Ever wonder how folks like Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin thought about Genesis 6:1-4? This essay I came across today provides a decent overview. I’m thinking some readers will find it interesting.
- Biblical Studies
- Fringe History
- Join Community
I like the conclusion:
“Fifth, exegetes uncomfortable with parallels between Near Eastern and Hebrew texts cannot seek a remedy for their discomfort by transforming apparently mythological elements in the Hebrew texts into palatable and mundane accounts. It makes no sense to obscure the literal meaning of Scripture in order to maintain faith in the literal meaning of Scripture! Sixth and finally, in no case should a confessional tradition that takes revelation seriously shy away from a preternatural interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 on philosophical grounds. Rather, evangelical religious epistemology requires the interpreter to submit to Scripture even when the text challenges one’s comfortable conceptions of the created order.”
That was an excellent essay… good find
He writes, “Thus, he points to the standard passages showing that spirits are not flesh and blood (e.g. Luke 24:39), though one might note that such passages do not deny the potential for angels to take physical forms, only that they do not have flesh and bones.” Does Jesus really say in that verse that spirits don’t have flesh and bones, or just that they don’t have flesh and bones like His (“as you see that I have”)?
My view is that he’s saying they by nature are not embodied, but he’s not denying they could be (i.e., Jesus knew his Old Testament).
Spirits as in ghosts( KJV) which could refer an entirely different being than the fallen angels. Along these lines…two angels (sons of god) accompanied Christ when visiting Abraham (Gen. 18). In Gen. 19 The men of Sodom desired to have relations with these two angels. Logic would suggest they have corporeal bodies. ?