Charismatic Bible Studies - 2 Peter 2:4-9

[Johann!@#]

Doesn't work. Men and angels mating--Rosemary's Baby! ;) Do we ever tire of indulging our carnal interest in fantasies? Or, are stories like this respectable enough to be believed? I think we have to look deep inside to see what the answer is?

Great-no need for me to respond then.

J.

 

[RandyK]

Great-no need for me to respond then.

J.

Respond if you have a response. I know it appears rude when I suggest that some have a carnal interest in myths. But let's look at whether this is considered "rude" by the apostle?....

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.

1 Tim 6.3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

Col 2.18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

Do you think Paul was concerned about an over-curious mind, who is willing to speculate on matters that are uncertain, resulting in controversy and even division? Drawing people away from clear doctrine and matters of faith is an attempt to create uncertainty for some, rather than just harmless speculation. We need to be cautious without putting anyone under too much restraint, as I see it.

I'm perfectly willing to indulge your arguments, which are pretty good. But equally I'm entitled to wonder if some of this excess speculation over unclear subjects is overkill? Can we really teach on something that is based on connecting dots that have several options?

My opinion is that some of this kind of interest comes from carnal minds who are more interested in dark secrets that they can preside over as a "wise person" or sage.

Rev 2.24 Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s so-called deep secrets, ‘I will not impose any other burden on you, 25 except to hold on to what you have until I come.’

I'm not at all saying this is you. In fact I don't think this is you, or anybody speaking on this subject. I find the discussion interesting and justified. I just want others who may read to take a moment to consider what their interest is in this, and how much of an interest it should be. Fair enough?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Now y'all going to have me believing they're "shapeshifters!" ;)

Those play for a different team, LoL.

 

[Hidden In Him]

That being said, here is something to consider--

"For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness..."

This text clearly connects two judgments:

The judgment of angels who sinned, and

The judgment of the ancient world in the days of Noah.

The key interpretive question is: what sin did these angels commit? -- and more specifically, was it sexual in nature?


1. 2 Peter 2:4–5
Peter does not specify the sin explicitly, but he aligns it chronologically with Noah’s time, thus linking the sin of the angels with the antediluvian (pre-Flood) period.

2. Jude 6–7 (parallel passage)
“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;
as Sodom and Gomorrah... having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (NKJV)

This is a crucial interpretive key-
Jude directly compares the angels’ sin to Sodom and Gomorrah’s sexual perversion, which involved going after strange flesh (Greek: σὰρκα ἑτέραν, "different flesh").

Scholars such as Douglas Moo, Tom Schreiner, and Richard Bauckham affirm that Jude is referring to the angelic rebellion in Genesis 6:1–4, where “sons of God” (bene elohim) take human women as wives--interpreted by many Jewish and early Christian sources as angels engaging in sexual relations with humans.

Early Jewish Interpretation
1 Enoch 6–10
An ancient Jewish text widely read in the Second Temple period and quoted in Jude (v. 14–15), 1 Enoch explicitly teaches that angels (the Watchers) lusted after and mated with human women, producing the Nephilim. This text heavily influenced Peter and Jude’s portrayal.

Philo of Alexandria (De Gigantibus §6–7)
Philo also held the view that fallen heavenly beings had sexual relations with women, an interpretation consistent with many Jewish writers of the period.

So--did the angels commit actual, sexual sin?

Yes, according to the contextual flow of 2 Peter 2:4–5, the parallel in Jude 6–7, and the interpretive backdrop of Genesis 6:1–4, the angels who sinned are widely understood to have committed sexual sin by abandoning their proper nature and engaging in unnatural relations with humans.

This interpretation was standard among:

Second Temple Jewish texts (1 Enoch, Jubilees)

Early Church Fathers (Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc.)

Many modern scholars (e.g., Michael Heiser, Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado)

I personally value Jewish sources and am not hesitant to engage with the Apocrypha, as well as the customs and cultural background of the Jewish people.

Understanding these elements often sheds much-needed light on the historical and theological context of Scripture.

Shalom.

J.

Pretty thorough post.

Do you read Bauckham by any chance, Johann? Word Biblical is more high end, and I don't often encounter a lot of forum people who read that stuff. Just curious.

 

[hawkman]

But the sexual sin was *not* connected, unless you make the assumption 1st that the "sons of God" were angels.

How is it an assumption when every other use of the phrase "sons of God " in the old testament indicates angels ?
It occurs five times in the Old Testament (Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) .