"Angels that sinned" - 2 Peter 2:4/Jude 6

"For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into helland locked them upin chainsin utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment."

I have read many things over the years as to how we interpret these two versus[refer to topic header], I am curious as to how others read the same and what resources, if any, outside of Logos they use.

One strong reference is The Book of Enoch......

Looking forward to reading your reply's...........

R4m.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Allen Browne

Hi Room3More

The best we can do is to direct you towards some resources that could help understand the problem. You're probably already aware that we can't solve theological or exegetical issues here.

You say you've already read "many things over the years", so I'm not sure what I can suggest that you won't have already read and considered. Most of the more detailed commentaries recognise the underlying Enoch narrative, also discussed in Jude. That much is clear, even if we're not sure what to make of it.

Few of the commentaries I have actually manage to come to terms with how to evaluate Peter's use of Jude's use of Enoch. Bauckham (WBC) is one of the better attempts. If you don't have the WBC series, it's often on a special that makes it really worth while. Here's a sample:

4. εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ ἐθείσατο, “for if God did not spare the angels when they sinned.” For the basis of this interpretation of Gen 6:1–4 in 1 Enoch, see the commentary on Jude 6. The author of 2 Peter has followed Jude. He may not himself have known 1 Enoch and probably in any case could not expect his readers to be familiar with it (see Introduction, section 2 of Literary Relationships), but he must have known the story of the fall of the Watchers, which was well known in contemporary Judaism, Hellenistic as well as Palestinian. In his rewriting of Jude 6 the specific verbal echoes of 1 Enoch have mostly been lost (a fact which is most easily explained if Jude is prior to 2 Peter), but this is probably accidental rather than a deliberate attempt to avoid echoes of 1 Enoch. No significance should be seen in the fact that 2 Peter omits to specify the sin of the angels (the sexual aspect of which even Jude only alludes to: Jude 7). Those who (later) objected to the idea that angels could have mated with women did not suggest that the angels sinned in some other way, but that “the sons of God” in Gen 6:1 were not angels at all, but men. If the author of 2 Peter and his readers knew the story of the fall of the Watchers at all, they must have known it as an interpretation of Gen 6:1–4 and have known that the angels sinned by taking human wives. But instead of specifying the sins of each of his three OT examples of sinners in turn, the author has chosen to sum up the sins of all three in the words of v 10a, which in fact give a strong emphasis to sexual indulgence.

Richard J. Bauckham, vol. 50, 2 Peter, Jude, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 248-49.

JoshInRI

No need to look any further than your Bible in Logos. Consider a search on "Hell +Angels". Even Jesus spoke on this.

What you will discover is remarkable.
(I am naaive enough that I didnt realize (til someone told me) thats where the motorcycle gang got their name from.)

The Book of Enoch (I dont typically go to books not in the Canon) might be an interesting read, but I thought I would encourage you to do a simple search within Logos in your chosen Bible first.

Lets pray we all might - through the Holy Spirit - encourage people toward heaven and not where the Bible clearly states the Devil and his angels go.

Not at home or I would send more detailed instructions on how to do this within Logos.

Blessings,

Joshua

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/494493#Comment_494493

Thanks, Allen,

But I disagree w/the commentator:

2Sa 19:27 But my servant has slandered me to my lord the king. But my lord the king is like an angel of God. Do whatever seems appropriate to you.

Zec 12:8 On that day the Lord himself will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the weakest among them will be like mighty David, and the dynasty of David will be like God, like the angel of the Lord before them.

2Sa 14:17 So your servant said, ‘May the word of my lord the king be my security, for my lord the king is like the angel of God when it comes to deciding between right and wrong! May the Lord your God be with you!’”

Jdg 13:6 The woman went and said to her husband, “A man sent from God came to me! He looked like God’s angelic messenger – he was very awesome. I did not ask him where he came from, and he did not tell me his name.

2Sa 14:20 Your servant Joab did this so as to change this situation. But my lord has wisdom like that of the angel of God, and knows everything that is happening in the land.”

Also, the modern Christian idea of the devil largely developed out of an interpretation of Isaiah 14:12 which was taken as a description of the fall of Satan from heaven. In the English King James Bible the word is Lucifer, which means ‘Morning Star’ - a name for the planet Venus as it is visible at daybreak. In recent years many Christian churches have stopped using Isaiah 14:12 in this way, as others have pointed out that Isaiah is describing "the King of Babylon" (14:4), "a man" (14:16), but the tradition is still strong and ‘Lucifer’ is still behind many peoples’ understanding of the devil.

However, at the time Peter and Jude wrote, ‘Lucifer’ was never used as a name for the devil. In fact Peter’s own "day star" (2 Peter 1:19, meaning Christ) was rendered ‘Lucifer’ in Latin Bibles, and as a result in the early church ‘Lucifer’ was considered as a title of Christ, also sung to in early hymns, and taken as a personal name by several bishops.

When Peter and Jude wrote, belief in fallen angels did not center around Isaiah 14:12 but rather on this verse:

"The sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful and they married any of them they chose" (Genesis 6:2)

The context of Genesis 4 and 5 suggests that ‘sons of God’ here means the same as it means in the New Testament - human believers. The infamous 5th Century Catholic theologian Augustine wrote at length about Genesis 6:2 in his book City of God and concluded that the ‘sons of God’ were the sons of Seth who "began to call on the name of the Lord" (Genesis 4:26), but were enticed away from worship of the Lord by the godless ‘daughters of men’ - meaning that they intermarried with the descendants of Cain - until only Noah and his family remained faithful. This is also the interpretation followed by the Jewish Rabbis writing on Genesis 6:2.

However, again, in the days of Peter and Jude many myths had grown up among Jews as a result of the overwhelming influence by Babylonian and Greek traditions.

As for Jewish Myths:

We might think of ‘myths’ as being something found more among Greeks and Romans, but Paul warned Titus to "pay no attention to Jewish myths" (Titus 1:14). Many of these Jewish myths are fantastic fiction about Old Testament figures, IE> as Seth, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Solomon and Ezra.

Examples of Jewish myths are found in the places like the Apocrypha of Roman Catholic Bibles (IE>Tobit; Bel and the Dragon), and in other surviving Pseudepigrapha. Jewish myths about angels and demons are also found inscribed on papyrus and pottery fragments dug up by archaeologists, and in the Dead Sea Scrolls[check your Logos Library] which were discovered in Israel in 1948. They had lain hidden since around AD70 - exactly[round about] the time at which Peter and Jude were writing....

Will add more as we discover.....

Thanks for the comments.

R4m.

George Somsel

"For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into helland locked them upin chainsin utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment."

I have read many things over the years as to how we interpret these two versus[refer to topic header], I am curious as to how others read the same and what resources, if any, outside of Logos they use.

One strong reference is The Book of Enoch......

Looking forward to reading your reply's...........

R4m.

In regard to Enoch, you might take a look at < logosres:brdssseen;ref=DSSSE.4Q201_Col._i > if you have the DSS Study edition. I note this because I have been reading Moses Stuart's commentary on the Apocalypse which I recently received where he thinks that Enoch was a Christian composition. This shows that it was Jewish.

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/494540#Comment_494540

In regard to Enoch, you might take a look at < logosres:brdssseen;ref=DSSSE.4Q201_Col._i > if you have the DSS Study edition. I note this because I have been Moses Stuart's commentary on the Apocalypse which I recently received where he thinks that Enoch was a Christian composition. This shows that it was Jewish.

Thank-you, Bro. George.....

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/494505#Comment_494505

Thanks, Joshua.

To wit, Yes, Jesus was clear as to Angels:

Matt. 22:30, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

Luke 20:34-36, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage,³⁵ but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage; ³⁶ for neither can they die anymore, for they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."

Being that I seriously doubt that Christ would get it wrong, I would have to stick to what I previously stated, notice that Jesus also refers to the "resurrection".....

Gen. 6:1-4, "Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, ² that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

Could not have been angels....?

R4m.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/494559#Comment_494559

Thanks, Joshua.

To wit, Yes, Jesus was clear as to Angels:

Matt. 22:30, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

Luke 20:34-36, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage,³⁵ but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage; ³⁶ for neither can they die anymore, for they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."

Being that I seriously doubt that Christ would get it wrong, I would have to stick to what I previously stated, notice that Jesus also refers to the "resurrection".....

Gen. 6:1-4, "Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, ² that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

Could not have been angels....?

R4m.

It is interesting that there is a somewhat common thought that when people die they become angels. I have heard denials of this, but there is an interesting passage in the Apocalypse 21.17

καὶ ἐμέτρησεν τὸ τεῖχος αὐτῆς ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τεσσάρων πηχῶν μέτρον ἀνθρώπου, ὅ ἐστιν ἀγγέλου.

Apparently at least one angel was considered to be a man.

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/494564#Comment_494564

It is interesting that there is a somewhat common thought that when people die they become angels. I have heard denials of this, but there is an interesting passage in the Apocalypse 21.17

καὶ ἐμέτρησεν τὸ τεῖχος αὐτῆς ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τεσσάρων πηχῶν μέτρον ἀνθρώπου, ὅ ἐστιν ἀγγέλου.

Apparently at least one angel was considered to be a man.

Revelations, Yes thank-you again Bro.George....[interesting how some things blend and some things do not..../]

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/494564#Comment_494564

Thanks, Joshua.

To wit, Yes, Jesus was clear as to Angels:

Matt. 22:30, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

Luke 20:34-36, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage,³⁵ but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage; ³⁶ for neither can they die anymore, for they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."

Being that I seriously doubt that Christ would get it wrong, I would have to stick to what I previously stated, notice that Jesus also refers to the "resurrection".....

Gen. 6:1-4, "Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, ² that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

Could not have been angels....?

R4m.

It is interesting that there is a somewhat common thought that when people die they become angels. I have heard denials of this, but there is an interesting passage in the Apocalypse 21.17

καὶ ἐμέτρησεν τὸ τεῖχος αὐτῆς ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τεσσάρων πηχῶν μέτρον ἀνθρώπου, ὅ ἐστιν ἀγγέλου.

Apparently at least one angel was considered to be a man.

George! *smile* Thank you indeed! You are very much appreciated!

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/494624#Comment_494624

True Milford - BUT - should we become as the angels and they possess the ability sin, then we still have the potential[ability] to sin....-?

R4m.

JoshInRI

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/494624#Comment_494624

I personally have been unable to use Logos (or more importantly my Bible) to find any evidence for what seems to be suggested here.
If I were to say that men became angels or help foster that belief, I would personally be concerned I would be a liar and misleading others.
I stick close to the recognized, traditional, wonderful Canon in my Logos searches. I believe God created the angels and some of them went the wrong way. I believe we were not intended to follow those wayward created beings into Hell with Satan. What Jesus said solidified this belief for me. All glory praise and honor be unto Him forever and ever - amen.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/495365#Comment_495365

I personally have been unable to use Logos (or more importantly my Bible) to find any evidence for what's been suggested here.
If I were to say that men became angels or help foster that belief, I would personally be concerned I would be a liar and misleading others.
I also stick close to the recognized, traditional, wonderful Canon in my Logos searches too.

So please enlighten us as to the proper interpretation of Re 21.17

καὶ ἐμέτρησεν τὸ τεῖχος αὐτῆς ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τεσσάρων πηχῶν μέτρον ἀνθρώπου, ὅ ἐστιν ἀγγέλου.

JoshInRI

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/495368#Comment_495368

George I really am not predisposed to debate (a forum no-no I am told) so I will say I quickly found this in Logos 5.0 Silver just now and it makes sense to me.

"The reference to man’s measurement simply means that though an angel is using the rod, he is using human dimensions".John F. Walvoord, "Revelation" In , in , vol. 2, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 986.

And to stick to the topic. My Bible and Logos searches have shown me some angels sinned and will be punished forever in (the real and final) Hell with Satan, who I'm convinced loves to sidetrack Divinity School students like me, with things like this [8-)]

God bless your night/day everyone!

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/495375#Comment_495375

[:D] Some resources for George:

John F. Walvoord, "Revelation"

The Revelation of Jesus Christ by John F. Walvoord

The Bible Knowledge Commentary

The Bible Knowledge Commentary by Roy B. Zuck and John F. Walvoord

Enjoy!

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/495405#Comment_495405

Some resources for George:

John F. Walvoord, "Revelation"

The Revelation of Jesus Christ by John F. Walvoord

The Bible Knowledge Commentary

The Bible Knowledge Commentary by Roy B. Zuck and John F. Walvoord

Enjoy!

It all comes back to Walvoord, doesn't it? Can anything good come out of Dallas?

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/495409#Comment_495409

t all comes back to Walvoord, doesn't it?

Yes, it does. If I hadn't had to buy all those Moody titles on short notice I would already have The John F. Walvoord Commentary and Theology Collection in my library. It is still on my wishlist.

Can anything good come out of Dallas?

Can anything good stay there? Go Sooners! [;)]

Paul N

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/495419#Comment_495419

Can anything good stay there? Go Sooners!

Hey now ST!!!!

[go pokes]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/495419#Comment_495419

t all comes back to Walvoord, doesn't it?

Yes, it does. If I hadn't had to buy all those Moody titles on short notice I would already have The John F. Walvoord Commentary and Theology Collection in my library. It is still on my wishlist.

Can anything good come out of Dallas?

Can anything good stay there? Go Sooners!

I would not trust much that Walvoord has to say. He was from that Looney Tunes center of dispensationalism which claims to hold to the inspiration of scripture but which then contorts the meaning of passages in order to conform them to their preconceived opinions. That strikes me as the inspiration of the interpreter rather than the inspiration of scripture. I can say much the same for Dan Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. He frequently says something to the effect "If you translate something as X then here is your justification—call it an XYZ genitive." I was always of the opinion that you first determine the use then you do the translation rather than the reverse.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/495433#Comment_495433

I'm still gonna buy the Walvoord collection. Probably the same time I get The Reformation Trust Collection and The American Vision Collection.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/495433#Comment_495433

I was always of the opinion that you first determine the use then you do the translation rather than the reverse.

Poor George. You always get it backwards. If you aren't careful, you'll make your brain you most exercised organ.[:(][8-|][;)]

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/495365#Comment_495365

I personally have been unable to use Logos (or more importantly my Bible) to find any evidence for what seems to be suggested here.
If I were to say that men became angels or help foster that belief, I would personally be concerned I would be a liar and misleading others.
I stick close to the recognized, traditional, wonderful Canon in my Logos searches. I believe God created the angels and some of them went the wrong way. I believe we were not intended to follow those wayward created beings into Hell with Satan. What Jesus said solidified this belief for me. All glory praise and honor be unto Him forever and ever - amen.

Joshua,[Thanks for the comment]

I would like to read the Scriptural support for this[bold,underlined,italics above]-? Would you be so kind as to post it and comment on it.....I am sure that you can find it in the L5 library.

I was always of the opinion that you first determine the use then you do the translation rather than the reverse.

Poor George. You always get it backwards. If you aren't careful, you'll make your brain you most exercised organ.

MJ, I have to agree w/Bro.George on this one, usage should always come first.....

R4m