Charismatic Bible Studies - 2 Peter 2:4-9

[Johann!@#]

But it is also an argument from silence to claim they can't reproduce. Nothing in the Bible says they can't unless it is what Jesus said, that they "don't marry." Since I find that statement authoritative I disbelieve in angels having intercourse with women and bearing "giant" children. I believe it to be a myth--a story that makes money for people who propagate and advertise that myth. (I'm not suggesting, however, that *you* are doing that!)

RandyK

I appreciate your tone and the recognition that Jesus’ words are authoritative. Let’s take a closer look at the claim, then, with careful exegesis rather than sensationalism.

1. Jesus’ statement in Matthew 22:30 (NASB)

“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”

This refers specifically to angels in heaven, not fallen angels or those "not keeping their own domain" as described in Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4. The context is eschatological-concerning resurrected saints--not ontological limits placed upon angelic beings in all settings. Jesus is contrasting the resurrected state of humans with faithful angels in heaven, not with rebellious ones.

2. Jude 6–7 (NASB 1995):

"And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh..."

The Greek phrase τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον ("their own habitation") strongly suggests that these beings crossed a boundary of dwelling or function--linking their sin to “gross immorality” and “strange flesh,” a phrase that in Greek parallels unnatural unions.

3. 2 Peter 2:4–5 (NASB 1995):

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell [Greek: tartarus] and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world…”

This passage connects the sin of certain angels to the time of Noah---a timeframe directly matching Genesis 6:1–4, where the benê ha’elohîm ("sons of God") take human women as wives.

4. Consistency of interpretation with Second Temple Jewish literature

While not Scripture, early Jewish works like 1 Enoch (quoted in Jude 14–15) were influential in framing the Genesis 6 account. The book of Enoch reads the sons of God in Genesis 6 as angelic beings who overstepped divine boundaries and taught humanity violence and sorcery, producing the Nephilim. This was not dismissed by early Jewish or even early Christian readers as myth, but seen as a real transgression.

5. The argument from silence reconsidered

You're right to say we must be cautious of arguments from silence. But the Scripture isn’t silent here-it gives multiple textual threads (Genesis 6:1–4, Jude 6–7, 2 Peter 2:4–5, Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) that, taken together, show a consistent theme: there was a unique sin involving angelic beings, rebellion, and judgment at the time of Noah.

The Bible does not say angels cannot take on physical form-in fact, Hebrews 13:2 tells us that some have "entertained angels without knowing it," which implies physicality. The possibility of misuse of that form by fallen beings is not contradicted by Scripture.

In sum:
Jesus spoke of heavenly angels, not fallen ones
Jude and Peter both connect angelic sin with unnatural sexual acts
Genesis 6 is best understood as describing an incursion by benê ha’elohîm, a term consistently used of divine beings elsewhere in the OT (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7)
Early Jewish and early Christian readers took these passages seriously—not as myths

We must be cautious not to impose our modern discomforts onto the ancient worldview of Scripture

Let’s keep the dialogue respectful and focused on Scripture. Not all who hold this view are following trends or selling books--many of us are just following the text wherever it leads.

Shalom.

J.

 

[hawkman]

Perhaps you think that angels are bound on earth and therefore can have physical sex?

If the angels are NOT in heaven they can reproduce with the daughters of men as Jesus said it is the angels in heaven do not marry . Location is key .

Perhaps you think angels in heaven cannot have physical sex because they live in the sky?

Huh ? Sky ? Jesus said the angels in heaven do not marry .

That's only if you believe that the Smithsonian investigators lied.

At this point I don't believe giants and angels mating with women are true.

Not everyone does believe it .

We are paddling in circles here and I am having to resort to GIF , LOL !
I can think of no more to say .

 

[RandyK]

If the angels are NOT in heaven they can reproduce with the daughters of men as Jesus said it is the angels in heaven do not marry . Location is key .

For some reason I copied and pasted the wrong link. Read:

Giant human skeletons - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[RandyK]

RandyK

I appreciate your tone and the recognition that Jesus’ words are authoritative. Let’s take a closer look at the claim, then, with careful exegesis rather than sensationalism.

Hi Johann, that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid: sensationalism.
I posted this to Hawkman but for some reason the link was taking me somewhere else? Here it is, and hopefully it is correct this time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_human_skeletons

1. Jesus’ statement in Matthew 22:30 (NASB)

“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”

This refers specifically to angels in heaven, not fallen angels or those "not keeping their own domain" as described in Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4. The context is eschatological-concerning resurrected saints--not ontological limits placed upon angelic beings in all settings. Jesus is contrasting the resurrected state of humans with faithful angels in heaven, not with rebellious ones.

My understanding that angels, originating from heaven, simply are not outfitted with reproductive organs. They can appear like a full human, but they cannot reproduce, as I understand the passage.

It makes no difference is fallen angels are no longer "in heaven," though I think Satan is still the prince of the kingdom of the air, ie in heaven. He is simply fallen from his position in heaven, and is now captive to his vices. But having been created for heaven it makes no difference if he is on earth or still in heaven.

I understand how you're reading it though. If they are still just a good angel, ie in heaven, then they cannot reproduce there. But if they are an evil angel, and are on earth, then they can reproduce here. It is just angels *currently in heaven,* ie good ones, who cannot reproduce.

But for me to say they don't marry is the same as saying they *cannot* marry. So it matters not where they are, in heaven or on earth--they still can't marry or reproduce.

They are created for heaven, and not for earth. They are spirit beings and only appear as earthly beings at times.

And they aren't outfitted for earthly reproduction even if they can appear as such. If they are given to transform into human form, I think they're pretty much limited to what God enables them to do in that form. But who knows?

2. Jude 6–7 (NASB 1995):

"And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh..."

The Greek phrase τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον ("their own habitation") strongly suggests that these beings crossed a boundary of dwelling or function--linking their sin to “gross immorality” and “strange flesh,” a phrase that in Greek parallels unnatural unions.

That statement appears to conflate the abandoning of God's presence by the angels with the abandoning of normal sexual function by the Sodomites. They are not, in my view, the same thing, though they be compared.

It is the Sodomites who committed "gross immorality" and pursued "strange flesh"--not the fallen angels. The fallen angels simply left their original state of obedience to God.

3. 2 Peter 2:4–5 (NASB 1995):

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell [Greek: tartarus] and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world…”

This passage connects the sin of certain angels to the time of Noah---a timeframe directly matching Genesis 6:1–4, where the benê ha’elohîm ("sons of God") take human women as wives.

Yes, the Flood event is mentioned as a form of judgment, and is compared to the judgment of fallen angels, who are condemned to a kind of imprisonment. The fallen angels are kept under wraps until the time of final judgment, for both men and angels.

That is the comparison--both those who died under the Flood are kept until final judgmnet in the state of death, and the angels are kept in a state of imprisonment until final judgment as well. There is no reference whatsoever to the "sons of God" being angels who at that time were supposedly imprisoned for commmitting lewd acts with women.

4. Consistency of interpretation with Second Temple Jewish literature

While not Scripture, early Jewish works like 1 Enoch (quoted in Jude 14–15) were influential in framing the Genesis 6 account. The book of Enoch reads the sons of God in Genesis 6 as angelic beings who overstepped divine boundaries and taught humanity violence and sorcery, producing the Nephilim. This was not dismissed by early Jewish or even early Christian readers as myth, but seen as a real transgression.

Yes, Enoch is a major cause of this what I believe to be "myth." So unfortunately, I say, many good and respected Christians and Christian leaders fell into this delusion, that Enoch, quoted by Peter and Jude, is to be trusted entirely, including its reference to the sons of God as angels.

You might check this out--there are 2 parts: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermi...in-genesis-6-were-men-not-angels-part-1-of-2/

5. The argument from silence reconsidered

You're right to say we must be cautious of arguments from silence. But the Scripture isn’t silent here-it gives multiple textual threads (Genesis 6:1–4, Jude 6–7, 2 Peter 2:4–5, Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) that, taken together, show a consistent theme: there was a unique sin involving angelic beings, rebellion, and judgment at the time of Noah.

I don't find the "connect the dots" approach valid. I require explicit statements. As Walter Martin used to say, "When God wants to say something, He doesn't lisp! He makes truth explicitly clear when it is that important." (paraphrased) In sum, you shouldn't have to "connect the dots." If you do, you should be overly cautious.

The Bible does not say angels cannot take on physical form-in fact, Hebrews 13:2 tells us that some have "entertained angels without knowing it," which implies physicality. The possibility of misuse of that form by fallen beings is not contradicted by Scripture.

As the above article states, angels are actually *spirits* that can indeed assume human form. We don't see them, however, living a domestic life on earth. We don't see them marrying women, or having children.

Have you heard of female angels having sex with men? Neither have I heard of male angels having sex with women! Not in my town! You'd have to visit an X-rated theatre, specializing in occult movies, and I'm completely disinterested!

In sum:
Jesus spoke of heavenly angels, not fallen ones
Jude and Peter both connect angelic sin with unnatural sexual acts
Genesis 6 is best understood as describing an incursion by benê ha’elohîm, a term consistently used of divine beings elsewhere in the OT (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7)
Early Jewish and early Christian readers took these passages seriously—not as myths

We must be cautious not to impose our modern discomforts onto the ancient worldview of Scripture

Let’s keep the dialogue respectful and focused on Scripture. Not all who hold this view are following trends or selling books--many of us are just following the text wherever it leads.

Shalom.

J.

No, I don't think you're making money off this, Johann. My point was that I think those who have fostered this "myth" were doing it for money--at least some of them were, if you will check out my earlier link--the one I gave to Hawkman?

Thanks for your response. You seem very respectful despite our disagreeing on this what I think is a "peripheral" issue.

 

[Johann!@#]

That statement appears to conflate the abandoning of God's presence by the angels with the abandoning of normal sexual function by the Sodomites. They are not, in my view, the same thing, though they be compared.

It is the Sodomites who committed "gross immorality" and pursued "strange flesh"--not the fallen angels. The fallen angels simply left their original state of obedience to God.

RandyK

Brother, I appreciate your engagement with Jude 6–7, but I believe your interpretation doesn’t quite align with the Greek grammar or the broader context of the passage. Let me walk through why I think the sins of the angels and the people of Sodom are not merely compared for effect but are actually paralleled in kind.

First, the structure of Jude 7 connects Sodom’s sin directly to the angels in Jude 6. The key phrase is τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις—translated as “in the same way as these.” Grammatically, τούτοις is masculine plural, and the nearest masculine plural antecedent is ἀγγέλους in verse 6.
That makes it quite clear: Sodom and the surrounding cities acted in the same way as the angels. It’s not just a comparison; it’s a claim of similar behavior.

Second, the phrase τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον--“their own habitation”--doesn’t just mean the angels left heaven in some abstract sense. The only other time that word οἰκητήριον shows up in the New Testament is 2 Corinthians 5:2, where Paul uses it to refer to a heavenly, spiritual body. So when Jude says the angels abandoned it, he seems to be describing a radical departure from their created nature--assuming a different form in order to interact physically with humans.

That fits precisely with the ancient understanding of the Watchers from 1 Enoch, where angels descended, took on bodies, and engaged in relations with human women.

Ever read 1 Enoch??

That also explains why Jude follows immediately by saying Sodom “indulged in gross immorality” (ἐκπορνεύσασαι) and “went after strange flesh” (ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας). That phrase strange flesh-literally “flesh of another kind”-fits both what the men of Sodom did (seeking unnatural relations) and what the angels did (pursuing human women).

The unnatural direction of their desire is the common thread. So when Jude says they acted in like manner, that’s not an editorial flourish--it’s a theological indictment of crossing divinely ordained boundaries.

Early Jewish writers and Church Fathers certainly thought so. Philo, Josephus, and the Book of Enoch all describe these angels as committing sexual sin. The Fathers--Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others--echo this without hesitation. This wasn’t a fringe view-it was the dominant interpretation for centuries, and it fits Jude’s own words.

Brother, if the inspired writer had wanted to say the angels simply left heaven in rebellion, without any moral parallel to Sodom’s sexual sin, he had countless ways to say that. But he didn’t. Instead, he said they sinned in like manner to those who went after strange flesh. That’s not a coincidence-it’s a direct link.

I offer this not to quarrel, but to encourage careful reading. The text connects the angels and Sodom not just in judgment, but in the nature of their sin. We shouldn’t separate what the Holy Spirit has joined together.

Let me know if you'd like source references for the Patristic and Jewish writings that support this reading. I'd be happy to provide them.

The Book of Jude

Did you read hawkman's dissertation on this? Seems you are not interested, no offense intended.

As the above article states, angels are actually *spirits* that can indeed assume human form. We don't see them, however, living a domestic life on earth. We don't see them marrying women, or having children.

Have you heard of female angels having sex with men? Neither have I heard of male angels having sex with women! Not in my town! You'd have to visit an X-rated theatre, specializing in occult movies, and I'm completely disinterested!

Read my post and link. I can provide links for every statement I make.

No, I don't think you're making money off this, Johann. My point was that I think those who have fostered this "myth" were doing it for money--at least some of them were, if you will check out my earlier link--the one I gave to Hawkman?

Thanks for your response. You seem very respectful despite our disagreeing on this what I think is a "peripheral" issue.

Not a "myth" brother, I can provide you with more sources but that would be a waste of time.

Johann.

 

[hawkman]

I understand how you're reading it though. If they are still just a good angel, ie in heaven, then they cannot reproduce there. But if they are an evil angel, and are on earth, then they can reproduce here. It is just angels *currently in heaven,* ie good ones, who cannot reproduce.

I believe it is not about the angels in heaven's capabilities but it is about their dedication to God to do His bidding that is why they do not marry in heaven . Just as we have capabilities for evil here on earth but with God's grace we are are not taking that path .

They are created for heaven, and not for earth. They are spirit beings and only appear as earthly beings at times.

Angels are God's messengers to us and helpers , protectors also . It says in the bible we can entertain angels unaware , and I believe that of course . So for me to say where all of God's angels are stationed at , be it earthly of heavenly is above my paygrade .

What does the Bible say about angels? | GotQuestions.org

What does the Bible say about angels? What sort of relationship do we have with the angels according to the Bible?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[RandyK]

I believe it is not about the angels in heaven's capabilities but it is about their dedication to God to do His bidding that is why they do not marry in heaven . Just as we have capabilities for evil here on earth but with God's grace we are are not taking that path .

Angels are God's messengers to us and helpers , protectors also . It says in the bible we can entertain angels unaware , and I believe that of course . So for me to say where all of God's angels are stationed at , be it earthly of heavenly is above my paygrade .

What does the Bible say about angels? | GotQuestions.org

What does the Bible say about angels? What sort of relationship do we have with the angels according to the Bible?

www.gotquestions.org

It's well above my pay grade too! I think there's a reason we're not told too much about angels. We can drive dangerously close to the edge of the cliff, and too close to the occult. The ancient Israelites were warned not to dabble into the "dark secrets of Satan," or as they were literally told, interaction with familiar spirits, mediums, and the like.

I agree that angels are a reality and are involved in ways we don't always see. I've experienced some of that, I believe. But my focus is and will always be on Jesus. Both angels and men are under his supervision. Take care!

 

[RandyK]

RandyK

Brother, I appreciate your engagement with Jude 6–7, but I believe your interpretation doesn’t quite align with the Greek grammar or the broader context of the passage. Let me walk through why I think the sins of the angels and the people of Sodom are not merely compared for effect but are actually paralleled in kind.

First, the structure of Jude 7 connects Sodom’s sin directly to the angels in Jude 6. The key phrase is τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις—translated as “in the same way as these.” Grammatically, τούτοις is masculine plural, and the nearest masculine plural antecedent is ἀγγέλους in verse 6.
That makes it quite clear: Sodom and the surrounding cities acted in the same way as the angels. It’s not just a comparison; it’s a claim of similar behavior.

Second, the phrase τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον--“their own habitation”--doesn’t just mean the angels left heaven in some abstract sense. The only other time that word οἰκητήριον shows up in the New Testament is 2 Corinthians 5:2, where Paul uses it to refer to a heavenly, spiritual body. So when Jude says the angels abandoned it, he seems to be describing a radical departure from their created nature--assuming a different form in order to interact physically with humans.

That fits precisely with the ancient understanding of the Watchers from 1 Enoch, where angels descended, took on bodies, and engaged in relations with human women.

Ever read 1 Enoch??

That also explains why Jude follows immediately by saying Sodom “indulged in gross immorality” (ἐκπορνεύσασαι) and “went after strange flesh” (ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας). That phrase strange flesh-literally “flesh of another kind”-fits both what the men of Sodom did (seeking unnatural relations) and what the angels did (pursuing human women).

The unnatural direction of their desire is the common thread. So when Jude says they acted in like manner, that’s not an editorial flourish--it’s a theological indictment of crossing divinely ordained boundaries.

Early Jewish writers and Church Fathers certainly thought so. Philo, Josephus, and the Book of Enoch all describe these angels as committing sexual sin. The Fathers--Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others--echo this without hesitation. This wasn’t a fringe view-it was the dominant interpretation for centuries, and it fits Jude’s own words.

Brother, if the inspired writer had wanted to say the angels simply left heaven in rebellion, without any moral parallel to Sodom’s sexual sin, he had countless ways to say that. But he didn’t. Instead, he said they sinned in like manner to those who went after strange flesh. That’s not a coincidence-it’s a direct link.

I offer this not to quarrel, but to encourage careful reading. The text connects the angels and Sodom not just in judgment, but in the nature of their sin. We shouldn’t separate what the Holy Spirit has joined together.

Let me know if you'd like source references for the Patristic and Jewish writings that support this reading. I'd be happy to provide them.

The Book of Jude

Did you read hawkman's dissertation on this? Seems you are not interested, no offense intended.


Read my post and link. I can provide links for every statement I make.


Not a "myth" brother, I can provide you with more sources but that would be a waste of time.

Johann.

Thanks Johann, I am interested in what you have to say on this, and whatever links you have to prove your points, but only up to a point. I've been arguing this for awhile.

I don't think grammatical arguments work at this point. I've been engaging with my brother the last couple days, because his expertise involves the biblical languages to some degree--not scholarly but in the amateur sense, but in my view quite close to scholarly.

He has not been able to get back to me on this the last couple of days for whatever reason. If he gives me something significant on this I'll let you know.

This is not an emotional argument for me. When I say I'm less interested it isn't that I'm not interested in engaging in a meaningful way--it's just my way of saying that arguments like these fall far below the level of iimportance of biblical doctrine. As Paul said, controversies and arguments can displace good discussions about godliness and truth. That's my main focus.

But you're smart and educated, and I respect what you bring here. In fact everybody involved in this discussion has the same qualities that make the discussion interesting to me, but not critical to faith and practice. I read many links, and only draw the line when I think we begin to talk past one another. If you read my links you would see that others I've read have covered this same territory, have discussed the connection of the book of Enoch to belief in the angels = sons of God theory. Did you read completely *my links?*

To me this is a myth, but it has been dignified with historical acceptance by many Christians. And I think the main reason could be the fact the book of Enoch supported this belief.

As I said, I find that unfortunate because Enoch was non-canonical, and only contributed some things that were popularly read in the day. Peter and Jude may have copied some from Enoch for that reason but certainly did not place a complete stamp of approval on the whole book.

I disagree that the grammar proves the connection of angels to the sons of God. I disagree that the grammar proves the angels' departure from heaven equals a departure from heterosexuality to homosexuality. I don't believe the angels have testosterone or estrogen.

Probably the biggest problem I've had with the "angels" theory is that nothing in the Bible really comes out and explicitly declares it to be the case. One would have to read the book of Enoch first, accept the popular belief in Enoch, and then read that into 2 Peter and Jude.

That's what I mean by belief based on "connecting the dots." I don't find the Holy Spirit to operate that way with truth. But thanks for your time and patience. Sometimes I just "say what I feel" without saying it in a kind or spiritual way. Again, thanks for your patience.

I don't find the grammar in Jude 7 making the comparison between "angels who fell from their habitation" with "Sodomites who went after strange flesh" means that the "angels who fell" went after "strange flesh." We'll have to differ on that bit--for me, that is "reading into the text" what is not said nor even explicitly implied.

I could quite easily say with grammatical acceptance that "just as I left holy Jerusalem, so Israel left their holy Law." This certainly would not grammatically *prove* that I departed from the Law of Moses, which I was never under. It would only prove that in both cases I and Israel had left a holy environment.

The angels "left their habitation with God," or ceased to live "in God's presence." This is compared, grammatically, with the Sodomites leaving their natural affections to go after "strange flesh." The comparison is explicitly said to be given to show a common *punishment.* In both instances judgment from God is being invited, and this serves as a warning to us.

It does not mean, grammatically, that the angels engaged in homosexuality. It just means that their choice to leave God's presence was as bad as the Sodomites leaving natural affections for something sexually twisted.

But we can disagree on this without hostility, if you will? It doesn't take a thing away from my respect for your learning or intelligence. Your reasoning is good, and as far as I know you could be right. I'm just giving you what I think, with my limited understanding of the biblical language and grammar. When my brother gets back I'll ask him, hopefully, this specific question.

 

[Johann!@#]

Thanks Johann, I am interested in what you have to say on this, and whatever links you have to prove your points, but only up to a point. I've been arguing this for awhile.

I don't think grammatical arguments work at this point. I've been engaging with my brother the last couple days, because his expertise involves the biblical languages to some degree--not scholarly but in the amateur sense, but in my view quite close to scholarly.

He has not been able to get back to me on this the last couple of days for whatever reason. If he gives me something significant on this I'll let you know.

This is not an emotional argument for me. When I say I'm less interested it isn't that I'm not interested in engaging in a meaningful way--it's just my way of saying that arguments like these fall far below the level of iimportance of biblical doctrine. As Paul said, controversies and arguments can displace good discussions about godliness and truth. That's my main focus.

But you're smart and educated, and I respect what you bring here. In fact everybody involved in this discussion has the same qualities that make the discussion interesting to me, but not critical to faith and practice. I read many links, and only draw the line when I think we begin to talk past one another. If you read my links you would see that others I've read have covered this same territory, have discussed the connection of the book of Enoch to belief in the angels = sons of God theory. Did you read commpletely *my links?*

To me this is a myth, but it has been dignified with historical acceptance by many Christians. And I think the main reason could be the fact the book of Enoch supported this belief.

As I said, I find that unfortunate because Enoch was non-canonical, and only contributed some things that were popularly read in the day. Peter and Jude may have copied some from Enoch for that reason but certainly did not place a complete stamp of approval on the whole book. I disagree that the grammar proves the connection of angels to the sons of God. I disagree that the grammar proves the angels' departure from heaven equals a departure from heterosexuality to homosexuality. I don't believe the angels have testosterone or estrogen.

Probably the biggest problem I've had with the "angels" theory is that nothing in the Bible really comes out and explicitly declares it to be the case. One would have to read the book of Enoch first, accept the popular belief in Enoch, and then read that into 2 Peter and Jude.

That's what I mean by belief based on "connecting the dots." I don't find the Holy Spirit to operate that way with truth. But thanks for your time and patience. Sometimes I just "say what I feel" without saying it in a kind or spiritual way. Again, thanks for your patience.

I don't find the grammar in Jude 7 making that the comparison between "angels who fell from their habitation" with "Sodomites who went after strange flesh" means that the "angels who fell" went after "strange flesh." We'll have to differ on that bit--for me, that is "reading into the text" what is not said nor even explicitly implied.

I could quite easily say with grammatical acceptance that "just as I left holy Jerusalem, so Israel left their holy Law." This certainly would not grammatically *prove* that I departed from the Law of Moses, which I was never under. It would only prove that in both cases I and Israel had left a holy environment.

The angels "left their habitation with God," or ceased to live "in God's presence." This is compared, grammatically, with the Sodomites leaving their natural affections to go after "strange flesh." The comparison is explicitly said to be given to show a common *punishment.* In both instances judgment from God is being invited, and this serves as a warning to us.

It does not mean, grammatically, that the angels engaged in homosexuality. It just means that their choice to leave God's presence was as bad as the Sodomites leaving natural affections for something sexually twisted.

But we can disagree on this without hostility, if you will? It doesn't take a thing away from my respect for your learning or intelligence. Your reasoning is good, and as far as I know you could be right. I'm just giving you what I think, with my limited understanding of the biblical language and grammar. When my brother gets back I'll ask him, hopefully, this specific question.

All good, RandyK - let's agree to disagree and keep our focus where it belongs: on Christ Jesus.

J.

 

[RandyK]

All good, RandyK - let's agree to disagree and keep our focus where it belongs: on Christ Jesus.

J.

Amen. Incidentally, in the last couple of minutes my brother got back with me. Apparently he's caught up with his own gnarly matters of "biblical language." I told him it's fine.

 

[Johann!@#]

Amen. Incidentally, in the last couple of minutes my brother got back with me. Apparently he's caught up with his own gnarly matters of "biblical language." I told him it's fine.

Amen. Incidentally, in the last couple of minutes my brother got back with me. Apparently he's caught up with his own gnarly matters of "biblical language." I told him it's fine.

Just to show you I can provide links for every statement I make---

I Enoch

Possibly older than the LXX is the book of Enoch, an apocalyptic

work of great diversity organized around revelations allegedly given

to the patriarch of this name. The particular material we are concerned

with is thought to be pre-Maccabean by Charles and from the early

2nd century B.C. by Eissfeldt. In any case, fragments from this part of

Enoch have been found at Qumran in a style of handwriting that

dates to the pre-Christian era.8

The first five chaps. of Enoch present a mostly poetic picture of

the coming of God to earth in judgment and what this will mean for

the wicked and the righteous. Chap. 6 begins:



And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied, in those

days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the

angels, the children of heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to

one another: 'Come, let us choose wives from among the children of

men and beget us children.' (1 Enoch 6:1-2)



The account goes on (chaps. 6-8) to tell how two hundred angels

came down on Mt. Hermon, led by their chief Semjaza, took wives,

taught them science, magic and technology, and begot by them giants

over a mile high! Along with Semjaza, principal attention is given to

the angel Azazel, who taught mankind metallurgy for weapons and

jewelry.

The good angels report these things to God (chap. 9), who sends

Uriel to warn Noah of the coming flood, Gabriel to destroy the

giants, Raphael to take charge of Azazel, and Michael to deal with



6Philo, On the Giants 6.

7H. G. Liddell, R. Scott and H. Drissler, A Greek-English Lexicon. Based on the

German Work of Francis Passow (New York: Harper and Bros., 1879) 292. [Not in

recent edition.]

8R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford:

Clarendon, 1913), 2. 163; O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Oxford:

Blackwell, 1965) 618-19. M. Rist ("Enoch, Book of," IDB 2 [1962] 104) would date

this section later, ca. 100 B.C. In any case, fragments of this part of Enoch have been

found at Qumran: see O. Betz, "Dead Sea Scrolls," IDB I (1962) 796; J. T. Milik, The

Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976) 6,

139-40, 164.


NEWMAN: THE ANCIENT EXEGESIS OF GENESIS 6:2, 4 17



Semjaza and his fellows. The instructions given to Raphael and

Michael are of particular interest:



Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into darkness: and make an

opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And

place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness,

and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see

light. And on the great day of judgment he shall be cast into the fire.

(1 Enoch 10:4-6)

Go, bind Semjaza and his associates who have united themselves

with women so as to have defiled themselves with them in all their

uncleanness. And when their sons [the giants] have slain one another,

and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them

fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of

their judgment and of the consummation, till the judgment that is for

ever and ever is consummated. (1 Enoch 10:11-12)



Thus Enoch presents an interpretation of Gen 6 in terms of

angelic cohabitation with women, resulting in gigantic offspring. The

angels who sinned are bound to await the final judgment.



Jubilees

The Book of Jubilees [Jub.] is an expanded retelling of Genesis

and part of Exodus. It provides an elaborate chronology based on

sabbatical cycles and jubilees, plus a theory that the patriarchs ob-

served various Mosaic regulations even before they were given at

Sinai. Charles and Tedesche date the book in the last half of the 2nd

century B.C., while Eissfeldt puts it about 100 B.C. More recently

VanderKam has presented detailed arguments for a somewhat earlier

date, around 150 B.C.9

Though apparently dependent on 1 Enoch or one of its sources,

Jub. differs from Enoch on the reason for the angels' descent to earth:



...and he called his name Jared; for in his days the angels of the Lord

descended on the earth, those who are named the Watchers, that they

should instruct the children of men, and that they should do judgment

and uprightness on the earth. (Jub. 4:15)



Chap. 5 follows with an expansion of Gen 6, in which these Watchers

cohabit with women and the offspring produced are giants. The

sinning angels are not named, but God's response to their sin is

described:



9Charles, Pseudepigrapha 6; S. Tedesche, "Jubilees, Book of, " IDB 2 (1962) 1002;

Eissfeldt, OT Introduction 608; J. C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in

the Book of Jubilees (HSM 14; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977) 283-84.

The Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6:2, 4: Newman

Who Were "the Sons Of God" In Genesis 6?

Who were “the sons of God” in Gen 6.2 and v. 4? This expression occurs occasionally in the Bible, and it doesn’t always refer to the same type of beings.

www.patheos.com

J.

 

[Hidden In Him]

In sum:
Jesus spoke of heavenly angels, not fallen ones
Jude and Peter both connect angelic sin with unnatural sexual acts

Yes. This is the strongest element of the argument right here. This is why I believe in going through books of the Bible in great detail, because the focus of both epistles was on sexual immorality and sexual sin. It is the driving theme in both. It would not make sense to be bringing up the angels who sinned (and both of them do), if sexual sin was not being alluded to, as this is what they were notorious for engaging in the Jewish tradition and what the books are about. So the context suggests the NT writers were interpreting things the same way.

 

[Hidden In Him]

It is the Sodomites who committed "gross immorality" and pursued "strange flesh"--not the fallen angels. The fallen angels simply left their original state of obedience to God.

Hey again, Randy. Johann touched on this, but let me explain some literary context here. There was a literary device used in both 2 Peter and Jude where they cited three different supports, one after the other, to prove out the same thing. You see this principle where scripture says, "And these three bear witness."

In verse 4, Jude sets the common element when he talks about them turning the grace of God into "lewdness." Some translations here have "licentiousness," but the Greek is referring to sexual immorality. Then he lists three groups, the third of which is specifically mentioned as practicing sexual immorality.

4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. 5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Sexual immorality is the common element, though you have to know Jewish tradition to readily see it straight off, but his readers did. But God destroyed the Israelites not long after they were saved out of Egypt when they turned back to the worship of the golden calf, where it says, "And they sat down to eat and rose up to play"; a sexual connotation. Then the angels, and then the Sodomites. Peter does the same thing in our passage in this study. He compares three groups to the Gnostics (and again this is why knowing who the letter is about is also important). Peter used the inhabitants of the pre-flood world, the angels, and then the Sodomites. Again, as I cited, the reference was specifically to "those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness" (v.9). Ah... and I'm not sure if I used the more authoritative texts for the passage for the previous study or not, but verse 2 uses the word "(sexual) licentiousness" as well. Hold on....

 

[Hidden In Him]

Ah... and I'm not sure if I used the more authoritative texts for the passage for the previous study or not, but verse 2 uses the word "(sexual) licentiousness" as well. Hold on....

Yes, I did. Verse two reads, "And many will follow after their sexually licentious ways, though which the way of truth will be blasphemed."

So again, you have both groups of three being couched before and after in references to sexual sin, so the internal context very strongly suggests that sexual sin is in view here, even with the angels. I know it's hard to believe, but this is what the scriptures appear to be saying.

 

[Johann!@#]

Yes, I did. Verse two reads, "And many will follow after their sexually licentious ways, though which the way of truth will be blasphemed."

So again, you have both groups of three being couched before and after in references to sexual sin, so the internal context very strongly suggests that sexual sin is in view here, even with the angels. I know it's hard to believe, but this is what the scriptures appear to be saying.

Absolutely right, Hidden In Him--this is exactly where careful study of grammar, lexical sources, and a willingness to engage with secondary literature makes all the difference.
Our Bibles weren’t written in a vacuum-they should be read through a Jewish lens, informed by the customs, context, and cultural frameworks of ancient Judaism.
That shift in approach has helped me immensely.

J.

 

[RandyK]

I don't see a necessary sexual connection between angels leaving their habitation and the Sodomites leaving natural sex for corrupt sex. Departure from habitation does not mean to have sodomite experiences by necessity. My opinion....

Job 4:18 - Eliphaz: The Innocent Prosper

If God puts no trust in His servants, and He charges His angels with error,

biblehub.com

Pulpit Commentary
Job 15:15, where Eliphaz expresses the same belief in his own person). And his angels he charged with folly; rather, chargeth. The exact meaning of the word translated "folly" is uncertain, since the word does not occur elsewhere. The LXX. renders by σκολιόν τι, "crookedness;" Ewald, Dillmann, and others, by "error." The teaching clearly is that the angels are not perfect - the highest angelic excellence falls infinitely short of God's perfectness. Even angels, therefore, would be incompetent judges of God's doings.

Here is a summary of my arguments...

"The Sons Of God" In Genesis 6 Were Men, Not Angels: Part 1 Of 2

Genesis 6.1-4 reads in the English Standard Version of the Bible: 1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2

www.patheos.com

"The Sons Of God" In Genesis 6 Were Men, Not Angels: Part 2 Of 2

To see Part 1, click here. There are so many compelling objections to the fallen angels interpretation of Gen 6.1-4 that I think their overwhelming sum

www.patheos.com

Giant human skeletons - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The 1st 2 links, part I and part II, give some of my arguments against seeing the "sons of God" as being angels fornicating with human women and producing enormous children.
The 3rd link is evidence that the sons of God/angels + human women = mythical giants is in fact a myth and a hoax, after the supposed "proofs" were tested and exposed as false.

I really don't have anything more to say on the subject. Be well everybody, and be happy with your choices.

I will withdraw my concern that we are engaging in erotic occultism because though that may be true of some it is *not* true with this particular group. I've had Christian friends who regularly gravitated towards myth-like theories, just like some people in politics like to gravitate towards conspiracy theories.

We can have an excessive, carnal interest in things that are of no spiritual value, but have great potential for diverting us away from spiritual things. This group absolutely is not doing that, and I do appreciate your honest convictions on the matter. I respect them, and try to keep my own views subject to your scrutiny. Thanks again!

I do hope you'll take the time to read through *completely* the links I provided. If not, it's okay....

 

[Johann!@#]

But you're smart and educated, and I respect what you bring here. In fact everybody involved in this discussion has the same qualities that make the discussion interesting to me, but not critical to faith and practice. I read many links, and only draw the line when I think we begin to talk past one another. If you read my links you would see that others I've read have covered this same territory, have discussed the connection of the book of Enoch to belief in the angels = sons of God theory. Did you read completely *my links?*

We can have an excessive, carnal interest in things that are of no spiritual value, but have great potential for diverting us away from spiritual things. This group absolutely is not doing that, and I do appreciate your honest convictions on the matter. I respect them, and try to keep my own views subject to your scrutiny. Thanks again!

RandyK

That’s a bit surprising--was that really necessary?
I suppose I’m being seen as someone who’s distracted others from spiritual focus?

If you believe I’m here to distract others from spiritual truth, just say the word--and I’ll step away.

Johann.

 

[RandyK]

RandyK

That’s a bit surprising--was that really necessary?
I suppose I’m being seen as someone who’s distracted others from spiritual focus?

If you believe I’m here to distract others from spiritual truth, just say the word--and I’ll step away.

Johann.

I need the freedom to quote the Scriptures on subjects that I feel apply. On this subject I honestly feel there *could be* a danger of that.

Again, think about the subject matter: sex between demons and loose women. Not very healthy, I should think? But if it's true, then the truth cannot be ignored. It must be some kind of warning not to mix with the occult and immoral people.

Again, I quoted to you the Scriptures...

Titus 1.13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.

1 Tim 1.3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith.

1 Tim 4.7 Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.

2 Tim 4.3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

These things are an honest concern I have with what seem to be myth-like legends, even though they've been believed by some very good Christians.

Did my links not give you a credible basis for my concerns? The "giants" evidence was proven to be a hoax, created by people who honestly wanted to believe the Gen 6 story was all about devils mating with women to create giants.

I never give people what they *demand* I give them--I'm responsible to God and to the Holy Spirit, as He guides me, to speak the truth in love. Of course, when others do not like my thoughts they do not consider my motivations to be "love." I'll let God be the judge.

I went out of my way to say that my concerns did not apply specifically to you or to anyone here now engaging in this conversation. It is a concern that this material could have the capacity to take people away from the message of godliness to vain speculations about angels mating with women and having giant children.

Have we moved away from messages about godliness in this conversation? Perhaps. Then it might be wise to move on...

 

[hawkman]

Giants in the Bible .

Giants in the Land: A Biblical Theology of the Nephilim, Anakim, Rephaim (and Goliath) — Knowing Scripture

Israel initially refused to enter the land because of giants, and only men of great faith (Joshua, Caleb, and David) were able to defeat them.

knowingscripture.com

When I spoke of the "seed war " earlier in this thread , read this excerpt from the link , it is something I had never thought of . RandyK , this may be new info for you too .

It is also important to mention that Goliath wore “scale armor” (שִׁרְי֥וֹן קַשְׂקַשִּׂ֖ים, shiryon qasqasim) (1 Samuel 17:5). This armor weighed over 125 pounds, implying he was massive. Everywhere the term קַשְׂקַשִּׂ֖ים (qasqasim) is used in the OT, it means “scales” (Leviticus 11:9-10, 12; Deuteronomy 14:9-10; Ezekiel 29:4). The ESV only makes one exception, as it translates the word as “coat of mail” here in 1 Samuel 17:5. Though this translation is understandable because chain mail would resemble scales, it obscures an important connection with the serpent (and possibly Dagon).

Scale armor ramps up the significance, as it connects Goliath with the serpent himself. Goliath was the seed of the serpent, and David was of the seed of the woman. Whether Goliath was the biological offspring of the serpent (through the Nephilim) or merely the spiritual offspring, there is a connection with Genesis 3:15. David killed Goliath with a stone to the head, and then he cut off Goliath’s head (1 Samuel 17:48-51). David, the seed of the woman, crushed the head of the seed of the serpent. Thus David’s defeat of Goliath is ultimately a picture of Christ conquering the devil.

 

[JLB]

Again, think about the subject matter: sex between demons and loose women.

Why do you say demons?