Angels that went to Sodom

63ProStreet

Member
As I was studying Genesis 17, Abraham was sitting in his tent and three men were standing by him. Short story, he told Sarah to make some bread and he told a young man to prepare a young calf and fed these men (one of them being Jesus Himself) before they left for Sodom. My question is, can angels eat food? If they dont have the physical functions like humans how was this possible?
 

Andrew

Well known member
Genesis 18:8 (KJV)
And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set [it] before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

Psalm 78:24 (KJV)
And had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the corn of heaven.
 

paidinfull

Well-Known Member
When we go to heaven we can decide to eat or not eat - it isn't necessary for survival. I don't see why that wouldn't be the case for angels too. 9 Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” And he added, “These are the true words of God. Rev.19:9 I'm pretty sure that angel will be eating and celebrating too!

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. Matt.26:26-29

3 For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies. 2Cor.5:3 So if we can eat and drink with a heavenly body or earthly body I can't see why angels can't do the same in a heavenly or earthly body.

Here's a crash course on the doctrine of angelology that may be of interest.

Bible Study Time...

https://bible.org/article/angelology-doctrine-angels
 
Last edited:

63ProStreet

Member
When we go to heaven we can decide to eat or not eat - it isn't necessary for survival. I don't see why that wouldn't be the case for angels too. 9 Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” And he added, “These are the true words of God. Rev.19:9 I'm pretty sure that angel will be eating and celebrating too!

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. Matt.26:26-29

3 For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies. 2Cor.5:3 So if we can eat and drink with a heavenly body or earthly body I can't see why angels can't do the same in a heavenly or earthly body.

Here's a crash course on the doctrine of angelology that may be of interest.

Bible Study Time...

https://bible.org/article/angelology-doctrine-angels
Thank you! Yes, I understood we will be able to eat in heaven if we like, but wasnt sure if angels were able to. I mean obviously they did in this passage but in general wasnt sure. I will read the link you provided. Thanks again!:)
 

RonJohnSilver

Well-Known Member
The angels were human enough in appearance, at least, that they fooled the men in Sodom who wanted to have sex with them. My understanding is that angels, being spiritual creatures, are like Jesus in his post resurrection body. When Jesus appeared to the disciples, he ate with them, which I take to be eating in the standard, human fashion. Whether He (or we eventually) had the internal organs to process the food is unknown. But I take the Bible at it's normal, face meaning, that is, the angels ate food. The mechanisms of digestion, elimination, etc. are, to me anyway, not important to the story itself. God is not hampered by the normal human constraints. If He wants angels to have the proper equipment for a specific mission, that's easy for Him.
 

63ProStreet

Member
The angels were human enough in appearance, at least, that they fooled the men in Sodom who wanted to have sex with them. My understanding is that angels, being spiritual creatures, are like Jesus in his post resurrection body. When Jesus appeared to the disciples, he ate with them, which I take to be eating in the standard, human fashion. Whether He (or we eventually) had the internal organs to process the food is unknown. But I take the Bible at it's normal, face meaning, that is, the angels ate food. The mechanisms of digestion, elimination, etc. are, to me anyway, not important to the story itself. God is not hampered by the normal human constraints. If He wants angels to have the proper equipment for a specific mission, that's easy for Him.
Yeah Ron, I totally agree with you. I know its not important to the story, I was thinking about the physiology of the angels, or some angels anyway. Not sure if all of them eat or just some of them who have visited earth for a specific purpose such as this. You are right, Jesus ate after He was resurrected and I know we will also be eating at the marriage supper of the Lamb in our new bodies. For some reason I thought that our new bodies were different than angels. But you are right, God can do anything possible and He has unlimited power to do it!
 

Brother Albert R.

Jesus loved us and said we should Love our enemies
Hey 63ProStreet,
My wife says that if God has allowed angels to commune with us at times, what better setting than to eat with them as is traditional in biblical times and even today in the middle east. (Heb.13:1-2). There is also an interesting story that after Elijah ate food provided by an angel he was "Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God." (1Kings 19:5-8).

(PS I believe it was angel food cake. ):angel

God bless you,
your brother in Christ,
Albert R.
 

Terry

Member
:thankyou
When we go to heaven we can decide to eat or not eat - it isn't necessary for survival. I don't see why that wouldn't be the case for angels too. 9 Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” And he added, “These are the true words of God. Rev.19:9 I'm pretty sure that angel will be eating and celebrating too!

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. Matt.26:26-29

3 For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies. 2Cor.5:3 So if we can eat and drink with a heavenly body or earthly body I can't see why angels can't do the same in a heavenly or earthly body.

Here's a crash course on the doctrine of angelology that may be of interest.

Bible Study Time...

https://bible.org/article/angelology-doctrine-angels
That is a great study! :thankyou
 

clouds

Well-Known Member
Humankind, in its present state, is described in the Bible as being "lower than the angels", but that lower state should not taken as meaning that angels should be considered more exalted in their original creation than mankind. Angels were never described as being formed in the "image and likeness" of God as mankind was.
Dr, Chafer explained that: "No divine creation or production could be inaugurated on a higher plane than that the thing thus formed should be conformed to the image and likeness of God."
Another difference between angels and humans might be what Dr. Chafer further explains that, in regards to humans, : "It is clear, however, that the immaterial part of man originates not as a creation, but as a transmission. Some element of creation may have been present and active, but it is evident that the "living soul" which man became by the divine inbreathing is more uncreated than created. It is an impartation from the Eternal One. Angels are created beings (Colossians 1:16), and, since they are immaterial, it follows that their beings, in all their features, are a direct creation quite apart from preexisting matter. Nor is any record given that they were constituted what they are by the breath of God. Man seems to be exalted to a place of surpassing dignity and honor. Being by divine appointment the lord of the little part of the universe in which he lives and being the means of instruction to angelic beings, it is reasonable that man should be highly ennobled. In whatever spheres the angels may excel, it is essential that among the creatures of earth there shall be one who, being rational, may stand preeminently above all that is mundane."............ (Systematic Theology, by Chafer, Volume 2, page 160)
 

clouds

Well-Known Member
And to recognize that our faith grows by taking in His Word! 2 Timothy 3:16 :thankyou
Hi Hol, I think I understand what you might be hinting at regarding a subject which I promise not to discuss anymore. The comparison between humans and angels in creation came from my recent studying about the origin of man.
I want to apologize to Chris for my mindlessly pushing the boundary on a subject which he had already indicated was not to be discussed in this forum.
 

SkyRider

Well-Known Member
As far as the lower estate of man compared to other heavenly beings, one only needs to venture through Walmart a couple of times to confirm this; I would tend to doubt that angels are strutting around in pajama bottoms.

But this topic sort of falls in line with some questions I had concerning angels. Namely, the idea of some of the fallen angels looking upon women, and desiring and obviously having sexual encounters with them to produce giants, or Nephilim. But we read in Matthew 22:30 of Jesus' rebuttal to people being married in the afterlife and having marital relations: "For in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven". So, it seems apparent that angels do not or cannot have sexual relations, but these fallen creatures seem to have done it.

In a few other verses in the Word, it talks about the demons seeking a body to inhabit, and in one person that we read about, there were many demons indwelling a person - Legion was their name. It appears that these demons seek after a physical body to indwell, like a man in this instance, then they later beg to be allowed to enter into the swine.

So again, could the angels who had sexual relations with the women who produced the Nephilim, could they do this on there own, or would they need to have a host body to accomplish it, or what? We are told that they left their former estate to carry out this gross error, and I can only assume that means they somehow pulled off and went beyond the purpose to which they were created in order to effect what they had done. Just a bit confusing as to how they could do this if they were not created with that function.

There was something else on my mind regarding them, but can't think of it now. I will edit the post once I can remember it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hol

Hol

Worships Him
Helen, I just did a quick search on bara in Genesis 1 (Strong's #1254) and see it used five times, and asah (Strong's 853) three times in Genesis 1.

Yet Adam became a 'living being' (Gen. 2:7) after our LORD breathed life into him. And, Scripture is God-breathed, without which no one can be saved.

Why would you describe this as, "...a brand new creation by God, not part of Him."?
 

Andrew

Well known member
God describes the creation of man's spirit as a 'bara' -- something from nothing. We are not part of God -- that is actually a form of pantheism. We are a creation, meant to reflect Him. That is what the word 'image' means.
Correct! To go down the transmission route leads people to fall into the trap of claiming "I am".
 

clouds

Well-Known Member
"It is clear, however, that the immaterial part of man originates not as a creation, but as a transmission. Some element of creation may have been present and active, but it is evident that the "living soul" which man became by the divine inbreathing is more uncreated than created. It is an impartation from the Eternal One.
(Genesis 2:7) "And the LORD God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
It does not seem logical to me that the God-breathed "breath of life" can be described as something "created out of nothing". It came directly from God and was directly breathed into Adam's nostrils according to Scripture.
To also twist the idea that this divine transmission somehow requires or involves the transmission of divinity does not make sense to me either. The source of all life is God and He gives up no part of His divinity when He gives life to His creatures.
 

Brother Albert R.

Jesus loved us and said we should Love our enemies
(Genesis 2:7) "And the LORD God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
It does not seem logical to me that the God-breathed "breath of life" can be described as something "created out of nothing". It came directly from God and was directly breathed into Adam's nostrils according to Scripture.
To also twist the idea that this divine transmission somehow requires or involves the transmission of divinity does not make sense to me either. The source of all life is God and He gives up no part of His divinity when He gives life to His creatures.
We have not existed eternally, but God has. His life that He imparts to us only means that He is the source of life. Without Him sustaining all things, everything would fall apart and die. That is not pantheism.
I hope this helps.
God bless you,
your brother in Christ,
Albert R.
 
Back
Top