Undergoing consideration is Chapter Twelve: Angelology: Doctrine of Angels, Demons, and Satan from R.P. Nettelhorst’s book Does God Have a Long Nose?—he is a Professor of Bible at the Southern Baptist Quartz Hill Community Church.
Interesting, he beings the chapter by quoting Billy Graham to the affect that, “When I decided to preach a sermon on angels, I found practically nothing in my library” and what interested me about his take on these subjects is that I have written the following relevant books:
What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology
What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology
What Does the Bible Say About Demons? A Styled Demonology
What Does the Bible Say About the Devil Satan? A Styled Satanology
What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities? A Styled Paranormology
What Does the Bible Say About Heaven and Hell? A Styled A Styled Superumology and Infernology
The Paranormal in Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries: Over a Millennia’s Worth of Comments on Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Satan, the Devil, Demons, the Serpent and the Dragon
He rightly notes, “the Bible gives us very limited information about angels,” et al.: this means that we are to take what precious little we are told very carefully and that if we must speculate, we must do so very close to the vest, as it were.
He notes:
The Hebrew word for angel is mala’ak; in meaning it is equivalent to the Greek word, angelos from which the English word is obviously derived. However, in both Hebrew and Greek, the term simply means “messenger” and was used for both God’s messengers as well as those of a king or ruler on Earth…
Three other terms are found in the Old Testament for angel. Seraphim (singular Seraph) simply means “flame”. It only shows up twice, both times in Isaiah, and both times in one chapter: Isaiah 6:2 and 6.
The second term is considerably more common, and is transliterated into English as “Cherub”; it is these angels that are described as particularly unusual to look at; Ezekiel 1:4-28 contains the most detailed description we have of them. Whether this is their normal appearance, it’s hard to say.
They reappear in Revelation in virtually the same form. They appear most frequently, though, as a decoration used in the temple…
The third term that is generally thought to refer to angels is found in only a handful of places. It is usually – though not always – translated as “the sons of God”.
The chapter is supposed to be about Angels, Demons, and Satan so that Seraphim and Cherubim do not belong therein since it is not a case of, “Three other terms…for angel” since, by definition, Seraphim and Cherubim are not Angels, they are Seraphim and Cherubim. Thus, that was a category error since these three differ in at least three ways: different job titles, different job functions, and different morphologies.
The sons of God issue is where that which I term the Gen 6 affair comes into play as Prof R.P. Nettelhorst wrote:
How to understand the term is a topic of great controversy, especially in Genesis 6:1-4, where the reader is told that the sons of God had sex with the daughters of men:
When men began to increase in number on the Earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
Then Yahweh said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
The Nephilim were on the Earth in those days – and also afterward – when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
He elucidates:
Three possible explanations for this incident have been proposed:
Theory One
1. The sons of God are the sons of Seth.
2. The daughters of men are the descendants of Cain.
3. The sin in view is the marriage of the holy to the unholy (see Deut. 7:1-6; Gen. 34:9; Josh. 23:12; 1 Kings 11:2; Ezra 9:14; and 2 Cor. 6:14-18).
4. The lines of evidence given to support this position are as follows: a) the concept of a holy line seems to have been established with the distinction made between the genealogy of Seth and that of Cain; and b) the sin of marriage of the holy to the unholy becomes a common theme throughout the Pentateuch.
5. But, there are some serious problems with this theory of two human lines:
a) the term “sons of God” cannot be demonstrated to mean “the line of Seth”, or a holy line of people, any place else in the Bible.
b) There is no evidence that the lines of Cain and Seth remained totally separate. The theory also fails to account for the many other children Adam and Eve had besides Seth and Cain (Gen. 5:4).
c) It cannot be demonstrated that God had begun working through only one line at this early period of history.
d) The term for “men” used in this passage is general, with no demonstrated special meaning. There would have to be some evidence elsewhere in the Bible in order to legitimately narrow its meaning here to “Cain” or “the unredeemed”.
e) Finally, and most damning, is the underlying false theological presupposition, that a line of people could be wholly wicked, with no possibility of redemption. This smacks of both racism and salvation by works – neither of which is a biblical concept.
I am unsure if it matters, but I am unsure why the Sethite view is Theory One since it is a late-comer—and based on myth and prejudice.
The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view as I proved in my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.
I qualified as myth and prejudice since there is no indication that the sons (note the all-encompassing plural) of Seth were holy and descendants of Cain were unholy.
Thus, while this view merely asserts such lines, there is no actual indication that biblically, “the concept of a holy line seems to have been established with the distinction made between the genealogy of Seth and that of Cain.”
Next up is:
Theory Two
1. The “sons of God” are dynastic rulers.
2. The “daughters of men” are commoners.
3. The sin in view is polygamy.
4. The evidence for this view is that magistrates or rulers
are often referred to as gods or the offspring of gods in the Ancient Near East (Note Ex. 21:6; 22:8-9; and Psalm 82:1, 6).
5. The problem with this second theory is twofold: one, kingship has not been expressed in any way in this passage or in the preceding, and two, Scripture does not consider kings to be the actual sons of a deity, nor does Scripture accept such designations as legitimate. One of the striking differences between the kings of Israel and the neighboring kings of other lands was that Israel’s rulers didn’t claim divinity.
While this is a very, very early theory, it was not popularized early on, but did not catch on, and suffer from that which was pointed out.
Lastly, (of the three that the Prof covers) is:
Theory Three
1. The “sons of God” are fallen angels.
2. The “daughters of men” are mortal women.
3. The sin in view is the marriage between supernatural and natural.
4. The evidence for this view is: a) “sons of God”, in all other Old Testament passages, means “angels” (see Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psalm 29:1; 89:7; Daniel 3:25); b) Jude 6-7, 1 Peter 3:19- 20, and 2 Peter 2:4-6 seem to refer to the incident as an interaction between fallen angels and people.
Notice that Jude 7 reports that “in a similar way” to what happened before the flood, the people of Sodom perverted themselves (they also desired sex with angels: Genesis 19:5); and finally c) Jesus in Matthew 22:30 says that angels do not marry; he doesn’t say they are incapable of sex; furthermore he is discussing the righteous angels, not the unrighteous demons (besides, the point of Christ’s argument is that people will not marry in heaven – he is not intent on discussing the sexual habits of the angels).
5. The problems with this third theory are, one, that it gives a somewhat mythological tone to the story, and two, that there had not been a previous mention of angels in the narrative.
Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that sons of God can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as Angeloi: plural of Angelos) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth.
Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.
So, if they are not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we have no idea to what sin they are referring.
It is actually not the case that, “Jesus in Matthew 22:30 says that angels do not marry” so a more direct way to counter that objection is to note that His statement was very detailed, very nuanced, He employed qualifying terms in referring to, “the angels of God in heaven.”
So, not all Angels at all times in all places but the loyal ones, “of God” and, “in heaven” which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.
As for, “discussing the righteous angels, not the unrighteous demons” well, the Gen 6 affair was about Angels, not demons: the latter did not even exist at the time (see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?) and demons cannot physically mate since, by definition, they are spirits while Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such is not their ontology—see my book Angelology book.
As for, “gives a somewhat mythological tone”: it seems that key question is, “So what of it?” and to note that if it gives a somewhat mythological tone it would be because latter myth played off of the actual historical occurrence. Thus, it would be a case of that myth gives a somewhat historical/biblical tone.
And as for, “there had not been a previous mention of angels in the narrative” that is a non-objection since the very same thing could be said about any given character or event that is first mentioned when they are/it is first mentioned—such as when the serpent (Satan, the Cherub) is first mentioned.
As R.P. Nettelhorst put it, “there is a first time for everything.”
Of the Angel view, he concludes, “I believe, therefore, that theory three has the strongest arguments in its favor, and it seems the most natural reading of the text.”
He then notes:
Named Angels
Only two angels are mentioned by name in the Bible. Michael – whose name means “who is like God?” – is mentioned in Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1, Jude 9, and Revelation 12:7. Gabriel, “soldier of God”, is mentioned in Daniel 8:16; 9:21, Luke 1:19 and 26.
Actually, another is, “the angel of the bottomless pit. His name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon” (Rev 9). And another possible one is, “a great star fell from heaven…The name of the star is Wormwood” (Rev 8) assuming that star refers to an Angel since Rev 1 notes, “stars are the angels” when contextually allowable.
As noted, Angels are always described as human males yet, Prof R.P. Nettelhorst notes, “they are predominantly male (there are a couple of references in Zechariah that appear to be feminine: see Zech. 5:5-10 and 6:4-5).”
The relevant portion is really only this, “Then the angel who talked with me came forward and said to me, ‘Lift your eyes…two women coming forward! The wind was in their wings. They had wings like the wings of a stork.’”
Angels are always described as human males which includes not having wings. Ergo, if they are not male and have winds, they are not Angels by definition. That Zech text is a wholly visionary experience so there is no indication that we are to take any of it as literally describing literal three dimensional characters. Conversely, the descriptions of Angels we get are actual literal three dimensional descriptions.
He then goes back to non-Angels which he categorizes as Angels, “angels are frightening, at least sometimes. Ezekiel gives us a description of the Cherubim in Ezekiel 1:4-28…their basic form is that of a human biped (1:5), but they have four faces (1:6) and four wings (1:6). Their feet look something like those of a calf (cloven hooves?) and are shiny, as if they are made of burnished bronze (1:7).”
To this, he appends, “When an angel appears to someone, often one of the first things he has to say is ‘do not be afraid’” but that is a non-sequitur based on a faulty premise. He argued that, “angels are frightening” ergo, “one of the first things he has to say is ‘do not be afraid.’” Yet, again, Cherubim are not Angels and the few times Angels do say do not be afraid the context is that a person was alone and suddenly, someone was there so they are startled—there is no indication that it pertained to the Angels appearance.
He notes, “angels most often take on human form – or have human form” the latter of which is the case. Those who insist that, “angels…take on human form” are first reading of Angels who look just like human males, are then merely assuming that Angels are spirits (typically based on one single poorly translated modern English word) and seeking to combine the two, they insert that angels…take on human form into the Bible which never even hints at any such thing.
Moving on to, “Where Did the Devil Come From?” his first reply is to move the goalpost from the Devil to, “Satan is first mentioned by ‘name’ in Job 1:6-7.” Now, chronologically that assumes that Job’s usage came first so that gets into the issue of when any given text that mentions Satan was written. And it was only a linguistics goalpost move since Rev chaps 12 and 20 do refer to, “the great dragon…that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan.”
He adds, “The only other place that Satan is mentioned in the Old Testament is Zechariah 3:1-2” but, of course, that is only linguistic: the being is mentioned various other places, by any other name/title.
In fact, the Prof notes, “His actual first appearance in the Bible is generally assumed to be at the very beginning, in the form of a serpent, when he convinces Eve to doubt God’s goodness. If this serpent is indeed Satan (there is no explicit biblical indication that it is)…”
Well, Ezek 28 would certainly seem to imply or directly identify the serpent as such since it notes, “You were in Eden, the garden of God…You were an anointed guardian cherub…O guardian cherub”—for insightful details, see my chapter sample The Apocalypse of the Hidden Hand: The Bible’s teaching on the spiritual sovereign behind the human sovereign which along with my Satanology book, touches upon what Prof R.P. Nettelhorst wrote in his, “How Did the Devil Turn Bad?” section.
In section, “What Do Demons Do?” he noted:
Scripturally, one never finds demons taking possession of places, objects, books, or buildings. Instead, they associate themselves exclusively with people, except for one brief instance (Mark 5, Luke 8) when they took over a herd of pigs which promptly committed suicide en masse.
Consequently, I find it hard to take seriously those who claim to find evidence of demon activity based on certain “unwholesome” items in their homes. The only problem with “unwholesome” items is that they are unwholesome. Demons have nothing to do with that fact.
That is technically a bit tricky since while, “Scripturally, one never finds demons taking possession of…objects, books, or buildings” they may be able to be said to be taking possession of places since it certainly seems that they are what we might term territorial.
What it would mean that they are taking possession of places is that they are particularly active in such places. Different Pagan nations had different what I termed spiritual sovereigns.
We are told, “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph 6:12) and of, “thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities” (Col 1) which seem to imply having charge of different regions such, for example, that of the Archangel (about whom Jude noted the, “Archangel Michael”) since Daniel was told, “Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people” (Daniel 12).
And this is the point at which this review ends since it covered the most telling parts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply