{"id":1215,"date":"2015-01-01T14:53:09","date_gmt":"2015-01-01T19:53:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/?p=1215"},"modified":"2015-01-01T14:53:09","modified_gmt":"2015-01-01T19:53:09","slug":"did-jesus-teach-that-angels-cannot-marry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/?p=1215","title":{"rendered":"Did Jesus Teach That Angels Cannot Marry?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Nephilim\"

My Th.M. thesis provides an in-depth look at this intriguing topic. It is available in print from my online store<\/a> or on Amazon Kindle<\/a>.<\/p><\/div>\n

I have previously written a great deal on the sons of God and the nephilim<\/em>. This was the focus of my ThM thesis<\/a>, and people have asked me many questions about them. The Bible first mentions these two groups in Genesis 6:1\u20134 and this passage has been the subject of controversy, misinformation, and just flat out poor teaching.<\/p>\n

The earliest view, based on documents we still have from ancient Jews and Christians, is that the sons of God were heavenly beings who married women and sired children by them. The giant offspring were called nephilim<\/em>, a term that means “giants.” Other views have arisen which see the sons of God as being humans, while attempting to define nephilim<\/em> to mean \u201cfallen ones\u201d or something similar.<\/p>\n

I will not rehash all of the strengths and weaknesses of the various positions here. If you are interested in these details, I recommend that you go back and read my seven-part series on the subject<\/a>, which was essentially a brief summary of my thesis<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In this post, I merely want to dig a bit deeper into addressing what is potentially the strongest argument against the fallen angel view. ((In my thesis and in previous blog posts, I have referred to the traditional view of the sons of God as the fallen angel view. It would be more accurate to call it the “divine beings” view since they are called “gods” in Scripture. However, since we usually classify all heavenly beings other than God as angels, it is not necessarily inaccurate to use “Fallen Angel” as a designation.)) So this post is not meant to be a direct argument for the traditional position, rather it is primarily a critique of an argument used against the fallen angel interpretation. Those who oppose this heavenly being view often cite Matthew 22:30 or Luke 20:35\u201336, believing that in these passages Jesus clearly taught that angels cannot marry. If that is what He claimed in these verses, then it would certainly put an end to the notion that the sons of God (Hebrew bene ha ‘elohim<\/em>) were heavenly beings, and I would abandon this view in a heartbeat. But what did Jesus really say?<\/p>\n

Can Angels Marry?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Perhaps the most common verse used against the idea that sons of God were angelic beings is Matthew 22:30: “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” At first glance, this would seem like a good argument against the fallen angel view.<\/p>\n

A parallel passage in Mark makes the same point, but uses slightly different terminology that helps to establish the meaning. \u201cFor when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven\u201d (Mark 12:25). Matthew\u2019s \u201cin the resurrection\u201d is obviously identical to Mark\u2019s \u201cwhen they rise from the dead.\u201d So in response to the Sadducees’ challenge, Jesus told them that they were in error because when believers are raised in glorified bodies at the resurrection they will no longer marry or be given in marriage and will be like the angels in heaven.<\/p>\n

Those opposed to the fallen angel view often cite these verses thinking they have proved their point that angels cannot marry and sire children. But is that really stated here? Jesus clearly stated that the angels \u201cin heaven\u201d do not<\/em> do this, but He did not say whether they were capable of doing such a deed. Also, He specifically pointed out that the ones \u201cin heaven\u201d don\u2019t do this. But what about the angels who left their proper abode and are currently being held in chains of darkness because of the sinful activity they engaged in during Noah\u2019s day (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6)?<\/p>\n

Clearly, the two verses from Matthew and Mark do not settle the matter, but in the parallel passage found in Luke, Jesus has more to say about this issue. At first glance, it may seem as if He spoke against the angelic view, but a closer look reveals that He may have actually acknowledged its accuracy.<\/p>\n

Jesus said to them, \u201cThe sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34\u201336, NASB)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In this passage, Jesus corrected the Sadducees, a group within ancient Israel who denied the future resurrection of the dead. They had asked Him a theoretical question about which husband a woman would be married to \u201cin the resurrection\u201d if she\u2019d had seven husbands during her lifetime. Much could be said about their attempt to deny the future resurrection and the Lord\u2019s masterful response (He quoted one of their favorite verses to show them that they were wrong), but it is His teaching about the \u201csons of God\u201d that is particularly relevant to our study here.<\/p>\n

Jesus contrasted the \u201csons\u00a0of this age\u201d and \u201cthose who are considered worthy to attain to that age.\u201d Obviously, the \u201csons of this age\u201d refers to normal human beings\u2014people who can marry and be given in marriage, just like the woman in the Sadducees\u2019 example who had married seven times.<\/p>\n

Those who are \u201cconsidered\u00a0worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead\u201d are the ones who do not marry and are not given in marriage. They are the ones who \u201ccannot die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.\u201d So in the future, when believers are resurrected (i.e., when we receive our glorified bodies), we will be sons of God and equal to angels (at least in the sense of not marrying).<\/p>\n

Aren\u2019t We Already Sons of God?<\/strong><\/p>\n

So what does this have to do with the sons of God and the nephilim<\/em>? Perhaps nothing at all. There is not necessarily a connection between the Hebrew terms translated \u201csons of God\u201d and the Greek words translated the same way. And if this is the case, then the oft-repeated assertion against the fallen angel view that all believers are sons of God would be irrelevant. And if there is a connection, then it\u2019s very possible that the Lord\u2019s words here support the view that the sons of God were heavenly beings who left heaven and married women.<\/p>\n

The Greek phrase for \u201csons of God\u201d is uioi tou theou<\/em>, and it is used in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) to translate the Hebrew bene ha \u2019elohim<\/em> in Genesis 6:2 and 6:4, but not when that same term appears in Deuteronomy 32:8, Job 1:6, 2:1, or 38:7. In those cases, the Septuagint uses \u201cangels of God\u201d (aggeloi theou<\/em>). “Angels of God” is also used to translate the Aramaic equivalent\u00a0of bene ha \u2019elohim<\/em>\u00a0found in Daniel 3:25 (bar elahin<\/em>). It is obvious that Jewish translators of the Septuagint believed that the bene ha \u2019elohim<\/em>\u00a0were angelic beings.<\/p>\n

\"Jesus

Jesus masterfully corrected the Sadducees’ rejection of the future resurrection of the dead. However, contrary to a popular claim, He did not rule out the fallen angel view of Genesis 6. In fact, He may have actually endorsed it.
Image from christianity-live.audiencemedia.com<\/p><\/div>\n

The contrast Jesus made is the key to understanding how this passage may be relevant to the discussion. Currently, we are \u201cpeople of this age\u201d (NET) or \u201csons of this age\u201d (NKJV), but upon being resurrected in glorified bodies, believers will be \u201cequal to the angels\u201d and will be \u201csons of God, being sons of the resurrection\u201d (Luke 20:36). At the resurrection our corruptible bodies put on incorruption and our mortal bodies put on immortality (1 Corinthians 15:53), and it is at this time that we will be like the angels. This \u201crevealing of the sons of God\u201d is what the whole creation longs for (Romans 8:19).<\/p>\n

Believers are occasionally called \u201csons of God\u201d or \u201cchildren of God\u201d in the New Testament. This has been one of the key arguments used by those who seek to identify the \u201csons of God\u201d in Genesis 6 as simply human. Not only does this claim badly misrepresent the Hebrew phrase and the context of the passage, ((The Hebrew phrase bene ha \u2019elohim<\/em>\u00a0is misrepresented when people take the English translation of the term (“sons of God”) and equate it with terms that seem similar when translated into English, such as “sons of the living God” in Hosea 1:10 or “sons of God” in the New Testament, which is translated from Greek.)) but I believe it misses how the term is nuanced\u00a0in the New Testament. That is, when we are identified as \u201csons of God\u201d it is essentially a claim about our future state of being, just as Jesus used the phrase in our passage. In the Sermon on the Mount, He said that the peacemakers \u201cshall be called sons of God\u201d (Matthew 5:9). And, as cited above, Paul wrote of \u201cthe revealing of the sons of God\u201d as a future event (Romans 8:19).<\/p>\n

On two occasions Paul identified Christians as \u201csons of God\u201d and may have used\u00a0the term to describe our present state (Romans 8:14 and Galatians 3:26). However, based on the surrounding contexts, particularly in Romans 8, it is likely that Paul used the term to describe our positional state\u2014since our resurrection is guaranteed, one can speak of Christians as sons of God because that is our future. Even when similar terms are used for people, they seem to point to the future. ((Hosea 1:10 speaks of a time when the children of Israel will be called \u201csons of the living God\u201d (Hebrew bene chay \u2019el<\/em>) and Paul cited this passage when he wrote of God\u2019s future plans for the Jewish people (Romans 9:26). This term is clearly not the same as bene ha \u2019elohim<\/em>, and even if it were the same, it does not support the non-fallen angel views. In Luke 3:38, we are told that Adam was the “son of God.” The word for “son” is not in the Greek text but is added for readability. Scholars have differed on the reason for Adam being identified as such. Gavin Ortlund’s article in the most recent edition of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society<\/em> (December 2014) makes a compelling case that Luke’s wording should be read in light of Genesis 5:1\u20133 and sheds light on what it is for man to be made in the image of God.))<\/p>\n

Christians are sons of God in that we have been adopted by the Father, although the fullness of this position has not yet been entirely realized or attained. Indeed, we are co-heirs with Christ, and while that inheritance was earned by Christ\u2019s entirely sufficient sacrifice and is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 1:22), we are still \u201ceagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body\u201d (Romans 8:24). Perhaps we could summarize it this way: positionally, we are sons of God by adoption, but our status as sons of God will not be finalized until our revealing as the sons of God (Romans 8:19) when we put on our heavenly dwelling (2 Corinthians 5:2\u20134).<\/p>\n

With this in mind, let\u2019s revisit what Jesus told the Sadducees. He said that \u201cthose who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection\u201d (Luke 20:35\u201336, NKJV).<\/p>\n

One of the reasons we will be equal to angels and be identified as sons of God is because we will possess a spiritual body, which is still a physical body, but one that is incorruptible and immortal\u2014it is one dominated by the spirit rather than the flesh. As sons of the resurrection, we will be like the angels.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Many have argued that Jesus ruled out the fallen angel view by claiming that angels cannot marry. But this is not what He said. He stated that the angels in heaven<\/em> do not marry. Furthermore, the very statement of Jesus used by many to dismiss the fallen angel view may actually support the position they seek to discredit.<\/p>\n

The Hebrew term in the Old Testament translated as \u201csons of God\u201d in English clearly refers to heavenly beings. And while there may not necessarily be a direct connection with the Greek term translated as \u201csons of God\u201d in the New Testament, it is indeed interesting that it makes more sense to understand the Greek phrase as referring to those who have been resurrected in glorified bodies.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I have previously written a great deal on the sons of God and the nephilim. This was the focus of my ThM thesis, and people have asked me many questions about them. The Bible first mentions these two groups in … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[49,37,25,46,70],"class_list":["post-1215","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-theology","tag-nephilim","tag-new-testament","tag-old-testament","tag-resurrection","tag-theology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1215","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1215"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1215\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1414,"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1215\/revisions\/1414"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1215"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1215"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1215"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

Since we actually become \u201csons of God\u201d in the fullest sense when we receive glorified bodies, then this term does not refer to normal humanity. It refers to individuals whose mode of existence is fit for the heavenly realm, such as angelic beings and glorified humans. Paul contrasted the believer\u2019s current body with his future body: \u201cit is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body\u201d (1 Corinthians 15:44). The use of this term is quite similar to the way \u2019elohim<\/em> is used to refer to beings from the spiritual realm<\/a>.<\/p>\n