Angels: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly! Part III

Email Subscription From Dr. Boys | August 11, 2012 | Don Boys, Ph.D.

[Down South P.E.]

I think you may have answered your own question, though I don't claim to have the corner on this (or much of scripture for that matter):

Spiritual beings that, throughout Scripture, do very physical things, themselves, and have very physical capabilities....

Do the demonic possessions in scriptures result in anything supernatural in the humans that are possessed? What is there to preclude the same effect in physically altering the reproductive genetics of the one's they possess....being that angels themselves cannot procreate by God's design? There are demonic so-called "healings" of people's physical infirmities in some cases even today which are used to draw people down a false path and away from God. That would seem to me to be a form of genetic alteration or molecular cell manipulation.

[Down South P.E.]

Oh, I didn’t say I didn’t enjoy it...but after 20 years of personal study, I’ve pretty much heard all the counter arguments.

[Down South P.E.]

Oh, I didn’t say I didn’t enjoy it...but after 20 years of personal study, I’ve pretty much heard all the counter arguments.

[Just mythoughts]

No subject on angels would be complete (and this treatise is far from complete), without dealing with the passage in Gen. 6, one of the most controversial, confusing, and convoluted Bible passages. The incident happened just before the global Flood, and whatever position one may take as to the identity of the culprits, their sin was a partial reason (along with the violence) for the world disaster (Gen. 6:5; 11).

There is NOTHING controversial, confusing or convoluted about what Moses is told to write.

The Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of God. Eve was seduced by the devil and the Adam outright disobeyed the commandment of God. Hence they had removed from them the Tree of LIFE and were required to live off the labor of their own hands. Then by the time Noah is born, this earth is polluted by the fallen angels that the only family NOT affected is Noah and his family.... hence the flood. The flood was because the blood line to Christ had been polluted.

[Down South P.E.]

I was trying to save you a lot of typing on the topic. It’s a little like trying to talk me out of using my authorized KJV of the Bible and into using a contemporary version. I’m set in my ways on that as well. :)

[Down South P.E.]

I agree....if there is anything that appears to be controversial, confusing or convoluted about any passage of the Bible it has to do with a misunderstanding on the part of the reader, not the penman or ultimately the author.

[Just mythoughts]

I agree....if there is anything that appears to be controversial, confusing or convoluted about any passage of the Bible it has to do with a misunderstanding on the part of the reader, not the penman or ultimately the author.

Well it is like reading Adam blaming God and that 'woman' that God gave him for his sin. Political correctness has NOT only afflicted the political stage, it is just NOT religiously correct to accept what God had his elect write. But hey as it is Written there is nothing new under the sun... some preachers/priests do it for the fame and fortune.

[John Leland 1789]

"being that angels themselves cannot procreate by God's design"

Well that is not what the Bible actually says.

The Bible does say that "the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, . . ."

There is no indication here in Genesis ch. 6 that any angelic being possessed and/or indwelled anyone.

[Down South P.E.]

I don't think I said I directly quoted the Bible and particularly that passage, when I said what you quoted below....However, I looked at the totality of ALL the scriptures in the Bible that relate to angels and drew my conclusions. Scripture interprets scripture....precept upon precept. Although I think I did actually already cite at least one or two evidences of demonic possession being implied in this particular chapter of Genesis.

The Bible doesn't use the words trinity or rapture either .....and several others I can think of....but clearly both of these are taught in scripture.

[MHGinTN]

Could it be that a 'species' called Angel has many races within it? When someone in the Bible refers to 'the angel of that person', they are not referring to 'sons of God', they are referring to the spiritual nature of the person.

BTW, there really are skeletons of giants being found. Their heights vary from ~ three meters to five meters, so far.

[MHGinTN]

There are also lots of faked youtube vids of ‘giants’, generated by a contestto see who could produce the best fakes.

[John Leland 1789]

“THE SONS OF GOD” IN GEN. 6.2, 4. It is only by the Divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called “a son of God”. For that which is “born of the flesh is flesh”. God is spirit, and that which is “born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3.6). Hence Adam is called a “son of God” in Luke 3.38. Those “in Christ” having “the new nature” which is by the direct creation of God (2 Cor. 5.17. Eph. 2.10) can be, and are called “sons of God” (John 1.13. Rom. 8.14, 15. 1 John 3.1).[1]

[1] The word “offspring” in Acts 17.28 is quite different. It is [Greek script] (genos), which means merely kin or kind, our genus as being originated by God.

This is why angels are called “sons of God” in every other place where the expression is used in the Old Testament. Job 1.6 ; 2.1 ; 38. 7. Ps. 29.1 ; 89.6. Dan. 3. 25 (no art.).[2] We have no authority or right to take the expression in Gen. 6.2, 4 in any other sense. Moreover, in Genesis 6.2 the Septuagint renders it “angels”.

Angels are called “spirits” (Ps. 104. 4. Heb. 1. 7, 14), for spirits are created by God.

That there was a fall of the angels is certain from Jude 6.

The nature of their fall was clearly stated in the same verse. They left their own [Greek script] (oiketerion). This word occurs only in 2 Cor. 5.2 and Jude 6, where it is used of the spiritual (or resurrection) body.

The nature of their sin is stated to be “in like manner” to that of the subsequent sins of Sodom and Gomorrha, Jude 7.

The time of their fall was given as having taken place “in the days of Noah” (1 Pet. 3.20. 2 Peter 2.7), though there may have been a prior fall which caused the end of “the world that then was” (Gen, 1.1. 2 Pet, 3.6).

For this sin they are “reserved unto judgment”, 2 Pet. 2. 4, and are “in prison”, 1 Peter 3. 19. Their progeny, called Nephilim (translated “giants”), were monsters of iniquity ; and, being superhuman in size and character, had to be destroyed (see Ap. 25). This was the one and only object of the Flood. Only Noah and his family had preserved their pedigree from Adam (Gen. 6.9, see note). All the rest had become “corrupt” (shachath) destroyed [as Adamites]. The only remedy was to destroy it (de facto), as it had become destroyed (de jure). (It is the same word in v. 17 as in vv. 11, 12.) See further under Ap.25 on the Nephilim.

This irruption of fallen angels was Satan's first attempt to prevent the coming of the Seed of the woman foretold in Gen. 3.15. If this could be accomplished, God's Word would have failed, and his own doom would be averted.

As soon as it was made known that the Seed of the woman was to come through ABRAHAM, there must have been another irruption, as recorded in Gen. 6.4, “and also after that” (i.e. after the days of Noah, more than 500 years after the first irruption). The aim of the enemy was to occupy Canaan in advance of Abraham, and so to contest its occupation by his seed. For, when Abraham entered Canaan, we read (Gen. 12.6) “the Canaanite was then (i.e. already) in the land.”

In the same chapter (Gen. 12. 10-20) we see Satan's next attempt to interfere with Abraham's seed, and frustrate the purpose of God that he should be in “Isaac”. This attempt was repeated in 20. 1-18.

This great conflict may be seen throughout the Bible, and it forms a great and important subject of Biblical study. In each case the human instrument had his own personal interest to serve, while Satan had his own great object in view. Hence God had, in each case, to interfere and avert the evil and the danger, of which His servants and people were wholly ignorant. The following assaults of the great Emeny stand out prominently :----

The destruction of the chosen family by famine, Gen. 50. 20.

The destruction of the male line in Israel, Ex. 1.10, 15, &c. Cp. Ex. 2. 5. Heb. 11.23.

The destruction of the whole nation in Pharaoh's pursuit, Ex. 14.

After David's line was singled out (2 Sam. 7), that was the next selection for assault. Satan's first assault was in the union of Jehoram and Athaliah by Jehoshaphat, notwithstanding 2 Chron. 17. 1. Jehoram killed off all his brothers (2 Chron. 21. 4).

The Arabians slew all his children, except Ahaziah (2 Chron. 21. 17 ; 22.1).

When Ahaziah died, Athaliah killed “all the seed royal” (2 Chron. 22. 10). The babe Joash alone was rescued ; and, for six years, the faithfulness of Jehovah's word was at stake (2 Chron. 23.3).

Hezekiah was childless, when a double assault was made by the King of Assyria and the King of Terrors (Isa. 36.1; 38.1). God's faithfulness was appealed to and relied on (Ps. 136).

In Captivity, Haman was used to attempt the destruction of the whole nation (Est. 3.6, 12, 13. Cp. 6.1).

Joseph' fear was worked on (Matt. 1.18-20). Notwithstanding the fact that he was “a just man”, and kept the Law, he did not wish to have Mary stoned to death (Deut. 24.1) ; hence Joseph determined to divorce her. But God intervened: “Fear not”.

Herod sought the young Child's life (Matt. 2).

At the Temptation, “Cast Thyself down” was Satan's temptation.

At Nazareth, again (Luke 4), there was another attempt to cast Him down and destroy Him.

The two storms on the Lake were other attempts.

At length the cross was reached, and the sepulcher closed ; the watch set ; and the stone sealed. But “God raised Him from the dead.” And now, like another Joash, He is seated and expecting (Heb. 10 .12, 13), hidden in the house of God on high ; and the members of “the one body” are hidden there” in Him” (Col. 3. 1-3), like another Jehoshaba ; and going forth to witness of His coming, like another Jehoiada (2 Chron. 23. 3).

The irrruption of “the fallen angels” (“sons of God”) was the first attempt ; and was directed against the whole human race.

When Abraham was called, then he and his seed were attacked.

When David was enthroned, then the royal line was assailed.

And when “the Seed of the woman” Himself came, then the storm burst upon Him.

[2] In Hos. 1. 10, it is not beni-ha-Elohim, as here, but beni-el-chai.

____________________

Source: Companion Bible, Appendix No. 23.

[John Leland 1789]

The "angel of a person" would be an APPEARANCE of that person (Matt. 18:10) ; as the "Angel of the Lord" is an Appearance of the Lord.

[wmfights]

But the serpent himself---Genesis 3:15---has SEED, just as certain as the woman has seed. A spiritual being, Satan, with SEED.

I think a better reading of that passage is thy seed being Satan's followers and her seed being God's people, ie., Israel.

[wmfights]

The Bible does say that "the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, . .

If we look at Gen. 5 we see the line of Seth. He was born after Abel was killed by Cain. IOW, the line of descendants from Seth are the sons of God. It is their marrying the daughters from the line of Cain the daughters of men that Gen 6 is describing.

[Just mythoughts]

No subject on angels would be complete (and this treatise is far from complete), without dealing with the passage in Gen. 6, one of the most controversial, confusing, and convoluted Bible passages. The incident happened just before the global Flood, and whatever position one may take as to the identity of the culprits, their sin was a partial reason (along with the violence) for the world disaster (Gen. 6:5; 11). “THE SONS OF GOD” IN GEN. 6.2, 4. It is only by the Divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called “a son of God”. For that which is “born of the flesh is flesh”. God is spirit, and that which is “born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3.6). Hence Adam is called a “son of God” in Luke 3.38. Those “in Christ” having “the new nature” which is by the direct creation of God (2 Cor. 5.17. Eph. 2.10) can be, and are called “sons of God” (John 1.13. Rom. 8.14, 15. 1 John 3.1).[1] [1] The word “offspring” in Acts 17.28 is quite different. It is [Greek script] (genos), which means merely kin or kind, our genus as being originated by God. This is why angels are called “sons of God” in every other place where the expression is used in the Old Testament. Job 1.6 ; 2.1 ; 38. 7. Ps. 29.1 ; 89.6. Dan. 3. 25 (no art.).[2] We have no authority or right to take the expression in Gen. 6.2, 4 in any other sense. Moreover, in Genesis 6.2 the Septuagint renders it “angels”. Angels are called “spirits” (Ps. 104. 4. Heb. 1. 7, 14), for spirits are created by God. That there was a fall of the angels is certain from Jude 6. The nature of their fall was clearly stated in the same verse. They left their own [Greek script] (oiketerion). This word occurs only in 2 Cor. 5.2 and Jude 6, where it is used of the spiritual (or resurrection) body. The nature of their sin is stated to be “in like manner” to that of the subsequent sins of Sodom and Gomorrha, Jude 7. The time of their fall was given as having taken place “in the days of Noah” (1 Pet. 3.20. 2 Peter 2.7), though there may have been a prior fall which caused the end of “the world that then was” (Gen, 1.1. 2 Pet, 3.6). For this sin they are “reserved unto judgment”, 2 Pet. 2. 4, and are “in prison”, 1 Peter 3. 19. Their progeny, called Nephilim (translated “giants”), were monsters of iniquity ; and, being superhuman in size and character, had to be destroyed (see Ap. 25). This was the one and only object of the Flood. Only Noah and his family had preserved their pedigree from Adam (Gen. 6.9, see note). All the rest had become “corrupt” (shachath) destroyed [as Adamites]. The only remedy was to destroy it (de facto), as it had become destroyed (de jure). (It is the same word in v. 17 as in vv. 11, 12.) See further under Ap.25 on the Nephilim. This irruption of fallen angels was Satan's first attempt to prevent the coming of the Seed of the woman foretold in Gen. 3.15. If this could be accomplished, God's Word would have failed, and his own doom would be averted. As soon as it was made known that the Seed of the woman was to come through ABRAHAM, there must have been another irruption, as recorded in Gen. 6.4, “and also after that” (i.e. after the days of Noah, more than 500 years after the first irruption). The aim of the enemy was to occupy Canaan in advance of Abraham, and so to contest its occupation by his seed. For, when Abraham entered Canaan, we read (Gen. 12.6) “the Canaanite was then (i.e. already) in the land.” In the same chapter (Gen. 12. 10-20) we see Satan's next attempt to interfere with Abraham's seed, and frustrate the purpose of God that he should be in “Isaac”. This attempt was repeated in 20. 1-18. This great conflict may be seen throughout the Bible, and it forms a great and important subject of Biblical study. In each case the human instrument had his own personal interest to serve, while Satan had his own great object in view. Hence God had, in each case, to interfere and avert the evil and the danger, of which His servants and people were wholly ignorant. The following assaults of the great Emeny stand out prominently :---- The destruction of the chosen family by famine, Gen. 50. 20. The destruction of the male line in Israel, Ex. 1.10, 15, &c. Cp. Ex. 2. 5. Heb. 11.23. The destruction of the whole nation in Pharaoh's pursuit, Ex. 14. After David's line was singled out (2 Sam. 7), that was the next selection for assault. Satan's first assault was in the union of Jehoram and Athaliah by Jehoshaphat, notwithstanding 2 Chron. 17. 1. Jehoram killed off all his brothers (2 Chron. 21. 4). The Arabians slew all his children, except Ahaziah (2 Chron. 21. 17 ; 22.1). When Ahaziah died, Athaliah killed “all the seed royal” (2 Chron. 22. 10). The babe Joash alone was rescued ; and, for six years, the faithfulness of Jehovah's word was at stake (2 Chron. 23.3). Hezekiah was childless, when a double assault was made by the King of Assyria and the King of Terrors (Isa. 36.1; 38.1). God's faithfulness was appealed to and relied on (Ps. 136). In Captivity, Haman was used to attempt the destruction of the whole nation (Est. 3.6, 12, 13. Cp. 6.1). Joseph' fear was worked on (Matt. 1.18-20). Notwithstanding the fact that he was “a just man”, and kept the Law, he did not wish to have Mary stoned to death (Deut. 24.1) ; hence Joseph determined to divorce her. But God intervened: “Fear not”. Herod sought the young Child's life (Matt. 2). At the Temptation, “Cast Thyself down” was Satan's temptation. At Nazareth, again (Luke 4), there was another attempt to cast Him down and destroy Him. The two storms on the Lake were other attempts. At length the cross was reached, and the sepulcher closed ; the watch set ; and the stone sealed. But “God raised Him from the dead.” And now, like another Joash, He is seated and expecting (Heb. 10 .12, 13), hidden in the house of God on high ; and the members of “the one body” are hidden there” in Him” (Col. 3. 1-3), like another Jehoshaba ; and going forth to witness of His coming, like another Jehoiada (2 Chron. 23. 3). The irrruption of “the fallen angels” (“sons of God”) was the first attempt ; and was directed against the whole human race. When Abraham was called, then he and his seed were attacked. When David was enthroned, then the royal line was assailed. And when “the Seed of the woman” Himself came, then the storm burst upon Him. [2] In Hos. 1. 10, it is not beni-ha-Elohim, as here, but beni-el-chai. ____________________ Source: Companion Bible, Appendix No. 23.

I do not agree with the claim that Genesis 6 is one of the most controversial, confusing, and convoluted Bible passages.

Moses wrote down what he was told to write, he had no first hand flesh experience of the events. I consider it most informative to reflect on what Moses wrote down in the description of the formation of the Adam. The flesh was formed but the flesh was not living until the 'breath of life' which literally means soul, was breathed into his nostrils. YET not one word is mentioned about when the Adam's soul was created, yet it existed.

Also the 'condition' of the Adam's flesh body was such that from it was removed a 'curve' (NOT a literal rib, as I was taught as a child), from which the woman was formed. Now that tells me that each soul before conception where gender is decided, contains the fullness of characteristics of male and female. Why else would the God established union of one man and one woman as becoming one flesh? Both were equally required to replenish this earth.... well now except no flesh man was needed for the conception of Christ... The question almost always ignored is when were all souls created? According to what Moses penned the soul existed before the flesh body. Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine: that soul that sinneth, it shall die. Thus far only the devil and those 'souls' of Genesis 6 have been judge to die.

Interesting now is it not that when asked by His disciples what would be the 'sign' of His return one of the signs was that it would be again as it was in the days of Noe... (Matthew 24:37-39) This has not happened yet, but the stage does appear to being set for their return.

Because of the 'religiously' correct teachings I was given through my childhood, like the sin of the Adam and Eve was eating an apple, I was 'shocked' when I actually read the account for my self the Garden Party took place in a fig grove. I have yet to eat any kind of literal fruit and discover I was naked. So who created this so called controversy?

I have a Companion Bible that I have nearly worn out.

[John Leland 1789]

"If we look at Gen. 5 we see the line of Seth. He was born after Abel was killed by Cain. IOW, the line of descendants from Seth are the sons of God. It is their marrying the daughters from the line of Cain the daughters of men that Gen 6 is describing.

That doesn't work for many reasons. No humans are "sons of God" without regeneration, the new birth. Seth's line was not regenerated.

The very language, "sons of God," "daughters of men" makes it wrong. You have to explain why the females in Seth's progeny are not also "daughters of men."

Why would the males in Seth's progeny, marrying the daughters of other men produce Giants ?

What would have been the danger to earth, the attack on the seed (Gene. 3:15), or the offense against God, should the males in Seth's progeny marry the daughters of any others?

The Scriptures never call Seth's progeny "sons of God," nore do the Scriptures ever call Cain's progeny, "daughters of men."

There is no particular curse upon the females of Cain's progeny.

[wmfights]

That doesn't work for many reasons. No humans are "sons of God" without regeneration, the new birth. Seth's line was not regenerated.

What about Enoch? He was in this line.

Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Why would the males in Seth's progeny, marrying the daughters of other men produce Giants ?

The term "giants" doesn't necessarily mean they were 10' tall. The Israelites encountered other tribes they thought were "giants" who just appeared that way because they were so aggressive. This is after the flood so it's unlikely that the nephilim repopulated the earth. They were all killed in the flood.

The Scriptures never call Seth's progeny "sons of God," nore do the Scriptures ever call Cain's progeny, "daughters of men."

Chapter 6 immediately follows Chapter 5 in which the line of Seth is written about. I think it is more likely that in this instance the phrase "sons of God" refers back to them. Other than chapter 6 we don't see any other instances where Angels may be procreating with humans. We have a lot of Scripture that points out that Angels do not procreate with other Angels and while they may appear to have physical form and can perform incredible acts in the physical world they are spiritual beings.

BTW, I love these threads. I wish I had seen them sooner. FWIW, if you post something like this you can click on my screen name and you will find an end times ping list. You will find a lot of posters who will be interested in this kind of topic.

[John Leland 1789]

Frankly, IMHO your arguments are simply rationalizing and humanizing ; it just seems that you must believe something that seems less supernatural ; perhaps you fear the supernatural.

GIANTS in Genesis 6, is exactly the same sense as the giant that young David faced in open combat.

According to Genesis 6:4, ("and also after that") this phenomenon of sons of God cohabiting with daughters of men was not isolated to the time immediately prior to the flood ; it took place in subsequent generations in Canaan and Israel. Thus, it is not talking about Seth's progeny, which if claimed through Noah, would be dispersed even unto our own day in all three races of men.

No, Enoch was not a "new creature" in the sense of regeneration ; was never labeled a "son of God." The expression "son of God" ALWAYS refers to a direct, individual creation of God: either by physical/material creation (including the angels, who are called "sons of God" in the OT; or in the NT sense, being created after the image of Christ. Men in the OT---not even Enoch, Abraham, David, etc. were "born again". Christ had to die and be raised from the dead before INDIVIDUALS could be "born again."