The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Demons and fallen angels

I am convinced that you have blinded yourself to sound EXEGESIS being obsessed with this fictional view which again has absolutely NO biblical support whatsoever. All Jude is saying is that Satan and some angels were not satisfied with their appointed places, i.e., being in subjection to God to do His will. They chose to leave their appointed places, i.e., they rebelled against God seeking a higher place; to be as God. (see Gen 3:5; Matt 4:9) The result of their rebellion was their being cast out of God's presence and being bound until the final judgment. This binding is a restricting of their created power and ability as angels. Thus, they are "free" but according to their bound condition and even that is only according to God's sovereign will and purpose. (see Job 1:4-12; Zech 3:1-7)

The view you hold is incontrovertibly UNbiblical. It originates from the apocryphal writings of the Book of Enoch, and others. This is admitted by some who hold to this view, for example, the scholar Zezschwitz has the following:

Peter adopts the fables of the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, and "Jewish tradition." In order to frustrate the plan of sending a Savior to be born of men the demons (Gen. 6:4) cohabited with women and begot a terrible progeny, half-devil, half-human, which was as little redeemable as were their fathers. In order that the whole human race might not become infected God wiped it out by the flood, save the family of Noah. The spirits of these half-devils were held in prison, namely apart in the lowest dungeons of hell, so that on the day of judgment they might not appear before God's tribunal together with the other sinners. Christ descended to them and pronounced their doom in advance of the final judgment. This is called the type. The antitype is the Antichrist, a spiritual son of Satan who by a generatio spiritualis seeks to corrupt the souls of men. This is the counterpart to the cohabitation of the demons mentioned in Gen. 5:4. This second effort Christ will destroy at his Parousia.

I agree with the Greek scholar R.C.H. Lenski, when commenting on this alleged interpretation of 1Pet 3:22, "Such an interpretation can scarcely be called exegesis!" He further comments on this view in his commentary on II Peter 2:4,

In their comments on this passage and on Jude 6 some interpreters advance the supposition that these were angels who cohabited with women and begot a wicked race which God had to destroy by means of the flood. This is thought to be the meaning of Gen. 6:2, 4. . . Verses 4 and 5 are thought to belong together in a special way and recite what God did to these angels and to the race of half-demons which they begot. We cannot take the space to develop this subject here.
In his commentary on Genesis Delitzsch thoroughly refutes what he right calls "these fables of the Jewish gnosticizing Haggadah". We note only that Jesus himself says that angels are sexless, that they cannot marry (Matt. 22:30). Genesis 6 says nothing about angels; it speaks of "the sons of God" (the descendants of Seth) marrying "the daughters of men" (the descendants of Cain who could be called by no higher name). In Genesis 5 the two lines, the genealogies of Seth and of Cain, are given. The Book of Enoch has added many late insertions. Now it makes this, now that the sin of the wicked angels. Its oldest parts speak of a fall and sin of the stars which did not appear at the appointed time. The fiction about evil angels begetting children occurs in the so-called "Noah-Book," a late edition to the older parts of this Book of Enoch.

The Scriptures offer no such idea of angels marrying and/or copulating with human women nor any of the other imaginative things that accompany such a view. That you cannot accept that there are two lines drawn within the human race (elect vs. non-elect) nor that the regenerate elect knew in their hearts, written by the Spirit of God, that they were not to "mingle" with the non-elect before Sinai (cf Rom 5:12-14) and thus accountable for their sin. This fictitious view which you hold to with such tenacity DOES in fact impact other doctrines as must be the case since no truth exists in isolation from all other truth; it is all one truth given by God.

In His grace,