Who are the Fallen Angels?

FALLEN ANGELS

Scofield.

2 Peter 2:4 [1339] “For if 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.”

Jude 6 [1349] “And the angels who kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment unto the great day.”

The judgment of the fallen angels. The “great day” is the day of the Lord (Isa 2:9-22, refs.). As the final judgment upon Satan occurs after the 1000 years and preceding the final judgment (Rev. 20:10), it is congruous to conclude, as to the time, that other fallen angels are judged with him (2 Peter 2:4; Rev. 20:10). Christians are associated with Christ in this judgment (1 Cor. 6:3).

Larkin.

In 2 Pet. 2:4-5, we read–“God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Tartarus), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment: and spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the Flood upon the world of the ungodly.”

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. (The Great White Throne Judgment.) Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after STRANGE FLESH, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of Eternal Fire.” Jude 6-7.

Who are these angels? They are not Satan’s angels, for his angels are free, and like him roam about, but these angels are in “prison,” “in darkness”, and “reserved in chains” for judgment. The place of their confinement is not Hell, but Tartarus. What was their sin? It was “fornication,” and fornication of an abnormal character, the unlawful sexual intercourse of angelic being with “strange flesh,” that is with beings of a different nature. When was this sin committed? The text says in the “Days of Noah,” and that it was the cause of the Flood. For the details we must go back to the time before the Flood. In Gen. 6:1-4 we read–“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the ‘Sons of God’ saw the ‘Daughters of Men’ that they were fair (beautiful); and they took them wives of all which they chose. . . There were ‘Giants’ in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the ‘Sons of God’ came in unto the ‘Daughters of Men’ and they bare children to them, the same became ‘Mighty Men’ which were of old, men of renown.” Who were the “Sons of God”? Some claim that they were the Sons of “Seth,” and that the “Daughters of Men” were the daughter of “Cain,” and that what is meant is that the Sons of the supposedly godly line of Seth, intermarried with the godless daughters of Cain, the result being a godless race. That the “Sons of God” were the descendants of Seth is based on the assumption that the descendants of Seth lived apart from the descendants of Cain up to a time shortly before the Flood, and that they were a pure and holy race, while the descendants of Cain were ungodly, and their women irreligious and carnal minded, and possessed of physical attractions that were foreign to the women of the tribe of Seth. Such an assumption has no foundation in Scripture. Be sure it says in Gen 4:26, that after the birth of Enos, a son of Seth, that men began to call upon the Lord, but it does not follow that those men were limited to the descendants of Seth, nor that all the descendants of Seth from that time were righteous. As in the early days of the race it was necessary that brothers and sisters and near relatives should marry, it was very unlikely that the descendants of Seth and Cain did not intermarry until some time before the Flood, and stranger still that when they did marry their offspring would be a race of “giants” or “Mighty Men”. It is worthy of note that nothing is said of giantesses, or “Mighty Women,” which would have been the case if it were simply a union of the sons of Seth, and the daughters of Cain. As both the descendants of Seth (except 8 persons) and of Cain were destroyed in the Flood, it is evident that they were not separate tribes at that time and were equally sinners in the sight of God.

If the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain were meant why did not Moses, who wrote the Pentateuch, say so? It is not sufficient to say that the men of Moses’ time knew what he meant. The Scriptures are supposed to mean what they say. When MEN, we are told, began to multiply on the face of the earth, and the “daughters of MEN.” The use of the word MEN signifies the whole Adamic race, and not simply the descendants of Cain, thus distinguishing the “Sons of God: from the descendants of Adam. There is no suggestion of contrast if the “Sons of God’ were also men.

Four names are used in Gen. 6:1-4. “Bne-Ha_Elohim,” rendered “Sons of God”; Bnoth-Ha-Adam,” “daughters of men”; “Hans-Nephilim”, “giants”; “Hog-Gibborim,” “Mighty Men.” The title “Bne-Ha-Elohim,” “Sons of God,” has not the same meaning in the Old Testament that it has in the New. In the New Testament it applies to those who have become the “Sons of God” by the New Birth. John 1:12; Rom. 8:14-16; Gal. 4:6; 1 John 3:1-2. In the Old Testament it applies exclusively to the angels, and is so used five times in Job. Where Satan, an angelic being, is classed with the “Sons of God.” Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7. A “Son of God” denotes a being brought into existence by a creative act of God. Such were the angels, and such was Adam, and he is so called in Luke 3:38. Adam’s natural descendants are not the special creation of God. Adam was created in the “likeness of God’ (Gen. 5:1), but his descendants were born in his likeness, for we read in Gen. 5:3 that Adam “begat a son in HIS OWN LIKENESS, AFTER HIS IMAGE.” Therefore all men born of Adam and his descendants by natural generation are the “Sons of Men,” and it is only by being “born again” (John 3:3-7), which is a “NEW CREATION” that they can become the “Sons of God” in the New Testament sense.

That the “Sons of God” of Gen. 6: 1-4 were ANGELS was maintained by the ancient Jewish Synagogue, by Hellenistic Jews at, and before, the time of Christ, and by the Christian Church up until the Fourth Century, when the interpretation was changed to “sons of Seth” for two reasons. First, because the worship of angels had been set up, and if the “Sons of God” of Gen 6:1-4 were angels and fell, then angels might fall again, and that possibility would affect the worship of angels. The second reason was, that Celibacy had become an institution of the Church, and if it was taught that the angels in heaven did not marry, and yet that some of them seduced by the beauty of womanhood came down from heaven to gratify their amorous propensities, a weakness of a similar kind in one of the “earthly angels” (Celebates) might be the more readily excused. In the Eighteenth Century the “Angelic Interpretation” was revived, and is now largely held by Biblical scholars.

The objection to the “Angelic Interpretation” is based on the words of Jesus as to the marriage relation of the redeemed in Heaven, when He said–“They neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven.” Matt. 22:30, Mark 12:25, Luke 20 35-36. The legitimate conclusion from this statement is, that the Angels do not marry, but it does not therefore follow that they are “sexless.” It says they do not marry in Heaven, not that they do not have the power of procreation, but that it is not the nature of “Holy Angels” to seek such a relationship. But it does not follow that if they have the power they will not exercise it in a fallen state. What these passages teach is that angels do not multiply by procreation. Angels as far as we know were created “en masse,” and as they are immortal, and never die, there is no necessity for marriage among them. Marriage is a human institution to prevent the extinction of the race by death. If the bodies of the dead are to be resurrected, as the Scripture clearly teach, the inference is that those bodies will be male and female. To teach otherwise is to declare that such a relationship as husband and wife and sister and brother will be unknown in heaven. As the bodies of the Righteous dead after they have resurrected and glorified are immortal, and shall never die again, there will be no necessity for the Righteous in Heaven to marry, and therefore the marriage relation will be discontinued, but it does not follow husbands and wives will not know each other “as such” in the other world.

Another fact worthy of note is, that the angels are always spoken of as of the masculine gener. We meet with “Bne-Ha-Elohim,” “sons of Elohim” (God), but never with “Bnoth-Ha-Elohim,” “Daughters of Elohim,” (God). The inference is that all the angels are of the masculine gender, that is are males. If this be true, the reason why they do not marry in Heaven is because there are no female angels to marry. But it does not follow that they do not have male generative organs and cannot cohabit with females of the human race. It is highly improbable that angels by sinking lower in the scale of being could acquire sexual power of which they had previously been destitute, and yet they have such power if we are to believe the statement of Gen. 6:1-4. The whole thing hinges on the correspondence between the bodies of angels and the bodies of human beings.

Angels and human beings are members of the great family of God, and this “kinship” between them implies a relationship that under certain conditions might result in a fruitful marriage union. Angels are “Spiritual Beings” clothed in celestial bodies. These bodies are not ethereal in the sense that they are mere “ether,” for they have a materialistic form and can fly (Dan. 9:21, Rev. 14:6-7) and assume the form of a man, and could eat of Abraham’s calf (Gen. 18:1-8), and of Lot’s unleavened bread (Gen. 19:1-3). Man is also a “Spirit Being” clothed in a material body of flesh, and hereafter, as a redeemed man, is to have a “Spirit body” like unto the angels. As someone has said man is now “half-beast” and “half-angel”, but someday will be all angel. “As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the Heavenly.” 1 Cor. 15:49. Are men and angels then so dissimilar that under certain conditions there could not be a union between them?

Man was made in the “Image of God,” not only spiritually, but in a sense physically. While God is a “Spirit,” because a “Spiritual Being,” it is not to be supposed that He has no form. We cannot conceive of a being that has eyes, and ears and can speak, but what has a form. And the inference from the Scriptures is that all the “Higher Intelligences” of the Heavenly World, as the Seraphim, Cherubim, Angels, Archangels, Satan, etc., are patterned after the image of God, and that that pattern is that of the human body, for man structurally is the “Masterpiece” of the Almighty. Psa. 8:3-9. The fact that when angels appeared to men they always appeared in the form of a man, and not in the form of an animal, or bird, is inferential evidence that angels are men. The statement in Gen 3:1, “Now the ‘Serpent’ was more subtle than any BEAST of the field,” and the title of “DRAGOON” given to Satan in Rev. 12:7-9, implies that Satan when it suits his purpose takes the form of a beast, but he is generally spoken of as appearing as an “ANGEL OF LIGHT.” 2 Cor. 11:14.

If man was made in the “IMAGE OF GOD,” and after His “LIKENESS” (Gen. 1:26-27), it stands to reason that when God would manifest Himself to men, it would be in the form of a man. The assumptions then of the human form by Jesus at His Incarnation was the necessary law of His being. He could not have appeared in any other form and been GODLIKE. When the Apostle speaks of Jesus as being in the “form of God,” and taking upon Himself the “form of a servant” and being made in the “LIKENESS OF MEN” (Phil. 2:5-8), he simply means that Jesus took upon Himself human nature and subjected Himself to its limitations. For the form of a servant is the same as the form of his master, though his knowledge may be less.

When Jesus ascended He ascended as a MAN and He is now in Heaven the “MAN CHRIST JESUS.” 1 Tim. 2:5. And as a MAN John had a vision of Him in the midst of the “Seven Lampstands.” Rev. 1:10-20. If the human body is not made after the pattern of the Heavenly, then Jesus in the form of a MAN in Heaven is out of harmony with His environment, and we have the anomalous condition of the second person in the Trinity now being different in form from the Father and the Holy Spirit. If Jesus came to reveal the Father, then what did He mean when He said–“He that hath seen ME, hath SEEN THE FATHER.” (John 14:8-11), if He was not a revelation of God in His person as well as in His works? As no Mortal being in the flesh can look on the person of God and live (Ex. 33:18-23), it was necessary that Jesus should veil His Deity in human flesh, but the veil of the flesh became transparent on the Mount of Transfiguration, and three of His Disciples beheld His Glorious Heavenly Form, that of a Man. Matt. 17:1-2. John 1:14. 2 Peter 1:16-18.

We know from the first three chapters of Genesis that God visited the “Garden of Eden” and talked with Adam. We also know that Satan, a “Fallen Angel,” also was a visitor to the Garden, for it was there that he tempted the first pair. May it not have been true that Adam and Eve had other angelic visitors, because of the “kinship” between them? It would be interesting to know what would have been the relation between the Adamic and Angelic races if Adam had not fallen. Is not the difference between them, caused by the Fall, more of a spiritual than a physical one, and if so, where does the impossibility of physical intercourse come in? What effect the Fall had upon the physical state of Adam and Eve is an interesting question. We are told that as a result of the Fall their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked. Gen. 3:7. Why did they not know that before? Is it true, as some have supposed, that before the Fall a sort of “Halo” acted as a veil to hide their nakedness, and by the Fall they lost this? While the first pair were told to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth (Gen. 1:28), showing that it had been inhabited before, the inference is that that union would have been of the most pure and chaste character, but the Fall so changed the human heart as to cause man to fall below the brute creation in yielding to lust, and if this be true of fallen man, why not true of “Fallen Angels”? As the Fall of man did not sever completely the communication of angelic beings with the race, we see no reason why fallen angelic beings could not be attracted by the beauty and comeliness of the females of a race, inferior, but not so far removed from them, and desire to have intimate companionship with them.

In Rev. 12:7-12, we read that when Satan and his angels are cast out of the Heavenlies onto the earth there will be great “woe.” As this will be in the midst of the “Tribulation Period,” as we read–“As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the Days of the Son of Man” (Luke 17:26-27), it may be that this new invasion of the earth by “Fallen Angels” will be attended with like conduct on their part as that of the Fallen Angels of Noah’s day.

There is a statement in Gen. 3:15, that seems to throw considerable light on the subject we are discussing. It reads–“I will put enmity between thee (Satan) and the woman (Eve), and between THY SEED (AntiChrist) and HER SEED (Christ): IT (Christ) shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel.” From this it seems clear that Satan has the power of procreation, and that he will beget a son–“THE ANTICHRIST,” called in 2 Thess. 2:3, the “SON OF PERDITION”. While “Perdition” is a PLACE (Rev. 17:8,11) and also a “condition” into which men may fall (1 Tim. 6:9; Heb. 10:39), the author of it is SATAN, and “Antichrist” in the above passage is called the “SON OF PERDITION” because he is the son of the author of Perdition, or SATAN.

As Christ was born of a “Virgin” by the Holy Spirit without the instrumentality of a human father, so it would appear that Antichrist, in imitation of the birth of Christ, is to be born of a woman (Not necessarily a virgin) with Satan as his father. This is no new view, but has been held by many of God’s spiritually minded children since the days of the Apostle John. If Satan then has the power of procreation, why not his and other Fallen Angels?

As further evidence as to the possibility of angelic beings having intercourse with human beings it might be well to cite the treatment of the angels that came to Sodom, which incident is connected with the account of the “Fallen Angels” in 2 Peter 2: 4-6, and Jude 6-7. Form the account in Gen. 19:1-11, it is clear that the men of Sodom sought to seize the two angels that came to Lot that they might commit the unnatural vice of Sodomy with them, as described in Rom. 1:26-27, thus revealing that the angels had the generative organs of men.

When Moses sent the twelve spies into Canaan (Num. 13:1-33), and there they reported on their return–“And there we saw the ‘giants’ (Nephilim); and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” Where did these giants, called “Nephilim,” the same as the “giants” of Gen. 6:1-4, come from? They did not come from the other side of theFlood, unless there was such blood in Noah and his sons and their wives, which we must believe that God prevented, for the purpose of the Flood was to destroy such contamination of the race. Does it not look as if even after the Flood there were some sporadic cases of angelic intercourse with the daughters of men, and was not this the reason why God called for the extermination of the Canaanites that He might blot out the descendants of the Nephilim? This interpretation is confirmed by the words of Gen. 6:4–“There were giants (Nephilim) in the earth in those days (the days before the Flood), and also after that.” That is, after the Flood. The statement that the sin of the “Fallen Angels” was that they left their “First Estate,” the “Kingdom of the Air,” to descend to the earth for the purpose of going after “Strange flesh,” ought to forever settle the character of that sin to every one who believes the word of God.

Lastly, the monstrous character of the “offspring” of the “Sons of God” and the “daughters of men” is proof that the “Sons of God” were not men. Their offspring were “Giants–Mighty Men,” who were so wicked that it is said of them, that “every imagination of the thoughts of their heart was only evil continually.” Gen. 6:5. Godly men have married ungodly women, but their offspring have never been such “monstrosities” as the offspring of the “Sons of God” and the “Daughters of Men” of Noah’s day. The word translated “giant means the “fallen ones,” which is further proof that the “giants” of those days were sons of “Fallen Angels.” The “sons of Seth” and the “daughters of Cain” had doubtless often intermarried before that time, but no such children were born to them or they would have appeared before. Why do not “Mighty Men” spring from the union of “godly men” and “godless women” today? Is it not a fact that the offspring of such a persons are not as a rule above the average size of mankind? But we would expect the offspring of angelic and human beings to be out of the ordinary, and would be surprised if they were not. We would expect them not only to be great in size, but in mentality, whereas in modern times “giants” are not conspicuous for mentality.

As the older nations of the earth have traditions, and in some cases records of the Flood, showing that they can trace their origin back to that catastrophe, we have in these traditions the source or origin whence the classic writers of antiquity obtained their conception of the “Gods” and “Demi-Gods” whose loves for members of the human race led to the birth of being half human and half divine. This the writers of antiquity, who must have had some basis for their stories, indirectly confirm our contention that the “Sons of God” of Gen. 6:1-4, whose descendants are described as “Mighty Men,” were more than human, that they were of heavenly origin.

Tagged As: fallen angels