The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Demons and fallen angels

I'll pray for our Lord's grace to open the eyes of all those people who continue to hold to error, including myself. I never consider myself to have all knowledge, but I'm willing to learn. As for rightly handling the Word of Truth, we will all know the truth on that great day. May the Lord guide us all, and may we all refrain from boasting in our flesh and our own reasonings. 1 Cor. 2:14

I came across a commentary recently addressing this-having spent the past two years involved in an in depth study of the OT, I'm finally now able to approach the NT and get back to Christ, but I note that because while I've explored the NT to a certain extent, my knowledge is very limited I must admit.

The proposal by the person commentating I read from, however, mentioned that there could honestly be literal human beings walking among us that could be demons and/or fallen angels.

If something like that was true, not only would that make a certain portion of this almost like a science fiction movie, but how than would a person approach something like that from the standpoint of Faith and the Cross?

Are we to sit here and literally believe that a select portion of the current human race has absolutely no chance of accepting Christ's gift of the Cross under that scenario, that there are literally human being type figures walking among us that might be the offspring of some type of fallen angel who that are down here, as part of a loving God's plan, from birth to death to be sent to hell with absolutely no chance of accepting Jesus from the heart?

I don't understand this, clearly, not from the standpoint of the Christian heart. But here again I'm a rookie at the Bible, I admit to that but the entire concept would cut at the heart of what I believe within from the standpoint of Christ, especially when almost everything and anything about I'm coming to understand more and more about satan, Lucifer, the devil, whatever, seems to be at the very heart of the selfish human will itself.

After thinking this over last night, I would have removed my previous post if I had the chance to now because I don't have a right to speak for God or Jesus on things like this, I shouldn't have worded the previous comment like I did because I don't understand the issue enough to understand what could be at work here. For all I know perhaps satan really does have fallen creatures/hybrids down here working for him, I just don't understand the issue enough so I shouldn't have even commented, my apologies.

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet (surely it has been), but the following is infallible proof that angels were not involved in Genesis 6. A brother pointed this out yesterday:


Genesis 6
1 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,
2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Matthew 22
30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

Mark 12
25 "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

First, I am not defending the view that (fallen) angels directly corrupted the human race in Genesis 6. There is a reasonable argument to be made though, that they were indirectly involved (through possession of men).

I have heard this argument before ... using the two texts in Matthew and Mark as "absolute proof" that angels were not involved in the Genesis 6 corruption. However, Jesus only says that the angels in heaven are not involved in marriage unions. I think these texts are far too weak to hang the label of "infallible proof" against the argument put forth in the Genesis 6 context.

But the Genesis account says they took wives for themselves.

Yes, you are right about what the NT says about the angels "in heaven", but these had left heaven willingly in order to do this wickedness. Lately, I have been reading and rereading these accounts and I continue to come to the same conclusions. Interestingly, after talking personally with various individuals, pastors and teachers, there are quite a few who believe this interpretation to be the accurate account, that it is referring to angels.

1. It has already been shown from Scripture that no angel left heaven "willingly", never mind "in order to do this wickedness". There is simply no biblical evidence to support this fanciful claim. The angels who rebelled against God were cast out.

2. Now, dear brother, how is it that you have written more than once that you take no mind to what those "giants in the faith" who have gone before us have written on this subject YET here you are mentioning contemporary writers who embrace this view as if that gives credence to it? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

3. As has been shown myriad times in this thread, sound biblical exegesis refutes this novel idea, yet that obviously isn't enough for you. Eisogesis is far more attractive and is the basis for this view. It is truly sad.

In His grace,

You misinterpret Jude 6. apoleipo (left not "cast out" : arche domain, not "sinless position".


First, yes, I consider you a brother in the Lord for this is not contrary to our fundamental beliefs. I mentioned these people just to demonstrate that there are others who think the same as I. As for those giants in the faith, I don't have time to go through all "their" misinterpretations. Let it be known, I don't care WHO is expounding scripture, it isn't based on knowledge or ability, for if that is the case, give yourself a round of applause, because you are then able to unravel God's mysteries with your fleshly, defiled, human mind. I believe it is God who reveals as it is spoken in scripture, so education, human ability do not mean a thing when it comes to scriptural truths. The men in the past have shown much of God's will, but do you really believe God showed them everything of His workings and mysteries? I doubt it.


Nothing in this thread is convincing, same old arguments that have been showed to be just as questionable as you think they are sure. The sad thing is, that people get so convinced of a view that they aren't about to let go. Why do you think the Arminians are so hard to convince about God's sovereignty? Beware of being unteachable. I have tried to accept Seth line, but it just doesn't fit. As I mentioned, during the time of Christ, everyone thought they HAD the answers, and how wrong they were. It doesn't matter if you agree or not, but be careful stating your view with certainty when it may in fact be heretical. I only said I'm convinced of it, but never said it with absolute certainty. I remain teachable.

correction, I accidentally copied and pasted the wrong word, instead of "arche", it should have been "oiketerion" meaning habitation or dwelling place.

This simply isn't the case. They may not be convincing to you, but you certainly have not shown them to be "questionable." All you've done is assert that they result in more questions than answers. I have asked you before to provide the unresolvable questions you feel are inherent in the Sethite line interpretation, but you have not done so.

Sorry, but I wasn't thinking of Jude 6 but rather from more direct statements from Peter and Revelation,

It seems quite clear to me when I read these passages in both the Greek many English translations that Satan and the angels which rebelled against God with him were cast out rather than left voluntarily and/or willingly.

In His grace,

From your statement, it must mean Satan and His angels were cast out before the flood, if you say that they couldn't leave their proper dwelling, is that what you are saying? And then also, explain why God would selectively choose certain to put under chains but allow others free movement on the earth as mentioned in Jude?



I asked where it shows in scripture prior to the flood that God had given the law to maintain a pure line from Seth? Your saying this is so, has established that God had a law in place prior to the Mosaic law, for me, that is contradicting scripture and makes your whole position questionable.

The many questions it generates also cause me to label it as questionable. There have been more pointers for Angels than Seth's line. It is always the same argument from your side, like a broken record, angels not given in marriage, God calling men the sons of God and that there was a specific mandate that those who believed in God could not marry those who did not. It has been showed these could not be proved and yet you continue to hold on to them. To me, that can prevent a person from being teachable. I said I'm convinced of this, and again, I remain teachable, I only want others to think and judge for themselves. If we ask prayerfully, God will lead.

I am convinced that you have blinded yourself to sound EXEGESIS being obsessed with this fictional view which again has absolutely NO biblical support whatsoever. All Jude is saying is that Satan and some angels were not satisfied with their appointed places, i.e., being in subjection to God to do His will. They chose to leave their appointed places, i.e., they rebelled against God seeking a higher place; to be as God. (see Gen 3:5; Matt 4:9) The result of their rebellion was their being cast out of God's presence and being bound until the final judgment. This binding is a restricting of their created power and ability as angels. Thus, they are "free" but according to their bound condition and even that is only according to God's sovereign will and purpose. (see Job 1:4-12; Zech 3:1-7)

The view you hold is incontrovertibly UNbiblical. It originates from the apocryphal writings of the Book of Enoch, and others. This is admitted by some who hold to this view, for example, the scholar Zezschwitz has the following:

Peter adopts the fables of the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, and "Jewish tradition." In order to frustrate the plan of sending a Savior to be born of men the demons (Gen. 6:4) cohabited with women and begot a terrible progeny, half-devil, half-human, which was as little redeemable as were their fathers. In order that the whole human race might not become infected God wiped it out by the flood, save the family of Noah. The spirits of these half-devils were held in prison, namely apart in the lowest dungeons of hell, so that on the day of judgment they might not appear before God's tribunal together with the other sinners. Christ descended to them and pronounced their doom in advance of the final judgment. This is called the type. The antitype is the Antichrist, a spiritual son of Satan who by a generatio spiritualis seeks to corrupt the souls of men. This is the counterpart to the cohabitation of the demons mentioned in Gen. 5:4. This second effort Christ will destroy at his Parousia.

I agree with the Greek scholar R.C.H. Lenski, when commenting on this alleged interpretation of 1Pet 3:22, "Such an interpretation can scarcely be called exegesis!" He further comments on this view in his commentary on II Peter 2:4,

In their comments on this passage and on Jude 6 some interpreters advance the supposition that these were angels who cohabited with women and begot a wicked race which God had to destroy by means of the flood. This is thought to be the meaning of Gen. 6:2, 4. . . Verses 4 and 5 are thought to belong together in a special way and recite what God did to these angels and to the race of half-demons which they begot. We cannot take the space to develop this subject here.
In his commentary on Genesis Delitzsch thoroughly refutes what he right calls "these fables of the Jewish gnosticizing Haggadah". We note only that Jesus himself says that angels are sexless, that they cannot marry (Matt. 22:30). Genesis 6 says nothing about angels; it speaks of "the sons of God" (the descendants of Seth) marrying "the daughters of men" (the descendants of Cain who could be called by no higher name). In Genesis 5 the two lines, the genealogies of Seth and of Cain, are given. The Book of Enoch has added many late insertions. Now it makes this, now that the sin of the wicked angels. Its oldest parts speak of a fall and sin of the stars which did not appear at the appointed time. The fiction about evil angels begetting children occurs in the so-called "Noah-Book," a late edition to the older parts of this Book of Enoch.

The Scriptures offer no such idea of angels marrying and/or copulating with human women nor any of the other imaginative things that accompany such a view. That you cannot accept that there are two lines drawn within the human race (elect vs. non-elect) nor that the regenerate elect knew in their hearts, written by the Spirit of God, that they were not to "mingle" with the non-elect before Sinai (cf Rom 5:12-14) and thus accountable for their sin. This fictitious view which you hold to with such tenacity DOES in fact impact other doctrines as must be the case since no truth exists in isolation from all other truth; it is all one truth given by God.

In His grace,

How is it "contradicting Scripture" to say that God had a law in place prior to Moses? Why would God punish ANYONE if there was no law? I've already demonstrated that the idea of not intermarrying with unbelievers is not exclusive to the Mosaic economy, that it is in fact explicit in the New Testament. I've also demonstrated that it is constantly grounded in the prohibition of idolatry (the idea being that unbelieving spouses will lead believers into idolatry). This means that it is a MORAL prohibition, having to do with the very essence of righteousness. Or do you think that the Sethites were not prohibited from practicing idolatry, or that Christians may freely marry unbelievers?


Again, what are these unresolveable questions?


On the contrary, you haven't demonstrated anything. You have only asserted & have produced no argument. If you want to produce an actual argument with exegesis of the passages in question, please do! If you want to list out all of the unresolveable questions you have, please do! (But you also need to actually respond to our answers, and not simply say that our answers are "unproveable.) Otherwise, please refrain from your "broken record" assertions about how what we're saying is unproveable and generates more questions than your position does.