Did Fallen Angels Have Sex with Earthly Women?

[Vic C.]

Free, some of our greatest Bible scholars would agree with you. It's not about angels, as I thought too.

I'll post two quotes, one from Adam Clarke and the other from John Wesley.

It was not at this time that men began to multiply, but the inspired penman speaks now of a fact which had taken place long before. As there is a distinction made here between men and those called the sons of God, it is generally supposed that the immediate posterity of Cain and that of Seth are intended. The first were mere men, such as fallen nature may produce, degenerate sons of a degenerate father, governed by the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eye, and the pride of life. The others were sons of God, not angels, as some have dreamed, but such as were, according to our Lord's doctrine, born again, born from above, John 3:3,5,6 and made children of God by the influence of the Holy Spirit, Galatians 5:6. The former were apostates from the true religion, the latter were those among whom it was preserved and cultivated.

Verse 2

[2] That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

The sons of God — Those who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name, married the daughters of men - Those that were profane, and strangers to God. The posterity of Seth did not keep to themselves as they ought, but intermingled with the race of Cain: they took them wives of all that they chose - They chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair - Which was all they looked at.

There is also a good article by Apologetics Press I am in the process of reading that clears things up a bit.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Sons-of-God-in-Genesis-6.pdf

... and as Free mentioned, Jesus alludes to the fact that angels are created, spirit beings and thus, cannot procreate.

 

[Free]

Free, some of our greatest Bible scholars would agree with you. It's not about angels, as I thought too.

I think I may have thought it was about angels at one time too, as I may have even heard it from the pulpit. But I think some serious thinking on the issue bears out that it really doesn't add up. That "sons of God" refers to followers of Yahweh is what I believe as well.

 

[westtexas]

Sissy has already given plenty of textual support for the idea that these "ben elohyim" are angels....is there anyone who can give just as good textual support for the idea that the "ben elohyim" are the decedents of Seth?

Handy and Sissy, I have always believed that Gen. 6 is a continuation of Gen. 4 & 5. Gen. 4 is the lineage of Cain and his story. "4:16--And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord" And Gen. 5 is the lineage of Seth and his story "4:26--...then men began to call upon the name of the Lord" And Gen. 6 is the results of the uniting of these 2 lineages.
It's late here and it's time for me to get into bed I'll post some scripture tomorrow and try to support my belief. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Westtexas

 

[handy]

Or maybe, the original translation [of which there isn't any original translations of the bible] never had that part about them, . . . . similar to the verses in the New Testament about picking up snakes and drinking poison, which are said to not be in earlier manuscripts? Instead of over-anthropomorphising angels, maybe that section never was supposed to be in there.

No, I think the translations got it pretty accurately. I know of no notes to the contrary about this passage.

Free...you know I love you brother, you know I do... I hope you don't mind what I'm about to do, but I've said before that I'm challenging assumptions here, so I'm going to breakdown your post here. I wouldn't do this if there hasn't already been some pretty solid exegesis by Sissy about this subject that makes the idea that the "ben elohyim" of Genesis 6 are angels who mated with women quite plausible...

First you said: "The Bible doesn't give us much about angels. What we do know is that they are spirit beings and that they "neither marry nor are given in marriage." (Matt 22:30) This suggests that as spirit beings, angels cannot procreate."

OK, Matthew 22:30 suggests that, as spirit beings, angels cannot procreate. It suggests this, but it does not say this. Just because they do not marry nor are given in marriage does not verify that angels have no ability to procreate, just that it is not part of their God-given purpose to do so.

Now, some, like Alabaster, are assuming that because God does not purpose the angels to procreate, then He must not have created them with the ability to do so...but that is an assumption, it truly is...there is absolutely NO scripture to indicate this at all. Matt 22:30 only suggests this...it does not say it. As I pointed out earlier, WE are going to be resurrected and yet WE will neither marry nor be given in marriage once resurrected. Does this mean that our bodies will be resurrected sans reproductive organs?

Next then, Free you said, "What I find odd then is that some Christians want to argue that angels can take on human form and give themselves the ability to procreate. God didn't give them the ability but they can give themselves the ability."

Now, there has been a jump to a conclusion...we went from saying that Matt 22:30 suggests that angels cannot procreate, to saying that Christians (me, for example) are arguing that angels gave themselves the ability to procreate and that God did not give them that ability. Yet, Matt 22:30 says nothing about God either giving nor not giving the angels the ability to procreate. It simply says that once we are resurrected, we will neither marry nor be given in marriage same as the angels.

Then Free states: "Just because the Bible refers to angels as "he" or people see them as men, does not in any way mean that they can procreate."

However, this does not mean that they cannot either. Moot point.

Then Free wraps up with stating: "I don't know why people want to presume and speculate rather than relying on what we do know."

The only thing is...neither Sissy nor I are speculating and presuming. Rather, we are studying what the Bible has stated about the "ben elohyim" in Genesis 6, noting that the other three times the term is used in the OT is in Job and is clearly referencing the angels, looking to 2 Peter, and to Jude and how God clearly condemned the events in Genesis 6 to the point that it was His reason for the flood, and that both 2 Peter and Jude identify these offenders as angels.

What do we know? We certainly do know that angels take on physical form? And that when they do so are they are very much like humans, so much so that we can entertain them and not know it. We know that angels walk, that they sit, that they talk, that they sing. These all are physical attributes.

There is much more in the Scriptures to point that angels have physical attributes including gender than not, isn't there?

Please, show me these texts that prove that angels are without gender and that God created them totally unable to procreate.

Again, Free, you know I love you and am just promoting the discussion here, not attacking you personally.

(Don't want Vic to pull the on me!)

Notice some new posts...Free you said, "I think I may have thought it was about angels at one time too, as I may have even heard it from the pulpit. But I think some serious thinking on the issue bears out that it really doesn't add up. That "sons of God" refers to followers of Yahweh is what I believe as well."

By all means, share with us the Scriptures you've studied to bring you to this conclusion.

 

[farouk]

Again I would go to the overall exegetical framework of which position is the default one. Angels are not merely human and so to argue from apparent silence that they have the anatomical capacities of humans is almost like arguing from silence...if it is silence.

Or put differently, it's harder to assume they do rather than to assume they don't.

(Two cents'.)

 

[handy]

Again I would go to the overall exegetical framework of which position is the default one. Angels are not merely human and so to argue from apparent silence that they have the anatomical capacities of humans is almost like arguing from silence...if it is silence.

Or put differently, it's harder to assume they do rather than to assume they don't.

(Two cents'.)

But the Bible is hardly silent on the physical attributes of angels...

Angels sit...Mark 16:5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

Angels hold swords in their hands...Numbers 22:23 And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way.

Angels eat..Genesis 19:1-3 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. And he said, "Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." They said however, "No, but we shall spend the night in the square."
Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

Eating, sitting, standing, holding a sword in one's hand...physical attributes all.

Editing to add the part about washing the feet. Angels with dirty feet, just too physical an image not to point out!

 

[farouk]

But the Bible is hardly silent on the physical attributes of angels...

Angels sit...Mark 16:5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

Angels hold swords in their hands...Numbers 22:23 And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way.

Angels eat..Genesis 19:1-3 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. And he said, "Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." They said however, "No, but we shall spend the night in the square."
Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

Eating, sitting, standing, holding a sword in one's hand...physical attributes all.

Editing to add the part about washing the feet. Angels with dirty feet, just too physical an image not to point out!

handy:

By physical attributes I was trying to be tactful in my terminology.

(Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.....)

 

[handy]

handy:

By physical attributes I was trying to be tactful in my terminology.

(Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.....)

Ahh. ;)

 

[Free]

Please, show me these texts that prove that angels are without gender and that God created them totally unable to procreate.

Again, Free, you know I love you and am just promoting the discussion here, not attacking you personally.

I love you as well and I have taken no offense. In this case I think the argument from Matt is the stronger of the two since it implies an inability of the angels to procreate. If they can, and God says that they are neither married or given in marriage, then we must ask ourselves just what goes on "up there." Is there no fornication? Certainly no adultery. Common law? ;) Seriously though.

Why is it that angels would seemingly have to leave heaven and take on physical form to have sex with women? Appearing in the form of a human and even interacting with the environment is different than passing along one's DNA.

I just don't see it. And although there is something to be said for "sons of God" being used only in reference to angels, that does not mean we can conclude that in every instance it must be so.

Sorry, that is all the response I can do right now. Off to bed.

 

[cyberjosh]

But the Bible is hardly silent on the physical attributes of angels...

Angels sit...Mark 16:5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

Angels hold swords in their hands...Numbers 22:23 And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way.

Angels eat..Genesis 19:1-3 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. And he said, "Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." They said however, "No, but we shall spend the night in the square."
Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

Eating, sitting, standing, holding a sword in one's hand...physical attributes all.

Editing to add the part about washing the feet. Angels with dirty feet, just too physical an image not to point out!

This will no doubt throw the discussion into another tangent, but what about the also obvious extra-dimensional aspects of Angels? Demons can "inhabit" and posess a human's body. Could angels do the same (even if they "wouldn't")?

Since this discussion has explored most of this topic fairly deep as it is (from what we can know of angels), it couldn't hurt to consider this aspect as well I figure.

 

[Sissy]

Handy and Sissy, I have always believed that Gen. 6 is a continuation of Gen. 4 & 5. Gen. 4 is the lineage of Cain and his story. "4:16--And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord" And Gen. 5 is the lineage of Seth and his story "4:26--...then men began to call upon the name of the Lord" And Gen. 6 is the results of the uniting of these 2 lineages.
It's late here and it's time for me to get into bed I'll post some scripture tomorrow and try to support my belief. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Westtexas

As I have stated earlier in this thread, I have no qualms with folks who hold that view.
I could quote scripture myself that support the view.
But only up to a certain point.

It does not explain at all about the angels Jude and Peter mention as doing something so terrible during the time of Noah that they had to be bound.
What did these angel do during the time of Noah if it is not speaking of them in Genesis 6?

I concede that it is possible that what Jude and Peter tell us may not be recorded in earlier scripture.
Like when Jude mentions this:

Jude 1
(9) Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
​

We have no earlier scripture that records this event.

So, the fact that Jude and Peter mention this deed done by angels during the time of Noah does not by itself prove Genesis 6 is that event.

But I'm not relying on just what Jude and Peter mention alone.

Genesis 6 makes no distinction between a family lineage of the daughters born to men. None whatsoever. It just ain't there.

Genesis 6
(1) And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
​

The simplistic meaning of this verse would be that men = mankind.
Mankind multiplied, and daughters were born.
How could one possibly come to the conclusion that this MUST be speaking only of the descendants of Cain?

And the very next verse uses a description that elsewhere in the OT is ONLY used of angels.
Why?
Why would the Holy Spirit have this particular term to be used instead of saying the seed or descendants of Seth?

And the peculiar part of it all is that the offspring of these unions were abnormal.
Why?
Why would they be abnormal if they were just from different families?

But the most peculiar part of it all is this statement ...

Genesis 6
(4) There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,
​

Now think about this for a moment.
If these offspring were the result of the family men of Seth's lineage marrying the family daughters of Cain's lineage ..... and all of Cain's descendants are killed in the flood .... then how in the world could it happen again?


See what I mean?
Just too many loose ends that don't add up.

 

[Vic C.]

This will no doubt throw the discussion into another tangent, but what about the also obvious extra-dimensional aspects of Angels? Demons can "inhabit" and posess a human's body. Could angels do the same (even if they "wouldn't")?

Since this discussion has explored most of this topic fairly deep as it is (from what we can know of angels), it couldn't hurt to consider this aspect as well I figure.

There is also the aspect of angels simply meaning "messengers" in a few passages, particularly in the NT... although I will not assume that this could apply to Gen. 6.

Jeff also posted some good stuff on page 2 that was not explored much at all.

 

[Sissy]

This will no doubt throw the discussion into another tangent, but what about the also obvious extra-dimensional aspects of Angels? Demons can "inhabit" and posess a human's body. Could angels do the same (even if they "wouldn't")?

Since this discussion has explored most of this topic fairly deep as it is (from what we can know of angels), it couldn't hurt to consider this aspect as well I figure.

I like to explore all possibilities.

I agree that just because angels were created with a particular function in mind (ministering spirits to mankind), it does not eliminate the fact that they were capable of totally rejecting that function and go their own way.
So, just because angels were created with no need to "replenish" because they were eternal, does not eliminate the possibility that they could.

And I have heard the viewpoint that these angels in Genesis 6 "possessed" bodies of actual human men to impregnate these women.
But again, why would that create abnormal offspring when both parents are actually human?

 

[Sissy]

He Handy, have you ever considered this verse to be a possible connection?

1 Corinthians 11
(10) For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
​

I've seen lots of good debate as to what this verse actually means.
I have wondered if it might have a connection.
After all, "because of the angels" is only in reference here for the women (not the men).

 

[Alabaster]

Personally, I don't think it is about angels at all. The Bible doesn't give us much about angels. What we do know is that they are spirit beings and that they "neither marry nor are given in marriage." (Matt 22:30) This suggest that as spirit beings, angels cannot procreate.

What I find odd then is that some Christians want to argue that angels can take on human form and give themselves the ability to procreate. God didn't give them the ability but they can give themselves the ability. It really seems inconsistent to me. Just because the Bible refers to angels as "he" or people see them as men, does not in any way mean that they can procreate.

I don't know why people want to presume and speculate rather than relying on what we do know.

Thank you. Good and sensible post.

 

[farouk]

He Handy, have you ever considered this verse to be a possible connection?

1 Corinthians 11
(10) For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
​

I've seen lots of good debate as to what this verse actually means.
I have wondered if it might have a connection.
After all, "because of the angels" is only in reference here for the women (not the men).

Sissy:

Yes I do think that this reference is very interesting.

It seems to be linked with headcovering, and the idea of headship and veiling glory.

 

[handy]

There is also the aspect of angels simply meaning "messengers" in a few passages, particularly in the NT... although I will not assume that this could apply to Gen. 6.

Jeff also posted some good stuff on page 2 that was not explored much at all.

I don't assume that it applies to Gen 6 either. I think that whether or not angels are ministering servants, messengers, or spirits does not really address the issue of them being able, once fallen, to impregnate women as a simple reading of Gen 6 implies.

I did read Jeff's stuff on page 2, but I still have to go back to the fact that "ben elohyim" is only brought up 5 times in the Old Testament, 3 times it is obviously referring to angels and the other 2 times it is referring to beings whom, when they took human wives for themselves had "abnormal offspring" (as Sissy puts it) and so angered God that He destroyed the earth because of it.

As far as God destroying the earth because Godly men were marrying ungodly women, well, that just seems to happen a whole lot anyway...why would God flood the earth because of that and, why would the offspring be considered "giants".

Sissy, I don't know how applicable 1 Corinthians 11:10 is to this issue. The context of that passage is authority and submission to it. The head covering is a symbol of submission. It's just too vague for me to try to apply it here. Perhaps as we move forward in this discussion, especially if others begin to bring up Scriptures (other than just Matt 22:30 again) we can get a better picture. However, I think the angels referred to in 1 Corinthians 11:10 are obedient angels, not fallen ones.

This will no doubt throw the discussion into another tangent, but what about the also obvious extra-dimensional aspects of Angels? Demons can "inhabit" and posess a human's body. Could angels do the same (even if they "wouldn't")?

Since this discussion has explored most of this topic fairly deep as it is (from what we can know of angels), it couldn't hurt to consider this aspect as well I figure.

We certainly could explore the idea that the "ben elohyim" were demonically possessed men, for the angels involved would be fallen angels. There are still some problems that arise if we do though, not the least of which is the question that still remains unanswered: why the abnormal offspring?

Also, why are they referred to as "ben elohyim" which are clearly angels in Job, rather than just men possessed by demons.

Isn't it the first step of biblical exegesis to allow the Bible to interpret the Bible? Isn't interpreting Genesis 6 by what we know to be true in Job just basic good sense? Can anybody give good reason why we ought to suspend the first step of Biblical exegesis in this case...given that there is no clear Scripture to bring up a contrary point of view?

 

[farouk]

I think the angels referred to in 1 Corinthians 11:10 are obedient angels, not fallen ones.

....

handy:

Yes, they would seem to be, from the context; at least, I suppose so.

Anyway, angels are a subject which have interested a lot of people down the centuries; I think it's good to consider the subject in conjunction with God's wider purposes, as revealed in Scripture. The angel in Revelation refused undue attention and pointed John to the Lord.

 

[Deavonreye]

Free, . . . thank you for your post. I would tend to agree with you. I know this topic will continue to be discussed, but my part is finished. I've stated my point, and do not wish to belabor it. ;)

 

[Sissy]

Sissy:

Yes I do think that this reference is very interesting.

It seems to be linked with headcovering, and the idea of headship and veiling glory.

Agreed.

Sissy, I don't know how applicable 1 Corinthians 11:10 is to this issue. The context of that passage is authority and submission to it. The head covering is a symbol of submission. It's just too vague for me to try to apply it here.

It's too vague for me to make a positive connection too.
And we certainly don't want to force scripture into a doctrine just for doctrine sake.

But it is still one of those verses that I can't just set aside as no connection at all.
So allow me to offer a few more thoughts on it (probably way out in left field, but still some things that others may be thinking also).

1 Corinthians 11
(9) Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
(10) For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
​

The purpose of Eve being formed from Adam was to be a helpmate for Adam, not any other of the creatures of creation (including angels).
The union of Adam & Eve was a marriage, with Adam being the authoritative head.
This marriage union is a "type" of the union of Christ and the faithful, with Christ being the authoritative head.

One of the forms of apostasy was worshiping angels. Thus making an angel your authoritative head.

From Genesis 3:15 we know that it is from the seed of woman that the Messiah would come.
And strangely enough, it tells us that enmity will be with the woman (not the man).

In Genesis 6 it is only women that angels lust after (replacing man as their authoritative head).

So let me wrap this up instead of going on and on.


In a that sense 1 Corinthians 11 could be saying ....
"Woman, you were brought forth for man to be your authoritative head. So make sure that man is your head, because angels may try and replace that head as has happened before."


Too much of a stretch? Perhaps.

However, I think the angels referred to in 1 Corinthians 11:10 are obedient angels, not fallen ones.

Well, even the angels in Genesis 6 were good before they decided to do something bad.

But here's the real question ....... why would any angel at all (good or bad) be a concern for women about their headship?

(10) For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
​

As I said, it's a bit vague for me too. But something about it just won't let me scrap the connection altogether just yet.