Subject: Dose the bible note angels by gender? |
Bible Note: It is most notably excepted by the most prominent of scholars that angles good or bad were not the guilty party, nor could they be culpable in any way as the fathers of evil men, but it was the iniquity of man that bore Gods wrath, which caused Him to bring about the flood. Matthew Henry for example writes; --"We are told of the abounding iniquity of that wicked world: God's just wrath, and his holy resolution to punish it. In all ages there has been a peculiar curse of God upon marriages between professors of true religion and its avowed enemies. The evil example of the ungodly party corrupts or greatly hurts the other."-- Something Jesus Christ himself attests too, is, that angels, good, or we can safely assume, fallen or bad, did not and indeed cannot have sexual relations with man nor any being, flesh or spirit whatsoever. Indeed, the well noted John Wesley, writes on Gen 6:2; --" The sons of God - Those who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name, married the daughters of men - Those that were profane, and strangers to God. The posterity of Seth did not keep to themselves as they ought, but intermingled with the race of Cain: they took them wives of all that they chose - They chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair - Which was all they looked at."-- The commentary of Jamieson Faussett and Brown has this to say about Gen 6:2; --" the sons of God saw the daughters of men--By the former is meant the family of Seth, who were professedly religious; by the latter, the descendants of apostate Cain."-- John Calvin says with much fervor that; --"That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious. The opinion also of the Chaldean paraphrase is frigid; namely, that promiscuous marriages between the sons of nobles, and the daughters of plebeians, is condemned. Moses, then, does not distinguish the sons of God from the daughters of men, because they were of dissimilar nature, or of different origin; but because they were the sons of God by adoption, whom he had set apart for himself; while the rest remained in their original condition. Should any one object, that they who had shamefully departed from the faith, and the obedience which God required, were unworthy to be accounted the sons of God; the answer is easy, that the honor is not ascribed to them, but to the grace of God, which had hitherto been conspicuous in their families. For when Scripture speaks of the sons of God, sometimes it has respect to eternal election, which extends only to the lawful heirs; sometimes to external vocations according to which many wolves are within the fold; and thought in fact, they are strangers, yet they obtain the name of sons, until the Lord shall disown them."-- " those "sons of God" were not angels either good or bad, as many have thought, since they are incorporeal beings, and cannot be affected with fleshly lusts, or marry and be given in marriage, or generate and be generated;" -- Any other view IMHO it seems most likely is quit ludicrous and really confounds and complicates what the scripture makes quite clear.-John |