12 October 2008

The Book of Enoch (Pt 6) - Genesis 6, Angels & Objections (Pt 1)

Abraham and the three angelsOK, so we have gathered a few objections to the angels and women understanding of Genesis 6. However, we have also received some from a reader, so I wanted to deal with them a little also.

But first, let us turn to the early church fathers again. I gave a couple quotes from them in the two part discussion on the Nephilim (see HERE), but here is quite a few more, only a couple I will share here:
The other angels were created by Him, and entrusted with the control of matter and the forms of matter...Just as with men, they have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice...Some of them have continued in those things for which God had made them. They have remained over the things to which He had ordained them. But some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the oversight entrusted to them...These angels fell into impure love of virgins and were subjugated by the flesh...Those who are called giants were begotten from these lovers of virgins. Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.142

The angels are likewise possessed of personal freedom. For we can be sure that if the angels had not possessed personal freedom, they would not have consorted with the daughters of men, thereby sinning and falling from their places. In like manner, also, the other angels, who did the will of their Lord, were raised to a higher rank because of their self-control. Bardesanes (c. 222, E), 8.725.

But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards
subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness. Justin Martyr (c. 160) 1.190

...in the days of Noah He justly brought on the deluge for the purpose of extinguishing that most infamous race of men then existent, who could not bring forth fruit to God, since the angels that sinned had commingled with them... Irenaeus (c. 180) 1.524

To which also we shall add, that the angels who had obtained the superior rank, having sunk into pleasures, told to the women the secrets which had come to their knowledge... Clement of Alexandria (c. 195) 2.446
I could quote many, many more as evidence that this was pretty much the common understanding amoung the Ante-Nicene fathers, but I will stop at this point. Like I said before, I do not hold the early church up as an infallible rule, but since so many other people look to them for defending other historic doctrines, it is at least prudent to look at their teachings in such matters as these.

Now, the first objection is edited and summed up like this:

Objection #1

How could a spiritual being, an angel, impregnate a woman. Angels do not have physical bodies, they cannot take on physical bodies at will, and they do not have the creative power of God to beget life on their own. In the case of mortals, God has determined how mankind shall reproduce, and it is He who gives life. In the case of these depraved angels, it would seem impossible for them to beget children through women, or any other creature.
Now of course this objection was a quick post summed up by the writer from a lecture heard on the topic, and does not provide much depth or defense for this position, but let us briefly look at it as it is simply stated.

Where do we find in the Bible any support for these claims:

1) Angels are spiritual beings and can't impregnate women
2) Angels do not/cannot have physical bodies (or not take them on at will)
3) Angels do have the ability to beget life on their own
Interestingly, we can easily dismiss part of point two from the Scripture. Genesis 18 tells of Abraham meeting three angels, in human form, whose feet he washed, and then sat eating and drinking with them. So they obviously can take on physical bodies when needed. Most commentators agree these three visitors were angels, and I will mention just one esteemed commentator:
Before Moses proceeds to his principal subject, he describes to us, the hospitality of the holy man; and he calls the angels men, because, being clothed with human bodies, they appeared to be nothing else than men. - John Calvin
This is further enforced as being the case when just one chapter later we find:
The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth (Genesis 19:1)
And again, we find them in physical form, being touched, and eating with Lot. And then what are we to make of the exhortation in Hebrews 13:2:
Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
It seems plain that angels can, have, and will take human form to appear to us for various reasons. Do they have power to do so at anytime as they will? Who knows. I don't believe the Scripture says much of anything relating to this, for or against, so how can we just throw the whole topic out based on silence? We have evidence they can become physical, so that is enough to dismiss the second part of this objection.

So, if they are indeed able to take human, physical form, who says they cannot have relations with or procreate with mankind? Who says they are totally unable to procreate? How do we know they indeed cannot beget life on their own? Where in the canon of Scripture is this topic even addressed?

Such objections seems solely based on speculation, and as we see, these speculations fly in the face of the church historic.
You have sometimes read and believed that the Creator's angels have been changed into human form, and have carried about so real of a body that Abraham even washed their feet and Lot was rescued from the Sodomites by their hands. An angel, moreover, wrestled with a man so strenuously with his body, that the latter desired to be let loose. Tertullian (c. 210, W), 3.523.
So, we see the Scriptures do reveal that while angels are spiritual beings, some in the order of angels, can, have, and still do take on physical form to interact with mankind. We find no evidence from canonical Scripture that these beings are incapable of sexual relations or procreation, and therefore can make no clear doctrine on the topic.

So, in my mind, this objection is no real objection based on Scripture at all.
 

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
 

3 comments:

  1. With regard to angels being capable of impregnation, the bible states that this is not possible.Only Satan, described as the King of Tyrus, was made with a full pattern and able to father a child...:
    Eze 28:12 [...] the king of Tyrus,and say unto him, Thus saith the LordGOD; Thou sealest up H2856:
    H2856
    חתם
    châtham
    khaw-tham'
    A primitive root; to close up; especially to seal: - make an END, mark, seal (up),STOP

    the sum,H8508:

    toknîyth
    From H8506; admeasurement, that is, CONSUMATION: - pattern,

    full H4392

    מלא
    mâlê'
    From H4390; full (literally or figuratively) or filling (literally); also (concretely) fulness; adverbially fully: - X she that WAS WITH CHILD, FILLED/FILL with), full...

    The definition above even infers pregnancy as an aspect of this word;

    "of wisdom,and perfect H3632:
    כּליל
    kâlîyl
    kaw-leel'
    From H3634; complete; as noun, the whole FULLY:-ALL, every whit, flame, perfect (-ion), UTTERLY, WHOLE,

    He was created with productive capabilities, but God Broke the mold after him, he was one of a kind. No other angels attained this capacity.

    As you can see, he was created in the full pattern and capable of CONSUMATION,which he promptly exercised...ONCE. He was the ONLY one made with that capability, and Cain was the only such offspring (and not a giant as far as we can tell, I might add) no doubt to God's own purposes in the end.

    Sexual consummation was the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not an apple... which incidentally explains the fig leaves on the genitals afterward fairly well too, doesn't it?

    Satan, is the father of Cain, Abel's fraternal twin/half brother. Abel is Adam's son.

    Further evidence:
    Cain is NOT counted in Adams geneology, it begins with Seth;

    Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

    Abel was not mentioned because he was dead thus his heel (footsteps into the future) was wounded by Cain, who's head (inheritance) was wounded by the consequences of Abel's death.

    Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle,and above every beast of the field;upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and BETWEEN THY SEED:
    H2233
    זרע
    zera‛
    From H2232; seed; figuratively fruit, plant, sowing time,POSTERITY: - X CARNALLY,CHILD,fruitful, seed (-time), sowing-time.

    AND HER SEED [same def:]

    "it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

    Which promptly happened, as described above.

    Cain, even though he was still living, wasn't mentioned in Adams genealogy because he wasn't Adam's son.

    Further evidence:
    1Jn 3:12 Not as Cain,who was OF G1537 :
    OFἐκ, ἐξ
    A primary prep DENOTING ORIGIN: (the point whence motion or action proceeds), from, out (cause; literally or figuratively; direct): -after, ...BY MEANS OF, FROM (among, FORTH, up), + (because, by reason) of, off (from), out among (from, of), over, since,thenceforth, Often used in composition, with the same general import; often of completion.

    **completion as in consumation? Yes...among other things.

    "that wicked one",G4190:
    πονηρός
    ponēros

    From a derivative of G4192; THE DEVIL or (plural) sinners: - bad, evil, grievous, harm, lewd, malicious, wickedhurtful, that is, evil (properly in effect or influence, and thus differing from G2556, which refers rather to essential character, as well as from G4550, which indicates degeneracy from original virtue); figuratively calamitous; also (passively) ill, that is, diseased; but especially (morally) culpable, that is, derelict, vicious, facinorous; [..] mischief, malice, guilt; masculine[...] (singular) [...]


    Cain's geneology is mentioned separately.[Gen 4:17]

    fINAL PROOFS OF PATERNITY OF CAIN:
    Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

    Above we see that when Eve's third son is born, she remarks that Abel has been replaced, but why not Cain and Abel both? Why not just Cain, the first born? I submit to you that the reason Abel is mentioned is because he and Seth were full brothers and Seth and Cain were not. Hence he was only properly a replacement for Abel as Adam's son and progeny,thus he was included in Adam's genealogy;

    Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

    It is well known that eastern scribes hooked up with the hebrews over time and shared bondage. Many of those in Israel during Jesus' life were of these eastern people by blood, thus the descendents of Cain, so the children of the FIRST murderer and father of lies, satan, as well."

    Satan is considered the first murderer because he slayed the souls of Adam and Eve with his rebellious seduction. Cain was the first to kill on Earth,just like his daddy, and so its also a reference to him. Thus being the sons of Cain, was the same as being the sons of the devil, the first liar/murderer. I hope I have proved this point to your satisfaction; I know it is rarely highlighted in this way and so may be new to you, but I have digressed in the process. Forgive me.

    Further the term "sons of God"is not ever used to describe angels anywhere; not a single solitary time in all the bible, old and new testament; although 'angel" is ONE of the options for "of God", it is not the definition of "sons of God".
    We must not lose sight of what the bible, especially the old testament is, its a record of the Hebrew nation, people who considered themselves the "chosen people" of God, and thus also The"Sons of God"; They are not giants or angels, they are Hebrews. In the case of Genesis 6, daughters of men are those virgin daughters (probably rare in pagan societies, so something men might covet) of the pagan gentiles, some of whom were a race of giants.

    The following verses are the remainder of ALL the biblical verses that include the term "sons of God". In none of them does the term refer to angels, fallen or otherwise:

    In each of them the sons of God are explained; Job, for example, is one of the "sons of God":
    Job 1:6 2:1 2:1, 2:2 2:3 2:4 38:7
    Hos 1:10
    Joh 1:12
    Rom 8:14 8:19 Rom 8:20 Rom 8:21 Gal 4:5 Gal 4:6
    Gal 4:7 Php 2:14 Php 2:15 1Jn 3:1 Jn 3:2

    That is a lot of scripture confirming who the sons of God are, I hope you can put that question to rest now and perhaps see your way clear to correcting the error? I mean no offense, but do hope that you consider doing so.

    I noticed you asked where in the bible the question was even addressed. The following verses explain that angels can not "marry" (reproduce); Lucifer being of course, a special case, as previously discussed.

    Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, BUT ARE AS THE ANGELS OF GOD IN HEAVEN.
    Mar 12:24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
    Mar 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

    Recall from the verses in job above that all angels have access to heaven...Satan presented himself to God regularly, where they had discussions in person. Therefore the fact that some were fallen prior does not negate the comment simply because it states "angels of god in heaven" etc. Good or bad, all angels LOOK the same, are made up of the same materials, none have yet been judged or condemned...But other than Lucifer, NOT ONE can reproduce . Their original/spiritflesh body, if you will, has had no impetus for change; no catalyst to offer morphing. Further, we know that even in our new bodies, we will eat, enjoy shelter, work our own land etc; so they must have some sort of physical makeup even as we understand such to be.

    They do have a physical form when here at least.Its quite possible that our spiritual bodies will also have substance, but that the substance is malleable, changeable, capable of being seen only when they/we wish to be seen by earthly flesh...We must try to remember that Christ was whole when he rose up and visited the disciples. Not a wisp of smoke or gust of wind...



    Further, Genesis 6 re: the giants begins with "there were giants in those days, AND ALSO after, when the sons of God..." etc.

    That is a long shot from giants being created specifically from a mating between angels & humans. The fallen angels fell LONG before humans were created.Satan walked the earth until Christ bound him/taking the key to hell, when he was crucified and descended to defeat death.

    So they'd been around for a while by Noah's day. Its not as if angels had never seen virgins before that they suddenly grew genitals and a collectively uncontrollable jones for the human gals. In any case,they never laid a finger on a one.

    Finally, consider, in terms of flesh like bodies on angels in story of Abraham and Lot, that GOD sent them, there is not one iota of evidence that God didn't change them into flesh(if that is what they did) or that they did it themselves on their own accord or "at will".

    They were sent of God on a mission every single time they showed up;God, who is able to do anything and so if any changing was necessary,He must have changed them to suit HIS purposes; they didn't change at will for their own reasons etc.
    Thank you for your time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for your lengthy comments, as well as your thorough explanation of Satan's seedline theology. I have studied that avenue a bit, and at this time cannot say I am in agreement with that theory.

    Nor do I find your argument that Lucifer was different and the only one able to procreate strong enough to firmly believe.

    My examination of this topic is looking at it strictly from a historic understanding and acceptance of it throughout early Hebrew and early church history, and your position was not the common (if even known) explanation.

    In my next set of objections, I had planned on looking at the verses in Matthew and Mark that people seem to twist to say Angels can't procreate/marry. Briefly on that, I am not sure if the leap between the angels not marrying is what is being said in these verses, but even if it is, the point is, they do not MARRY...that does not imply they cannot have sexual relations, just that the covenant of marriage is not how it works in the angelic realm. On top of that, for all the evidence we have in history about angels, it appears they are all male, and therefore marriage is not an option.

    I do thank you for taking the time to explain another alternate view, which I am sure will aid others in digging deeper into these matters.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Sons of God" in Genesis 6 has to mean angels. Sons of God are always angels in the OT. And if Seths' sons had sex with Cain's daughters then how did they become giants? And Joshua says he saw Raphaim, which are descendents of the Nephilim. Rapaim litterally means "walking ghosts of the dead." And the spies say they were like grasshoppers in their site. And look at Og of Bashan and Goliath and his four brothers, all giants. And David's Mighty Men killed giants as well. One was a 12 ft. tall Egyptian. And in Isaiah when it says the "dead shall not rise in the resurrection" it is talking about the Rapaim. The word "dead" in that verse is "rapha", the root of Raphaim.

    ReplyDelete

Think out loud with me, and voice your position in a clean, charitable and well mannered way. Abusive posts will be deleted.