Grace Bible Church Gillette, Wyoming

B. The correlation that Peter made between false teachers and the fallen angels was that if God punished (“not spared”) sinful angels, who were created higher, wiser, and stronger than men, how much more would he punish false teachers?

C. God shows no partiality toward sin nor toward those who pervert the truth of His Word.

D. The conditional “if” is not completed until 2Pe 2:9, after the three illustrations are given.

II. SONS OF GOD IN GEN 6:1-6

A. Was Peter referring to Gen 6:1-6 when he spoke of the “angels when they sinned?” One of the most controversial texts in Scripture is Gen 6:1-6. The controversy revolves around whether or not demons had something to do with co-mingling with the daughters of men.

B. The three views concerning the interpretation of the “sons of God” are:

1. View #1 - Sons of Seth

2. View #2 - Human Kings

3. View #3 - Demons

C. View #1 - Sons of Seth

1. This view suggests that the sons of Seth (Gen 4:25-26) married from the evil Cainites.

2. This view sees the sons of Seth as the godly line. If that were the case, then why did they marry the ungodly Cainites? Also, if the Sethites were godly, why did God need to destroy the earth?

3. In addition, why would the daughters of men” exclusively be the daughters of Cainites since Adam and Eve had other children (Gen 5:4).

D. View #2 - Human Kings

1. This view suggests that Human Kings became despots and took women from anywhere to be their harem.

2. It is very difficult to understand why these evil kings would be called, “sons of God.” It would also be difficult to understand how the fact that some kings had harems would corrupt the rest of those living in the world.

E. View #3 - Demons

1. The language used in the context strongly suggests demonic activity. This view seems to agree with the context more than the other views. There also appears to be support from other passages of Scripture.

2. The detailed arguments are:

a. The term in the OT, “sons of God,” is almost always identified as angelic beings whether fallen or unfallen (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 cp. Psa 29:1; Psa 89:6).

b. Note: The Nephilim might not necessarily be the offspring of the demonic union but may have already been on the earth (“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days”… “and also afterward”…”when the sons of God…”, Gen 6:4). The word Nephilim comes from the root naphal which means “to fall.” In this case, it could be, “those who cause to fall.” They would have been oppressors, conquerors, and warriors who possibly contributed to the wickedness on the earth.

1) The word nephilim is from a root meaning to fall, indicating that they were strong men who fell on others in the sense of overpowering them (the only other use of this term is in Num. 13:33). They were already in the earth when the mighty men and men of renown were born. The fallen ones are not the offspring from the union in 6:1, 2. (MacArthur)

2) The Hebrew word nephilim is simply transliterated here, because the meaning of the term is uncertain. According to the text, the Nephilim became mighty warriors and gained great fame in the antediluvian world. The text may imply they were the offspring of the sexual union of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of humankind" (v. 2), but it stops short of saying this in a direct manner. The Nephilim are mentioned in the OT only here and in Num 13:33, where it is stated that they were giants (thus KJV, TEV, NLT "giants" here). The narrator observes that the Anakites of Canaan were descendants of the Nephilim. Certainly, these later Anakite Nephilim could not be descendants of the antediluvian Nephilim (see also the following note on the word "this"). [The] observation [of Nephilim] is parenthetical, explaining that there were Nephilim even after the flood. If all humankind, with the exception of Noah and his family, died in the flood, it is difficult to understand how the postdiluvian Nephilim could be related to the antediluvian Nephilim or how the Anakites of Canaan could be their descendants (see Num 13:33). It is likely that the term Nephilim refers generally to "giants" (see HALOT 709) without implying any ethnic connection between the antediluvian and postdiluvian varieties. (NET Notes)

c. How can such cohabitation between demons and human (women) be explained?

1) The objection to this supposed union of angel flesh and human flesh is that the angels are supposed to be sexless, since Jesus said, 'At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven' (Matt. 22:30). But this is not the equivalent of saying that the angels are sexless or that they could not have had sexual relations with women if they had chosen to do so. In heaven human beings will not marry but will nevertheless retain their identity, which includes their being either male or female. In the same way, the angels could also have sexual identities. It is significant perhaps that when the angels are referred to in Scripture it is always with the masculine pronoun 'he,' and they are always described as men. So, as Henry M. Morris says, 'When Jesus said that the angels in heaven do not marry, this does not necessarily mean that those who have been cast out of heaven were incapable of doing so.' (Boice, Genesis)

2) Jesus’ statement concerning angels not marrying or given in marriage (Mat 22:30; Mar 12:25; Luk 20:35) does not rule out the possibility of demons possessing the bodies of individuals in order to cohabitate with human women.

3) Matthew 22:30 does not necessarily negate the possibility that angels are capable of procreation, but just that they do not marry. To procreate physically, they had to possess human, male bodies. (MSB)

4) A solution seems to consist in recognizing that the children were true human children of truly human fathers and mothers, but that all were possessed and controlled by evil spirits. That is, these fallen angelic sons of God' accomplished their purposes by something equivalent to demon possession, indwelling the bodies of human men, and then also taking (or 'possessing') the bodies of the women as well. (Morris, Genesis Flood)

5) If the demons cohabited with human woman, there would also appear to be some accountability on the willingness of the human women. The Book of Enoch alludes to the idea that these women were taught witchcraft, occultic practices, and magic. Such demonic activities would have influenced their offspring as well as society. Contextually, this would have been a major contributing factor to the wickedness in the world and a reason for God to destroy it (Gen 6:5

d. Peter warns of God’s wrath against sin and apparently gives chronological examples.

1) 2Pe 2:5: the example is given of Noah’s flood which is found in Gen 7:23.

2) 2Pe 2:6: the example is given of Sodom and Gomorrah found in Gen 19:28.

3) But prior in 2Pe 2:4: If we stick to a chronological perspective, when did the angels sin? The only possible biblical account would be Gen 6:2-4.

e. In addition, Peter speaks of a punishment so severe for those particular angels that they would be held in prison until judgment. We know that other demons, which were placed in prison, were only temporarily confined (Rev 9:1-3). Jude 6 appears to confirm that there are demons who are permanently confined until judgment. What did those particular angels do that was so horrendous? Jude explains, [they were] angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode. (The proper abode cannot merely mean that they left heaven, otherwise, Satan and his angels would be permanently confined.) It very likely suggests that the cohabitation of angels and human woman produced a hideous and unnatural union which violated the God-ordained “domain” and “proper abode” that God had established.

1) The Abyss seems to refer to a temporary confinement (Luk 8:31cf. Mat 8:29; Rev 17:8; Rev 20:1-3).

2) Tartarus seems to refer to a permanent confinement until God’s judgment in the lake of fire (Rev 20:10).

a) In 2Pe 2:4, the Greek word for “hell” is not gehenna but is the word Tartaros.

b) Tartaros was regarded by the Greeks as a place of permanent torment and punishment below Hades. It is also mentioned in the pseudepigraphal book of Enoch as the place where fallen angels are confined. This does not mean that Peter believed in Greek mythology, but perhaps his word choice of tartarus points to a belief of demonic cohabitation in Gen 6.

f. Antiquity lends its support to the demon view. Such writings are not inspired and they may even be spurious. However, they can give an understanding of the general belief of that era. Even Jude quoted a small portion of Enoch (Jude 14).

1) The Book of Enoch (200 B.C.) espoused the view of a co-mingling between angelic beings and human women. And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children. (Enoch 6:1-3a).

2) Josephus recorded the contemporary view that in Gen 6, angelic beings took wives…For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust (The Works of Josephus, Bk. 1, Ch.3:73).

3) It was supported by some of the earliest Christian writers, Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen. It is still supported by numerous modern commentaries.

Grace Bible Church · 4000 E. Collins Rd · PO Box #3762 · Gillette, WY · (307) 686-1516