A. C. Malan, trans., The Book of Adam and Eve, also called The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan, Book III, chap IV (brackets in original) which dates to circa the 6th century AD:
Certain wise men of old wrote concerning them, and say in their [sacred] books, that angels came down from heaven, and mingled with the daughters of Cain, who bare unto them these giants. But those [wise men] err in what they say. God forbid such a thing, that angels who are spirits,[1] should be found committing sin with human beings. Never; that cannot be.[2] And if such a thing were of the nature of angels, or Satans, that fell, they would not leave one woman on earth, undefiled. For Satans are very wicked and infamous. Moreover, they are not male and female by nature; but they are small, subtle spirits, that have been black ever since they transgressed. But many men say, that angels came down from heaven, and joined themselves to women, and had children by them. This cannot be true.[3] But they were children of Seth, who were of the children of Adam, that dwelt on the mountain, high up [or suspended], while they preserved their virginity, their innocence and their glory like angels ; and were then called “angels of God.”[1]
But when they transgressed and mingled with the children of Cain, and begat children, ill-informed men said, that angels had come down from heaven, and mingled with daughters of men, who bare them giants.
Footnote [1] reads, “The Ethiopic construction is not quite correct here. The Arabic reads ‘Angelic spirits.’” This is due to the fact that it was translated from the Ethiopic. Thus, the Ethiopic translation should have read something like “Angelic spirits” which is why it was translated into English as “angels who are spirits” and “angels of God.”
Before getting to the other two notes, let us review. It is admitted that “Certain wise men of old” took the Angel view of the Genesis 6 affair, as I term it. Yet, it is stated that this is in error but the premise for considering it an error is itself an error and one that the text merely asserts without evidence—and I would add that such evidence does not exist in the Bible. But what is this premise?
The text actually seems to center it on the idea that God forbids Angels to sin with human beings. We can safely assume that this is correct which is why those who did sin with human beings are known as fallen. However, there is yet another, underlying, premise and it is this to which I was referring as being erroneous and that is the assertion that Angels “are spirits.” This is something that one can only derive it from the one single text (or, two). Psalm 104:4 states, “Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire” this seems to be reiterated in Hebrews 1:14 which reads, “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” I note that it is in one single text (or, two assuming that Hebrews was indeed reiterating it) because we ought not build doctrines based on one single text.
Now, if we conclude that Angels are spirits based on Psalm 104:4 then we must, by the very same logic or theologic, conclude that they are also flaming fires. I would submit that 1) Psalms are poetic by nature and 2) spirit within the Psalm’s context denotes something like that which Jesus states in John 3:8, “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” I appeal to that due to the fact that in both Hebrew and Greek there is a correlation between breath and spirit.
In any case, the Bible does not envisage that which so many people seem to merely assume which is that Angels are spirits who take on human physicality when they interact with us. Rather, the Bible simply portrays Angels as being physical beings who look just like human males. They inhabit unfallen bodies (think of the concept of resurrection or glorified bodies) and so can do much as Jesus did after His resurrection when He was physical and yet could walk through a door, appear and disappear, etc.
Thus, the premise seems to fail and so the argument against the Angel view goes along with it.
Now, after asserting “that cannot be” the author speculates that “if such a thing were” done then “they would not leave one woman on earth, undefiled.” However, that, at least in a manner of speaking, they did not leave one woman on earth, undefiled is what the Bible states. Genesis 6 begins with the sons of God having offspring with the daughters of men and ties this directly to the reason for the flood since “the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.”
Now, this does not mean that the fallen sons of God Angels went about impregnating every single woman. It seem that their offspring, the Nephilim, had offspring who had offspring who had offspring, etc. until “all flesh had corrupted.” With Genesis 6’s timeline beginning at “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them” and ending with the flood this may include a period of roughly one and a half to just over two millennia if the starting point is as far back as when Adam and Eve’s children first started to “multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them.” Also, keep in mind that this is whilst humanity still lived in relative geographical proximity to each other.
Thus, this is somewhat related to that “they would not leave one woman on earth, undefiled” which they, the sons of God, did not do but they, the Nephilim, did do in a roundabout way.
Now we get to another statement much like the Angels are spirits one considered above and that is that “Satans are very wicked and infamous” with the “nature of” either “angels, or Satans” being referenced just before that. The author seems to be stating that fallen Angels are can be referred to as Satans after their fall. “Satans” is a term that comes about due to the Bible’s usage of it as meaning the “adversary” of anyone for any reason. This term then came to be used to identify the being aka “the Devil,” as well as serpent, dragon, etc.
So are “angels, or Satans” really “not male and female by nature”? Well, I have already dealt with them being spirits. Taking these two as references to Angels then biblically they are male and as male as human males are male. You will find winged women in the Bible but these are not Angels since they 1) are not delivering a message, 2) are not called Angles (and are thus, not angels which means messenger), 3) are not male and 4) have wings. These winged women are exclusively seen within a vision and mentioned only once (Zechariah 5:9) like Seraphim (Isaiah 6) whilst Angels and Cherubim being seen within visions but also in “real life.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server 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. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.