The Book of Enoch (Pt 7) - The Angels of Jude

In continuing to look at the controversial discussion on angels and women procreating in Genesis 6, as laid out in detail in the book of Enoch and elsewhere, I wish to share a bit of modern scholarship on the topic from the recently released Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, from the discussion of the book of Jude. This book breaks down the verses and discusses them from various angles; NT Context, OT Context, and Jewish Context (with others). While this section is quite lengthy, I will try to compact it some, but this post will be a bit more lengthy than previous posts, so as to not lose the content.

In this section on Jude, they also tie it in and deal somewhat with a similar mention in 2 Peter:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2 Peter 2:4-5)

Notice, again, the connection between the angels sinning followed by mention of Noah that I mentioned in previous articles. Then, in moving to Jude.

And the angels that did not keep within their original authority, but abandoned their proper sphere, he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for the Judgment of the Great Day. And S’dom, ‘Amora and the surrounding cities, following a pattern like theirs, committing sexual sins and perversions, lie exposed as a warning of the everlasting fire awaiting those who must undergo punishment. (Jude 6-7 CJB)

The following are excerpts from the author on the topic:

The most plausible interpretation of Jude 4 is that the author has in mind ancient Jewish prophecies found in the Scriptures, for these are the examples that he proceeds to list in vv. 5-7, 11...These ancient prophecies may, in Jude's mind, include prophetic words from 1 Enoch.

Under the assumption that the OT background to Jude 6 is Gen. 6:1-4, we must ask what the latter passage means. There have been three primary interpretations: (1) the "sons of God" are angels who crossed species lines and married human women, producing "Nephilim" who were "heroes of old, men of renown" (Gen. 6:4); (2) the "sons of God" were kings, judges and other members of aristocratic nobility who displayed their own greatness by indulging in polygamy and creating harems; (3) the "sons of God" were human males from the putatively godly line of Seth who freely married women from ungodly lines.

Nowadays the majority of interpreters from across the theological spectrum accept the angel interpretation...This interpretation is assumed by the LXX, and supported by most early Jewish exegesis, though not quite all, as well as by all the earliest church fathers and some later ones (including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Lactantius), but not by some later fathers (Chrysostom, Augustine, Theodoret). "Sons of God" (in the plural) refers elsewhere in the OT to angels - certainly so in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7, and probably so in Ps. 29:1; 89:7; Dan. 3:25 (where bar-'elahin underlies the traditional rendering "mighty ones" or the like found in most English versions). Yet the interpretation does not easily fit the context of the flood, since that judgment is pronounced against humanity. (I fail to see the issue here personally...if the marriage produced wicked offspring, mixing the blood of species, and if the angels and their offspring taught mankind all kinds of sinful practices, weaponry, war, astrology, etc. then all of mankind has been tainted by this wickedness, and therefore mankind needed cleansed...save Noah and his family who had not been tainted by this union and its teachings - JM). According to Jesus, angels do not marry (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25) (do not marry each other...that is about the most you can take from this reference by Jesus, that the common practice of marriage is a covenant that angels do not engage in, in their spiritual existence - since he is relating it to man in his post-resurrected state. However, this does not in anyway make a case for the inability of angels to marry or procreate with other species, which is the case in Gen 6 - JM), and although excellent efforts have been undertaken to avoid this and other objections to the angel interpretation, the niggle make it less than a sure thing.

I will skip the majority of the refutation on the authors part of the view that "sons of God" refers to kings, nobles, and other aristocrats, since personally I have found this to be a less often used view in this discussion. But in brief, his conclusion to the refutations is:

...there is no linguistic warrant outside of Gen. 6:1-4 for supposing that "sons of God" refers to "divine kings" or, more generally, to aristocratic ruling figures, wheras the reading of "angels" has a long track record, including the LXX (Septuagint - JM).

He then continues in the sons of Seth view:

The view that "sons of God" refers to the line of Seth, while daughters of human beings" refers to non-Sethian women, not only suffers from an absence of philological support but also has few elements in its favor compared with the "diving kings" view.

To me it seems like a pretty big leap to say the sons of Seth and the ungodly human marriage would produce such notable and giant offspring that would so taint mankind that they would need exterminated. Breaking covenant is one thing, but throughout the rest of the OT, we find other sons of godly Israel intermarrying with pagan neighbors, and no such odd offspring or repercussions come about.

He goes on in the following sub-sections to state:

The interpretation of Gen. 6:1-4 that takes "the sons of God" to be angels (often called "Watchers") who have sexual intercourse with women is widespread in early Judaism (e.g., 1 En. 6-19; 21; 86-88; Jub. 4:15, 22; 5:1; CD=A II, 17-19; 1QapGen ar II, 1; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 6:1-4; T. Reub. 5:6-7; T. Naph. 3:5; 2 Bar. 56:10-14).

However we understand "the sons of God" in the Hebrew of Gen. 6:1-4, the LXX refers to them as angeloi, which word is picked up in both Jude 6 and 2 Pet. 2:4 and, in the NT, is almost always used of angels, rarely "messengers," and never of aristocratic figures such as kings and nobles. In other words, on the basis of philology alone, the angel interpretation seems most credible, unless one accepts the synthesis of Waltke and others who see that the "divine kings" are "possessed" by fallen angels, combining the strengths of the first two interpretations.

So, all in all, another mostly positive testimony for the historic view.

Here is an article I found that goes into a lot of interpretive detail on the subject. Though I do not agree with all of what is said, much of it provides good insight in the matter. Click HERE
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
 

---

Descended into hell? (Pt 9): Testimony from the Church Fathers

In this part, I pick up sort of where I left off in the previous part, looking again at what the early church fathers had to say on the topic of Jesus descending into Hades, as we have been examining this often misunderstood phrase from the Apostle's Creed.

The book on the church fathers that I have been using gives four main "proof texts" for the understanding of Jesus' descent into Hades, one of which being Ephesians 4:9 as discussed in the last part, and the others are:

For David says concerning him, “‘I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh also will dwell in hope. For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption. (Acts 2:25-27)

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. (1 Peter 3:18-20)

For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does. (1 Peter 4:6)

Again, the purpose of my quoting of the early church fathers is not so much because they have more authority, but because of the light they shed on the reason and purpose and teaching surrounding the phrase in the Apostle's Creed. So many churches seek to explain it away, and have all but ignored the original intent, and have caused much confusion. Here is what the historic church has believed concerning the subject:

Christ rose from the place of the dead, and raised up the race of Adam from the grave below. Melito (c.170).

They fully believed and understood the Scriptures to teach that when Jesus rose, he rose from somewhere. He had not simply ceased to exist for three days, nor had he been asleep, and he had not yet gone to the heavenly realm, but he had been busy and had returned from his work.

For their benefit, "He also descended into the lower parts of the earth," to behold with His eyes the state of those who were resting from their labors...For Christ did not come merely for those who believed on Him in the time of Tiberius Caesar. Nor did the Father exercise His providence only for the men who are presently alive. Rather, He exercised it for all men altogether, who from the beginning...have both feared and loved God.

It was for this reason, too, that the Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, preaching His advent there also. And he [declared] the remission of sins received by those who believe in Him.

He gathered from the ends of the earth into His Father's fold the children who were scattered abroad. And He remembered His own dead ones, who had previously fallen asleep. He came down to them so that He might deliver them.

For three days He dwelt in the place where the dead were, as the prophet said concerning Him. "And the Lord remembered His dead saints who slept formerly in the land of the dead. And he descended to them to rescue and save them." The Lord Himself said, "As Jonah remained three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so will the Son of man be in the heart of the earth." Irenaeus (c.180) - four separate quotes

I could go on with multiple other quotes, but I think after all the previous parts of this series, that ending the topic with a few additional quotes would be sufficient to show that we as a modern church have strayed far from the original and historical understanding of this (among other) doctrines. I will end with just one more:

Hades is not supposed by us to be a bare cavity, nor some subterranean sewer of the world. Rather it is a vast deep space in the interior of the earth...For we read that Christ in His death spent three days in the heart of the earth...He did not ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth. This was so that He might there [in Hades] make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself. Tertullian (c.210)

As high of an importance as most Reformed churches place on adherence to the Apostle's Creed as a test of orthodoxy, I find it odd that they would reinterpret parts of it to their liking in the face of such overwhelming information against the view. This understanding of these verses was the common doctrine of those instrumental in forming the early creeds. Most modern churches strike out at and/or reinterpret this very doctrine of Christ's descent into Hades as taught in the Creed and history; are we to assume they feel the framers of the creed were in error on this point; and if they were in error on this phrase, how can we hold any of the other parts of the creed as a irrefutable, beyond discussion, test or orthodoxy?
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10
 

---

Bleeding the Church: Expecting Something for Nothing?

Some of you who know me, know of my long time and heavy involvement in music. I have been in many bands over the past 22 years, but have also been a music collector for longer. I have a large collection of music related items, have been a supporter and promoter of Christian music since the 80's, even running my own underground music magazine for a handful of years in the late 80's/early 90's, and today continue to work with and write for a currently published music magazine. This article results from my years of involvement in music, as well as recent events that spawned this story. I wrote the majority of this articles almost two years ago, and found the text buried on my pen drive, and decided to finish it and post it here. This story is also painting with broad strokes often, and is not directed at any specific event in my life, but a general overview of my experiences.

Eschatology Informs Your Worldview

Just thought I'd share this excellent video by Gary DeMar.

Old Testament Studies

I have recently begun a concerted effort to study the Old Testament in more depth, for the purpose of more fully grasping the weight and purpose of what is said in the New Testament. I fully stand behind the idea that much of the confusion in the modern church, leading to many odd and misleading doctrines, comes from a faulty, or often totally absent reading/understanding of the words and language of what was laid out in the OT.

I wish to share some of the books I have begun using for this study, and if you know of any others that are great, please let me know. These are just a few that I currently have in my possession for the study. The first being picture above, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. This massive 1239 page volume promises to hold a wealth of wisdom as it looks to take the words of the NT and find their OT reference point. Click the book photo or link to read some great reviews and additional information.

Another book I will be using is "An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach" by Bruce K. Waltke. I do not know much about it aside from the great reviews it got. The author is listed as being one of the outstanding OT scholars around, and is the professor of OT at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. I did find it odd that some reviewers listed him as leaning towards dispensational understandings in some area, which I thought strange for someone supposedly Reformed, but noticed he did get his ThD from Dallas Theological Seminary), so I am hoping it is not too persuasive in his writing.

Another book I recently heard of and acquired which sounds promising, is "A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context" by Scot McKnight. The book looks at Jesus and his dealing with national Israel and its role as God's holy people in the first century world, and his message calling them to repentance.

I see people too often taking words of the NT way out of context and making odd applications to today's church, when the thrust of what was being said was directed at the specific first century people, under specific scenarios applicable to their culture and issues of that time. This is not to say that I don't feel we can glean applications from most all of scripture, but far too often, the original intent and application is ignored, unknown or just abused beyond all reason, and the true thrust of what is being said gets butchered. So far, I have begun reading the prologue, and have been pleased with the direction this book is heading.

A couple recent NT Wright book purchases which I have also begun reading, are directed along the same line, and so far have proved very enlightening and helpful to my studies. The most recent book which goes for the throat of modern understandings in various areas, and gets to some of the roots of the historic meaning of issues, is "Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church." One of the reviews on the back cover states

Responsible Christians must carefully study this book. It uniquely meets the challenge facing the Church with recovering the original, radical understanding of resurrection, salvation, and the Good News of life now in the Kingdom of God. - Dallas Willard

It sounds very promising and helpful.

Another of his books that I actually began reading a couple months ago, is volume three of the Christian Origins and the Question of God series, entitled "The Resurrection of the Son of God." I have read a good chunk of the beginning and have been well pleased on the amount of great historical depth he presents. I have been on the search for the first two volumes (hoping to find them in hardback at a reasonable price), but know my continued reading in this volume will be beneficial.

And the last major set I will mention (but not by far the last of the books I will use), is a nice set I recently acquired, entitled "The IVP Bible Background Commentary" and has a volume on both the New and Old Testament. It appears to be a very interesting commentary, which each verse/section presenting background information and references that will hopfully aid in my study.

There are various other titles I have gleaned from recently, and I am always on the lookout for books to further and deepen my study in this area, so feel free to post suggestions of what has been beneficial in your studies in this area.

I am sure as the study continues, I will be sharing pieces of what I find in these volumes, and welcome any discussion you may wish to share.

High Fructose Corn Syrup?

Not sure if they are appearing nationwide, but I keep seeing these silly little commercials on TV trying to convince viewers that High Fructose Corn Syrup is safe and similar to sugar and honey. Yes a simple internet search will reveal to you a wealth of information on both sides of the argument, and the side against makes a much stronger case, in my opinion, than those who would support these current commercials. I wish to simply share one short, concise article I found on the subject, and hope those with a health conscious mind will ready further and decide.

One of the big issues that surrounds this product, is whether or not it indeed is chemically addicting, and leads to further cravings and ingestion of more and more, causing weight issues.

Dangers of High Fructose Corn Syrup

by Kevin Millard, Jul 4, 2007
(http://www.healthmad.com/Nutrition/Dangers-of-High-Fructose-Corn-Syrup.32885)

High fructose corn syrup is the new silent killer. Sadly, it is found in almost everything we eat. find out how to avoid it.

One of the greatest ways we can improve our health is to eliminate high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from our diets.

What is HFCS?

HFCS is not the run of the mill corn syrup found on the grocery store shelf, nor is it the fructose naturally found in fruits and honey. HFCS is a highly refined clear liquid derived from corn starch. Food manufactures love to use it because of its long shelf life an it's relative low cost.

Why is HFCS Bad for us?

Since HFCS's widespread introduction in the 1980's North American obesity rates have skyrocketed. Obesity has been linked to may heath issues including heart disease and many forms of cancer. When HFCS is ingested, it travels straight to the liver which turns the sugary liquid into fat, and unlike other carbohydrates HFCS does not cause the pancreas to produce insulin; which acts as a hunger quenching signal to the brain. So we get stuck in a vicious cycle, eating food that gets immediately stored as fat and never feeling full.

Where is HFCS found?

HFCS is found in almost everything we eat today. However, the worst culprit has to be soft drinks. A single 12 oz can of cola has up to 13 tsp of sugar, most of it fructose from HFCS. There is HFCS hidden in many of our other food as well, like ketchup, relish, cookies, and most alarmingly in low-fat diet foods. Manufactures substitute HFCS for the fat in food like mayo and salad dressings, then mark them as diet foods.

How Can We Avoid HFCS?

Avoiding HFCS will take a lifestyle change for the better. The first food to go has to be the soft drinks; this includes fruit punch, fruit cocktails, and Kool-Aid since they are all laden with HFCS.

Second, eat more meals at home. Restaurant foods are mostly prepackaged foods reheated and served to you. Use of HFCS in these foods is wide spread because of their increased shelf life.

Third, diet while you shop. Since you are going to be eating most of your meals at home, you're going to want to fill your cupboards with the best foods. While shopping, read the labels, if HFCS, fructose, or modified corn starch appears within the first five ingredients place it back on the shelf an move on. Sounds easy right? Wrong. As you make your way through the store you will begin to realize just how much of what you have been eating on a daily basis contains HFCS.

Reducing HFCS will not always be easy, but the health benefits are well worth it. You will feel stronger and more vital, it will lift your mood and give you increased concentration. Limiting your intake of HFCS will not only shrink your midsection but also do wonders for your over all health.

An article discussing the commercials and the controversy can be found at

http://cbs5.com/health/high.Fructose.Corn.2.831352.html

You may also wish to check out CornSyrupKills.net

Nothing New about the New Testament

Back in the 1990's (and earlier of course), before the internet was such a huge part of everyone's life, and before anyone and everyone had a web page they called "home," most people or ministries that had anything to say, did it via a periodic printed and mailed newsletter or magazine. I was one of those types that also ran an underground music magazine from about 1988 through 1990, and a smaller newsletter from 1991 through about 1998 before launching finally moving most everything to a web page.

Well, I was digging through a filing cabinet today and found folder after folders of these printed newsletters and magazines from other ministries from back in the day, I ran across one that brought back thoughts and understandings that I have only in recent years really started to grasp, so I wanted to share some thoughts on the topic.

The articles in question come from the pen of one Steve Schlissel of Messiah's Congregation in Brooklyn, NY. He published the "Messiah Mandate" in various forms for many years, and the articles I am speaking of appeared in the third and fourth letters of 1998. Part one was entitled "All I Really Need to Know I Learn in the Old Testament" and part two was...maybe you guessed it..."All I Really Need to Know I Learn in the New Testament." You can click the links to go read them yourself (yes, of course they are now on the web...lol)

For a bit less than a year back in 1994, my family and I attended Pastor Schlissel's church, and were truly blessed by his preaching. While he may be considered somewhat controversial nowadays, I still consider him one of the best teachers I have had the pleasure of sitting under in my Christian life.

The articles make a strong position for the proper understanding and place of the Old Testament (OT), and how it not only contains all we need to know to preach the gospel, but that without it, the New Testament (NT) makes little sense. In today's church, there are more and more teachers that have basically thrown out the OT and focus mainly on the NT, as if the gospel originated and find its substance there alone. Even the practice of Bible companies making and distributing the little NT Bibles is a great injustice to the Word of God.

How would we look on it if say someone took the last three chapters of Pilgrims Progress and released it on its own and expected people to fully grasp what is being said. The articles go into much more excellent detail on the importance of returning to a view that see the Bible as one complete story, and not two main divisions, one old and out dated, and the other new and exciting. As it has been put before, there is nothing new about the NT; it is simply a expounding and opening of the mysteries of the OT.

When Christ and the Apostles went from town to town preaching the gospel, and pointing to the importance of the Scriptures, what Scriptures were they speaking of? The letters of Paul, Peter, etc.? Of course not, they taught all things from the written word of God, which at that time consisted of the writings of the OT (along with other Jewish writings that we have since deemed non-canonical).

For instance, in Acts 8:26 and following, we find the story of Philip and the eunuch, and we find Philip expounding the gospel and Christ from Isaiah and other OT books. Then we have the common verse in 2 Timothy 3:16, that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, etc. When 2 Timothy was written in the mid 60's, it is true much of the NT had already been pinned, but we can't think for a moment that there was any kind of coherent collection of writings that even closely resembled what we now call the NT. There were letters circulating, and while what is being said by Paul here to Timothy may possibly be addressing and acknowledging some of these writings, we have to see the thrust of what is being said is directed at that which was commonly known as being the Scripture, which of course is the OT.

The book of Acts finds the Apostles preaching often in the synagogues and elsewhere, expounding from the Scriptures...the OT...and thousands are coming to Christ. One of the most interesting of sayings was when Paul said:

...because of these things the Jews—having caught me in the temple—were endeavoring to kill me. Having obtained, therefore, help from God, till this day, I have stood witnessing both to small and to great, saying nothing besides the things that both the prophets and Moses spake of as about to come, that the Christ is to suffer, whether first by a rising from the dead, he is about to proclaim light to the people and to the nations. (Acts 26:21-23)

Paul said that all of his preaching, on Christ, and even resurrection, was what came from Moses and the prophets. Even Peter, in dealing with issues of the last days things taking place in his time, tells them to remember that what he is saying is from the words of the prophets (2 Peter 1:2). He was not saying they were preaching of revealing totally new issues, but they kept harking back to the prophets of old, and what they said would happen in those last days.

We should surely view the NT as nothing really new, but just the writings of the infant church that assist us in the more clear revealing and fulfilling of the things prophesied of old.

So, could YOU mimic the first century Christians and preach the gospel and the message of salvation to others without relying on the NT?

Where two or three are gathered....? - OUT OF CONTEXT SCRIPTURE!

Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. (Matthew 18:19-20)

If I had a nickle for every time I heard someone use this verse to claim some kind of special presence or assistance from Christ whenever two or more Christian brethren assembled in agreement with each other for some reason, I could definitely enjoy quite a few Venti Starbucks beverages.

What exactly is being said in this verse that is so often used out of context? In order to grasp the context, you must start at the beginning of the topic, back at verses fifteen. If you have a Christian brother who has sinned against you, you are to go and tell him. If he he won't listen to youAgain I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
, then you are to:

...take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. (v. 16)

So right here we see why the two or three are mentioned to begin with, for the sole purpose of being witnesses against the sin of the brother in question. This standard practice hearkens back to the ancient Jewish practice and law established in Deuteronomy:

On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. (Deut. 17:6-7)

A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. (Deut. 19:15)

Part of a legal hearing requires two or three witnesses for a case to be established. In Matthew 18, we are dealing with a case against a brother who has sinned. He has been approached by the one sinned against, then he has been approached with two or three others to witness his stubborn rebellion against repentance in the matter, and after those steps have been taken, by the word of the two or three witnesses, his sin is made public to the whole church body, and if he still is in rebellion and won't listen, then he is to be cast out, excommunicated from the body, and treated as one outside the faith, a pagan.

So, the two or three gathered together are not asking God for favors or prayers, but are in agreement over a judgment in the body. The Apostles were given the keys to loose and bind things on earth, and this is an example of that power in action. If you, as a member of a church, are processed legitimately through the Matthew 18 process, and are cast out, then it is indeed a fearful thing for you, as you have legally, by the very power and presence of Christ found present among the words of the two or three witnesses, been removed from the body of Christ for your rebellion.

One commentator states is clearly:

This is connected with the previous verses. The connection is this: The obstinate man is to be excluded from the church. The care of the church — the power of admitting or excluding members — of organizing and establishing it — is committed to you, the apostles (Mt 18:18). Yet there is not need of the whole to give validity to the transaction. When two of you agree, or have the same mind, feelings, and opinion, about the arrangement of affairs in the church, or about things desired for its welfare, and shall ask of God, it shall be done for them. See Acts 1:14-26, 15:1-29. The promise here has respect to the apostles in organizing the church. It cannot, with any propriety, be applied to the ordinary prayers of believers. Other promises are made to them, and it is true that the prayer of faith will be answered; but that is not the truth taught here. (Barne's Notes)

Many today have ignored the power the local, legitimate church body was given to bind and loose such things, pertaining to your very standing in the eyes of God.

Today, if someone disagrees with a church, they simply leave and move on to find one they agree with more fully. But don't be fooled, God doesn't look so simply at rebellion and lack of repentance as we might. If you leave a church in a rebellious manner, without resolving the issue via Matthew 18, your very salvation may be in question before God.

Matthew 18:19-20 is not a comfort for anyone that Jesus is present when they met; it is a call of judgment against those rebellious to the legal offices of the church established by Christ and the Apostles.

View Other "Out of Context" Verses
 

The Book of Enoch (Pt 6) - Genesis 6, Angels & Objections (Pt 1)

OK, so we have gathered a few objections to the angels and women understanding of Genesis 6. However, we have also received some from a reader, so I wanted to deal with them a little also.

But first, let us turn to the early church fathers again. I gave a couple quotes from them in the two part discussion on the Nephilim (see HERE), but here is quite a few more, only a couple I will share here:

The other angels were created by Him, and entrusted with the control of matter and the forms of matter...Just as with men, they have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice...Some of them have continued in those things for which God had made them. They have remained over the things to which He had ordained them. But some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the oversight entrusted to them...These angels fell into impure love of virgins and were subjugated by the flesh...Those who are called giants were begotten from these lovers of virgins. Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.142

The angels are likewise possessed of personal freedom. For we can be sure that if the angels had not possessed personal freedom, they would not have consorted with the daughters of men, thereby sinning and falling from their places. In like manner, also, the other angels, who did the will of their Lord, were raised to a higher rank because of their self-control. Bardesanes (c. 222, E), 8.725.

But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards
subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness. Justin Martyr (c. 160) 1.190

...in the days of Noah He justly brought on the deluge for the purpose of extinguishing that most infamous race of men then existent, who could not bring forth fruit to God, since the angels that sinned had commingled with them... Irenaeus (c. 180) 1.524

To which also we shall add, that the angels who had obtained the superior rank, having sunk into pleasures, told to the women the secrets which had come to their knowledge... Clement of Alexandria (c. 195) 2.446

I could quote many, many more as evidence that this was pretty much the common understanding amoung the Ante-Nicene fathers, but I will stop at this point. Like I said before, I do not hold the early church up as an infallible rule, but since so many other people look to them for defending other historic doctrines, it is at least prudent to look at their teachings in such matters as these.

Now, the first objection is edited and summed up like this:

Objection #1

How could a spiritual being, an angel, impregnate a woman. Angels do not have physical bodies, they cannot take on physical bodies at will, and they do not have the creative power of God to beget life on their own. In the case of mortals, God has determined how mankind shall reproduce, and it is He who gives life. In the case of these depraved angels, it would seem impossible for them to beget children through women, or any other creature.

Now of course this objection was a quick post summed up by the writer from a lecture heard on the topic, and does not provide much depth or defense for this position, but let us briefly look at it as it is simply stated.

Where do we find in the Bible any support for these claims:

1) Angels are spiritual beings and can't impregnate women
2) Angels do not/cannot have physical bodies (or not take them on at will)
3) Angels do have the ability to beget life on their own

Interestingly, we can easily dismiss part of point two from the Scripture. Genesis 18 tells of Abraham meeting three angels, in human form, whose feet he washed, and then sat eating and drinking with them. So they obviously can take on physical bodies when needed. Most commentators agree these three visitors were angels, and I will mention just one esteemed commentator:

Before Moses proceeds to his principal subject, he describes to us, the hospitality of the holy man; and he calls the angels men, because, being clothed with human bodies, they appeared to be nothing else than men. - John Calvin

This is further enforced as being the case when just one chapter later we find:

The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth (Genesis 19:1)

And again, we find them in physical form, being touched, and eating with Lot. And then what are we to make of the exhortation in Hebrews 13:2:

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

It seems plain that angels can, have, and will take human form to appear to us for various reasons. Do they have power to do so at anytime as they will? Who knows. I don't believe the Scripture says much of anything relating to this, for or against, so how can we just throw the whole topic out based on silence? We have evidence they can become physical, so that is enough to dismiss the second part of this objection.

So, if they are indeed able to take human, physical form, who says they cannot have relations with or procreate with mankind? Who says they are totally unable to procreate? How do we know they indeed cannot beget life on their own? Where in the canon of Scripture is this topic even addressed?

Such objections seems solely based on speculation, and as we see, these speculations fly in the face of the church historic.

You have sometimes read and believed that the Creator's angels have been changed into human form, and have carried about so real of a body that Abraham even washed their feet and Lot was rescued from the Sodomites by their hands. An angel, moreover, wrestled with a man so strenuously with his body, that the latter desired to be let loose. Tertullian (c. 210, W), 3.523.

So, we see the Scriptures do reveal that while angels are spiritual beings, some in the order of angels, can, have, and still do take on physical form to interact with mankind. We find no evidence from canonical Scripture that these beings are incapable of sexual relations or procreation, and therefore can make no clear doctrine on the topic.

So, in my mind, this objection is no real objection based on Scripture at all.
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
 

---

Why the Constitution Party?

I thought I would share a writing I recently received from an associate regarding the Constitution Party:

by Paul Richard Strange, Sr. - My decision to join the Constitution Party was not an easy decision. The American political reality is that no alternative political movement has actually succeeded since the Republican Party first arose in the mid-1800’s. From that time to this, most citizens have preferred the stability of supporting one of the two major political parties over the major obstacles that the “new kid on the block” is bound to face.

What compelled me to actually become a Constitution Party member was whenever I asked myself the questions in my heart and mind about what the country we all love will look like if nobody is willing to help form a Constitution Party.

What kind of America will exist for the little people who deserve the constitutional liberties and economic opportunities that require that we overcome our national addiction to socialism? Can the nation continue this way? Is the current price of gasoline an omen of the reduction of the standard of living for middle America?

What kind of America will our grandchildren inherit if we never have a time when a single Congress controlled by either of the two major parties ever will justify the federal budget by any part of the Constitution in specific terms. In my entire lifetime, I have NEVER ONCE heard a journalist ask the presidential candidate of the two major parties in a national debate to explain where they find a right to abort babies in the Constitution, nor the right to give taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood in the Constitution, nor the unrelenting appetite of the obese federal government to usurp absolutely every privilege provided by our Founders for we, the people, and our state governments.

The question I’ve had to ask, “Can we really change anything as ordinary human beings who want the best of America to endure to the ages, and the worst things about America to be honestly exposed and corrected?” I believe that we can, but it takes the guts to think outside the box. Two parties that have no real competition, nor any accountability to the Constitution, cannot help themselves from always taking the paths of least political resistance.

My social critique is not simply to ignore our own tendencies as citizens. We have a First Amendment, email, and tools that previous generations of our people could never dream of. If we do nothing about socialism, nor to raise the standard of the Constitution in the public marketplace of ideas, we are many times more accountable than our parents and grandparents, who had no direct means to challenge the smoke-filled rooms, and force a constitutional renewal upon the nation!

Three things all of us can do, in my opinion:

(1) Purpose to read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights at least once or twice before we vote. (Even fairly slow readers like me can read these wonderful documents in less than an hour!); and

(2) Consider getting with a few friends who don’t normally care that much about politics, order a pizza, and read these documents, and discuss what it means. (It doesn’t have to be a boring night!); and, finally,

(3) Ask each other, “What would a constitutionally reformed federal government look like?”

All of these actions are in our best interests, whether or not you ever join a new party. They will help us renew the strong sense that this truly is our country, in a way that cannot happen by simply supporting the status quo!