# Inconsistency with implications for the resurrection - Genesis vs. Luke



## K Jentoft (Apr 21, 2019)

I have been working with an apparent biblical inconsistency that actually touches the resurrection (and it came to me the day before Easter).

In Genesis 18 we have God and 2 angels visit Abraham and dine with him. The 2 angels visit Lot and dine with him and then physically grab Lot and his family and drag them out of Sodom. Later, Jacob wrestles with the angel of the LORD and is struck on his thigh. Spirits eat food and touch humans.

In contrast, in Luke 24 Jesus uses the fact that spirits cannot be touched and do not eat as proof that He is not a spirit. Based on Luke 24, spirits do not eat food or touch humans.

If we refer directly to the incidents in Genesis as relevant data points, Jesus' proof is suspect and He could actually be a spirit because spirits certainly did touch and eat in Genesis. In that light, He could be a fraud and a masquerading spirit. I think that both accounts are true and have been working on a resolution.

One very odd point is that I have reviewed many of the significant commentaries and this inconsistency seems to be entirely missed or not discussed. One commentary noted spirits eating food in Genesis without any comment at all.

Any ideas on how to reconcile the 3 accounts in Genesis with Luke 24?


----------



## Taylor (Apr 21, 2019)

I don’t see the two passages as being contradictory at all. In Luke 24, Jesus is speaking with his disciples on the terms of their limited understanding of a spirit. Yet he is still correct: spirits don’t eat or touch. Mine certainly doesn’t.

However, what we see in Genesis are not _mere_ spirits. They are theophanies. Spirits are also invisible and do not take up physical space, yet the appearances in Genesis most certainly are visible and take up space. There is no reason to believe that God could not cause a spirit’s appearance to be very much visible, tangible, and able to eat.

With a God who can work extraordinary providences, it is absolutely appropriate to speak in absolute negative terms regarding things that have actually positively happened. For example, I would be correct if I say that water cannot separate itself at a man’s mere command. That is a correct statement, and we would know that if we ever see water separate itself that there is something else besides a man’s mere word going on. Yet we see this very thing happen in Exodus. These two things are not contradictory, but rather they are simply statements on the nature of reality _without consideration for God’s extraordinary acts of providence_.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## K Jentoft (Apr 21, 2019)

Taylor,

Thank you for your reply. I think, however, that your spirit is embodied and therefore you are human. That was Jesus' claim, that He too was a human with both spirit/body (although it was a glorified body it was a real tangible body). It seems that you would be correct that human spirits alone would not have a body (by definition) but that would not be the masquerade that I was considering. If Satan can masquerade as an angel of light, then the attributes exhibited by the angels with Lot would seem to be available to Satan as well.

Spirits/angels can be both visible and heard as recounted numerous times in both the Old and New Testaments. Being seen/heard was not proof of any difference between man and spirits as I understand Luke 24. Most of the instances recounting touching by spirits that I can find occur in visions, dreams or when people are sleeping - including Elijah when he traveled to Horeb and Peter when he was in prison. Actual touching by spirits seems to occur only in early Genesis, at least that is all I can find.

More than that, as I understand a theophany, it has to do with the appearance of the preincarnate Christ and not merely angels. Angels are angels and theophanies are theophanies. As Genesis mentions both God and angels together, that explanation does not seem sufficient to me.


----------



## Kinghezy (Apr 21, 2019)

Matthew Henry has the following to say: they were terrified,supposing that they had seen a spirit, because he came in among them without any noise, and was in the midst of them ere they were aware. The word used (Matt. xiv. 26), when they said It is a spirit, is phantasma, it is a spectre, an apparition; but the word here used is pneuma, the word that properly signifies a spirit; they supposed it to be a spirit not clothed with a real body. Though we have an alliance and correspondence with the world of spirits, and are hastening to it, yet while we are here in this world of sense and matter it is a terror to us to have a spirit so far change its own nature as to become visible to us, and conversable with us, for it is something, and bodes something, very extraordinary.

Here is a new testament reference to an angel being corporal, so I think the premise is wrong that angels do not have some physical interaction: 
Acts 12:7-9
And behold, an angel of the Lord stood next to him, and a light shone in the cell. He *struck Peter on the side and woke him*, saying, Get up quickly. And the chains fell off his hands. And the angel said to him, Dress yourself and put on your sandals. And he did so. And he said to him, Wrap your cloak around you and follow me. And he went out and followed him. He did not know that what was being done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 21, 2019)

Hi K, please fix your signature in accord with board rules so folks know how to address you. See the instruction at
https://www.puritanboard.com/help/signature/


----------



## Taylor (Apr 21, 2019)

All I am saying is that there is no contradiction in asserting what is _ordinary _in light of what is _extraordinary_. That, after all, is the nature of "extraordinary."

Also, I would encourage you to do a little more studying and possibly reconsider what you believe or do not believe to be theophanies in the Old Testament. It is widely believed that "the Angel of the Lord" is indeed in many cases the pre-incarnate Christ. And there are many times where the "Angel" of the Lord appeared to someone, and their response was that they have "seen God face to face" (e.g., Gen. 32:30).


----------



## K Jentoft (Apr 21, 2019)

Kinghezy,

As far as I can find, clear physical touching by angels does not happen after Genesis. There are many instances of touching recorded but they all occur, as far as I have been able to find, in conjunction with sleeping (as in your example with Peter, or in visions or in dreams. The kind of touching seen with Lot and Jacob in wakeful activity seems absent and this would be consistent with the words of Jesus in Luke 24.


----------



## K Jentoft (Apr 21, 2019)

Taylor says:
"Also, I would encourage you to do a little more studying and possibly reconsider what you believe or do not believe to be theophanies in the Old Testament. It is widely believed that "the Angel of the Lord" is indeed in many cases the pre-incarnate Christ. And there are many times where the "Angel" of the Lord appeared to someone, and their response was that they have "seen God face to face" (e.g., Gen. 32:30)."

Taylor,

I agree with your explanation that theophanies are the pre-incarnate Christ and God. My point was that the 2 angels that accompanied God and who then visited God were not theophanies because they were not Theo, just angels. Thus, the physical tangibility of spirits was not limited to God but seems to be more general to include angels.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 21, 2019)

K Jentoft said:


> I agree with your explanation that theophanies are the pre-incarnate Christ and God. My point was that the 2 angels that accompanied God and who then visited God were not theophanies because they were not Theo, just angels. Thus, the physical tangibility of spirits was not limited to God but seems to be more general to include angels.



Of course, but could not God have caused spirits to appear that broke with the normal pattern of spirits? That's what I am trying to say. Spirits under normal circumstances are, as Jesus said, incorporeal. However, could not God, who created them and sustains their very existence, have caused them to appear as tangible? Again, this is the definition of extraordinary, which surely these appearances were.

In summary, in light of a God who is free and able to do above and beyond the "normal," I just don't see the problem you are seeing between these two accounts and statements in Scripture.

Anyway, keep studying. Good question here. I must be off to ready myself for worship. Have a blessed Lord's Day!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Apr 21, 2019)

K Jentoft said:


> Any ideas on how to reconcile the 3 accounts in Genesis with Luke 24?



Sure. Jesus was talking about the spirit of a physically dead human. But Genesis and the other passages mentioned are talking about the appearance of heavenly beings or of God. Apparently, they are not the same thing.

Why, when Jesus says in Luke that he is not a ghost, do you read it as "angel"? He didn't say "angel." An angelic appearance might follow different rules.

For example, we know from 2 Kings 6 (the chariots of fire around Elisha) that an appearance of angels might be visible or might be invisible depending on which God wills. And again, we know from Numbers 22 (Balaam's ride to Moab) that an angel, or a theophany, might be visible or invisible depending on God's purposes. It stands to reason that a visiting angel or theophany might also be corporal or not, depending on the circumstances and God's purposes.

But the disciples in Luke 24 weren't thinking Jesus was a visiting angel from God; they were thinking he was a ghost. Not the same thing. Not the same rules.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## iainduguid (Apr 21, 2019)

K Jentoft said:


> Kinghezy,
> 
> As far as I can find, clear physical touching by angels does not happen after Genesis. There are many instances of touching recorded but they all occur, as far as I have been able to find, in conjunction with sleeping (as in your example with Peter, or in visions or in dreams. The kind of touching seen with Lot and Jacob in wakeful activity seems absent and this would be consistent with the words of Jesus in Luke 24.


1 Kings 19:5, 7: Elijah was "touched by an angel", who probably bore no resemblance to Roma Downey.

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 21, 2019)

Angels assume the property of materiality when they interact with us. Angels aren't "spirits qua spirits qua Plotinus." In any case, Jesus isn't an angel. The only reason we think this might be a problem is that we come to the text with Greek ideas of pure spirit. Jesus didn't actually endorse that, but he acknowledged that it would have been the mindset of his hearers.


----------



## K Jentoft (Apr 21, 2019)

It seems that the Greek pneuma simply means spirit. God is a spirit and angels are spirits. It seems to me that scripture indicates that the interaction between humans and spirits was different in the period of time up until Moses. Somehow spirits became distanced after Moses. Dt 34:10 states,* "Since that time no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face."*

This same increase in distance is seen in Numbers 12:6-8, *"He said, 'Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. “Not so, with My servant Moses, he is faithful in all My household; with him I speak mouth to mouth, even openly, and not in dark sayings, And he beholds the form of the Lord.'"*

In contrast, there are many pre-Moses passages that expressly state that those people knew God face to face. Adam is an obvious one. Enoch would certainly be there. Noah walked with God. Abraham as recounted above. Judges 6:22 speaks of Gideon seeing the angel of the Lord face to face, but if Deut 34 is correct, this was somehow less than Moses knowing the LORD face to face.

Following this same thought, that Moses was somehow a pivot point, the physicality of spirits decays after Moses. *ALL the angelic touching that I can find after Moses is in dreams, visions, or when people are sleeping* including Elijah (1 Kings 19:5-7), Isaiah (one example is Is 6:7), Jeremiah (one example is Jer 1:9) Daniel in both vision and sleep (Dan 10:9-21) and even Peter in the New Testament prison cell (Acts 12:7). This is consistent with Deut 34:10. I cannot find an exception.

Angelic eating seems to have the same pivot point. Certainly God ate with Abraham in Genesis 18:8 and the Angels dined with Lot in Genesis 19:3. It seems likely that God ate with the 70 elders on Sinai in Ex 24:11. But after Moses in Judges the angels burn up their dinners in Judges 6:21and Judges 13:16. I can't find another instance of spirits eating.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 21, 2019)

Let's assume all that is true for the moment. Why is there inconsistency in an angel assuming the property of materiality when it comes to earth? Why must we be bound to Plotinus?


----------



## K Jentoft (Apr 22, 2019)

I don't think the issue is about being bound to Plotinus but to what Jesus indicated about spirits. There appears to be an inconsistency (spirits eat and touch) to (spirits don't eat and touch). The commentaries on Luke 24:39 seem to be very consistent in their interpretation that Jesus is saying that spirits are not tangible/physical. 

In contrast, there are a minority of commentaries that argue that Jacob's wrestling was actually a vision and not physical (some on the basis of Luke 24). I have found no commentary, however, that ascribes the visit of God to Abraham and the visit of the two angels to Lot as a vision. Thus, the vision explanation of Jacob doesn't really fix anything.

Based upon the passages that describe Moses as different from the later prophets, my inclination is that an evolution happened at the time of Moses. Moreover, as far as I can tell, that evolution is consistent through the entire record of the Old Testament and the New.

Thank you all for your participation on this.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 22, 2019)

Or maybe Jesus is addressing their own worldview. Rather than bothering to correct them that the Hebrew notion of spirit is life and power, rather than floating in the Platonic void, Jesus notes that spirits, such as you define them, don't eat.

Anyway, why is an angel a Greek spirit? We have no reason to assume such. God calls them "flames of fire," yet fire isn't spirit on the Greek worldview.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## KMK (Apr 22, 2019)

Jentoft,

Just to clarify, do you believe what the Westminster Confession says in Chapter 1; Paragraph II?

"Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament...All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life."

If so, you know that any apparent contradiction must be the result of our own weaknesses, not that of the Holy Spirit. 

I ask this only because you are new to the board and we don't know you very well. Your persistence is beginning to 'sound' like you are promoting the unconfessional doctrine that the Scriptures are not inspired.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## K Jentoft (Apr 22, 2019)

KMK,

I do believe that scriptures are inspired and accurate and truthful (as opposed to the views of Plotinus). The point of this thread is to find an answer that explains what seems to be an apparent contradiction in a way that is consistent with all of scripture. I believe that as we understand scripture, there are no real contradictions and any apparent contradictions are due to our faulty understanding. 

Thank you for your concerns.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 22, 2019)

K Jentoft said:


> KMK,
> 
> I do believe that scriptures are inspired and accurate and truthful (as opposed to the views of Plotinus). The point of this thread is to find an answer that explains what seems to be an apparent contradiction in a way that is consistent with all of scripture. I believe that as we understand scripture, there are no real contradictions and any apparent contradictions are due to our faulty understanding.
> 
> Thank you for your concerns.



I see no contradiction. The Greek world had ideas of ghosts and spirits. The disciples weren't tempted to see Jesus as an angel, but perhaps as a spirit. So Jesus proves to them he wasn't a ghost. This has nothing to do with the biblical view of angels.


----------



## K Jentoft (Apr 22, 2019)

Bayou,

The commentaries do flag that both the word pneuma/spirit is used along with angels and one of the passages cited uses them both in almost synonomous terms concerning the resurrection Acts 23:9. Furthermore, Nolland links the language of Luke 24 to angels when he says in his commentary on Luke 24:37, "*37* πτοηθέντες δὲ καὶ ἔμφοβοι (lit. “having been terrified and [being] fearful”) is Lukan language (cf. Dauer, _Johannes und Lukas_, 262–63). However, the difficulty of such a reaction after vv 34–35 makes it unlikely that Luke has introduced the fear motif here. The fear language could be a further link with the pattern of an angelic visitation (cf. Luke 1:12, 30; 2:9; 24:5; Acts 10:4; Dan 8:17; Tob 12:16)"

All I am saying is that scholars far more gifted than me see the pneuma in Luke 24:39 in a way that is broader than your Plotinus explanation and points to generic spirits including angels. More than that, the culture Jesus was speaking to was 1st century Jewish and not primarily that of the Greek philosophers. The book of 1 Enoch, one of the most popular intertestamental books, and the other Jewish literature found at Qumran would be more likely to influence these Jews and their views on spirits than that of Plotinus. In fact, Jude refers to 1 Enoch in Jude 6 and even quotes from 1 Enoch in Jude 14-15 and references another, the Assumption of Moses Jude 9. In addition, 2 Peter 2:4 also references 1 Enoch. Spirits, both angels and demons, were very central to the Jewish worldview of the first century based not only on the gospels and Jude and 2 Peter but also the writings of the Qumran which are non-canonical.


----------



## K Jentoft (Apr 22, 2019)

Interesting to note, Marcion, the well known heretic of the early church, based much of his heresy on the physical tangibility of spirits and the materialism of the human body. Many of the issues mentioned above are mentioned in the battle against the heresy of Marcion. The rules and essense of spirits and body and how they interacted were extremely important, not just an interesting byline.

Another interesting note on the actual language of the passage of Luke 24 is that Marcion's version of the New Testament (according to Turtullien) substituted the Greek word, φάντασμα/ghost, for the πνεῦμα/spirit. There actually are 2 different Greek words that can distinguish ghost from spirit. Luke 24:39 uses πνεῦμα/spirit and φάντασμα/ghost is used in Matthew 14:26. I assume that this was done for a reason.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 22, 2019)

So....what, exactly? Jesus isn't an angel. And angels qua angels don't have material properties. When angels come to earth they can often assume material properties.


----------



## K Jentoft (Apr 22, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> So....what, exactly? Jesus isn't an angel. And angels qua angels don't have material properties. When angels come to earth they can often assume material properties.



That is exactly the point or question. While spirits/angels can bee seen and heard, (I suppose this is what qualifies as a "vision"and that a vision could include audible as well.) as far as I can tell, they DO NOT assume material properties after Moses while they certainly DO assume material properties before Moses. Thus, all the passages post-Moses would support the statement of Jesus in Luke 24:39. I think that the term pneuma/spirit includes angels and demons, it is generic and encompassing. Thus, Jesus is stating that angels, as well as all spirits, are not physical and don't eat. That is consistent with post-Moses history and therefore true for us today. It is not consistent with Genesis. My question is "Why?"

I think that there is a scriptural reason that the human/spirit interaction changed and spirits became more distant physically. I think that this happened during the time of Moses - I think that the scriptural record supports this. But how or why did this happen? 

It would be helpful is you could find physical angel/human touching where the humans are not asleep, in a vision or dream. I cannot.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 22, 2019)

K Jentoft said:


> It is not consistent with Genesis. My question is "Why?"



And I guess the following question is "why does it matter?" Even if God doesn't tell us, it doesn't constitute a contradiction. We don't see God claiming A = ~A.


----------



## iainduguid (Apr 22, 2019)

K Jentoft said:


> That is exactly the point or question. While spirits/angels can bee seen and heard, (I suppose this is what qualifies as a "vision"and that a vision could include audible as well.) as far as I can tell, they DO NOT assume material properties after Moses while they certainly DO assume material properties before Moses. Thus, all the passages post-Moses would support the statement of Jesus in Luke 24:39. I think that the term pneuma/spirit includes angels and demons, it is generic and encompassing. Thus, Jesus is stating that angels, as well as all spirits, are not physical and don't eat. That is consistent with post-Moses history and therefore true for us today. It is not consistent with Genesis. My question is "Why?"
> 
> I think that there is a scriptural reason that the human/spirit interaction changed and spirits became more distant physically. I think that this happened during the time of Moses - I think that the scriptural record supports this. But how or why did this happen?
> 
> It would be helpful is you could find physical angel/human touching where the humans are not asleep, in a vision or dream. I cannot.


In 1 Kings 19, the angel clearly touches Elijah in order to awaken him from sleep. That seems like a "physical" touch. Moreover, your comparison of before/after Moses is mistaken. The passages in Deut 34 and Numbers 12 about Moses' face to face access to God in contrast to other prophets do not mark Moses out as the last in a sequence of people who all had similar experiences of God, but as a unique individual who had unique experiences of God, which mark him out as _the_ archetypal prophet (until the coming of the promised one who is greater even than he - see Deut 18:15).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## K Jentoft (Apr 22, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And I guess the following question is "why does it matter?" Even if God doesn't tell us, it doesn't constitute a contradiction. We don't see God claiming A = ~A.


I think that Jesus telling us that spirits are untouchable when the patriarchs touched them comes close to claiming the above, or maybe even goes that far.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 22, 2019)

K Jentoft said:


> patriarchs touched them comes close to claiming the above, or maybe even goes that far.



Jesus is speaking to a Greek worldview audience, which did view spirits as untouchable. Abraham, being a Hebrew, had a superior worldview and didn't view angels as Greek spirits.


----------



## K Jentoft (Apr 22, 2019)

iainduguid said:


> In 1 Kings 19, the angel clearly touches Elijah in order to awaken him from sleep. That seems like a "physical" touch. Moreover, your comparison of before/after Moses is mistaken. The passages in Deut 34 and Numbers 12 about Moses' face to face access to God in contrast to other prophets do not mark Moses out as the last in a sequence of people who all had similar experiences of God, but as a unique individual who had unique experiences of God, which mark him out as _the_ archetypal prophet (until the coming of the promised one who is greater even than he - see Deut 18:15).



Both the angel awaking Elijah and the angel awaking Peter in prison happen when they are sleeping. The word used for the angel striking Peter in Acts 12:7 is only used twice with the other time being when the angel struck Herod later in the same chapter in Acts 12:23. In any case, the touching of Peter happens when he sleeps although it certainly awakens him.

I do think that the passage regarding Moses mark him as the last and as the archetypal prophet. It would be hard to argue that those before Moses experienced God less than Moses did, especially Adam and Enoch. I agree that this points to Christ because John specifically refers to himself as seeing, touching, and experiencing God in 1 John 1:1-3. I think that John is intentionally stating that his experiences are on a par with or exceed that of Moses.


----------



## Kinghezy (Apr 22, 2019)

iainduguid said:


> In 1 Kings 19, the angel clearly touches Elijah in order to awaken him from sleep. That seems like a "physical" touch.



I think the Acts passage I quoted is of the same import (granted I do not have knowledge of original language, so perhaps I am missing something). Luke clearly thought the angel woke Peter up, so I take that as divinely inspired and beyond question if Peter was just sleepy.


----------



## K Jentoft (Apr 22, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> I think the Acts passage I quoted is of the same import (granted I do not have knowledge of original language, so perhaps I am missing something). Luke clearly thought the angel woke Peter up, so I take that as divinely inspired and beyond question if Peter was just sleepy.


I think that your passage is of import as well. It clearly demonstrates that angels interact with humans in the New Testament, and presumably in our lives as well. All I am saying is that interacting physically while sleeping, in a dream or vision is different than interacting physically by forcefully dragging Lot's family by the hand from Sodom or wrestling with Jacob and leaving him permanently injured.


----------



## K Jentoft (Apr 22, 2019)

Here is the explanation that I have been considering.

For now I am assuming that the sons of God are angels, that the sin of the sons of God was when these angels copulated with human women and, finally, the offspring of this sinful union were genetically corrupted fleshly beings called Nephilim. In some sense, the Nephilim were evil incarnate, fleshly beings fathered by wicked angels. This background is covered in great detail in the book by Dr. Michael S. Heiser, _The Unseen Realm_, published by Lexham Press in 2015. Dr. Heiser presents a scholarly explanation of the spiritual worldview underscored by Genesis 6:1-4 and how it influenced much of the rest of scripture. Dr. Heiser is also the resident scholar for Logos bible software fir any on this blog use Logos.

One key issue regarding the sin of the sons of God explanation described above or the "Sethite theory" is that according to Genesis 6:4, the sin of the sons of God occurred both in the days before the flood and also afterwards. In other words, the flood did not resolve or put an end to the “sin of the sons of God” described in Genesis 6 verses 1, 2, and 4.

_Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose…The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, *and also afterward *when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown_.

Nephilim existing “also afterwards” is problematic because the intent of chapters 7 and 8 is to convey that no flesh was left alive. Genesis details the flood covering the mountains for 150 days with Noah in the ark for over a year to emphasize that all flesh living in those days died.

_The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. Thus, He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days._

The idea being conveyed is that, except for Noah and his family, all of the human descendants of Cain or Seth perished as well as all the Nephilim, the corrupted flesh resulting from the sinful union of women with wicked angels. In other words, the passage is trying to convey that none of those living in Genesis 6 made it through alive to Genesis 9 except Noah’s family. In contrast, Noah was pure in his flesh and not genetically contaminated by the sin of the sons of God. He is referred to as having integrity or being perfect “in his generations” in both Genesis 6:9 and 7:1.

Now here is the problem, the Nephilim reappear after the flood and their descendants are described as living in the region of Canaan from Genesis 14 through to 1 Chronicles 20. In Numbers 13:31-33, the spies Moses sent into Canaan describe the Nephilim they found living there. This passage clearly describes the “sons of Anak” as descendants of post-flood Nephilim living in Canaan immediately after Sinai and Israel’s exodus from Egypt.

_But the men who had gone up with him said, “We are not able to go up against the people, for they are too strong for us.” So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. *There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim);* and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.” _

Because all the pre-flood Nephilim perished in the flood, this means that the sons of God (angels) actually continued to sin and copulate with women after the flood, creating new Nephilim. Regarding the "Sethite theory," there were only Noah's descendants, Sethites, the descendants of sinful Cain had all perished in the flood. Thus, Anak’s father, Arba, mentioned in Joshua 15:13, was either a wicked angel himself or the son of a wicked angel. In other words, the flood did not resolve the problem of the sin of the sons of God. In addition, the passage in Numbers is not the only scripture that refers to Nephilim present after the flood. Clans of Rephaim named in Genesis 14:5-7, are described in greater detail as Nephilim in Deuteronomy 2:10-11 and 3:11-13 when scripture explains the early history of Moab and Edom. In short, as seen in the passage below, the Anakim (sons of Anak) and Rephaim were both Nephilim descended from wicked angels and living in Canaan.

_The Emim lived there formerly, a people as great, numerous, and tall as the Anakim. *Like the Anakim, they are also regarded as Rephaim*, but the Moabites call them Emim._

Joshua mentions Nephilim often in the conquest of Canaan in Joshua 12:4, 13:12, 14:12-15, 17:15 and Judges repeats the story in 1:20. King David battles Nephilim beginning with Goliath and ending with 1 Chronicles 20:4-8 that documents their final destruction during his reign. The Hebrew term for giants in these verses in Chronicles is Raphah, a form of Rephaim, and linked to the Nephilim. The bottom line is that the existence of post-flood Nephilim is significant in the history of Israel up through the kingdom of David. Moreover, after the Nephilim’s descendants are exterminated by David and his men, they disappear from the narrative of the Old Testament; they become extinct in the biblical record.

So why then and not now? What happened to prevent the sin of the sons of God from infecting the earth and humanity with incarnate evil? Why do we only find the descendants of Nephilim, like the sons of Anak, after Sinai? I believe the answer is found in Genesis 6:3 within the context where the sin is first described. It seems as if the statement made in Genesis 6:3 is God’s decree of judgment to resolve the sin of wicked angels corrupting flesh described in Genesis 6:11,12. Noah alone was found to be both righteous and have integrity in his generations, free from the genetic corruption of wicked angels. Here is God’s decree:

_Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” _

At the time God made this decree, humans lived many hundreds of years; Noah lived 950 years. Immediately after this decree and beginning with Noah’s sons, the lifespan of men began to decline. The “lifespan genealogies” of Genesis are unique in scripture, documenting the lifespan of every father from Adam to Moses in each generation. Remarkably, Moses is the first man recorded to live exactly 120 years and after Moses the lifespans of his sons are not recorded. Their mission accomplished; the lifespan genealogies end with Moses as illustrated below.


Age Man Reference
930 Adam Gen 5
912 Seth Gen 5
905 Enosh Gen 5
910 Kenan Gen 5
895 Mahalalel Gen 5
962 Jared Gen 5
365 Enoch Gen 5 (did not die)
969 Methuselah Gen 5
777 Lamech Gen 5
950 Noah Gen 9, 11
600 Shem Gen 11
438 Apachshad Gen 11
420 Shelah Gen 11
464 Eber Gen 11
239 Peleg Gen 11
239 Rue Gen 11
230 Serug Gen 11
148 Nahor Gen 11
205 Terah Gen 11
175 Abraham Gen 25:7
180 Isaac Gen 35:28
147 Jacob Gen 47:28
137 Levi Ex 6:16
133 Kohath Ex 6:18
137 Amram Ex 6:20
120 Moses Deut 34:7

If God’s judgment on the sons of God recorded in Genesis 6:3 means that the sin of the sons of God would cease when the lifespan of a man reached 120 years, then we would expect this to happen during the lifetime of Moses. It seems this is exactly what we find in scripture. After Moses, the sin of the sons of God ceased. After Sinai wicked angels no longer father new Nephilim. Only their “sin incarnate” corrupted descendants remained on earth to be exterminated.

This same distancing of spirit from humans occurs with God and good spirits. Exodus culminates when God came down on Mt Sinai and met directly with His people, speaking His ten commandments to them in His own voice from the burning fire on the mountain. The people could not stand this tangible presence of God and declared they would die if it continued. God agreed with them. To speak to His people God implemented mediators, first Moses and then the prophets after him Numbers 12:6 Deuteronomy 18:15-22. Moses, unlike the prophets who followed him, knew God tangibly Deuteronomy 34:10 like Abraham, Noah and Enoch who all lived more than 120 years.

_These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain from the midst of the fire, of the cloud and of the thick gloom, with a great voice, and He added no more. He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me. And when you heard the voice from the midst of the darkness, while the mountain was burning with fire, you came near to me, all the heads of your tribes and your elders. You said, “Behold, the LORD our God has shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice from the midst of the fire; we have seen today that God speaks with man, yet he lives. *Now then why should we die? For this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any longer, then we will die. *For who is there of all flesh who has heard the voice of the living God speaking from the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? Go near and hear all that the LORD our God says; then speak to us all that the LORD our God speaks to you, and we will hear and do it.” The LORD heard the voice of your words when you spoke to me, and the LORD said to me, *“I have heard the voice of the words of this people which they have spoken to you. They have done well in all that they have spoken.”*_

Scripture does not explicitly state how a 120-year lifespan actually stopped the sin of the sons of God, it simply ceased during the life of Moses. I believe, however, that the shortened lifespans are a clue that a genetic decay happened in humanity such that when the lifespan declined to 120 years, spirits (good or bad) were no longer tangible but became less physical to our human bodies. Now for the sin of the sons of God to occur, spirits have to be tangible in ways that our current bodies no longer genetically tolerate. In early Genesis spirits appear physical, God walks with Adam and Eve Genesis 3:8. Adam sees the Cherubim with flaming swords guarding Eden Genesis 3:24. God meets Cain and proclaims His judgment Genesis 4:9-16. God physically walks with Enoch and Noah Genesis 5:22, 6:9. God and two angels meet and dine with Abraham Genesis 18:1-33. The two angels dine with Lot Genesis 19:3 and wicked men of Sodom (allies of the Nephilim Genesis 14:1-9) attempt to physically assault angels echoing of the sin of the sons of God Genesis 19:5. Spirits physically grab Lot and his family to lead them out of Sodom Genesis 19:16. Jacob wrestles with an angel Genesis 32:24-32. In those days God and spirits can be tangible.

After Moses, spirits interact with the physical world but are more distant physically. The angel that spoke with Gideon burned up the dinner that Gideon had brought him instead of eating it Judges 6:21 and the same is true for Sampson’s parents in Judges 13:16. The only angelic “touching” happens to people in visions like Isaiah Isaiah 6:7 or Jeremiah Jeremiah 1:9 or during their sleep as when the angel touched the sleeping Elijah 1 Kings 19:5-7 or when the angel grabbed the sleeping Peter in his prison cell Acts12:7 or even touched Daniel in both visions/sleep Daniel 10:9-21. After Moses, the “touching” by spirits is always linked to visions/dreams/or sleeping and not wakeful activity as seen earlier in Genesis. In conclusion, it seems that the means God used to stop the sin of the sons of God was linked to the 120-year lifespan decreed in Genesis 6:3. While wicked angels continued to sin with women and create new Nephilim after the flood; the sin of the sons of God finally ceased with Moses at Sinai in Exodus 20. Spirits, both good and bad, became less physical. After Moses died at 120 years old, only wicked descendants of the Nephilim remained on earth and these were destroyed by God’s people as they conquered Canaan. 

Let me contrast the physical interaction between humans and spirits before and after Moses another and even stronger way. In Genesis 18 God and two angels visit Abraham who invites them to dinner and they dine with him Genesis 18:8. In Genesis 19 the two angels visit Lot and dine with him Genesis 19:3 and they physically grab Lot and his family to drag them out of Sodom Genesis 19:16. Even more dramatic is Genesis 32:24-32 where Jacob wrestles with angel as confirmed in Hosea 12:4. It is very clear that spirits can eat with, physically grab and even wrestle humans before Moses.

After Moses, during a dramatic event in Jerusalem in Luke 24:36-43, we find Jesus seeking to prove to His disciples that He is a resurrected man and not a spirit. Jesus tells the apostles, “*Touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have*.” Jesus Himself claims that spirits are not tangible with flesh and bones to be felt at that time. When they still did not believe Jesus then goes further to prove He is not a spirit by asking for something to eat, implying that spirits do not eat food. This is consistent with the two angels that simply burned the meals offered to them after Moses Judges 6:21, 13:16. After Moses, spirits do not eat or touch humans except in dreams, sleep or visions.

The decree of Genesis 6:3 implemented with Moses seems to be the best explanation to reconcile the certain evolution of spirit/human interaction from where spirits touch and eat to where they neither touch nor eat.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 22, 2019)

Jentoft:

The evidence that Jesus had a bodily resurrection is indeed an important matter. So when you ask, in essence, "Wait, couldn't that locked-room appearance have been a theophany or angelic visit similar to some appearances in the Old Testament, so that the eating proves nothing if the disciples had just thought about it further?" you ask a good question.

However, your proposed solution requires you to jump through several difficult hoops. You have to sell the ideas that angels stopped eating and poking people around the time of Moses, and/or that there's a difference between angelic visits experienced in a dream and those experienced while awake, and a specific explanation of the Nephilim, and that the disciples clearly knew these truths and applied them in the moment.

Well, few people are going to buy those conclusions because, frankly, those hoops you are jumping through are a stretch.

As I've thought more about your apparent contradiction, I am starting to see that although I don't like your proposed solution, it's a valid question. Given the events that followed in the years to come, there can be no doubt that the disciples did think this through very thoroughly at some point. Even if initially they only thought in terms of a ghost (which I still say is not the same thing as an angelic visit), eventually they would have considered passages like Genesis 18 and the possibility of an angelic visit—and they still came to the conclusion that Jesus rose in his body.

Perhaps part of the solution is that we are giving too much importance to the fact that Jesus ate the fish. He did it to help his disciples believe in the moment, but it is not meant to be an ultimate, prove-beyond-all-doubt bit of evidence. In the end, although the empty tomb and the eyewitness encounters and the eaten fish all help us greatly, we believe the resurrection is true because we believe the word of God. Jesus said he was alive in the body._ He_ is more trustworthy than any leftover fish bones. The fish helps us to believe, but it does not have to bear the weight of being incontrovertible evidence.

What do others think?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Kinghezy (Apr 22, 2019)

K Jentoft said:


> . All I am saying is that interacting physically while sleeping, in a dream or vision is different than interacting physically by forcefully dragging Lot's family by the hand from Sodom or wrestling with Jacob and leaving him permanently injured



Please reread the text in Acts (see post 4). I am fairly certain that it said Peter initially thought it was a vision, but then realized it was all happening for real. And so him being touched to be made awake, actually did happen.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 22, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> Please reread the text in Acts (see post 4). I am fairly certain that it said Peter initially thought it was a vision, but then realized it was all happening for real. And so him being touched to be made awake, actually did happen.



Exactly. All of that happened in real life


----------



## Taylor (Apr 22, 2019)

Am I the only one who is scratching my head at this point? What is the problem here? I am not trying to sound trite or rude, @K Jentoft, but are you considering even for a moment that God has the ability to make things which are ordinarily one way to behave another? I could say, "Donkeys can't talk," and that would be an absolutely true statement, because I am speaking in regard to the _ordinary_, not in regard to God's _extraordinary_ working. Therefore, my statement "Donkeys cant' talk" is in no way contradictory to Scripture's account of Balaam's donkey speaking to him. Could this not be the way Jesus is speaking? Would you rather him have said what he said about spirits not touching or eating, and then giving an entire systematic-theological treatment of spirits to the disciples, or what?

Again, I am not trying to be rude here, but the "issue" seems either to be 1) a non-issue or 2) an easily-solvable issue.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## K Jentoft (Apr 22, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> Please reread the text in Acts (see post 4). I am fairly certain that it said Peter initially thought it was a vision, but then realized it was all happening for real. And so him being touched to be made awake, actually did happen.



Here is the text:

_And behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter’s side and woke him up, saying, “Get up quickly.” And his chains fell off his hands. And the angel said to him, “Gird yourself and put on your sandals.” And he did so. And he *said to him, “Wrap your cloak around you and follow me.” And he went out and continued to follow, and he did not know that what was being done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision._

The "striking" happened while Peter was sleeping because it was after this happened that he woke up. In addition to seeing/hearing the angel, Peter witnessed guards sleeping and the door opening of itself in the presence of the angel - these he thought were part of a vision. Oddly, while the angel obviously interacts with the iron gate and opens it, he does not even physically touch the gate, unlike the angels in Lot's home in Genesis 19:10. It makes me wonder how the angel rolled away the stone of Jesus' tomb? Did it simply move when the angel appeared like the iron gate that imprisoned Peter? 

_When they had passed the first and second guard, they came to the iron gate that leads into the city, which opened for them by itself; and they went out and went along one street, and immediately the angel departed from him._


----------



## K Jentoft (Apr 22, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Am I the only one who is scratching my head at this point? What is the problem here? I am not trying to sound trite or rude, @K Jentoft, but are you considering even for a moment that God has the ability to make things which are ordinarily one way to behave another? I could say, "Donkeys can't talk," and that would be an absolutely true statement, because I am speaking in regard to the _ordinary_, not in regard to God's _extraordinary_ working. Therefore, my statement "Donkeys cant' talk" is in no way contradictory to Scripture's account of Balaam's donkey speaking to him. Could this not be the way Jesus is speaking? Would you rather him have said what he said about spirits not touching or eating, and then giving an entire systematic-theological treatment of spirits to the disciples, or what?
> 
> Again, I am not trying to be rude here, but the "issue" seems either to be 1) a non-issue or 2) an easily-solvable issue.



Again, you bring up a great point. Because donkeys to not speak, the text explicitly tells us that God made or created an exception Numbers 22:28-31. God can do anything, including making iron float 2 Kings 6:6, but the normal pattern of a miracle or anomaly is to have it attributed to God. God could have made us, our memories and all things yesterday and we would not know it unless He told us. It seems to me that it is easier or more straightforward to simply take Jesus at His word. If the explanation of everything is that God can do it, I agree with you, but it leaves us little room to learn and grow.


----------



## Kinghezy (Apr 22, 2019)

K Jentoft said:


> The "striking" happened while Peter was sleeping because it was after this happened that he woke up.



Luke said he struck Peter ( _and he struck Peter’s side). _ Is this statement mitigated because Peter is asleep?


----------



## K Jentoft (Apr 22, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> Luke said he struck Peter ( _and he struck Peter’s side). _ Is this statement mitigated because Peter is asleep?



Luke also said that an angel struck (same word and it only appears 2x in the Bible) Herod in Acts 12:23 and like Peter the effect is physical. The waking touch could just as well as been something like the angel opening the iron gate. The angel impacted the physical gate and it opened, but not directly. 

Ultimately, all I am saying is that the touching done by angels after Moses (all that I am aware of) happen when people are sleeping, in visions or in dreams. This is different than the physical interaction with angels before Moses that happened in wakeful activity. In addition, while there was interaction with angels after Moses including Joshua, Gideon and the parents of Sampson to name a few, there is no physical touching recorded during these instances.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 22, 2019)

K Jentoft said:


> Again, you bring up a great point. Because donkeys to not speak, the text explicitly tells us that God made or created an exception Numbers 22:28-31. God can do anything, including making iron float 2 Kings 6:6, but the normal pattern of a miracle or anomaly is to have it attributed to God. God could have made us, our memories and all things yesterday and we would not know it unless He told us. It seems to me that it is easier or more straightforward to simply take Jesus at His word. If the explanation of everything is that God can do it, I agree with you, but it leaves us little room to learn and grow.



Yes, and all of this is the answer to this "problem," for which you are looking. Jesus' statement is correct, because it is a true statement without consideration for the extraordinary things we see in the OT. I am very confused as to why this is not an acceptable answer...


----------



## K Jentoft (Apr 22, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Yes, and all of this is the answer to this "problem," for which you are looking. Jesus' statement is correct, because it is a true statement without consideration for the extraordinary things we see in the OT. I am very confused as to why this is not an acceptable answer...



Taylor, 

It seems to me that the Genesis 18 and 19 accounts almost go out of their way to describe the appearance of God and angels in human forms that touch and eat as something "normal." It is odd that the men of Sodom singled out the tangible angels as targets for something very similar to the "sin of the sons of God" and would give additional meaning to Jude's condemnation of them along with the wicked angels who sin with strange flesh in the time of Noah Jude 6-7. Tangible physical spirits did not shock either Abraham, Sarah or Lot, at least by what is written. While Abraham knows it is God (because he has seen Him before?) Abraham simply accepts it and offers some food in hospitality. Jesus' words would seem to state that what we find to be seemingly normal in Genesis 18 is actually impossible because spirits cannot be touched and don't eat.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 22, 2019)

K Jentoft said:


> Jesus' words would seem to state that what we find to be seemingly normal in Genesis 18 is actually impossible because spirits cannot be touched and don't eat.



You keep equivocating between angels (malakim) and the Greek view of spirits. The Bible isn't endorsing the type of spirit beings that were in the popular worldview. Jesus is just saying, "If I am a spirit [like you think I am], then how can I eat?"


----------



## K Jentoft (Apr 22, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You keep equivocating between angels (malakim) and the Greek view of spirits. The Bible isn't endorsing the type of spirit beings that were in the popular worldview. Jesus is just saying, "If I am a spirit [like you think I am], then how can I eat?"



The Jewish view of angels as spirits was well developed before the Greeks. I already pointed out Acts 23:8-9. Luke had the opportunity to use the Greek word for ghost to describe the resurrected Christ but he didn't, Luke used the word for spirit instead. I understand that you feel that Jesus is just pandering to a heretical Greek view of spirits embraced by His disciples, and perhaps you are correct. For me I do not find that in the text. It seems more likely to me that Jesus simply meant what He said.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 22, 2019)

K Jentoft said:


> The Jewish view of angels as spirits was well developed before the Greeks. I already pointed out Acts 23:8-9.



Depends on when. In any case, the Greeks long predated Acts 23.


K Jentoft said:


> For me I do not find that in the text.



With all due respect, no one finds your "evolution" in the text, either.


----------



## Kinghezy (Apr 22, 2019)

K Jentoft said:


> Luke also said that an angel struck (same word and it only appears 2x in the Bible) Herod in Acts 12:23 and like Peter the effect is physical. The waking touch could just as well as been something like the angel opening the iron gate. The angel impacted the physical gate and it opened, but not directly.
> 
> Ultimately, all I am saying is that the touching done by angels after Moses (all that I am aware of) happen when people are sleeping, in visions or in dreams. This is different than the physical interaction with angels before Moses that happened in wakeful activity. In addition, while there was interaction with angels after Moses including Joshua, Gideon and the parents of Sampson to name a few, there is no physical touching recorded during these instances.



Ultimately, I am just not seeing this distinction. I like @BayouHuguenot "Angels assume the property of materiality when they interact with us" which I take to mean just them interacting with us implies some sort of material (maybe that is a wrong intrepretion) and @Jack K with " Jesus said he was alive in the body._ He_ is more trustworthy than any leftover fish bones. "

I do not think I have anything more to say. Peace.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 22, 2019)

K Jentoft said:


> Taylor,
> 
> It seems to me that the Genesis 18 and 19 accounts almost go out of their way to describe the appearance of God and angels in human forms that touch and eat as something "normal." It is odd that the men of Sodom singled out the tangible angels as targets for something very similar to the "sin of the sons of God" and would give additional meaning to Jude's condemnation of them along with the wicked angels who sin with strange flesh in the time of Noah Jude 6-7. Tangible physical spirits did not shock either Abraham, Sarah or Lot, at least by what is written. While Abraham knows it is God (because he has seen Him before?) Abraham simply accepts it and offers some food in hospitality. Jesus' words would seem to state that what we find to be seemingly normal in Genesis 18 is actually impossible because spirits cannot be touched and don't eat.



I give up.


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 22, 2019)

The view of, e.g., Calvin is that God creates a body for angels in places like Genesis 18:8 so that they can interact with the material world. If the Jews had a well-developed sense of immaterial spirits, then it would have been obvious that only a miracle from God would allow them to interact materially. It is only a short step from there to have a miracle of God create them a body so that they can interact materially. That Jesus could eat was part of the proof that he had a body. That his body had the same scars was further proof of not only having a body but the same body that was crucified (but now resurrected). The disciples could still doubt and think that they were being deceived, of course (how do we know that _any_ person we are interacting with is genuinely the same person, and not a look-a-like or enchantment of the devil [supposing one held to a worldview of devils being able to do such things on their own power]? we could get hyper-skeptical if we really wanted.), but it is supposed to function as cumulative evidence their doubts--especially concerning whether they were seeing a spirit or a body; it should also be remembered that this is not the first time Christ appeared after his resurrection (and the eleven supposedly believed in Luke 24:34).


----------

