Do Angels have a gender?

Cenababy: Do Angels have a gender?
There is no doubt that every reference to angels in Scripture is in the masculine gender. The Greek word for “angel” in the New Testament, angelos, is in the masculine form. In fact, a feminine form of angelosdoes not exist. There are three genders in grammar—masculine (he, him, his), feminine (she, her, hers), and neuter (it, its). Angels are never referred to in any gender other than masculine. In the many appearances of angels in the Bible, never is an angel referred to as “she” or “it.” Furthermore, when angels appeared, they were always dressed as human males (Genesis 18:2, 16; Ezekiel 9:2). No angel ever appears in Scripture dressed as a female.

The only named angels in the Bible—Michael, Gabriel, Lucifer—had male names and all are referred to in the masculine. “Michael and his angels” (Revelation 12:7); “Mary was greatly troubled at his [Gabriel’s] words” (Luke 1:29); “Oh, Lucifer, son of the morning” (Isaiah 14:12). Other references to angels are always in the masculine gender. In Judges 6:21, the angel holds a staff in “his” hand. Zechariah asks an angel a question and reports that “he” answered (Zechariah 1:19). The angels in Revelation are all spoken of as “he” and their possessions as “his” (Revelation 10:1, 5; 14:19; 16:2, 4, 17; 19:17; 20:1).

Cenababy: Some people point to Zechariah 5:9 as an example of female angels. That verse says, “Then I looked up—and there before me were two women, with the wind in their wings! They had wings like those of a stork, and they lifted up the basket between heaven and earth.” The problem is that the “women” in this prophetic vision are not called angels. They are called nashiym (“women”), as is the woman in the basket representing wickedness in verses 7 and 8. By contrast, the angel that Zechariah was speaking to is called a malak, a completely different word meaning “angel” or “messenger.” The fact that the women have wings in Zechariah’s vision might suggest angels to our minds, but we must be careful about going beyond what the text actually says. A vision does not necessarily depict actual beings or objects—consider the huge flying scroll Zechariah sees earlier in the same chapter (Zechariah 5:1–2).

The confusion about genderless angels comes from a misreading of Matthew 22:30, which states that there will be no marriage in heaven because we “will be like the angels in heaven.” The fact that there will be no marriage has led some to believe that angels are “sexless” or genderless because (the thinking goes) the purpose of gender is procreation and, if there is to be no marriage and no procreation, there is no need for gender. But this is a leap that cannot be proven from the text. The fact that there is no marriage does not necessarily mean there is no gender. The many references to angels as males contradict the idea of genderless angels. Angels do not marry, but we can’t make the leap from “no marriage” to “no gender.”

Gender in language, then, is not to be understood strictly in terms of sexuality. Rather, the masculine gender pronouns applied to spirit beings throughout Scripture are more a reference to authority than to sex. God always refers to Himself in the masculine. The Holy Spirit is never described as an “it.” God is personal and authoritative—thus, the personal pronouns in the masculine gender. It would simply be inappropriate to refer to heavenly beings as anything other than masculine because of the authority God has granted to them to wield His power (2 Kings 19:35), carry His messages (Luke 2:10), and represent Him on earth.

HydroMan: God and angels are referred to as 'he' and other masculine words - not because God and angels are 'male' (except for Jesus when He was on Earth), but because they are not an 'it'.

Cenababy: and not a she?

tularcitas: My ancestry on my Mom's side is French Ashkenazi (Jewish).....Our surname was from the original Hebrew word for a type of Angel....Seraphim......It changed to Serafin, Sarrafin and in this country, Angel.

Cenababy: Neato

HydroMan: i suppose you could angels 'she'. But the point I suppose is this, angels are not a 'thing', so we call them 'he' and use masculine words . It might also be to do with authority, as you said

Cenababy:

Zanjan: What about the Angel of Death during the Passover? Was 'he' dressed?

There's a hierarchy of Angels - some are powers and some are beings. For a list:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_angels_in_theology

Note that some of these were also assigned to the days of the week.

Zanjan: All of the Manifestations of God were male Angels when they walked the earth. Since they moved among us as if they were bothers, we've tended not to think of Them as Archangels until they've passed on from this world. In the next world, their powers are much greater.

Unlike us, They have no ego, serving God by His will alone. We could never be like Them, how much less, greater than Them. They're infallible.

Zanjan: "Is that the Christian understanding of angels?"

Once, I was talking about angels to somebody at a church potluck when one older Church member shot me a look of horror. She thought I was nuts for believing that angels exist, saying there's no such thing. The other member liked to believe there are 'guardian angels for each soul. Overall, I'd say Christians view Angels as "has beens".

In my religion, if someone sins, they're not an angel. Making an error is not a sin; a sin is to knowingly disobey God's ordinances and laws.

You're right that God didn't want to make any of us perfect, He just wanted us to be righteous and noble beings, who love Him. If they also obeyed the Covenant, that would be relatively perfect.

Moses was infallible. God doesn't send the puny to do an Angel's work.

Cenababy: Angels don't sin.

Zanjan: So, can we say that an angel can fall from grace? Yep, but only a certain kind of angel can - the lower ranked ones. In their case, once an angel, not always an angel. This is not to say the bad dog box is a forever thing - they can win back their wings but that's way more difficult and takes longer than the first time they got them.

The Archangels never fall.

Zanjan: "You claim that both the angels and Moses are/were infallible."

I didn't claim that. I distinctly said there were different ranks amongst angels. Lower ranked angels can slide and fall from grace. They have egos, they've just suppressed them. As such, there's always a chance they could lose their grip BUT only if they're still on earth. Once they pass on, they don't have that problem anymore. There's no going backwards in the next world.

Only Archangels are infallible. Moses was an Archangel because He was one of God's Revelators - no ego, no sin. I don't know who told you that Moses sinned - He certainly never said any such thing about Himself. Did somebody tell you that Abraham sinned too? What sort of people would follow a sinner?

Who are you to say what is perfect when you, yourself, are imperfect? Personally, I wouldn't take everything word for word from either the OT or NT - neither were authenticated. Most of those stories were recounted by others, seen through an ordinary, ancient human lens.

What I do take word for word is known spiritual principles - those never change.

By the way, Moses wasnt being punished for anything - that generation of Jews wasn't ready to go in and take the land but Moses stayed with them - such a fragile and stubborn people they were! The next generation was ready; Moses simply didn't live long enough to see it. So what? He didn't need the land - what else do you need when you have God?

Zanjan: "Moses was a prophet. "

Not a lesser prophet, like those of the House of Israel - those don't deliver the Word of God, they deliver prophecies. Moses was an independent Prophet, Who revealed an independent religion, conveying the Word of God directly to believers. That makes Him one of God's highest order. That's an Archangel because He's the Archetype of a civilization.

"they are taught to us by our sages who devoted their lives to becoming Torah scholars"

How does that make them more right than Moses? Is there some reason you couldn't become a sage yourself?

"the oral law was passed down orally,"

That works just like gossip......I wouldn't trust anything that went from mouth to mouth without going through a sterilization chamber between relays.

"Nothing I have said here is my own spin, or my own interpretation, or my own picking and choosing of what I decided is truth. "

While I appreciate you representing your religion as it's known by its members, you DID decide what the truth was - that was your choice. No one made it for you.

Zanjan: "Calling this method ‘gossip’ is very Western of you"

I didn't call it gossip - I said it *works* like gossip. That's a fact. There's nothing reliable about that method, especially when passed from one to another in the same fashion.

North American Indigenous peoples are story-telling peoples too. They have special Story Tellers, practically as a profession. My own children are Metis so I've listened to many of them - although the story is the same, they're not consistent in detail. Their stories go back as far as 11,000 to 17,000 years - one of them is an Exodus of their own, which has been proven factual at its most basic level.

Each time a story teller dies, you'll get a different version from the next one. By the way, the Ingenious have angels too - they call them "Ancestors" and "prophets", both male and female.

"what makes you think they are in conflict with one another?"

Sages: these are wise individuals with excellent vision. Who determines they're wise and by what criteria? We've seen exactly how stupid and wrong some Rabbis have been - not being picky, every civilization has idiots that somehow make a name for themselves - they all have followers.

The story of Judaism (including Exodus) portrays losses of their texts and spirit, covenant breakers and slides into paganism. The world is grateful they recorded their history. Yet, each time they returned to the path, it would have been impossible not to bring with them baggage from their former excursions into the dark.

That's why the ancients needed the lesser prophets - the real sages, like Daniel and Isaiah - albeit, many didn't listen to them anyway. Undoubtedly, they were literate, writing things down. These are the kind of people I trust - Moses's wing men, who have proved their own spiritual metal - not story tellers and scribes, who have no comprehension of inner spiritual purpose.

With all due respect, you point out every reason for God to send another Messenger.

Zanjan: As a side note, many times I've seen domestic animals who are guardian angels. One can't lie to them and get away with it either.

chronology: Interesting about your kids Zan. First Nation people have many stories about North America's ancient past. There sure were some nasty people living there who are described by Native Americans as highly advanced none humans. It is dismissed as a legend by virtually everyone today, but the core facts the Native people story tellers recall, the cruelty, the cannabilisem, the great hight of these beings, are also used around the world by other ancient people to describe similar people or whatever they were.

Zanjan: Ancient religions were nature-based because the people were very familiar with biological nature. They knew everything has a spirit so, the correlation between physical nature and spiritual nature was easy to personify.

Ask any person to identify with a particular animal - very few have to think about it. Everyone I know has their answer at the ready. Now ask them to identify with a substance....interestingly, their answers are clearly influenced by the Zodiac.

Meanwhile, God continues to speak, continuing to affirm that angels are real.

ghostgeek: the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. [ New International Version ]

Either the sons of God are male angels, or they really are the sons of God.