With this second paper, we are going to explore more thoroughly the topic at hand. It’s a serious subject, not to be passed over lightly! Inasmuch as a sin is a transgression against Yahweh’s law, we must inquire as to what kind of violation these angels were guilty of committing? As we go along, we will find that it was an “unforgivable sin”, as there can be no rectifying the disastrous result which happened in the past, presently, or at any time in the future. With this issue, we will scrutinize a 31 page booklet entitled The Angels That Sinned, written in 1929 by Clifton L. Fowler, and reprinted by Dan Gayman of the Church of Israel in 1992. While the author gets a lot of things right, he falls slightly short of understanding that the sexual seduction of Eve in the garden of Eden, brought about “the seed of the serpent” at Gen. 3:15. He divides his booklet into seven subchapters thusly:

“I. The Angels That Sinned Were At One Time Angels Of Righteousness And Glory.

“II. The Angels That Sinned Were Disobedient In The Days Of Noah.

“III. The Angels That Sinned Are The Same As The Sons Of God Of Genesis Six.

“IV. The Angels That Sinned, Sinned In Like Manner To Sodom And Gomorrha.

“V. The Angels That Sinned Became The Progenitors Of The Giants.

“VI. The Angels That Sinned Particularly Aimed At The Pollution Of The Women Of The Race.

“VII. The Angels That Sinned Are Now Imprisoned In Tartarus Awaiting Judgment.”

Of these seven categories, number six is the most significant, as a criminal very seldom changes his “method of operation”, and Satan and his angels are no exception. Satan’s “MO” from the very beginning, until this very day, is to racially pollute the pure genetics of Yahweh’s White Adamic children, and replace them with Satan’s racially-mixed, unclean peoples. Anyone who can’t see this very thing going on at the present time, in every White Israel nation today, has to be blind-as-a-bat, for it is an obvious no-brainer!

While Fowler did quite well in connecting the angels that sinned to the race-mixing of the “fallen ones” (i.e., nephilim), he completely overlooked the race-mixing between Satan and Eve in the garden. This type of teaching today is know as the “Two Seedline Doctrine of Gen. 3:15”. The reason this doctrine isn’t better known today is because Yahweh divorced the twelve tribes of Israel and put them away in punishment for 2520 years, using the Cain Satanic seedline to administer the punishment. It is only recently that Yahweh has opened the eyes of a chosen few to understand it. Let’s now take a look at how Fowler almost got it right, but nevertheless went astray on pp. 26-27:

“Satan is the guiding spirit of the fallen angels. The Saviour speaks of ‘Satan and his angels,’ showing under whose leadership these fallen ones are operating. This is an important fact to face, because we may be assured that since Satan is their leader, that which they do will be a reflection of the subtle and malign designs which actuate his inmost being. A satanic leadership must of necessity eventuate in the unfolding of a satanic purpose.

“Satan heard something in the garden of Eden which stirred within him a purpose of unparalleled sinfulness. He heard God say,

“‘I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel’, (Genesis 3:15).

“In these words, Yahweh is letting Satan know that he is going to be overthrown by a coming One. This is not welcome news. Yahweh further lets Satan know that the coming Victor is to be the ‘Seed of the woman.’ Since these words leave man out in the production of the coming ‘Seed,’ Satan’s only possible conclusion would be that the ‘Seed of the woman’ would be made fertile and be given life by God himself, thus the coming Victor who would bruise Satan’s head was going to be both divine and human. Since Satan had no power whereby to attack God, he does the thing most normal to do – he plans an attack upon the women of the race. His purpose is to pollute all the women, so that God cannot find an undefiled virgin through whom there can be given the promised Seed.

“To accomplish this abominable end he engages the assistance of his angels, the beings who had fallen from their position of trust with God. These rebel angels were willing agents of their evil leader. They gladly submitted themselves to the conditions of the awful miracle which called upon them to sin, ‘even as Sodom and Gomorrha.’ They sinned willfully and God held them accountable. But they failed in their dastardly effort to defile all womankind. The fact of their failure is plainly recorded.

“‘Noah was a just (justified) man and perfect in all his GENERATIONS’, (Genesis 6:9).

“The family of Noah was not defiled. The particular point at which Noah pleased God was that he was ‘perfect in all his generations.’ The New Testament reveals that Noah’s strength was ‘by faith.’ At once we see the evidence of a divine intervention. Faith has been divinely implanted in Noah and his family. Faith has brought victory in that faroff day, even as in this present hour. And although ‘the earth was filled with violence,’ Noah and his loved ones were walking by faith – their ‘generations’ are perfect and God orders, ‘Thou shalt come into the ark, thou and thy sons and thy wife and thy sons’ wives with thee.’ God has succeeded in protecting the women of one family from the seductive and passion-filled blandishments of the evil angels, and it is from this family that the Messiah, the Victor, the ‘Seed of the woman’ is finally born.

“Satan’s dark design against the women of the race went further than appears on the surface. He knew the Victor would be a Saviour. He knew that such a Saviour would lead men into victory over satanic and sinful things in their own lives. Satan was seeking to thwart the purpose of God in sending His only begotten Son to deliver us from the power of sin.

“But despite this attack, artfully planned by the adversary, and many others faithfully recorded by the Holy Spirit in the Word of God, ‘in due time Christ came, born of a woman.’ God fulfilled His promise, and the Lord Jesus was given to redeem a lost race. It is through Him and by Him that the sons of men are saved from the power, the penalty, and the presence of sin. It is through faith in His finished work at Calvary that the lost of Israel may find salvation, victory, and peace forevermore ....”

Here, Fowler makes the same mistake as many make today, identifying only Christ to be the seed of the woman, and not including the entire race born of Eve by Adam.

I will next cite Fowler, on page 17, under his subchapter IV entitled “The Angels That Sinned, Sinned In Like Manner To Sodom And Gomorrha”:

“The sin of Sodom and Gomorrha was a horrible uncleanness – a sin in the realm of sex. This sin is described in Jude as a ‘going after strange flesh.’ Jude’s entire statement follows:

“‘And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example ...’ (Jude 6, 7).

“And there stands the declaration of God’s Word. The corrupt angels fell from their ‘first estate.’ These angels, in plunging into sin gave themselves over to fornication, seeking sensual gratification in ‘going after strange flesh.’ This is self-evidently a direct reference to the sin of the ‘sons of God.’ Those passionate angels who ‘left their first estate’ sinned even as Sodom and Gomorrha and sought wives among the daughters of men, thus ‘going after strange flesh.’ Marvelous instance of the perfect agreement of Scripture, convincing example of that outstanding fact of all Bible study – the Bible is self-interpreting, Let us, in a brief summary, observe how the passages which we have already studied shed light on each other, and become the inspired explanation of one another.

“In the II Peter passage (II Peter 2:4-5), we are shown that the terrible sin committed in the days of Noah was a sin participated in by both angels and the denizens of the ‘world of the ungodly’; the Jude passage (Jude 6, 7) definitely states that the angels sinned ‘in like manner’ to Sodom and Gomorrha: while the Genesis passage (Genesis 6:1-4) frankly uncovers the awful filth of the angels by the bold daring of its declaration that the angelic beings, called the ‘sons of God,’ took wives from among the daughters of men.

“There stands the sin of the angels, in all its hideousness, in the very language of Scripture. Angels and women sinned together. The sin was unspeakably repugnant to God, so that the record is given most clearly, ‘He spared not the angels,’ and ‘He spared not the old world.’

“But, the objection has been made, does not the Scripture teach that the angels are not given in marriage? Yes, there are statements on that subject.”

At this point Fowler quoted Matt. 22:30 and Mark 12:25, but he should have also included Luke 20:34-36, so here are all three:

Matt. 22:30: “For in the resurrection they [the angels] neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

Mark 12:25: “For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.”

Luke 20:34-35: “³⁴ And Jesus answering said unto them [the Sadducees], The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: ³⁵ But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: ³⁶ Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”

On page 18, Fowler gives his personal explanation concerning the above passages. However, we may still have a very serious problem to be addressed:

“These are simply parallel passages, teaching that God’s unfallen angels which are in heaven do not marry. Both passages are so worded as to awaken the normal contrasts in the mind. The inescapable conclusion is that resurrected beings are like the angels of God in heaven – they do not marry, but if they were to be like the fallen angels (the angels which are not in heaven), they would seek to enter the realm of marriage and that is what the fallen angels did. They sought wives among the ‘daughters of men.’

“But still another might ask, how could this amazing thing be, for women are flesh and angels are spirits? The Word of God vouchsafes no direct answer to this inquiry, simply declaring to us the astounding facts of this execrable miracle which was wrought by these angels of defilement in the days of Noah. The record is simple – these beings, the smut of heaven, looked upon the daughters of men, desired them, left their glorious habitations, followed the behest of lust, went after strange flesh, cohabited with the women whose beauty had appealed to them, and became the special objects of the judgment of God ....”

SERIOUS PROBLEM?, OR NO PROBLEM AT ALL

For a long time, I have had suspicions concerning the two phrases, “they neither marry, nor are given in marriage” in these three passages, because the context conflicts with Genesis 6:1-4. So I resolved to do a little detective work! The first clue that struck me was found at Matt. 22:29 where Yahshua Christ told the Sadducees, “... Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures ....” The next question that came to mind was, “Can any of this be found in the New Testament? The obvious answer to my question was, “NO”! Therefore, I concluded that a search of the Old Testament was in order to substantiate that angels “neither marry, nor are given in marriage”. I checked the better-than-most center-references in my 1950s KJV by World Publishing, and it avoided these verses like the plague. I then checked The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, edited by Jerome H. Smith, (a book with an estimated 600,000 cross-references). In checking all of the references for these three verses, I found absolutely nothing to confirm these two phrases.

Not stopping, I next checked several of my larger commentaries. After much effort, I found what I was looking for in my 12-volume Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 7, page 522, on Matt. 22:39: “... But he (Christ) discusses the resurrection doctrine on its merits. The Sadducees do not know ... the scriptures. We do not know to what passages He referred ....” Then Ibid. page 844, on Mark 12:25, we read: “... The sexless nature of the angels was already recognized in Judaism (e.g., I Enoch 15:6-7. ‘You are ever-living spirits ... therefore I have not created wives for you ....” I don’t fully trust our present translations of Enoch as many passages show signs of embellishment and evident exaggerations. Therefore (and I only speak for myself), I must stick with the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that the fallen angels somehow had the ability of sexual intercourse with other living beings.

Theoretically, if what was stated by Yahshua Christ at Matt. 22:29-30; Mark 12:24-25; and Luke 20:34-36 is correct, then 2 Peter 2:4-5; and Jude 6, 7 would seem to be in error, along with Gen. 6:1-4! I maintain there is absolutely no conflict in the context of Scripture from beginning to end, and if a conflict does seem to appear, we may not know all of the facts. An examination of Matt. 22:29-32 shows an apparent conflict within itself, stating: “²⁹ Yahshua answered and said unto them [Sadducees], Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. ³⁰ For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. ³¹ But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, ³² I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

Here is the apparent conflict: At v. 30 it states: “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven”, which would serve to tear down the family circle, whereas v. 32 states: “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living”, which would serve to preserve the family circle! Inasmuch as Yahweh is subject to His own laws, then verse 30 would tear down the family circle between Yahweh in the flesh (Christ, the Husband, and His wife, the twelve tribes of Israel). Verse 30 is so much as saying that once Yahweh in the flesh, as Christ, died on the cross and was resurrected, He cannot remarry the twelve tribes, which might appear to conflict with “the marriage supper of the Lamb” at Rev. 19:9!

This troubling evidence shows its face at Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34-35; and Enoch 15:7. The farthest that I could trace the book of Enoch back to was in one of my eleven books on the Dead Sea Scrolls entitled The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, (2nd ed.) by Florentino Garcia Martinez, pp. 246-259, and there wasn’t a single fragment containing Enoch 15:7.

A short paragraph in The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, by Abegg, Flint & Ulrich, p. 481 states: “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 BCE?), the debate about the original language – Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic? – seems now to have been in favor of the latter.”

So the only weak thread that Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25 & Luke 20:34-35 hang on to is Enoch 15:7 to prove the fallen angels were sexless, while on the other hand there are loads of evidence that the fallen angels had the ability of sexual intercourse, including Satan himself, who sexually seduced Eve, bringing about the birth of Cain!

The book of Enoch contains a glaring contradiction to 15:7, by stating at 7:1-2, 10-11 the following:

“1. It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them elegant and beautiful. 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. ... 10. Then they took wives, each choosing for himself; whom they began to approach, and with whom they cohabited; teaching them sorcery, incantations, and the dividing of roots and trees. 11. And they conceiving brought forth giants ....” At this point it appears we don’t even have that last thin, weak thread at Enoch 15:7 for support! We have zero, nothing, zilch!

What we must understand, though, is the fact that angels can be both visible and invisible, and in their visible state they can take on the forms of men, animals, birds or creeping things. When they do so, they acquire the sexual abilities of such beings. The Popular & Critical Bible Encyclopedia & Scriptural Dictionary, vol. 1, pp. 106-107 states:

“... In Human Form. In the Scriptures angels appear with bodies, and in the human form, and no intimation is anywhere given that these bodies are not real, or that they are only assumed for the time and then laid aside. It was manifest indeed to the ancients that the matter of these bodies was not like that of their own, inasmuch as angels could make themselves visible and vanish again from their sight. But this experience would suggest no doubt of the reality of their bodies; it would only intimate that they were not composed of gross matter. After his resurrection Jesus often appeared to his disciples and vanished again before them; yet they never doubted that they saw the same body which had been crucified, although they must have perceived that it had undergone an important change. The fact that angels always appeared in the human form does not, indeed, prove that they really have this form, but that the ancient Jews [sic Judaeans] believed so. That which is not pure spirit must have some form or other, and angels may have the human form, but other forms are possible. We sometimes find angels, in their terrene manifestations, eating and drinking (Gen. xviii: 8; xix: 3), but in Judg. xiii: 15-16, the angel who appeared to Manoah declined, in a very pointed manner, to accept his hospitality’ ....”

Today’s mad scientists are already mutating DNA of various kinds in their laboratories; so don’t argue such things are impossible! As verified by Scripture, angel-kind has the ability to take on the form and functions of men. At Josephus’ Antiquities 18:6:7 and 19: 8:2, he records two instances where angels took on the form of an owl to which Eusebius (in his Church History) agrees at 2.10, and it is found in Scripture at Acts 12: 19-23. For an angel to transform to man, bird or animal kind is but one step away from cohabitation with them.

After Christ’s resurrection we are told at Luke 24:39, “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” Not only this, but Christ requested something to eat at v. 41. Then at vs. 42-43 it states, “And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them.” So the reader will now have to decide for himself concerning the context of Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25 & Luke 20:34-36, for it will determine whether the family circle will be kept intact, or broken.

Christ’s words assert that there will be no NEW marriages after our resurrection, but does that nullify one’s former earthly spouse? After all, Christ also said at Matt. 16:19; 18:18: “... whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ....” Likewise for that which is “loosed” (i.e. divorced).