I decided to write an article reviewing the Sun and Shield site’s article by Harry A. Gaylord titled Did angels mate with women in Genesis? because someone directed me to it as a good article in the midst of discussing such issues.
Point 1: Sons of God are humans who follow God Point 2: Fallen angels are never called sons of God Point 3: God did not create angels with the ability to procreate with each other or with humans
Point 4: God only complained about mankind in Genesis 6
The premise is a book by Lauren Kate titled, Fallen: the article was written in 2010 AD and by now Kate has turned the book into a series. We are told that the book is “about an angel who is romantically attracted to and pursues a relationship with a human teenager” and that Kate told Publisher’s Weekly (January 11, 2010 AD, p. 13) that “The idea for the book came from a line I read in Genesis about a group of angels who were effectively kicked out of heaven because they lusted after mortal women…”
Harry A. Gaylord notes, “The scripture never talks about anyone being kicked out of heaven for their lust” and build his argument from there so let us jump to his view of the identification.
He rightly directs us to the Book of Job wherein he admits, “the phrase ‘sons of God’ is talking about angels”:
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. [Job 1:6]
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. [Job 2:1]
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. …Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? [Job 38:4, 6-7]So what is the problem? Well, he informs us that even though this is the case, “a closer examination of the scriptures shows that Genesis 6 is NOT talking about angels” and he ultimately concludes that “Angels have never mated with humans and have never produced offspring by humans. This is one thing God has never allowed and will never allow.”
He breaks his arguments into points the first of which is “Point 1: Sons of God are humans who follow God.” Herein, he does a picking and choosing of texts so that if you are not familiar with this issue you may agree with his conclusion. He refers to Exodus 4:22-23 which states, “Israel is my son,” 2 Samuel 7:14, “he shall be my son,” John 1:12 “as many as received him…become the sons of God,” Romans 8:14, “as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God,” 1 John 3:1 “we should be called the sons of God.”
However, the phrase “my son” and “sons of God” are different and what we find is that son(s) of God refers to a direct creation by God. As we already saw it refers to angles, Adam was created from the earth (Luke 3). Jesus in terms of incarnation (Luke 1), as noted above redeemed humans are a direct re-creation born anew (John 3). More on this will follow.So, who, as per Harry A. Gaylord are Genesis 6’s sons of God? He write that since “Seth’s descendants…worshiped God, they were considered sons of God and were the sons of God in Genesis 6” because “It was Seth’s descendants who ‘call upon the name of the LORD,’ [Genesis 4:26].” This may be the case since the verse stated, “And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD” so it could be understood that it was the Sethites who “call upon the name of the LORD” and yet, it could be that it was “men” in general who began doing so at that time. In any case, we are then told “It was Cain’s descendants and other unbelievers who were the ‘daughters of men.’” Which is not only farfetched but simply asserted with no argumentation, no quotations and no citations. For now, ponder why it was only male Sethites and only female Cainites and not some admixture of both genders? His ultimate conclusion is that “God dislikes spiritually mixed marriages.”
We come to “Point 2: Fallen angels are never called sons of God.” We are told of “Satan, who is the fallen angel Lucifer (see Isaiah 14:12-15, Ezekiel 28:12-17).” Well, Satan, is not a fallen angel because Satan is not an angel as Ezekiel 28:12 makes clear: he is a Cherub. Angels, Cherubim and Seraphim have different titled, different job functions, look different from one another, etc. they are different categories of being.
We are then told, “according to Revelation 12:4, convinced 1/3 of the angels in heaven to follow him in his rebellion against God as he started a war in heaven. Revelation 12 also tells us that Satan lost the war and was kicked out of heaven with his angels.” Note that this is written in the past tense, “convinced…started…Satan lost…was kicked out.” I would say that the timing within Revelation 12 is difficult since, for example, v. 5 states, “she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne” so that in one single verse circa three decades pass by. It is in v. 7 that there is war in heaven but it was in v. 4 that Satan, as the dragon, “drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth.” Thus, the drawing of angels away from heaven was at some point before Jesus’ birth and the war in heaven at some point after his ascension—how long thereafter I know not but it was not before Jesus’ ascension.
The article continues from “Satan lost the war and was kicked out of heaven with his angels” with “It was at this point that …God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment, [2 Peter 2:4] AND …the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. [Jude 6].” Yet, these are selective quotations and citations since, as I elucidate in Nephilim in 2 Peter and Jude, both Peter and Jude correlate the angels’ sin to the sexual sins of Sodom and Gomorrah in terms of going after strange flesh.
We are to that my not keeping their first estate “they lost…the right to be called the ‘sons of God.’” Well, as Harry A. Gaylord said of Lauren Kate I must now say of Harry A. Gaylord, “The scripture never talks about” loosing this right: this is a mere assertion that is meant to buttress his conclusion.
Now, the issue of the timing within Revelation 12 is important because as we are next told, “Because Satan is present in Genesis 3, we know he has already been kicked out of heaven with his angels.” Yet, in Revelation Satan is already the “dragon” and acting out against God which would denote that he fell before the angels did. Yet, I would put it this way, “Because Satan is present in Genesis 3, we know he has already been kicked out of heaven” and stop there without including “with his angels.” He fell first and then they did. Satan’s fall is recorded in Genesis 3 as that is when he performed a sinful action of rebellion and it is therein that he is cursed. Now, there is a difference between falling and being cast out: falling is tantamount from being fired and casting out is like being locked out. Satan was fell and lost his job of being a covering Cherub but still appeared before God to report on his activities of roaming about the Earth. At some point he draws angels out of heaven and the angels (not Satan) engage in the Genesis 6 affair. Ultimately, they are all cast out from before God which means never allowed to return before Him again, being stuck on Earth, etc.Next, “Point 3: God did not create angels with the ability to procreate with each other or with humans.” We are told that God, “established at the creation of the angels that angels in heaven would neither marry nor be given in marriage (see Mark 12:25). He created them without this capability.” But Gaylord is missing his own point which is that “angels in heaven would neither marry” which is correct as what Jesus stated in the Mark text is, “For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.” Thus, it is the angels “in heaven” who do not marry which is why those who did are considered fallen since they left their “left their own habitation” in order to do so.
We are then told “This is why the fallen angels who were not yet placed in the chains of darkness in hell, and who roam the Earth freely, can only go so far as to possess unbelievers” for if “fallen angels could procreate” they would still be doing so. Now, indeed Peter and Jude tell us of the incarceration of the fallen angels but Harry A. Gaylord refers to “fallen angels who were not yet placed in the chains” and who “roam the Earth freely” which means that he is identifying demons as fallen angels. I will bypass a lengthy discussion about what demons are and cut to the contextual chase which is that to claim that some “fallen angels…were not yet placed in the chains” well, “The scripture never talks about” that or rather, it does and states that all fallen angels have been “placed in the chains.”
Some claim that demons are the spirits of dead Nephilim (the sons of the sons of God) and are thus non-physical, not incarcerated, “roam the Earth freely” and “possess unbelievers” due to seeking that which they once had: embodiment (this is based on the apocryphal Book of Enoch). I an upcoming book I outline in great detail why I think that demons are the spirits of incarcerated fallen angels and are thus non-physical, not incarcerated, “roam the Earth freely” and “possess unbelievers” due to seeking that which they once had: embodiment—the bodies are incarcerated while the spirits roam about.Lastly, we come to “Point 4: God only complained about mankind in Genesis 6.” The point, at this point on this point, is that Genesis 6 states, “not always strive with man…the wickedness of man…it repented the LORD that he had made man…I will destroy man” thus, or so we are told to conclude, “If fallen angels were actively participating in these events, why would he just focus on punishing men and not the angels who were involved?”
Well, angels look just like human males (no wings such as Cherubim and Seraphim have along with other anatomical differences). Thus, the Bible commonly refers to angels as “men” and so this is a non-issue (see Gen 18:22, 32:24, 37:15, etc.).
Fine but “why would he just focus on punishing men and not the angels who were involved?” the point of which is really “why would” the text “just focus on punishing men…” because the Bible is about anthropology and not angelology and thus focuses on humans with references to other beings being supplementary—as noted, Peter and Jude tell us about “punishing…the angels who were involved.”Finally, let us deal with the aforementioned issue of why it was only male Sethites and only female Cainites and not some admixture of both genders. Indeed, why where supposedly righteous Sethite males marrying unrighteous Cainite females? Well, the angel view explains why it was only male sons of God and only female daughters of men: since angles look like human males it was only male sons of God and thus, they marries only female daughters of men.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.