In Genesis 6:1\u20138 we read about some persons who may be a pre-Flood link between the Bible and the cultures of the ancient Near East. They are the \u201csons of the gods.\u201d The biblical reference to them should have some relationship with historical fact. If so, we should be able to lift these early chapters of Genesis out of what may be to some a foggy mysticism, and make connections with extra-biblical historical accounts.<\/p>\n
Suggested Meanings for the \u201cSons of God\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n
Who actually were the \u201csons of god?\u201d Some say they were fallen angels However, to have children, they must have had sex, and angels do not. They are neither male nor female. Furthermore, if the judgment of the Flood was against the \u201csons of god\u201d and they were angels, they would actually have escaped<\/i> it since they are spiritual beings.<\/p>\n
Another interpretation is that they were the sons of Seth, the godly line. Could this be so? Could the godly line become so totally corrupt that they<\/i> were responsible for the Flood? It is difficult to imagine believers becoming that<\/i> corrupt.<\/p>\n
The third possibility is that of rabbinical Jewish interpretation. It is that \u201csons of god\u201d were rulers or princes. What follows will be very close to this. The first two explanations have become the popular ones and most people have never heard of this third possibility. Even when considered, it is dismissed as untenable (cf. Keil and Delitzsch\u2019s commentary on Genesis).<\/p>\n
Perhaps a combination of the first and third is the best explanation. That is, that the \u201csons of the gods\u201d may be demon-possessed<\/i> rulers!<\/p>\n
A New Interpretation<\/b><\/p>\n
A new interpretation has been suggested by Meredith Kline (in The Westminster Theological Journal,<\/i> May 1962). His thesis is that the \u201csons of the god\u201d were tyrannical \u201cdivine\u201d kings like those we know from historical<\/i> times in the ancient Near East.<\/p>\n
The fact that an historical theme so prominently treated in the Sumero-Babylonian epic tradition finds no counterpart [or connection with] Genesis 3\u20136 according to standard [traditional] interpretations is itself good reason to suspect that these interpretations have been missing the point (p. 199).<\/p>\n
If Kline is correct, then the<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 3:1 (Winter 1990) p. 13<\/p>\n
Genesis 6 reference may be to real men (rulers) coming onto history\u2019s stage with spurious claims to divinity in defiance of the authority of Jehovah God. Instead of acknowledging His Lordship, they established their own authority as supreme head of a fabricated religio-politico system; then they held their subjects in gross spiritual darkness and abject physical slavery. Each king, in his city-state (in historical times) claimed to be a \u201cson of the patron god or goddess\u201d (of his city or empire). In other words, he was the self-proclaimed representative of the local god on earth.<\/p>\n
Thus, the king is divine, he is god, and manifested himself as such especially on the New Year Festival. And this is not the result of a long history of evolution, but goes back to the earliest times.<\/i> (Our emphasis. Ivan Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East.<\/i> Oxford, 1967, p. 18.)<\/p>\n
We see no reason why historically well-established post-Flood patterns cannot also explain pre-Flood conditions. Paralleling the biblical record we have well-known accounts like the Sumerian Kinglist and the Gilgamesh Epic which speak both of pre- and post-Flood situations; but only the Bible has the detail and accuracy to give the true picture.<\/p>\n
In tracing the development of such a system, we see Cain first establishing a city-state when he deliberately<\/i> forsook Jehovah and \u201cwent into a condition of wandering.\u201d The despotic pattern inherent in this system is seen in Lamech\u2019s polygamy and possible human sacrifice, all part of a humanly-established religious system. Historic parallels are again easily discernible in Genesis 10\u201311, with names of well-known post-Flood city-states listed. Then there is the account of the great rebellion at Babylon with the building of the first ziggurat or temple-tower, all part of a (post-Flood) re-established anti-Jehovah religion. At the very heart -of this religion is a king claiming to be a \u201cson of the gods.\u201d<\/p>\n
To digress a moment, some may<\/p>\n
Portion of the Gilgamesh Epic which relates events occuring both before and after the Flood.<\/b><\/p>\n
Right:<\/i><\/b> The famous Sumerian King List gives names and lengths of reigns of both pre- and post-Flood kings.<\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 3:1 (Winter 1990) p. 14<\/p>\n
wonder, \u201cWhere did all the people come from by Cain\u2019s time for there to have been enough inhabitants to build a city?.\u201d To answer, we are not told how much time had transpired before Cain built a city; it could have been a long time. And, with an early ~population explosion,\u201d there may have been thousands born in only one or two hundred years. Someone may ask, \u201cBut where did Cain get his wife to start it all?\u201d The answer is that he married his sister. Adam and Eve had many children after Cain and Abel (Gen 5:4).<\/p>\n
An excellent volume on ancient cities is that of Fustel de Coulangs. The Ancient City<\/i> (Doubleday Anchor Book). Although written in 1864, it has not become<\/i> outdated. Coulange says in regard to our topic,<\/p>\n
With the ancients, a city was never formed by degrees, by the slew increase of men and houses. They founded a city all at once, all entire in a day\u2026 As soon as the families\u2026 had agreed to unite and have the same worship, they immediately founded the city as a sanctuary for this common<\/i> worship, and thus the foundation of a city was always a religious act<\/i> (Our emphasis, p. 134). This fact may well be the basis on which Cain founded the first city and on which many cities were subsequently founded until the Gospel came.<\/p>\n
Divine Kingship<\/b><\/p>\n
What is it? When did it start? How? Where? What are its chief characteristics? The study of divine kingship has been thorough and many insightful and helpful books and articles have been written (with only a few referred to here).<\/p>\n
Perhaps there never were any gods without kings, or kings without gods. When we have discovered the origin of divine kingship we shall know, but at present we only know that when history begins there are kings, the representatives of gods\u201d<\/i> (Our emphasis. A. M. Hocart, Kingship. Oxford,<\/i> 1927, p. 7).<\/p>\n
However, there may be more clues to the rise of divine kingship than the documents from earliest times contain. Genesis 6 seems to indicate that kings were acting like gods before the beginning of history as we know it\u2014before the beginning of Sumer.<\/p>\n
In considering divine kingship, it should be noted that \u201ckingship\u201d is not the same as king,\u201d the person; nor \u201ckingdom,\u201d the king\u2019s domain (which includes people and property). \u201cKingship\u201d is authority, the authority to rule<\/i>. A problem in any political system is how to get this authority. In the USA we have a system based on consent by the governed. (This concept makes it difficult, incidentally, to understand the absolutism of the ancient system.) When one desires absolute authority, such as in the ancient Near East, he must get it by force or subterfuge, or a combination of both, which is the most usual method.<\/p>\n
Thus, divine kingship did not evolve.<\/i> It was fabricated\u2014deliberately formulated\u2014usually by a group of priest-nobles who supported one man in power.<\/p>\n
Having said that, it follows that the purpose of myths, epics and literature on clay tablets, papyrii, parchments, and monuments, have the fundamental purpose of establishing and maintaining the right-to-rule a certain area and people. Clever men (priest-nobles) manipulated the populace\u2019s religious instincts to cause them to follow and obey the local god\u2019s \u201cson.\u201d He owned the people and land, in theory at least. And he acted either as god (in Egypt), or as his representative (in Mesopotamia and other cultures). When all the literature and monuments were used to glorify and exalt<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 3:1 (Winter 1990) p. 15<\/p>\n
this man as the son, or representative, of god religion became the opiate\u2014binder and blinder\u2014of the people!<\/p>\n
Manipulation of religion for political purposes began in Sumer, was picked up in Akkad (Old Babylon), revised with the same themes in Assyria and New Babylon, was enjoyed by Persian monarchs, captivated Alexander and his successors (Antiochus \u201cEpiphanus\u201d means \u201cthe revelation of god\u201d), and was copied by Rome. (It is even found in Africa, the Far East, and the Americas.)<\/p>\n
There would he nothing extraordinary in a world-wide diffusion of divine kingship: the doctrine evidently has exercised a great fascination over the human mind. Greece and Rome shook it off in their youth, but returned to it in their old age. When Alexander claimed to be the son of Zeus he was merely continuing, reviving, or borrowing from the East an ancient belief that the firstborn of the king was really the son of a god who had assumed bodily form in order to lie with the Queen, a belief which was current in Egypt under the Early Dynasties of the Empire, if not earlier. The later Romans had to accept the divinity of kings with their empire \u2026 Having thus re-established their sway over Western Europe the divine kings of the world did not again surrender it except to another Divine King, a Spiritual King, incarnated once for all in order ever after to rule over the souls of men (Hocart, pp. 15,16).<\/p>\n
This is most interesting when one recalls that Nebuchadnezzar (a \u201cdivine\u201d emperor whose name may mean \u201cNebo has protected the succession-rights\u201d) had a vision in which kingdoms having divine kingship were finally smashed by the kingdom of Christ, the true King who was truly Divine (Dan 2).<\/p>\n
How Divine Kingship Works<\/b><\/p>\n
There are three principles basic to the function of \u201cdivine\u201d kingship in the ancient Near East. They are essential to using religion for political control.<\/p>\n
1. The king is divine. From the beginning of written history, the Sumerians, after (and even before) the Flood (see the Sumerian Kinglist), considered the king to be divine.<\/p>\n
The earliest know religion is a belief in the divinity of the kings. I de not say that it is necessarily the most primitive; but in the earliest records known, man appears to us worshipping gods and their representative, namely kings<\/i> (Our emphasis. Hocart, p.7).<\/p>\n
To make religion really work for government, the person at the top has to assume divinity or semi-dignity.<\/p>\n
2. The king has absolute power. He is above the law; he makes it and changes it as he pleases since he gets direct orders from \u201cheaven.\u201d For instance,<\/p>\n
We must not think that Hammurabi felt that he was bound by his code of laws. That code he received from the hand of the god Shamash for the establishment of justice in the empire, for the rulership of which he had been predestined from the foundation of the world. From the gods he had his scepter and to them alone he was responsible (D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib<\/i>, p. 4). (For a picture of Hammurabi\u2019s Code, see A&BR<\/i> Spring 1988, p. 26.)<\/p>\n
3. Documents supporting the right to rule. There must be something like a \u201cconstitution.\u201d Written materials discovered by archaeologists are, to a great extent, documents related in some way to this \u201cright\u201d and its outworking in the kingdom.<\/p>\n
Every individual, whether he realizes it or not, has the inclination<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 3:1 (Winter 1990) p. 16<\/p>\n
to worship someone, even if it is only himself. If someone were able to trick a group of people into believing that the Creator had made him king as his \u201cson\u201d and get them to worship him, he could make the people his slaves. In the epic literature of the ancient Near East we frequently note that the hero has been chosen by the gods to rule. Actually, the literary texts and monuments were fabricated<\/i> to create this very impression on the people. In this literature the people were created for the purpose of serving the gods and their emissaries!<\/i><\/p>\n
Enuma EIish<\/i><\/b> tablet telling about the \u201ccreation\u201d of man.<\/b><\/p>\n
For instance in the Enuma Elish<\/i> \u201ccreation\u201d story, man was created from the blood of the gods (and clay), in order to take care of the gods.<\/i> Georges Roux has this to say of its effect on Sumer:<\/p>\n
Childish as this story might sound, it was loaded with grave significance for the Babylonians. To their deeply religious mind it offered a non-rational but nevertheless acceptable \u2018explanation\u2019 of the universe. Among other things, it described how the world had assumed its alleged shape; it made good the fact that men must be the servants of the gods; it accounted for the natural wickedness of humanity, created from the blood of the evil god Kingu; it also justified the exorbitant power of Marduk\u2026 (Ancient Iraq, p.<\/i> 96).<\/p>\n
Early man was not unintelligent. But, without God he was unscrupulous. The leaders may not have believed their superstitions, since they perpetrated them. The elite class deceived the working serfs and kept them in virtual slavery. There is really no way to know of the plight of the latter, for they were not taught to read and write. Most literature is found by archaeologists in the palace-temple complex of the ancient cities.<\/p>\n
Thus, we suggest that the \u201cshadowy\u201d myths and legend of the ancient Near East are deliberately<\/i> shadowy. They did not \u201cevolve\u201d as a sort of folk-lore. They were fabricated originally, copied and, in successive societies, revised and reused to retain control. These documents make up the ~constitution\u201d for the kingdom. They helped to maintain the palace and the temple in control, and included providing all the needs of the king, and the ruling class, as representative of the gods.<\/p>\n
Scriptural Considerations<\/b><\/p>\n
Reviewing the development of humanly devised religious systems in Scripture, we find them from the very beginning. A spirit of defiance of the Lord characteristic of these systems is seen in Cain\u2019s unworthy sacrifice and his murder of Abel, a true worshipper of Jehovah. Lamech continued in the spirit of Cain (and Gn 6:1\u20134) opposing the Sethites, who were the first to \u201ccall upon (worship) the name of Jehovah.\u201d<\/p>\n
(It is probably erroneous to think that Israel and the world first<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 3:1 (Winter 1990) p. 17<\/p>\n
heard of \u201cJehovah\u201d through Moses, as many imply in discussing Ex 3:14 and 6:3.)<\/p>\n
The genealogy of believers is listed in Genesis 5. What a contrast to the ungodly rebels of chapters 4 and 6! After the insertion of chapter 5, the narrative picks up again in chapter 6 with the cause of the Flood laid at the feet of the \u201csons of the gods.\u201d<\/p>\n
Who will be saved? The worshippers of Jehovah and no others. And<\/i> so the theme goes throughout the O.T. into the N.T. (when Jehovah comes among men as Jesus), and throughout history to this hour. The anti-Jehovah, anti-Christ men could<\/i> have come to the Lord and been saved too. But, they chose to defy Him and set up their own religio-politico system in opposition to Him.<\/p>\n
The winged god Ashur, patron god of the city of Ashur.<\/b><\/p>\n
Exposition of Genesis 6:1\u20135 in Light of \u201cDivine\u201d Kingship<\/b><\/p>\n
\u201cSons of the Gods\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n
In Scripture, adherents of a religious system were called \u201csons.\u201d For instance, the \u201csons of Hamor\u201d in Genesis 33:19 must have belonged to a cult in which donkeys were sacrificed while making a covenant (cf. G. E. Wright, Shechem.<\/i> McGraw-Hill, 1965, p. 131). E. Kautzsch in Gesenius\u201d Hebrew Grammar<\/i> (p. 418, u) says, \u201cben<\/i> denotes membership of a guild or society (or of a tribe, or any definite class). Thus benei haelohim<\/i> (of Gen 6 and Job) properly means not \u2018sons of god(s),\u2019 but beings of the class of elohim<\/i>.\u201d Many references are found in the O.T. to \u201csons (followers) of the prophets.\u201d Even in the N.T., Paul called Timothy his \u201cson\u201d (or disciple). It may not, therefore, be out of line to suggest that a follower of a temple-order would be a \u201cson\u201d of the order (or \u201cclass\u201d, as Kautzsch calls it), including the priest-king. But, in the latter\u2019s case, he would be called \u201cson of the god so and so\u2026\u201d For instance, the city of Ashur\u2014which became the center of the Assyrian Empire\u2014had a patron god also named Ashur. In the seventh-century BC the well-known Assyrian<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 3:1 (Winter 1990) p. 18<\/p>\n
emperor, Ashurbanipal, came to power and took upon himself a name which means \u201cAshur Has Made a Son.\u201d<\/p>\n
Cities with their patron gods, then, developed a system that helps us understand the meaning of Genesis 6:2. Such a practice was so widespread that everyone reading this passage in ancient times would immediately understand what was meant. The \u201csons of the gods\u201d include all city-kings. Or, it may be describing just one city\u2019s typical religio-politico system, the king with the religious leaders.<\/p>\n
Since the \u201csons of god\u201d are temple adherents, the writer of Genesis is not necessarily calling them this in sarcasm. He is using the term in the oriental sense. However, he did not mean that they were actually divine, only that they were adherents of another religious system. On the other hand, believers were not called by this term in the O.T<\/i>.<\/p>\n
By this simple literary stroke the author at once caught the spirit of ancient paganism and suggested darkly the satanic shapes that formed the background of the human revolt against the King of kings. For these ~sons of the gods\u2019 were of all the seed of the serpent most like their father (Kline, p. 192).<\/p>\n
Sacred Marriage<\/b><\/p>\n
If \u201cthe sons of the gods\u201d are despots pretending to be \u201cdivine\u201d kings, then who are the \u201cdaughters of men?\u201d Possibly the children of Seth, that is, \u201cbelievers.\u201d Or, they may simply have been men,\u201d common people, in contrast to \u201cdivine\u201d kings. Likely this latter is the sense in which it is used since it describes well the practices of the ancient Near East. There, tyrants took (or \u201csnatched away\u201d) whoever they chose of the daughters of the common man. They were his \u201cproperty.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Hebrew word laqach means \u201cto take, to grab and pull away.\u201d But the modern Hebrew meaning is simply \u201cto marry.\u201d In Genesis 6, it likely means that the sons of the gods forcibly<\/i> took the daughters of \u201cmen,\u201d whoever and whenever they chose. In the historical period, \u201cdivine\u201d kings followed in their footsteps, for it is here we learn that the kings, in the name of their god-father, claimed to own<\/i> all the people. Of course, this meant the women really belonged to him since he was \u201cson of the creator.\u201d<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 3:1 (Winter 1990) p. 19<\/p>\n
A very early example of this is the epic hero Gilgamesh. The men of his city, Uruk, raged at him for ravishing their wives and daughters. We see the problem in Scripture when Sarah was taken from Abraham by the Egyptian Pharaoh (Gn 12:12f). Abimelech of Gerar took Rachel from Jacob. The \u201cprince\u201d of Shechem took Dinah from Jacob. Later, Esther was chosen from among the most beautiful (illustrating that the ruler could have whatever women he wished). Even in Israel, the practice was picked up (although not by kings claiming to be divine). David took plural wives and ended with Abigail, the fairest in the land. Solomon then went \u201call out\u201d in the kingly tradition of wife-getting and ruined Israel.<\/p>\n
Another practice from historic times may have a bearing on the meaning of this. Once each year in Mesopotamia the New Year\u2019s Festival was celebrated.<\/p>\n
Each city-state ensured the fertility of its own fields and the fecundity of its own people and cattle by means of a Sacred Marriage between its patron-god and one of its goddesses\u201d (Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq.<\/i> Penguin Book, p. 90).<\/p>\n
The king represented the god, and one of the most beautiful women in the land represented the goddess. In the \u201csacred\u201d marriage the king represent Father God, or Heaven, and she represent Mother Earth being fertilized. This is the heart of the fertility cult concept. (It may be difficult for 20th-century evangelicals to grasp the complete depravity of these ancient societies. Even the Apostle Paul did not want to elaborate on their shameful activities.)<\/p>\n
If the practices described above follows after the pre-Flood situation, and it bears a remarkable resemblance, then it will help us to realize that this idolizing of immorality, brought on by complete rebellion against the Lord, made the Flood necessary to cleanse the earth.<\/p>\n
\u201cFlesh\u201d\u2026 Not Gods. <\/b><\/p>\n
Further confirmation that Genesis 6 refers to human<\/i> tyrants, \u201cdivine\u201d kings, is seen in the way the Lord refers to them in verse 3. They are \u201cflesh.\u201d The Hebrew word is, basar,<\/i> and is used today for meat hanging on a hook in the meat market\u2014just plain, perishable flesh. To Jehovah there is nothing at all divine about these \u201csons of the gods.\u201d They have only assumed<\/i> divinity to themselves, and have corrupted all mankind by<\/p>\n
Artist\u2019s reconstruction of the ziggurat at Ur. Note the temple, considered to be \u201cheaven,\u201d where the king met the patron god during the New Year\u2019s Festival annually.<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 3:1 (Winter 1990) p. 20<\/p>\n
directing the worship He deserves to their own foul selves. Thus, He will not \u201cstrive\u201d any more to correct them. The decision has been made \u2014 obliterate them! (cf. Ez 28:20)<\/p>\n
\u201cFallen Giants\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n
\u201cGiants\u201d in verse 4 may mean tall men. The word niphal<\/i> refers sometimes in Scripture to men of large stature. But it also means \u201cto fall.\u201d It may have a double meaning here\u2014tall men who have fallen from Jehovah\u2019s favor, men who sin grossly<\/i>.<\/p>\n
\u201cTyrants\u2019<\/b><\/p>\n
\u201cMighty men\u201d are such in the sense of tyranny. Gibborim<\/i> has that meaning. These were men who \u201cmade a name for themselves.\u201d That is, men renowned for their infamy and \u201cidolized\u201d for it. (We can see a revival of this rebellious way in Genesis 11:4, \u201c\u2026 let us make us a name\u2026\u201d) On the other hand, a true believer should \u201chumble himself under the mighty hand of God who will exalt him (make him a name) in due time.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cCorruption\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n
Verse 5 refers to the total state of corruption this whole system brings on. It should not be a new paragraph in Scripture. When men make a god in their own image and then worship that god, \u201cevery imagination and thought of the heart is only evil continually!\u201d A vicious cycle of degeneration carries men downward. Man\u2019s highest worship becomes that of his lowest nature. The gods act worse than men. People caught in a culture of this kind cannot escape. They cannot worship Jehovah there. For Abraham to do so, he had to come out of Ur and live as a nomad with his family. Lot tried to live in the city-state of Sodom, but lost his family. Sodom was dedicated to homosexuality.<\/p>\n
If believers were to worship the Lord they would have to live as nomads. That explains why He gave them a special land and told them to exterminate the inhabitants when they finally settled there. To follow their ways would bring certain destruction. And so it is to this hour. Paul tells us today, \u201cWherefore, come out from among them and be ye separate<\/i> (to the Lord)\u201d (2 Cor 6:17).<\/p>\n
Salvation!<\/b><\/p>\n
Verses 1\u20138 are a unit, with the conclusion that only one man found grace in the eyes of the living, true God\u2014Noah. Many ask, \u201cHow could a loving God destroy all mankind?\u201d The answer is that His love is shown in that He saved anyone at all!<\/i> They all deserved to die for their sins, including Noah. But he and his family were spared by the grace and love of God,<\/i> and were used of God to reinstitute the race. Tragically, after some time, corruption again enveloped mankind and God had to tell Abraham to get out of Ur to save his own family. With Abraham\u2014one faithful man and his family\u2014God started over again to develop a faithful people.<\/p>\n
Some Concluding Thoughts<\/b><\/p>\n
1. Ancient rulers used<\/i> religion as an \u201copiate.\u201d<\/p>\n
2. \u201cTo be as god\u201d is the original<\/i> temptation to sin. It is the great desire of Satan and men. They will do anything to try to attain it, even to deifying themselves while defying God.<\/p>\n
3. Pre-Flood patterns were reinstituted as outlined in Genesis 10\u201311. Ham and his descendents were apparently the most responsible. We find the theme of \u201cdivine kingship\u201d wherever his sons go.<\/p>\n
4. The unseen \u201ccity of God\u201d is the ultimate destination for believers. (Heb 11:9, 10; 12:28; Rev 21:2\u20134.)<\/p>\n
5. God\u2019s program is centered in the family<\/i> where He is worshipped. The church is like an enlarged family.<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 3:1 (Winter 1990) p. 21<\/p>\n
Other resources:<\/b><\/p>\n
Leroy Birney, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society<\/i>, Winter, 1970.<\/p>\n
Manfred Kober, The Baptist Bulletin<\/i> (GARB), March, 1974.<\/p>\n
Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods.<\/i> Chicago: University Press, 1948.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In Genesis 6:1\u20138 we read about some persons who may be a pre-Flood link between the Bible and the cultures of the ancient Near East. They are the \u201csons of the gods.\u201d The biblical reference to them should have some relationship with historical fact. If so, we should be able to lift these early chapters … Continue reading “WHO
\nWERE THE \u201cSONS OF GOD\u201d IN GENESIS 6”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15053","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15053","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15053"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15053\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15053"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15053"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15053"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}