somehow, a righteous remnant remained, despite the wickedness of mankind. Noah was the remnant, and it was his family that God graciously preserved, though even they were far from perfect, to continue the human race. But, only shortly after the flood, divine kingship was started again. We see the first mention of this with Nimrod.

Nimrod a Divine King

The Bible tells us that Nimrod was indeed a king, for Genesis 10:10 speaks of “the beginning of his kingdom”. We are told that he was the founder of “Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.” Shinar is Babylon, or Babylonia, and this is the same location as that of ancient Sumer, the kingdom of city-states of which he appears to be the founder. We are also told within the next few verses that he went from these lands into Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-ir, Calah, and Resen. (The King James Version seems to say that it was a certain Asshur who built these last cities, but most other versions read that it was Nimrod.)

In addition to the knowledge of the various kingdoms and cities which he began, we can also know with fair certainty—based on the comparison to the Nephilim and “sons of God” in Genesis 6, and also on the knowledge of the common practice of ancient kings—that Nimrod claimed divinity. His pride and rebellion shows clearly in the rally call of the Tower of Babel, “Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”⁷ He is clearly in opposition to God, and the tower reaching into heaven seems to convey a desire to exalt oneself on high and perhaps even to control heaven and earth.

So we see that Nimrod must have been very influential, powerful, and certainly famous. Not only does he have Babylon, Sumer, and Nineveh to his name, but he also instigated one of the most famous building projects in the history of the world. And, in addition to this, he even had his own proverb, as stated in Genesis 10:9, “Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord.”

Such a man as described above would likely have become the subject of many great tales and legends. The Epic of Gilgamesh, as described by Dr. David Livingston, is one such tale. “It is a well-known tale, common in Sumerian literature, of a man who fits the description. In addition to the Sumerians, the Babylonians wrote about this person; the Assyrians likewise; and the Hittites. Even in Palestine, tablets have been found with this man's name on them. He was obviously the most popular hero in the Ancient Near East.”⁸

In reading the Epic of Gilgamesh, one cannot help but notice the apparent similarities between Gilgamesh, king of Uruk, and Nimrod. Both are arrogant, powerful, mighty hunters and warriors, and both claim divinity. The Tower of Babel call to “make us a name” is echoed by Gilgamesh when he says, “I will set up my name in the place where the names of famous men are written.”⁹ Gilgamesh even seems to have lived only shortly after the flood recorded in this Epic (just as Nimrod lived on shortly after the Genesis flood), for he speaks of the flood's survivor as his father (though not in the most literal, father-son sense). But the greatest evidence for identifying Nimrod with Gilgamesh is that Erech, one of the cities which Nimrod founded, is considered to be the same as the Uruk of Gilgamesh.^{10, 11}

With these similarities making it possible to identify the two men with each other, what light can the Epic of Gilgamesh shed on the likely character of Nimrod? Well, firstly, the Epic clearly describes Gilgamesh as taking wives of whosoever he wished, further strengthening the link between Nimrod and the “sons of God” who did the same. Secondly, the character Enkidu describes Gilgamesh in this manner: “He [Enlil, father of the gods] has given you power to bind and to loose, to be the darkness and the light of mankind. He has given you unexampled supremacy over the people, victory in battle from which no fugitive returns, in forays and assaults from which there is no going back.”⁹ This description most certainly speaks of divine kingship and tyranny, and the strength and power described is similar to that of Nimrod in Genesis 10. So we see that he must have had complete control over the people of his kingdom.

Nimrod is also identified with many other various heroes and gods of different cultures. Some identify him with king Ninus, the legendary founder of Nineveh and supposed son of the god Belus or Baal.¹² In this case, he would indeed have been the son of a god. Ninus is also said to have married his mother, and it is on this marriage that some believe the widespread worship of “mother and son” (such as Madonna and Child) is based.¹³ This is just the beginning of all the possible research that one could do on Nimrod, but already we have a clear picture that this man was certainly no friend of God. He may have been a “mighty one in the earth,” but he will surely not be so in heaven. Rulers would do well to steer far away from his example. †

 

 

References

1. Genesis 10:8-10

2. Paul Jehle. Universal History. Heritage Institute Ministries. 2005.

3. Author Uncertain. Alien Intrusion: UFOs in the Bible and Other Questions. PDF document from the Creation Ministries International website. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/articles/sons-of-god-genesis-6.pdf.

4. David Livingston. "Who Were the Sons of God in Genesis 6?".

   http://www.ancientdays.net/sonsofgod.htm.

5. “Sons of God, Daughters of Men”. http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html.

6. Acts 17:26

7. Genesis 11:4

8. David Livingston. “Who Was Nimrod?”. http://www.ancientdays.net/nimrod.htm.

9. The Epic of Gilgamesh. Assyrian International News Agency. http://www.aina.org/books/eog/eog.htm#c6.

10. Infoplease. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0850216.html.

11. Dictionary.com. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/erech?jss=1.

12. The Free Dictionary. http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Ninus.

13. Morton Edgar. “Mythology and the Bible.” http://www.agsconsulting.com/menub7.htm.

 

 

Prev    Next

Back to Chapter Two