Charismatic Bible Studies - 2 Peter 2:4-9

[RandyK]

Not a chance . It certainly not a hill to die on for me , whole earth or just land . But I do like to talk about it .

Thank you--breaking fellowship over opinions is the only thing I worried about. Many years ago, when I finally made a complete commitment to Christ, God seemed to require of me that I inform all of my friends my new commitment. I lost *every friend!*

Then as I began to walk in the Lord, I found many Christians were weak--many of them new Christians--I was not. They bolted from the faith the instant a girlfriend broke up with them, they had financial problems, or were too tempted by sin. I lost many of my Christian friends.

Among the stronger Christian friends, I discovered that all of us have pride problems. Some of these friends discarded our friendship over certain matters that really didn't warrant major problems--it was all pride.

I'm happily married to a Christian woman who has stood fast, even though she was raised up in paganism and in a divisive family atmosphere. We struggle in our little church with all of its problems, but we try to keep our hearts right towards those we seem to have problems with.

I can tell you're a good Christian, and someone I'd like to consider a true, though distant, friend? And yes, we can discuss any subject that you're interested in. I have opinions about everything! ;)

I'll start a new post to give you my thoughts on the matters you raised.

 

[RandyK]

So what you are saying is all the earth/land that mattered in the scheme of things was flooded , all the earth that had been corrupted as God said . In your thinking were all humans , other than those on the ark , wiped out ?

I'm saying that when the record used the phrase "all the earth" it was actually talking about the territory round about Noah's civilization. A better description would be, in my view, "all the land."

Every piece of dry land, as far as the eye could see, was flooded, and everything that lived on the land died. This was not the earth as in a globe, but rather, all the land round about Noah's civilization.

I think of what God did with Noah was intended to show Man that God intended to save the earth--not destroy it. And so, He had Noah save up a representative sample of animals from his region to show future generations that God does not intend to destroy the earth due to human sin. Rather, He intends to repopulate it with righteous people.

There is so very much we do not know about the antediluvian world such as what was the percentage of oxygen in the air . It has been suggested it was much higher and that is one of the reasons for such longevity of humans and the reason the animals and insects grew so much larger , I am speaking of the same species we have with us today .

True, conditions had to be different for those living before the Flood because they lived such long ages. And even after the Flood people continued to live much longer than we do today.

Do you know what the land mass looked like before the flood ?

I'm not anti-science. It can certainly be wrong, making too many assumptions. But generally, it uses methodologies that can be very accurate. Dating rocks and studying geology can really look into the distant past, though it can indeed make uniformitarian assumptions, as if the geoogical processes evolve uniformly without catastrophe.

My understanding is that the eruption of nearby Mt. St. Helens left a landscape that might ordinarily tell geologists that trees ended up the way they did over many thousands of years. Instead, a single calamity caused an unusual evolution in a short period of time.

But studying the earth and dating rocks we can get a pretty good idea of atmospheric conditions in Old Earth. It's just something we have to look at. For example, unmolested ice at the poles can show trapped gases from eras gone by, as I understand it. Or, the decay of substnces in rocks can show how long it has taken to change from one element to its resulting element.

Do you know what the salinity of the waters were pre-flood ? Wow , a wide variation even today .

No, but it's common sense to know that when rain falls, it gathers into streams and wetlands, the land not having enough salt to make the waters brine. We have the opposite in the oceans. It's a good bet God made some fish freshwater fish, and other fish saltwater fish.

Did you know there are species of fish today that require a depth habitat. The overwhelming waters of a flood would destroy these many species of fish. And without the food chain, beginning with vegetation, I doubt that any fish could survive a global flood.

Have you ever tried to eradicate weeds from your garden , flower beds or yard ? Tough to do isn't it ?

Actually I've done it a number of times in my back yard. I've used throwaway carpet remnants to lay over stickers, dandelions, etc. After a couple of months everything is dead under the carpet. Some things can leave long roots and runners to catch the sun outside of the carpet and survive. But a universal flood--I don't really think so.

Could it be the plants that did not survive the flood God had already considered that at the time of creation ?

I'm not sure what you mean? If God considered that He might cause a Global Flood later, after creation, He would not have made plants, animals, insects, and birds as He did, knowing they would be destroyed.

But several places in the Bible God said that the earth is forever. It may be "made new," but the one we have is the one we'll always have, it seems. It will just become immune to abuses that threaten it.

Could it be the God had preplanned for the flood before the world was ever created so all the necessary components were already figured in ?

Yes, God could create a world underwater and preserve all creatures and plants if He wanted. But this would be more akin to Science Fiction. It's interesting, God can do anything, but would He do something so out of the norm (for God)? I don't really think so.

Thanks for raising the questions though. I do want to cover every base when I take a stand on anything. And I always want to remain flexible, and open to change, if the Lord wishes it and makes it known to me. Thanks brother!

 

[hawkman]

I'm not sure what you mean? If God considered that He might cause a Global Flood later, after creation, He would not have made plants, animals, insects, and birds as He did, knowing they would be destroyed.

Could have all the things destroyed already served their purpose before the flood waters came ? There are many extinct plants , animals and birds .
From things observed within about 200 yards of my house I could show you a Lepidodendron fossil . It is about 7 feet long imbedded in sandstone rock . This extinct tree (@300 million years ago , they say ) lived in swampy areas and this area now is not swampy it is a mountain .

Yes, God could create a world underwater and preserve all creatures and plants if He wanted. But this would be more akin to Science Fiction. It's interesting, God can do anything, but would He do something so out of the norm (for God)? I don't really think so.

Normal for God ? Like stopping the sun in the sky so a battle could be won ? I have seen God do things that science or otherwise can not do .

 

[RandyK]

Could have all the things destroyed already served their purpose before the flood waters came ? There are many extinct plants , animals and birds .
From things observed within about 200 yards of my house I could show you a Lepidodendron fossil . It is about 7 feet long imbedded in sandstone rock . This extinct tree (@300 million years ago , they say ) lived in swampy areas and this area now is not swampy it is a mountain .
View attachment 21362

Normal for God ? Like stopping the sun in the sky so a battle could be won ? I have seen God do things that science or otherwise can not do .

Yea, God has done some pretty spectacular things. Perhaps He does Science Fiction too? After all, many of us enjoy that genre! I know I do! ;) I will never say what God can and can't do--I only suggest what seems *likely* He'd do.

I can say this, that God may have twice given us gas in our car that should've run down or run out. I can't say I know why He chose those occasions, and not others. But they were noticeable activities we were engaged in--one an emergency situation. I've seen other possible miracles, and a boatload of positive "coincidences."

I know a lot of plants and animals have gone extinct. But as I said, a Global Flood would've made *all creatures and vegetation* outside of the ark dead and gone. So anticipating this I don't think God would've made them in the 1st place. He would have to do a 2nd act of Creation.

 

[Hidden In Him]

That's why I personally focus so much on *what the Scriptures explicitly say,*

So do I. I was thinking this morning how ought it is finding people to discuss the word verse by verse these days. It's like it's a lost art or something. But it ends up being the difference between truth and heresy, and accuracy vs. lies.

Taking this closer to home, quite a few years ago Constance Cumby visited our city. She drew a large crowd for a moderately-sized church, and saw even one of our State Senators, Ellen Craswell, attend.

If you don't know, she sort of started this fascination with the New Age movement on behalf of the Church. She was around politicians and heard new words being used, and had to find out where these new words were coming from.

She traced it back to what she called the "New Age Movement," and discovered its roots were in Luciferianism, or the Occult. Anyway, I think the Senator should've taken notice. I know she was a Christian, but was leading a Christian charge in a very liberal state.

As Christians we all wanted to vote for her. But shockingly, the liberal candidate won, ending the brief time Christians enjoyed "one of their own" in the government.

I actually worked for the Christian publishing company that published her books for awhile. It's in this city.

Some Christians today believe that Christianity will win, politically, by force of prayer and faith, and by pure persistence, trying to get as many Christians into office as possible. But I think the book of Revelation was written to warn us that even though we can make strides in government and in society with our testimony, the end result in this age will be Antichrist.

I hold to this position as well.

 

[Hidden In Him]

These unclean spirits (demons) had “taken captive” the Gnostics to influence them to teach doctrines of demons, that ultimately led astray those who gave heed to their teachings to depart from the faith.

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron. 1 Timothy 4:1-2


These doctrines of demons are taught through people who have departed from the doctrine of Christ because they do not love the truth.

And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.
2 Timothy 2:23-26

Agreed. There's a whole passage in 2nd Thessalonians that teaches the same thing, and that because they love not the truth, the Lord will allow demonic signs and wonders to appear to confirm the lies. They don't have to believe the truth their hearts would rather believe something else instead.

 

[hawkman]

3. How much do you believe the account of the angels sinning with women, and why?

I believe the angels sinned with women , the information is in the bible is why .

From "Bloodline of the Nephilim "
DID ANGELS HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HUMAN WOMEN?
Job, the oldest book of the Bible, was written by the patriarch Job who lived close to the time of the flood, thus the references to angels reflect this. There is passage not often cited in scripture that states directly that certain angels were indeed involved in illicit relations with human women. It occurs when Eliphas, one of Job’s friends who is consoling him over the loss of his family in a Satanically empowered hurricane, shares a Divine vision he had:

Now a thing was secretly brought to me, and mine ear received a little thereof. In thoughts from the visions of the night, when deep sleep falleth on men, Fear came upon me, and trembling, which made all my bones to shake. Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up: It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes, there was silence, and I heard a voice, saying, Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker? Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: – (Job 4:13-18).

The word “folly” in the Old Testament is used to describe sexual sin. Once again, we use Scripture to interpret Scripture. Here are several examples:
And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her… And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob’s daughter: which thing ought not to be done. –
Genesis 34:1-2, 7.
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. –

Deuteronomy 22:21.
And it came to pass after this, that Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. And Amnon was so vexed, that he fell sick for his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin; and Amnon thought it hard for him to do anything to her… And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister. And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly. – Samuel 13:1-2. 11-12.
So here we see that certain untrustworthy angels were charged with the sin of “folly” for sinful sexual acts. In the Septuagint the verse from Job says: “he perceives perverseness in his angels” giving even more confirmation that there were sinful sexual acts committed by angels.

The books of 2 Peter and Jude detail the punishment of the angels who committed these sins:
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath 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, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. – Jude 1:6-8.
Here we see a reference to angels who left their “habitation” and are reserved in chains until Judgment Day. This was the punishment for those angels who left their habitation of he spirit world to “go after strange flesh”, (namely human women). Also note there is a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, cities so steeped in sexual corruption that when two Godly angels came to visit the home of Lot to usher he and his family out of the city, the men and boys came to Lot’s home demanding that the angels be brought out so that they could “know them.”

​

 

[Hidden In Him]

The word “folly” in the Old Testament is used to describe sexual sin. Once again, we use Scripture to interpret Scripture. Here are several examples:
And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her… And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob’s daughter: which thing ought not to be done. –
Genesis 34:1-2, 7.
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. –

Deuteronomy 22:21.
And it came to pass after this, that Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. And Amnon was so vexed, that he fell sick for his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin; and Amnon thought it hard for him to do anything to her… And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister. And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly. – Samuel 13:1-2. 11-12.
So here we see that certain untrustworthy angels were charged with the sin of “folly” for sinful sexual acts. In the Septuagint the verse from Job says: “he perceives perverseness in his angels” giving even more confirmation that there were sinful sexual acts committed by angels.

Wow!

This is very insightful. Never seen this argument used before. Gonna have to take some time out later and check to see if the same word is used in the originals, but that is indeed an overlooked verse of scripture.

 

[RandyK]

Wow!

This is very insightful. Never seen this argument used before. Gonna have to take some time out later and check to see if the same word is used in the originals, but that is indeed an overlooked verse of scripture.

Yea, it's an impressive argument, although it seems to be more an inference than an explicit statement of fact. In the form of humans angels appear to be subject to sexual abuse--at least in theory, as the story of Sodom indicates.

I seriously question whether the people of Sodom would try to physically abuse "giant" angels. So perhaps angels can appear in different sizes?

However, procreating "giants" is another thing entirely, as the story before the Flood suggests. That has to be read into the passage.

Putting these things together brings out a pretty good argument. However, I'm running the Hebrew word by my brothers, because he's much more adept at the biblical languages than I am.

 

[Johann!@#]

So here we see that certain untrustworthy angels were charged with the sin of “folly” for sinful sexual acts. In the Septuagint the verse from Job says: “he perceives perverseness in his angels” giving even more confirmation that there were sinful sexual acts committed by angels.

hawkman

The Generalization-- "The word 'folly' in the Old Testament is used to describe sexual sin."

This is too broad and not universally accurate.

Nᵊbālāh can mean moral outrage, disgrace, godlessness, or senselessness, not always sexual. For example-

Psalm 14:1 – "The fool [nābāl] says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" This use of the root word refers to atheistic or irreverent behavior, not sexual sin.

Joshua 7:15 – Refers to nᵊbālāh in the context of violating the ban (ḥērem), again with no sexual connotation.

So, while nᵊbālāh can refer to sexual sin, it more broadly refers to any outrageous or disgraceful act, with sexual sin being one category.

2. So, your claim--- “Untrustworthy angels were charged with the sin of 'folly' for sinful sexual acts.”

---is speculative and not substantiated by the Hebrew or LXX of Job.

Job 4:18 (LXX):
Greek: “καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ πλημμέλειαν εἶδεν”
Translation: “He observed perversity (plēmmeleia) in His angels.”

While plēmmeleia can denote fault or sin, it does not specifically imply sexual sin, nor does the context of Job 4 suggest such an act. The speaker (Eliphaz) is using hyperbolic language to emphasize God's transcendence and justice.

Hebrew (Job 4:18):
"הֵן בַּעֲבָדָיו לֹא יַאֲמִין וּבְמַלְאָכָיו יָשִׂים תָּהֳלָה׃"
The phrase “puts charge/error upon his angels” refers to divine superiority and angelic fallibility, not necessarily sexual perversion.

There is no biblical text (Hebrew or Greek) that explicitly accuses angels of sexual immorality using the term nᵊbālāh.

The idea that angels committed sexual sin derives more from extrabiblical sources like 1 Enoch 6–10, later apocryphal traditions, and some early Church Fathers--not the canonical Hebrew Bible or LXX.


Yes, “folly” (nᵊbālāh) in the Old Testament is sometimes used for sexual sin, particularly when connected to phrases like “folly in Israel.”

But it does not always mean sexual sin; it denotes a broader range of disgraceful acts.

There is no direct textual evidence in either the Hebrew Bible or the LXX linking angelic sin to nᵊbālāh or specifically sexual misconduct.

The passage from Job 4:18 is not about sexual sin and must not be treated as such without strong exegetical support.

Thanks.

J.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I seriously question whether the people of Sodom would try to physically abuse "giant" angels. So perhaps angels can appear in different sizes?

That's an excellent point, Randy. How would we "entertain angels unawares" if they were abnormally huge all the time? Yes, I believe they can take many forms, though I personally think their standard/ natural form is what appears to be giant-sized men.

 

[hawkman]

The Generalization-- "The word 'folly' in the Old Testament is used to describe sexual sin."

This is too broad and not universally accurate.

I can fix that !

Notice it said the word "used" it did not say "always means" or anything like that .

Maybe this will clarify .

"The word 'folly' in the Old Testament is sometimes used to describe sexual sin. "

 

[Johann!@#]

I can fix that !

Notice it said the word "used" it did not say "always means" or anything like that .

Maybe this will clarify .

"The word 'folly' in the Old Testament is sometimes used to describe sexual sin. "

No problemos brother.

J.

 

[JLB]

I believe the angels sinned with women , the information is in the bible is why .

Yes sir.

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, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;
2 Peter 2:4-5

I think it’s clear what sin the angels committed in the days of Noah.

 

[RandyK]

That's an excellent point, Randy. How would we "entertain angels unawares" if they were abnormally huge all the time? Yes, I believe they can take many forms, though I personally think their standard/ natural form is what appears to be giant-sized men.

Yes, my brother saw one. I probably told you before--he was quite large. Now y'all going to have me believing they're "shapeshifters!" ;)

 

[RandyK]

hawkman

The Generalization-- "The word 'folly' in the Old Testament is used to describe sexual sin."

This is too broad and not universally accurate.

Nᵊbālāh can mean moral outrage, disgrace, godlessness, or senselessness, not always sexual. For example-

Psalm 14:1 – "The fool [nābāl] says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" This use of the root word refers to atheistic or irreverent behavior, not sexual sin.

Joshua 7:15 – Refers to nᵊbālāh in the context of violating the ban (ḥērem), again with no sexual connotation.

So, while nᵊbālāh can refer to sexual sin, it more broadly refers to any outrageous or disgraceful act, with sexual sin being one category.

2. So, your claim--- “Untrustworthy angels were charged with the sin of 'folly' for sinful sexual acts.”

---is speculative and not substantiated by the Hebrew or LXX of Job.

Job 4:18 (LXX):
Greek: “καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ πλημμέλειαν εἶδεν”
Translation: “He observed perversity (plēmmeleia) in His angels.”

While plēmmeleia can denote fault or sin, it does not specifically imply sexual sin, nor does the context of Job 4 suggest such an act. The speaker (Eliphaz) is using hyperbolic language to emphasize God's transcendence and justice.

Hebrew (Job 4:18):
"הֵן בַּעֲבָדָיו לֹא יַאֲמִין וּבְמַלְאָכָיו יָשִׂים תָּהֳלָה׃"
The phrase “puts charge/error upon his angels” refers to divine superiority and angelic fallibility, not necessarily sexual perversion.

There is no biblical text (Hebrew or Greek) that explicitly accuses angels of sexual immorality using the term nᵊbālāh.

The idea that angels committed sexual sin derives more from extrabiblical sources like 1 Enoch 6–10, later apocryphal traditions, and some early Church Fathers--not the canonical Hebrew Bible or LXX.


Yes, “folly” (nᵊbālāh) in the Old Testament is sometimes used for sexual sin, particularly when connected to phrases like “folly in Israel.”

But it does not always mean sexual sin; it denotes a broader range of disgraceful acts.

There is no direct textual evidence in either the Hebrew Bible or the LXX linking angelic sin to nᵊbālāh or specifically sexual misconduct.

The passage from Job 4:18 is not about sexual sin and must not be treated as such without strong exegetical support.

Thanks.

J.

Yea, that was my 1st thought too. I don't know either Hebrew or Greek, but my understanding that the Greek term for fornication, porneia, also covers not just a single kind of sexual sin but an assortment of sexual sins. So the application of a word can be a bit more expansive than is sometimes realized.

In this case, the word likewise seems to have a diversity of applications, and does not apply just to sexual sin, rape, or sexual molestation. So, as I understand you, both the Hebrew word and the Greek equivalent in the Septuagint do not have to apply only to sexual perversions of some kind?

 

[Johann!@#]

Yea, that was my 1st thought too. I don't know either Hebrew or Greek, but my understanding that the Greek term for fornication, porneia, also covers not just a single kind of sexual sin but an assortment of sexual sins. So the application of a word can be a bit more expansive than is sometimes realized.

In this case, the word likewise seems to have a diversity of applications, and does not apply just to sexual sin, rape, or sexual molestation.

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.

 

[Johann!@#]

So, as I understand you, both the Hebrew word and the Greek equivalent in the Septuagint do not have to apply only to sexual perversions of some kind?

My apologies RandyK--do you want the short, or long answer? Examples?

Johann.

 

[RandyK]

My apologies RandyK--do you want the short, or long answer? Examples?

Johann.

I think I already understand. I was just wanting confirmation. But if I'm wrong I want to be corrected.

 

[RandyK]

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.

Yes, but we have to ask, How are these two judgments being connected? Were the "sons of God" in the pre-Flood account representative of angels who sinned? Or, was the ancient world following after Satan, who was an angel that sinned?

We know that rebellious angels are "chained" in some way. We seem to see that in Rev 9.1. This is the Locust Plague in which demonic locusts are released from their bondage to plague some people in the world. So they may be kept in chains, but can be released by Satan, perhaps?

Satan himself is bound in sin, and fallen from heaven, perhaps? But he remains active despite this bondage.

So, what was Satan's sin? He wanted people to depart from obedience to God's word, and to follow his advice. He wanted the worship of men, which is an unnatural relationship between angels and men.

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

There is more than one possibility. We have no examples of men and angels fornicating unless we identify the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 as angels.

And that is not at all certain. Angels do not appear to procreate, as Jesus indicated in Mark 12.25--"When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."

Now this doesn't say that angels cannot have sex. But that may be implied in the statement that they *don't marry.* Furthermore, we only have mankind procreating in Genesis--not angels.

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.

As I showed you, the alignment of the sins of angels and the sins prior to the Flood does not determine the sins of the angels, even though they are comparable. Rebellion is rebellion whether it involves angels rebelling against God's word or mankind rebelling against God's word. There is no definite comparison on the *kind of sin.*

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").

"Strange flesh" refers to unnatural desire, such as homosexuality. The men of Sodom sought to have sex with the men they did not know were angels. They were indulging their homosexual lust, or lust after "strange flesh." The angels only appeared as flesh, but likely were not actually "flesh and blood."

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.

Yes, I know that many good Christians believe the angels had sex with women. I don't, and I'm a good Christian too.

There are all kinds of ancient beliefs, probably indulged in by good Christians, that did not turn out to be true. Christians down through the ages have accepted documents that were partly true and partly false, such as Enoch.

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.

Yes, many thought Enoch was virtually canonical, perhaps. But ultimately, it was not accepted as such. It doesn't mean everything in Enoch was wrong. But in the end, some of it was found to be uninspired.

Quite frankly, I think a number of good questions have questioned the canonical nature of books like Revelation, as well as others now considered canonical. Luther didn't accept James. A lot of good Christians early and later accepted apocryphal books that later were rejected as non-canonical.

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.

There are good people on both sides of many arguments.

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.

I don't believe 2 Pet 2 and Jude 6-7 indicate that angels commited sexual sin. As you pointed out, the general events of angelic rebellion and punishment together with human rebellion and punishment were connected. But the sexual sin was *not* connected, unless you make the assumption 1st that the "sons of God" were angels.

I don't see that. The "sons of God" can be either angels or men who had chosen to initially follow God. These "sons of God" were, in my thinking, "backsliders," who let their eyes indulge in lust, consequently coming under judgment by the Flood.

The sin of the angels is related, biblically, only to Satan. He represents angelic rebellion generally, and sinned by tempting man to disobey God's word. That meant his sin was rebellion against God's word, appearing to get mankind to worship himself in place of God.

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.

You make a good argument, and I've heard it before. It just never convinced me. Sorry!

Engaging in this kind of speculation doesn't have enough explicit evidence for me. It is more like piecing things together to make it fit, and then corroborating that with a large number of respectable names.

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?