Who are the Biblical Angels? – A Critical Perspective, (#4)


As I was nearing the end of paper #3, I was discussing the possibility of the fallen angels using synthetic opiates from some type of vegetation to jump-start their sexual desire, which I have updated thusly:

It may be conjecture on my part, but I can envision Yahweh creating all of His host of angels in the male gender, which is Biblical. Although, on the other hand, Yahweh didn’t create for these male angels a counterpart, or a female angel. As we have already observed, the angels could, and did have sexual intercourse with White Adamic women. The only thing that I can imagine is, Yahweh must have given His male angels all of the abilities of His male creations, except the part of the body that produces natural opioids which stimulate the sex drive in humans. And without these, the male angels would have no desire for sexual intercourse. Evidently, the third of the angels that rebelled against Yahweh and fell, found stimuli in some type of vegetation to jump-start their sexual desires!”

To understand opiates, we really need to key-in on the word “opioid” as found in the 1996 Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, thusly:

o-pi-oid ..., n. Biochem Pharm. 1. any opiumlike substance. 2.any of a group of natural substances, as the endorphins produced by the body in increased amounts in response to stress and pain. 3. any of several synthetic compounds as methadone having effects similar to natural opium alkaloids and their derivatives –adj. 4. pertaining to such a substance. [1955-60; opi(um) + -oid] #2 includes eating and sexual intercourse, along with many other bodily functions!

I will now quote The 1st Book of Enoch 7:1-11, to support that possibility of using synthetic opiates:

1 It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful (Gen. 6:1-2). 2 And when the angels, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamored of them, saying to each other: Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children. 3 Then their leader Samyaza said to them; I fear that you may perhaps be indisposed to the performance of this enterprise; 4 And that I alone shall suffer for so grievous a crime. 5 But they answered him and said: We all swear; 6 And bind ourselves by mutual execrations, that we will not change our intention, but execute our projected undertaking. 7 Then they swore all together, and all bound themselves by mutual execrations. Their whole number was two hundred, who descended upon Ardis, which is the top of Mount Armon. 8 That mountain, therefore, they called Armon, because they had sworn upon it, and bound themselves by mutual execrations, 9 These are the names of their chiefs: Samyaza, who was their leader, Urakabarameel, Akibeel, Tamiel, Ramuel, Danel, Azkeel, Sarakuyal, Asael, Armers, Batraal, Anane, Zavebe, Samsaveel, Ertael, Turel, Yomyael, Arazyal. These were the prefects of the two hundred angels, and the remainder were all with them. 10 Then they took wives, each choosing for himself; whom they began to approach, and with whom they cohabited; teaching them sorcery, incantation, and the dividing of roots and trees. 11 And they conceiving brought forth giants. (Gen. 6:4-6) ....”

From the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, pp. 480-481, we find the following edited citation, in part, showing the validity of The 1st Book of Enoch:

Of all the ‘nonbiblical’ books found in the caves adjacent to the Dead Sea, the one that offers the most promise of having been considered authoritative to the Judaean community at Qumran is 1 Enoch. That some have considered this writing to be God’s word is without question. It was quoted by the writer of the New Testament book Jude (vv. 14-15, see 1 Enoch 1:9) and has been held in high regard by Ethiopian Christians.

[Note: It must be noted, however, that many passages found in the Ethipoic Book of Enoch were not found in the Enoch fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The passage we have just provided is one of those, all Samiyaza and many of the others are mentioned in a similar context.]

This book, as known before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls may be divided into five sections:

(1) The Book of the Watchers (chs. 1–36) containing an introduction and a narrative describing the fallen angels and their intercourse with human women (Gen 6:1–4). (2) The Book of the Similitudes (chs. 37–71) describing the final judgment of the righteous and the wicked and a character called the ‘son of man.’ (3) The Book of Astronomical Writings (chs. 72–82) detailing a solar calendar of 364 days. (4) The Book of Dreams (chs. 83–90) describing the future of the world and Israel. (5) The Epistle of Enoch (chs. 91–107) concludes with a return to the theme of the reward of the righteous and wicked.

The Qumran mansucripts exhibit a more focused interest on the offspring of the angels and humans, which became a unit in its own right: The Book of Giants. The scrolls also reveal a much lengthier form of the Book of Astronomical Writings. On the other hand, the Book of Similitudes does not appear to have been included in manuscripts of the Qumran community.

The mysterious nature of this book begins with Enoch himself. The son of Jared and the sixth generation from Adam, the Bible reports that Enoch ‘walked with God; then was no more, for God took him away’ (Gen 5:24). The New Testament interprets: ‘Enoch was taken (to heaven) by faith, so that he would not see death’ (Heb 11:5). The account of this strange incident created great interest in Enoch in antiquity and gave rise to the notion that he would be knowledgeable concerning the details of God’s program for Israel, having learned them first-hand. The writer of 1 Enoch capitalized on this interest and gave the biblical hero credit for a work that ranges from angels, the universe, and calendar issues to the future of Israel. Scholars refer to the type of literature characterized by 1 Enoch as pseudepigraphical – an author assuming the identity of some ancient notable perhaps in an attempt to attract curious readers.

[Note: To the contrary, the apostles quoted from a book of Enoch that they believed was written by Enoch himself.]

The caves at Qumran have produced twenty manuscripts of Enoch – as many as the book of Genesis – all of them in Aramaic. Although the early history of the book is still unknown (written in about 400 BC?), the debate about the original language – Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic? – seems now to have been answered in favor of the latter ...

Because the text is available elsewhere, and because of the admittedly speculative nature of including it even in a Dead Sea Scroll Bible, we have chosen not to reproduce the text here.”

While Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich didn’t include The 1st Book of Enoch in their Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, I do, though, have the Dead Sea Scroll fragment facsimiles in their original language, and on the opposite page a translation in a set of two volumes entitled The Dead Sea Scrolls, Study Edition by Florentino García Martínez & Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, vol. 1, pp. 399-409, The 1st Book of Enoch. So if you don’t believe me, get these books and check them out for yourself!

At this point I would like to repeat The 1st Book of Enoch 7:10:

Then they took wives, each choosing for himself; whom they began to approach, and with whom they cohabited; teaching them sorcery, incantation, and the dividing of roots and trees...”

What is apparent here is that, “they took wives, each choosing for himself; whom they began to approach” and “the dividing of roots and trees,seem to have some tie-in with each other as they are mentioned in the same sentence. So it is very possible that the fallen angels used plant-based stimuli to jump-start their sexual desires! As I asked before, Does anyone else have a better hypothesis?”

There Are Two General Views On Genesis 6:1-6

There are probably more than two views on this passage, but we will consider only two. For this I will quote from the Believer’s Bible Commentary, by William MacDonald, pp. 39-40, (and I will have some critical notes at the end, as while MacDonald did quite well, he is not without error):

Gen. 6:1, 2: There are two principal interpretations of verse 2. One is that the sons of God were angels who left their proper sphere (Jude 6) and intermarried with women on earth, a form of sexual disorder that was most hateful to God. Those who hold this view point out that the expression ‘sons of God’ in Job 1:6 and 2:1 means angels who had access to the presence of God. Also, ‘the sons of God’ as a term for angels is a standard Semitic expression. The passage in Jude 6, 7 suggests that the angels who left their own abode were guilty of vile sexual behavior. Notice the words ‘as Sodom and Gomorrah’ at the beginning of [Jude] v. 7, immediately after the description of the fallen angels.

The main objection to this view is that angels don’t reproduce sexually, as far as we know. Matthew 22:30 is used to prove that Jesus taught that the angels don’t marry. What the verse actually says, however, is that the angels in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage. Angels appeared in human form to Abraham (Gen. 18:1-5), and it seems from the text that the two who went to Sodom had human parts and emotions.

The other view is that the sons of God were the godly descendants of Seth, and the daughters of men were the wicked posterity of Cain. The argument is as follows: The preceding context deals with the descendants of Cain (chap. 4) and the descendants of Seth (chap. 5). Genesis 6:1-4 describes the intermarriage of these two lines. The word angels is not found in the context. Verses 3 and 5 speak of the wickedness of man. If it was the angels who sinned, why was the race of man to be destroyed? Godly men are called ‘sons of God,’ though not in exactly the same Hebrew wording as in Genesis 6:2 (see Deut. 14:1; Ps. 82:6; Hos. 1:10; Matt. 5:9).

There are several problems with this view. Why were all the Sethite men godly and all the women of Cain’s lineage ungodly? Also, there is no indication that Seth’s line stayed godly. If they did, why should they be destroyed? Also, why should such a union between godly men and ungodly women produce giants?

Gen. 6:3 The Lord warned that His Spirit would not strive with man forever, but that there would be a delay of one hundred and twenty years before the judgment of the flood would occur. God is longsuffering, not willing that any should perish, but there is a limit. Peter tells us that it was Christ who was preaching through Noah to the antediluvians by the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 3:18-20; 2 Pet. 2:5). They rejected the message and are now imprisoned.

Gen. 6:4, 5 Regarding the giants (Heb. nephilim, ‘fallen ones’) Unger explains:

“‘The Nephilim are considered by many as giant demigods, the unnatural offspring of ‘the daughters of men’ (mortal women) in cohabitation with ‘the sons of God’ (angels). This utterly unnatural union, violating God’s created orders of being, was such a shocking abnormality as to necessitate the worldwide judgment of the Flood’.”

[Critical notes by Clifton A. Emahiser: Firstly, as MacDonald quoted Unger stating, “the worldwide judgment of the Flood” displays MacDonald’s approval of this. There is absolutely no Scriptural support for a “worldwide” flood at the time of Noah. If one would simply go to Gen. 15:19, one would read in part, “The Kenites”! The Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary number is H7017 and we read in part, “patronymic from H7014” By the way, “patronymic” means, “the name derived from one’s father”. Check both #’s H7017 & H7014.

7014 ... Qayin, kah´yin; the same as 7013 (with a play upon the affinity to 7069); Kajin, the name of the first child, also of a place in Palestine, and of an Oriental tribe:– KJV renderings: Cain, Kenite (s).” Here, at Gen. 15:19, we have the descendants of Cain at least 1,000 years after Noah’s flood! How do we reconcile this with a “worldwide flood”? And it also mentions the Rephaim, the giants themselves who survived the flood!

Secondly, MacDonald stated: “Christ who was preaching through Noah to the antediluvians by the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 3:18-20; 2 Pet. 2:5)”.

1 Pet. 3:19-20 states:

19 By which also he [Christ] went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.”

Here, Yahweh didn’t manifest Himself as Yahshua Christ until September of 3 B.C. when He was born of an Israelite Adamic woman. It was not until Christ was crucified and in His grave that he preached to the antediluvians! So Peter said in chapter 4 of that epistle: “for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead”.

As one can observe, William MacDonald is not entirely accurate in all of his premises in his Commentary. He did do quite well though, to point out the two general views on Genesis 6:1-6, one of which he portrayed nearly correctly! Had William MacDonaldknown the implications of 1st Enoch 7:10, he might have done much better! He did, however, point out that there was a difference between the angels in heaven, as compared to the fallen angels on the earth.

The great problem we have today is that in the higher educational fields, students are encouraged to specialize in a narrow category of endeavor, and it is considered heresy to invade another field! For instance, had William MacDonald, with his masters degree in theology, gone to a fertility specialist, and informed that specialist that in Biblical theology we have a problem, that being the angels in heaven don’t have any wives, but somehow one third of the angels that fell to earth became inclined to impregnate earthly women and have children by them, that fertility specialist might answer, “Maybe they used Viagra”. So William MacDonald, evidently, not being familiar with the field of human reproduction, was not able to grasp the basic topics at 1st Enoch 7:2 & 10!

I will next cite Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary under the title of “Angel”, pp. 55-56 in part:

ANGEL – a member of an order of heavenly beings who are superior to human beings in power and intelligence. By nature angels are spiritual beings (Heb. 1:14). Their nature is superior to human nature (Heb. 2:7), and they have superhuman power and knowledge (2 Sam. 14:17, 20; 2 Pet. 2:11). They are not, however, all-powerful and all-knowing (Ps. 103:20; 2 Thess. 1:7). — “Artistic portrayals of angels as winged beings are generally without basis in the Bible. Rarely is an angel so described. (For exceptions, compare the Cherubim and Seraphim and the living creatures – Ex. 25:20; Is. 6:2, 6; Ezek. 1:6; Rev. 4:8.)

The Relation of Angels to God: Angels were created by God (Ps. 148:2, 5) and were present to rejoice when He created the world (Job. 38:4-7). In their original state they were holy, but before the creation of the world some of them rebelled against God and lost this exalted position. The leading angel in this revolt became the devil, also known as SATAN (Gen. 3:4, 14: Rev. 12:4, 7-9). Another of the fallen angels is named Abaddon or Apollyon (Rev. 9:11), ‘the angel of the bottomless pit’ (abyss, NASB, NIV; bottomless pit, NRSV). — “Two of the vast company of unfallen angels are named in the Bible. They are the archangels Michael (Dan, 10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 9; Rev. 12:7) and Gabriel (Dan. 8:16; 9:21; Luke 1:19, 26). Michael has the special task of caring for Israel, and Gabriel communicates special messages to God’s servants. — “The vast army of unfallen angels delights in praising the Lord continually (Ps. 103:21; 148:1-2). Large numbers of them remain at God’s side, ready to do His every command (1 Kin. 22:19) ... — “Unfallen angels are known for their reverence for God and their obedience to His will. Angels represent God in making significant announcements of good news (Gen. 18:9-10; Luke 1:13, 30; 2:8-15). On His behalf they also warn of coming dangers (Gen. 18:16 – 19:29; Matt. 2:13). In some cases they are God’s agents in the destruction and judgment of evil (Gen. 19:13; 2 Sam. 24:16). — “Of special importance in the Old Testament is the Angel Of The Lord (Gen. 16:7; 22:11; 31:11) ....”

In order to get a better idea of marriage among the Antediluvians (i.e., before Noah’s flood), I will cite the 3-volume The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia and Scriptural Dictionary, vol. 1, p. 113 under the topic “Antediluvians” and subheading “(3) Marriage”:

Marriage: Marriage, and all the relations springing from it, existed from the beginning (Gen. ii :23-25); and although polygamy was known among the antediluvians (Gen. iv :19), it was most probably unlawful; for it must have been obvious that, if more than one wife had been necessary for a man, the Lord would not have confined the first man to one woman. The marriage of the sons of Seth with the daughters of Cain appears to have been prohibited, since the consequence of it was that universal depravity in the family of Seth so forcibly expressed in this short passage, ‘All flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth’ (Gen. vi :12). This sin, described Orientally as an intermarriage of ‘the sons of God’[*] with ‘the daughters of men’ (Gen. vi :2), appears to have been in its results one of the grand causes of the Deluge; for if the family of Seth had remained pure and obedient to God, he would doubtless have spared the world for their sake, as he would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah had ten righteous men been found there, and as he would have spared his own people, the Jews [sic Israelites], had they not corrupted themselves by intermarriages with the heathen. [*asterisks mine]

Light is thrown upon the above statement made by Kitto, in Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, by Prof. Sayce, pp. 26, 27. He says: ‘Like cherub, Adam also was a Babylonian word. It has the general sense of ‘man,’ and is used in this sense both in Hebrew and in Assyrian. But, as in Hebrew it has come to be the proper name of the first man, so, too, in the old Babylonian legends, the ‘Adamites’ were ‘the white race’ of Semitic descent, who stood in marked contrast to ‘the black heads’ or Accadians of primitive Babylonia. Originally, however, it was this dark race itself that claimed to have been ‘the men’ whom the god Merodach created; and it was not until after the Semitic conquest of Chaldea that the children of Adamu or Adam were supposed to denote the white Semitic population ... Sir H. Rawlinson has suggested a parallel between the dark and white races of Babylonia and the [*]‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of men’ of Genesis. Adam, we are told, was ‘the son of God’ (Luke iii :38). But nothing similar to what we read in the sixth chapter of Genesis has as yet been met with among the cuneiform records ....” [*asterisks mine]

[Critical note by Clifton A. Emahiser: Of all of my numerous Biblical commentaries, this is the first one that has made the claim that the man, Adam, was a WHITE MAN! This is not a perfect citation, though, as the [*]“the sons of God”, two times above, would be better rendered “sons of heaven”, as found at 1st Enoch 7:2. When rendered “sons of heaven”, it rules-out the line of Cain at Gen. 6:1-6!]

I do not wish to leave the impression that I fully agree with the 1st Book of Enoch, as rendered from the Ethiopic, as there have been too many intervening copyists and translators from one language to another for changes to be made, accidentally or on purpose. But where the 1st Book of Enoch agrees with the Scripture we already have, I have no problem, especially where Biblical writers such as Jude and Peter quote from it. Maybe Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich didn’t include The 1st Book of Enoch in their Dead Sea Scrolls Bible is because they saw sporadic conflict with the Ethiopic, as compared with the Aramaic!