RandyK
I appreciate your tone and the recognition that Jesus’ words are authoritative. Let’s take a closer look at the claim, then, with careful exegesis rather than
sensationalism.
Hi Johann, that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid: sensationalism.
I posted this to Hawkman but for some reason the link was taking me somewhere else? Here it is, and hopefully it is correct this time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_human_skeletons
1. Jesus’ statement in Matthew 22:30 (NASB)
“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”
This refers specifically to angels in heaven, not fallen angels or those "not keeping their own domain" as described in Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4. The context is eschatological-concerning resurrected saints--not ontological limits placed upon angelic beings in all settings. Jesus is contrasting the resurrected state of humans with faithful angels in heaven, not with rebellious ones.
My understanding that angels, originating from heaven, simply are not outfitted with reproductive organs. They can appear like a full human, but they cannot reproduce, as I understand the passage.
It makes no difference is fallen angels are no longer "in heaven," though I think Satan is still the prince of the kingdom of the air, ie in heaven. He is simply fallen from his position in heaven, and is now captive to his vices. But having been created for heaven it makes no difference if he is on earth or still in heaven.
I understand how you're reading it though. If they are still just a good angel, ie in heaven, then they cannot reproduce there. But if they are an evil angel, and are on earth, then they can reproduce here. It is just angels *currently in heaven,* ie good ones, who cannot reproduce.
But for me to say they don't marry is the same as saying they *cannot* marry. So it matters not where they are, in heaven or on earth--they still can't marry or reproduce.
They are created for heaven, and not for earth. They are spirit beings and only appear as earthly beings at times.
And they aren't outfitted for earthly reproduction even if they can appear as such. If they are given to transform into human form, I think they're pretty much limited to what God enables them to do in that form. But who knows?
2. Jude 6–7 (NASB 1995):
"And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh..."
The Greek phrase τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον ("their own habitation") strongly suggests that these beings crossed a boundary of dwelling or function--linking their sin to “gross immorality” and “strange flesh,” a phrase that in Greek parallels unnatural unions.
That statement appears to conflate the abandoning of God's presence by the angels with the abandoning of normal sexual function by the Sodomites. They are not, in my view, the same thing, though they be compared.
It is the Sodomites who committed "gross immorality" and pursued "strange flesh"--not the fallen angels. The fallen angels simply left their original state of obedience to God.
3. 2 Peter 2:4–5 (NASB 1995):
“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell [Greek: tartarus] and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world…”
This passage connects the sin of certain angels to the time of Noah---a timeframe directly matching Genesis 6:1–4, where the benê ha’elohîm ("sons of God") take human women as wives.
Yes, the Flood event is mentioned as a form of judgment, and is compared to the judgment of fallen angels, who are condemned to a kind of imprisonment. The fallen angels are kept under wraps until the time of final judgment, for both men and angels.
That is the comparison--both those who died under the Flood are kept until final judgmnet in the state of death, and the angels are kept in a state of imprisonment until final judgment as well. There is no reference whatsoever to the "sons of God" being angels who at that time were supposedly imprisoned for commmitting lewd acts with women.
4. Consistency of interpretation with Second Temple Jewish literature
While not Scripture, early Jewish works like 1 Enoch (quoted in Jude 14–15) were influential in framing the Genesis 6 account. The book of Enoch reads the sons of God in Genesis 6 as angelic beings who overstepped divine boundaries and taught humanity violence and sorcery, producing the Nephilim. This was not dismissed by early Jewish or even early Christian readers as myth, but seen as a real transgression.
Yes, Enoch is a major cause of this what I believe to be "myth." So unfortunately, I say, many good and respected Christians and Christian leaders fell into this delusion, that Enoch, quoted by Peter and Jude, is to be trusted entirely, including its reference to the sons of God as angels.
You might check this out--there are 2 parts:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermi...in-genesis-6-were-men-not-angels-part-1-of-2/
5. The argument from silence reconsidered
You're right to say we must be cautious of arguments from silence. But the Scripture isn’t silent here-it gives multiple textual threads (Genesis 6:1–4, Jude 6–7, 2 Peter 2:4–5, Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) that, taken together, show a consistent theme: there was a unique sin involving angelic beings, rebellion, and judgment at the time of Noah.
I don't find the "connect the dots" approach valid. I require explicit statements. As Walter Martin used to say, "When God wants to say something, He doesn't lisp! He makes truth explicitly clear when it is that important." (paraphrased) In sum, you shouldn't have to "connect the dots." If you do, you should be overly cautious.
The Bible does not say angels cannot take on physical form-in fact, Hebrews 13:2 tells us that some have "entertained angels without knowing it," which implies physicality. The possibility of misuse of that form by fallen beings is not contradicted by Scripture.
As the above article states, angels are actually *spirits* that can indeed assume human form. We don't see them, however, living a domestic life on earth. We don't see them marrying women, or having children.
Have you heard of female angels having sex with men? Neither have I heard of male angels having sex with women! Not in my town! You'd have to visit an X-rated theatre, specializing in occult movies, and I'm completely disinterested!
In sum:
Jesus spoke of heavenly angels, not fallen ones
Jude and Peter both connect angelic sin with unnatural sexual acts
Genesis 6 is best understood as describing an incursion by benê ha’elohîm, a term consistently used of divine beings elsewhere in the OT (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7)
Early Jewish and early Christian readers took these passages seriously—not as myths
We must be cautious not to impose our modern discomforts onto the ancient worldview of Scripture
Let’s keep the dialogue respectful and focused on Scripture. Not all who hold this view are following trends or selling books--many of us are just following the text wherever it leads.
Shalom.
J.
No, I don't think you're making money off this, Johann. My point was that I think those who have fostered this "myth" were doing it for money--at least some of them were, if you will check out my earlier link--the one I gave to Hawkman?
Thanks for your response. You seem very respectful despite our disagreeing on this what I think is a "peripheral" issue.
