Systematic theology is not theology proper since theology proper is only an aspect of systematic theology, another aspect of which is Angelology.
I have come to realize that most of what we know about Angels is based on common knowledge and that common knowledge refers to those things that everybody knows even though nobody knows how anyone knows.
I am about to publish a book tiled Nephilim and Giants in Bible Commentaries: From the 1500s to the 2000s (which may be published by the time you read this, so see here).
Accurate Angelology is key to Nephilim related issues since a key question is whether the “sons of God” who engaged in the Genesis 6 affair were Angels or not.
Thus, Angelology does not exist in a vacuum but, systematically, touches upon other ologies.
Herein are some examples from my upcoming book, the issues with which I will elucidate after the quotations.
Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible:
Angels, “were not created as a race, have no distinction of sex, and therefore no sexual desire; they ‘neither marry nor are given in marriage’ Matthew 22:30.”
Carl Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary:
“Christ Himself distinctly states that the angels cannot marry (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; cf. Luke 20:34.).”
Daniel Whedon’s Commentary on the Bible:
“Our Lord expressly says (Matthew 22:30) that angels ‘neither marry nor are given in marriage.’”
John Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical:
“angels do not seek nor are sought in marriage (Matthew 22:30).”
L. M. Grant’s Commentary on the Bible:
“angels are sexless (Matthew 22:30).”
James Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible:
“Jesus our Lord flatly declared that angels do not marry (Matthew 22:30)….Jesus sufficiently refutes the idea that angels could possibly commit fornication with humans (Matthew 22:30).”
Cyrus Scofield’s Reference Notes:
“we are expressly told that marriage is unknown among angels. Matthew 22:30.”
Thomas Constable’s Expository Notes:
“Angels do not reproduce (Matthew 22:30).”
Concordia Publishing House’s Lutheran Study Bible:
“Some interpreters have considered the ‘sons of God’ angels, based on the expression in Jb 38:7. However, such a conclusion directly contradicts Jesus’ teaching about the nature of angels (Mt 22:30).”
From these various academic sources, it is clear that when we read Matthew 22:30, we will see that Jesus specifically specified that
Angels, “have no distinction of sex…no sexual desire…cannot marry…do not seek nor are sought in marriage…are sexless…do not marry…could [not] possibly commit fornication…marriage is unknown among angels…Angels do not reproduce.”
Matthew 22:30, which most of these commentaries did not quote at all and those who did so only quoted it (conveniently) partially reads, “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”
Nothing about lacking sex, nor about lacking sexual desire, not about ability or lack thereof to fornicate, but a reference to marriage pertaining specifically to, here is the key, “the angels of God in heaven” thus, the loyal ones.
Such is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having “left their first estate” in order to do so, as Jude put it.
See, by slicing off the key qualifying term, these commentaries—consciously or not—misguide us regarding Jesus’ specific statements and thus, misguide our Angelology and thus, misguide our Nephilology.
The parallel verse is Mark 12:25, “when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.”
Keil and Delitzsch also cited Luke 20:34 “Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:” so we need vss. 35-36 as well, “But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage. Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”
Thus, this one likens the resurrected to Angels in terms of that “they die any more.”
I hope this has been instructive—regardless of which view you take of Genesis 6.
I have done the hard work of plowing through what Bible commentaries from the 1500s to the 2000s have to say about Nephilim and giants and, contextually, Angels and demons so, check out the book—please.
A plea: I have to pay for serdonate/paypal page.ver usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my