The "angels" in Jude 6

[David M]

Following a discussion and my challenge to RAM to post a study of Jude verse 6 to find out who are the "angels" referred to, here is my study. I shall not be entering discussion, but if you want to add to the study, and present your own understanding, that will be appreciated.


(Jude v6) 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.

Before getting into the actual study of this verse, we should note how the letter is composed and the distinct sections. This helps to see the context of the verse under consideration.

Introduction vv 1-2
1. Occasion of the Letter vv 3-4
2. Historical examples of unbelief and rebellion vv 5-7
3. False Teachers described vv 8-19
4. Exhortation to Christians vv 20-23
Conclusion vv 24-25

In verse 3, Jude is concerned about 'earnestly contending the faith.' The message of Jude is applicable to our day as it was in the days Jude wrote his letter. In the letters of Paul, we are warned about false Christs and deceivers who have such a convincing message that unless well grounded in the scriptures the message of the deceivers would almost deceive the saints. Maybe not intentionally, but it is ironic that false teaching has deceived believers into thinking Jude is talking about Holy Angels of God which have sinned and fallen from heaven. Finding out, who the 'angels' of verse 6 are, is essential to understanding the true nature of God's Holy Angels.

The Bible might appear to have paradoxes and therefore it is necessary to understand scripture in order to resolve the paradoxes. This must be don e to ensure God’s word remains coherent to us as God (the author) intends. The one paradox is that of angels. Verses like Jude 6 are used to support the idea that God’s Holy Angels sinned, yet the teaching of the Son of God was that God’s will is done in Heaven and as Hebrews 1:14 says; Are they (God’s Holy Angels) not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? The sovereignty of God to control His creation is at question here. Whereas humans were given free choice and that gave them freedom to reject God, God’s Holy Angels were created to be God’s agents to carry specific instructions. There is no reason to assume God’s Holy Angels refused to carry out those instructions and rebelled. The confusion between 'angels' and God’s Holy Angels needs to be resolved.

(1 Corinthians 14:33) 'For God is not the author of confusion.' If we are confused, it is because we have not correctly interpreted God’s word. The figurative language used must be interpreted correctly. The use of figurative language is the way God’s message has been able to be delivered in different languages throughout history. It is the interpretation put on the language by man that has changed the message. Only using the original documents can the nearest we get the truth of what was written. This is the starting point; to establish what was in the author’s mind and wanted to convey to the readers and hearers of the letter. To understand the figurative language used also requires the language at the time of translation to be understood. The King James Edition of the Bible, for example, is still regarded as one of the most faithful interpretations of the texts available at the time. Today, the meaning of some words has changed and the style of language has changed. Great care must be taken in Bible study to take into account changing language over the centuries. The original message as it was given to the inspired authors has not been changed. The translators have had to make a choice in the selection of the words used and sometimes this can lead to a bias based on the inherent beliefs of the translators. Those translations of the ancient scriptures that have been compiled from a consensus of a number of translators and sources will prove the most accurate and reliable. It is advisable to compare different translations in order to get the best possible understanding.

With that said, let’s begin to understand what is meant by the word 'angels' in Jude 6.
In verse 5, Jude reminds his readers of something they already knew; 'I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this.' We must ask ourselves the question; what is it that Jude is reminding his readers of? The answer has to do with the period following the Exodus from Egypt and while the people are in the Wilderness; as verse 5 explains; 'how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not'.
This is the context for verse 6. We should also note that verse 6 begins with the word 'And.' Therefore, we should take verses 5 and 6 together; 'how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not and the angels which kept not their first estate, ...'. There is no reason for Jude to go off at a tangent in verse 6 and talk of another event outside the events he is drawing our attention to. The remainder of verse 6 is a metaphor which we also have to understand and this will be explained later once we have established who the 'angels' are in verse 6.

The Greek word 'angelos', simply means a 'messenger' and can apply to humans. The word can be used of priests, ministers, and apostles or whoever relayed God’s message. The notion that the word 'angels' only applies to God’s Holy Angels is wrong. Had the translators used the word 'messengers', 'ministers', or 'priests', the thought of God’s Holy Angels would never have come to mind. The word 'angel' does not have to have supernatural connotations.

In the context of something that happened after the people were delivered from Egypt, we have to find out who were killed and why. There are several groups who were destroyed in the wilderness and these are;
1. The 10 spies sent out to survey the Promised Land
2. All the congregation who murmured and disbelieved God
3. Korah, Dathan and Abiram and their 250 followers

Note: Group 2 all died naturally in the wilderness; they were not destroyed like the others were, but were kept in the wilderness until that generation died off. They wandered for forty years (Numbers 14:29) and because of their disbelief they perished in the wilderness and not allowed to enter the Promised Land. Group 1 were destroyed (killed) for disbelieving. The spies reported that the Children of Israel would not be able to overcome the people living in the Promised Land (Numbers 14:37). Group 3 were killed for rebelling against Moses and God (Numbers 16).
Group 2 we can rule out as being 'angels' because they had no specific message to give. Group 1 brought back a message about what they found in the Promised Land, but there is nothing in this story that suggests the spies 'left their first estate'. In other words, the spies had not sought to elevate themselves for what they had done. Group 3 were men to give God's message to the people and who could be considered to have "left their first estate". This makes Group 3 the obvious choice to be the 'angels.' There is no record during the wilderness journey (or ever) involving God’s Holy Angels rebelling and sinning.

The story of Korah, Dathan and Abiram was well known to the Jews (Israel). These men contended with Moses for leadership of the people. The complete story is found in Numbers 16. For now, Numbers 26:9 tells us that these people were well known. 'This is that Dathan and Abiram, which were famous in the congregation, who strove against Moses and against Aaron in the company of Korah, when they strove against the LORD'.
Korah was of the tribe of Levi. The Levites were chosen as the tribe from which the men would serve as priests (ministers). (Numbers 16: 8) 'And Moses said unto Korah, Hear, I pray you, ye sons of Levi: (9) Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the LORD, and to stand before the congregation to minister unto them?' Had the word 'ministers' or 'priests' been used in verse 6 instead of the word 'angels,' and the misunderstanding would not have arisen. The 250 followers of Korah (and his two accomplices) were 'princes' in Israel and it is possible that by following these three men, they were looking for an increase in status also. Korah and his accomplices wanted to take over the leadership of the people. Jude’s statement; 'which kept not their first estate' becomes clear. These men were not content with the roles they had been given and they were not content with Moses’ leadership; they wanted change. In so doing they showed greed and envy.
The final part to which the angels did (verse 6) was; "left their own habitation". This was in contrast to them not "keeping their first estate". Their actions resulted in them changing their habitation on earth for the habitation of the grave regarded as 'rooms of darkness' in the bowels of the earth. They had gone from the light of life into darkness of the grave. Instead of being content with the responsible positions they had been given, they wanted more. Recalling the teaching in Paul’s message, we are told; (Philippians 4:11) Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. So this was the problem with Korah, Dathan and Abiram, they were not content with the state they had been given in the service of the Lord.

The outcome of this story is; Korah, Dathan and Abiram were cast down into the earth (literally). A deep crevasse opened up beneath their feet and they fell into it and died. 2 Peter 2:4 recalls the same event and uses words (metaphors) like; 'cast down to hell' signifying the grave and 'chains of darkness' to signify that that is where they remained until the Day of Judgement. The spectacle of these men falling into a deep crevasse could be imagined as falling into the abyss and the bowels of the earth or into 'rooms of darkness'. These were the imaginations of the people at the time Jude is writing his letter. This is how the people imagined what was below the surface of the earth and this is what they would have understood from Jude’s and Peter’s letters. We are more enlightened today as to what lies deep below our feet, yet this does not detract from the important message Jude has to tell us. The clear message is; these men died and they remain dead until the final Day of Judgment comes (Jude 6); 'unto the judgment of the great day.' This also applies to the 250 followers (Princes in Israel) who were killed after the deaths of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. The deaths of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and their followers was a memorable event. This is a story that is often told in Sunday schools and we might recall this from our own Sunday school days now we have been reminded of it.

The punishment resulting in the death of these men was spectacular for the way it was carried out and for its immediacy and severity. It is recorded in Num 26:10; 'they became a sign.' This 'sign' is to show how serious it is for those given positions of responsibility in God’s administration to rebel against Him. This is the important event to which we can reasonably conclude Jude was reminding his readers.

The ministers (angels) are clearly the three men who died. In addition, the 250 followers could be considered as 'messengers'. It would require that many men to spread God’s messages given to Moses to pass on to the people. The total number of people who left Egypt could have easily numbered 2 million or more. Each of the 250 'Princes in Israel' would have had to spread the message to 10,000 (approximately) people.

There is much figurative language used by Jude and it is essential to correctly understand the language used. It is not in the scope of this explanation concerning the word 'angels' to consider references to 'Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil'. This can easily be explained and the archangel, who (in this case) is an Holy Angel of God must not be confused with an 'angel' who is only a human messenger. This does not exclude the word 'angels' being used to mean an Holy Angel of God, but care must be taken to establish this is the case. Since the word can be applied to both God’s Holy Angel and that of a human messenger, the onus is on the Bible student to divide the word of scripture correctly. Saying that 'angels' and 'archangel' are used in the same context is simply to make a wrong connection.

Since figurative language for death has been used in the verses under consideration, we should understand God’s teaching about death. This will remove the mystery and superstitions which surround the subject. It is legitimate to use common language and phrases that the people of that period would understand, even if that means borrowing mythical language of the time. Therefore, all the expressions used by Jude and in the parallel account of 2 Peter 2:14 using the following phrases must be seen in the same light; 'everlasting chains under darkness', 'cast them down to hell'. Because the Greek word for 'tartarus' has been used by Peter, does not mean that Peter believed in the folklore surrounding that word. However, by using the word, the people receiving his message understood the fatal end which befell the rebels. Euphemisms and metaphors for death does not change the fact that when a person dies, that means cessation of life. The Bible makes it very clear. Psalm 6:5 'For in death there is no remembrance of thee: ' Eccl 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast:

What about life after death? This is a separate subject but the only life spoken of in the Bible after death is the life that comes from resurrection. The example of the Lord Jesus is proof of this. Forget the false teaching of the immortal soul and going to heaven at the time of death. These are not supported scripturally. Jesus was dead for three full days in the tomb. In that time he had no consciousness; he was dead. The clue as to what happens at death and resurrection is given to us by Jesus and was also confirmed at the death of the martyr; Stephen. In his dying words, Jesus said; 'into thy (God) hands I commend my spirit'. God retains the spirit of the person by which God is able to reunite that spirit with the body at resurrection. The body once in the grave (hell, Gehenna, the pit, rooms of darkness, whatever...) the body decays; it corrupts. All expressions meaning death means the body will decay. Proverbs 5:22 uses the word 'cords' in the similar context to the word 'chains' in Jude. In the context of Proverbs 5, it is clearly speaking of humans who are dead. The saints, of whom Jude has reminded us, are those who are judged worthy to be with Christ in his kingdom (to come). The Bible teaching is that when we die we go to the grave and there we remain forever, or until the next conscious moment the person is resurrected to stand before Jesus at the judgement seat. The 'angels chained in darkness' are only human messengers in the grave until the Day of Judgment at the resurrection. There is no mystery in death to consider. The mystery is; how does God retain the spirit of those who are going to be raised for judgement? God is so powerful and capable we have been given the proof in the resurrection of Jesus. This is our assurance from God in that He can do the same for us. It is beyond our capability to understand how God can do this.

In this study of 'angels' we have come across figurative language that can be misleading if not correctly understood. Every word and expression cannot be taken literally and the correct meaning takes some searching out. For example, we cannot consider the angels as spirit beings held with physical chains. What physical chain retain a spirit? We should also bear in mind that in Jude's letter common language of the day would have been even used, even the folklore of his day in the same way that we use folklore expressions today. For example, when the technology does not work correctly, we say the Gremlins are at work. We know that there are no such beings as Gremlins, but that does not stop us from using the expression. You know what I mean by that expression. Please bear this example in mind to get to a true understanding of the term Satan or the Devil that you read of in the Bible.

An explanation for who the "angels" are in verse 6 of Jude has been given. The 'angels' refer to Korah, Dathan and Abiram (and maybe their 250 followers can be included). Is this explanation plausible? Have the scriptures rightly been used to come to this conclusion? Who else might this word 'angels' refer to, if not Korah, Dathan and Abiram? Also keep in mind that scripture must be coherent and must not create paradoxes which cannot be answered. Use the method of questioning everything and getting the answers to those questions. Look for the context (people, time, and place) of the events referred to or to whom the message was given. Look for the answers in the Bible. Compare Bible commentaries, but decide for yourself, whether those commentaries are based on sound reasoning and which of the interpretations is the wisest.

In the wonderful doxology that Jude closes his letter with and in the last verse there is another irony. God is given the ascription of being wise as believers know He is. In view of the fact that so many have considered the writings of Jude in the wrong context has led to the wrong belief about God’s Holy Angels. God did not create His Holy Angels so they could rebel. That is why God's kingdom is not divided as Jesus alluded to when he said that Satan's kingdom was divided. God gave us (humans) the freedom to choose between good and evil; life and death. There is nothing to say this same freedom was given to God's Holy Angels. To believe such a thing in the light of Jesus’ teaching, is not having a correct understanding and wisdom. To 'earnestly contend for the same faith that was once delivered to the saints', we have to be like Kings and search out a the matter. The saints shall be Kings and Priests on the earth assisting Jesus in his millennial reign and they will be in the Kingdom of God on earth. (Proverbs 25:2) It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. Taking some of Jude’s words at face value as they appear in the Bible translation that has been handed down to us, has made searching out the matter more necessary. Considering the translators could have used the word 'ministers' or 'priests' instead of 'angels' would not have lead to wresting the scriptures as some have done and have come to an incorrect understanding of God’s Holy Angels.


May God bless you in the study of His word and in further understanding the remainder of Jude’s letter.

David

(Jude 24) Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, (25) to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen.

[duxrow]

Nice job, David. Your analysis of composition reminds me of the way E.W.Bullinger stresses the 'structure' in his Companion Bible. I just checked his Jude page (online) and think he missed some important details that you've included. His appendage pages by subject may add to it -- are you familiar?
Blessings!

[Twospirits]

David M wrote,

Following a discussion and my challenge to RAM to post a study of Jude verse 6 to find out who are the "angels" referred to, here is my study. I shall not be entering discussion, but if you want to add to the study, and present your own understanding, that will be appreciated.

Thanks David for that excellent commentary on Jude.

Here are a few more notes that may further help us in this study for people have different views of what we read in Jude and 2 Peter 2, so we need to ask, what does the Bible say?

Jude links the sin of the 'angels' with the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah in v. 7. Both Jude in this passage, and Peter in both of his epistles refer to imprisoned 'angels' (2 Pt.2:4-10; 1 Pt 3:18-20). Both 2 Peter 2:4-10 and 1 Peter 3:18-20 link these imprisoned 'angels' with the judgment of the ancient world during the time of Noah (the Flood).

From the immediate context of Jude 6 along with the parallel texts of 1 and 2 Peter we see Jude is referring to the account recorded in Genesis 6. Would this then mean that Genesis 6 is an account of fallen angels engaged in immorality with human women? Or that a close look at Genesis 6 will reveal that these were not angels but rather men who rebelled against God.

( I took these notes from the study of 'The meaning of 'sons of God' in Gen. 6:1-4' by Trevor J. Major M. Sc., M.A.).

The main interpretive issue in Genesis 6:1-4 is the meaning of the phrase 'sons of God' and 'daughters of men/' Those who support the view of the 'angelic being' explanation quote Jude 6-7 and 2 Peter 4,5, both of which discuss those rebellious angels and their consignment to a dark prison until the day of judgment. It is apparent however, that if Jude and Peter are referring to Genesis 6, it is only on the prior assumption (mythological story in Enoch) that the latter passage is in fact about fallen angels. In fact, these New Testament passages nowhere refer to angels partaking in earthly marriages and having children. Even if one suggests that the word 'these' in Jude 7 has its precedent in verse six (which may not be a correct interpretation), the passage clearly refers to fornication and homosexuality, whereas Genesis 6:2 refers to proper marriage. In addition, other parts of Enoch do not include the marriage element in the stories surrounding the fall of angels, and so it is inconsistent to say that Jude is attempting to teach doctrine from one part of Enoch while ignoring contradictory statements in other parts. Keil argues in detail to the effect that Peter and Jude are not condoning the stories in Enoch, and 'give no credence to these fables of a Jewish gnosticizing tradition.'

Attempts to substantiate a second fall of angels (i.e., in addition to that which can be inferred from the appearance of Satan in Genesis 3:1-6) violate Scripture in every way, apart from the violence done to Jude and Peter. An explanation can be acceptable only if it is logically consistent with biblical teaching on angels. Thus, an answer must be found in theology, not philology. Note the following:

(a) Prior to Genesis 6:1-4, no mention is made of angels—not even their creation (although this does not mean to say they were not included in the acts of creation in Genesis 1);

(b) Jesus taught (Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25, Luke 20:34) that angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. While they often take on a male form while acting as messengers of God on Earth, they do not function as physical or sexual beings. Angels have been observed to eat (Genesis 18:8; 19:3), but this is a far cry from breeding, and besides, who is to say that their eating was not simply for purposes of courtesy, rather than for sustenance?
It is impossible to imagine how angels could have acquired totally new characteristics merely by virtue of their fall. Interpretations of Genesis 6 aside, there is no instance of angel/human interbreeding in the Bible;

(c) The judgment in Gen. 6:3 specifically refers to men and not 'sons of God' or angels. It is inconsistent to argue that God would punish the tempted and not the tempters. If Genesis 6:1-4 is paralleled to chapter three, as Willis suggests, one can see that Satan (the tempter) is judged or cursed first, and then Adam and Eve (the tempted). For the sentence to be universal, those who are judged must refer to all humanity (‘adham), thus incorporating both 'sons of God' and 'daughters of men';

(d) Angels never are called 'sons of God' in Genesis, or anywhere else in the Pentateuch;

(e) The reference to angels as 'sons of God' in Job 1:6 is contrasted with Satan; good spiritual beings are thus contrasted with evil spiritual beings, not with earthly beings. Further, it is incongruent to suggest that Satan’s minions, the demons of hell, should be described as sons of God in the same manner as angels are described in Job. Therefore, the 'sons of ‘elohim' comparison between Job and Genesis should not be viewed as a direct analogy.

Thus, after the generations of Cain and Seth have been outlined in chapters four and five, and 6:2 then speaks of two groups of people, is it not reasonable to conclude that the earlier familial division is being carried on into the later discussion? If this is the case, the 'sons of God' expression is used in a spiritual or covenantal sense, that is, referring to those who possessed characteristics of faithful service to God. The 'daughters of men' would then be those of a worldly disposition. Given the contrasting nature of the two lines of descendants described previously, I suggest that the 'sons of God' were the godly Sethites, while the 'daughters of men' were the worldly, ungodly Cainites. Such a distinction also parallels the Israelites of the Old Covenant and the Christians in the New. If this explanation is applied, the events of those times fall logically into place.

For example, and most important, the reason for the Flood becomes evident. One could conclude that the judgment was delivered purely on the basis of mixed and/or indiscriminate marriage on the part of the Sethites. Indeed, morally mixed marriages are reprobated repeatedly throughout the Old Testament (e.g., Genesis 24:3,4; 28:1; Exodus 34:15,16; Deuteronomy 7:3). However, it probably is better to consider that the judgment was given not merely on the basis of mixed marriages, but also on the failure of the sons of God and the daughters of men to maintain their spiritual integrity despite those marriages. Thus, universal destruction is prescribed for universal sinfulness. It is easy to see how this situation may have arisen, especially if the phrase 'multiply on the face of the ground' indicates that the Cainites were increasing in great numbers, in which case the influence of the numerically superior Cainites may have been overwhelming. Through intermarriage, the Sethites would have become subsumed both racially and morally: it would be easier for the Sethites to descend to the moral level of their newly acquired relatives than for the converse to occur.

God already had promised a way of overcoming sin through a descendant of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:15), and hence must have decided that unless He intervened in a miraculous way, the integrity of the messianic line would be defiled, and man would have no chance of redemption. Therefore, the sons of God departing from their mission and marrying in an improper manner, leading to an overwhelming apostasy, provides the appropriate connection between the parallel genealogies of Genesis 1-5 and the Noahic Flood of Genesis 6-9.

While Genesis 6:1-4 possesses many difficult aspects of interpretation, its general meaning may be ascertained by the examination of the peripheral context and doctrinal principles in both the Old and New Testaments. The latter procedure eliminates a popular explanation that defines the 'sons of God' as angels, and refutes another interpretation which attributes the same expression to a class of nobility. Instead, the overall context suggests that the 'sons of God' and 'daughters of men' exist as an antithetical parallelism, and refer to the godly Sethites (Genesis 4:26) and worldly Cainites (4:11), respectively. The unsanctioned and improperly motivated marriages between these two groups (6:2) led to the total moral breakdown of the existing world order (6:5), the exception among them being Noah and his family (6:8). Further, the nephilim should not be considered the strange, mythological offspring of this union, but rather as a class of tyrannical warriors who maintained a faith-breaking reign of terror. In this respect, they serve as a deliberate parallel to the nephilim of Numbers 33, who also caused God’s people to stumble.

God bless---Twospirits

[David M]

duxrow

Nice job, David. Your analysis of composition reminds me of the way E.W.Bullinger stresses the 'structure' in his Companion Bible. I just checked his Jude page (online) and think he missed some important details that you've included. His appendage pages by subject may add to it -- are you familiar?
Blessings!

Hello Bob
Thank you for your positive feedback. I am aware of Bullinger though I have not visited the online version and I do not use the companion copy I have stored away somewhere . Unfortunately, as good as the notes are and like the Schofield Bible the subject of "angels" and Satan and the Devil they have not got correct. That is why it is a mistake to assume these people are speaking authoritatively. Despite all their good work and abundant notes, they do not get everything correct. This is why we have to examine everything and compare against what the Bible actually states and make our own decisions.

Twospirits
Thanks David for that excellent commentary on Jude.

Here are a few more notes that may further help us in this study for people have different views of what we read in Jude and 2 Peter 2, so we need to ask, what does the Bible say?

Hello Twospirits
Thank you for your kind comment and follow-on explanation of Genesis 6. As I said elsewhere, once someone accepts that "angels" are human in Jude verse 6 and if they have held the popular belief that it was talking about God's Holy Angels, then the whole foundation of that idea has to be re-examined, beginning at Genesis 6. Once one myth gets busted it should make people think what other man-made myths about the Bible also need to be busted. I look forward to your contributions.



David

[Beck]

Richard and I have discussed this 'angels' messengers of Jude and Peter sometime ago Here. So I'm not sure of the disagreements you both have.

Apart from the understanding of an human messenger (angels) turning and teaching falsehood. Then chained in their own falsehood of darkness would have been held until they were judged. What I take is that Jude and Peter relate to a warning about these false teachers of old and told the first century believers that there are even false teachers among them.

If the disagreements is from the book of Enoch which comes from the second century where as both Peter and Jude comes about 64-80AD. It would rather seem that the story of fallen angels was known throughout the history of Israel and yet even in other religions as demigods. So I don't think one can just separate the book of Enoch from the other books that contain the same images and language.


David, There is something that I'm not sure I understand in your view of these passages. You mention this:

Greek word 'angelos', simply means a 'messenger' and can apply to humans. The word can be used of priests, ministers, and apostles or whoever relayed God’s message. The notion that the word 'angels' only applies to God’s Holy Angels is wrong. Had the translators used the word 'messengers', 'ministers', or 'priests', the thought of God’s Holy Angels would never have come to mind. The word 'angel' does not have to have supernatural connotations.

Are you assoicating the 'sons of God' as humans to these supernatural beings? I guess the better question in your understanding is there any supernatural beings?

The final part to which the angels did (verse 6) was; "left their own habitation". This was in contrast to them not "keeping their first estate". Their actions resulted in them changing their habitation on earth for the habitation of the grave regarded as 'rooms of darkness' in the bowels of the earth. They had gone from the light of life into darkness of the grave. Instead of being content with the responsible positions they had been given, they wanted more. Recalling the teaching in Paul’s message, we are told; (Philippians 4:11) Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. So this was the problem with Korah, Dathan and Abiram, they were not content with the state they had been given in the service of the Lord.

The outcome of this story is; Korah, Dathan and Abiram were cast down into the earth (literally). A deep crevasse opened up beneath their feet and they fell into it and died. 2 Peter 2:4 recalls the same event and uses words (metaphors) like; 'cast down to hell' signifying the grave and 'chains of darkness' to signify that that is where they remained until the Day of Judgement. The spectacle of these men falling into a deep crevasse could be imagined as falling into the abyss and the bowels of the earth or into 'rooms of darkness'. These were the imaginations of the people at the time Jude is writing his letter. This is how the people imagined what was below the surface of the earth and this is what they would have understood from Jude’s and Peter’s letters. We are more enlightened today as to what lies deep below our feet, yet this does not detract from the important message Jude has to tell us. The clear message is; these men died and they remain dead until the final Day of Judgment comes (Jude 6); 'unto the judgment of the great day.' This also applies to the 250 followers (Princes in Israel) who were killed after the deaths of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. The deaths of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and their followers was a memorable event. This is a story that is often told in Sunday schools and we might recall this from our own Sunday school days now we have been reminded of it.

I would some what disagree in your interpertation of "left their own habitation" and 'cast down to hell'. I see this to as being interpertated as being that they left their first estate as them leaving the words of God and going after other gods and being casted into hell as being casted into darkness of these false beliefs until the day comes and they are judged as for example Sodom. I see it to denote the spiritual nature of death than the physical, but the judgement would come in thier physical.

Just some of my thoughts,

[David M]

Hello Beck
Thanks for your thoughts. I will answer your questions. The disagreement I have with Richard I expect will be the same with you from what I gather from your thoughts. I will add my answers and comments in red.


Beck
Richard and I have discussed this 'angels' messengers of Jude and Peter sometime ago Here. So I'm not sure of the disagreements you both have.

Apart from the understanding of an human messenger (angels) turning and teaching falsehood. Then chained in their own falsehood of darkness would have been held until they were judged. What I take is that Jude and Peter relate to a warning about these false teachers of old and told the first century believers that there are even false teachers among them.
Jude and Peter do teach us to be on guard against false teachers, but the false teachers are not the angels of Jude 6. If you think the angels are false teachers, you have to be specific. The point to finding out who the angels are is the context in which Jude is writing in verse 5. You would have to provide evidence that Jude is not talking about an event in the wilderness after the Exodus from Egypt. It is essential you stay focused on that point. If you do not stick to the context, you can make any association you want, but how do you prove you are correct?

If the disagreements is from the book of Enoch which comes from the second century where as both Peter and Jude comes about 64-80AD. It would rather seem that the story of fallen angels was known throughout the history of Israel and yet even in other religions as demigods. So I don't think one can just separate the book of Enoch from the other books that contain the same images and language.
If you read my posts with Richard you will see that five years ago Richard had already come to the right conclusion that the Book of Enoch could not be trusted and was full of made up stuff. Jude did quote a verse which is in that Book, but it does not mean that Jude was quoting from a the same book that it now is. There is allot in that book that does not harmonize with the Bible. The fact that Jude quotes Enoch has nothing to do with the angels in verse 6. It is a red herring and you are not following the context of verse 5 when associating Jude with Enoch.

David, There is something that I'm not sure I understand in your view of these passages. You mention this:

Greek word 'angelos', simply means a 'messenger' and can apply to humans. The word can be used of priests, ministers, and apostles or whoever relayed God’s message. The notion that the word 'angels' only applies to God’s Holy Angels is wrong. Had the translators used the word 'messengers', 'ministers', or 'priests', the thought of God’s Holy Angels would never have come to mind. The word 'angel' does not have to have supernatural connotations.

Are you associating the 'sons of God' as humans to these supernatural beings? I guess the better question in your understanding is there any supernatural beings?
God's Holy Angels are supernatural beings. They can take on the appearance of humans but that is the only real similarity on occasions. Angels are sent by God to do His will and carry out His instructions and therefore do not sin. This is the paradox you have to reconcile if you say that God's Holy Angels sinned. It is an other subject for another thread, but I have stated elsewhere that I do not believe Satan or the Devil is a supernatural being. The terms are used in a personified way which makes them sound like they are real beings. Satan can be a human just as an angel can be human

The final part to which the angels did (verse 6) was; "left their own habitation". This was in contrast to them not "keeping their first estate". Their actions resulted in them changing their habitation on earth for the habitation of the grave regarded as 'rooms of darkness' in the bowels of the earth. They had gone from the light of life into darkness of the grave. Instead of being content with the responsible positions they had been given, they wanted more. Recalling the teaching in Paul’s message, we are told; (Philippians 4:11) Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. So this was the problem with Korah, Dathan and Abiram, they were not content with the state they had been given in the service of the Lord.
The outcome of this story is; Korah, Dathan and Abiram were cast down into the earth (literally). A deep crevasse opened up beneath their feet and they fell into it and died. 2 Peter 2:4 recalls the same event and uses words (metaphors) like; 'cast down to hell' signifying the grave and 'chains of darkness' to signify that that is where they remained until the Day of Judgment. The spectacle of these men falling into a deep crevasse could be imagined as falling into the abyss and the bowels of the earth or into 'rooms of darkness'. These were the imaginations of the people at the time Jude is writing his letter. This is how the people imagined what was below the surface of the earth and this is what they would have understood from Jude’s and Peter’s letters. We are more enlightened today as to what lies deep below our feet, yet this does not detract from the important message Jude has to tell us. The clear message is; these men died and they remain dead until the final Day of Judgment comes (Jude 6); 'unto the judgment of the great day.' This also applies to the 250 followers (Princes in Israel) who were killed after the deaths of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. The deaths of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and their followers was a memorable event. This is a story that is often told in Sunday schools and we might recall this from our own Sunday school days now we have been reminded of it.

I would some what disagree in your interpretation of "left their own habitation" and 'cast down to hell'. I see this to as being interpreted as being that they left their first estate as them leaving the words of God and going after other gods and being casted into hell as being casted into darkness of these false beliefs until the day comes and they are judged as for example Sodom. I see it to denote the spiritual nature of death than the physical, but the judgment would come in their physical.
Judgment will come to all who are to be judged at the appointed time. You can try and match these expressions with any other event in the Bible, but to do so is not staying in the context of verse 5. This is really important or else stories can be invented by picking and pasting passages of scripture. If not Korah, Dathan and Abiram, who are the "angels"? These expressions about "leaving their first estate" and "left their own habitation" makes sense in terms what they did and what happened to them. You might find other people in the Bible to which the same could be said, but are those people mentioned in the context of verse 5? If you decide that the "angels" refer to someone else then you have to specifically state how these expressions should be understood. In the case of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, they were not going after other Gods, they wanted to take over the leadership of the people, they were trying to promote themselves and the consequence was that they were removed from their habitation (home) in which they were alive to another habitation which was the grave and they brought this on themselves, it was of their own doing. Hell is another word for the grave and they were cast down into the grave quite literally because the ground opened up beneath their feet. They could not escape falling in. That is what God intended and God cast them down into the earth and into their graves and remain there until the day of judgment. I know I have gone over what I have said in my commentary. I hope you are able to ask yourself the questions I said had to be answered and to reach a firm conclusion that is supported scripturally and is taken in proper context.

Just some of my thoughts,
Appreciated.

All the best.

David

[Beck]

Jude and Peter do teach us to be on guard against false teachers, but the false teachers are not the angels of Jude 6. If you think the angels are false teachers, you have to be specific. The point to finding out who the angels are is the context in which Jude is writing in verse 5. You would have to provide evidence that Jude is not talking about an event in the wilderness after the Exodus from Egypt. It is essential you stay focused on that point. If you do not stick to the context, you can make any association you want, but how do you prove you are correct?

Essentially Peter and Jude is responsing to the same events in the history of Israel. That of the false teachers and false prophets that spoke evil of the truth and that many followed by these reasons. To them were brought upon themselves swift destruction case in point both used Noah and Sodom

In both cases of Peter and Jude said that God spared not the 'messengers' that sinned. The messengers were to relate to the people the true words of God, but they turned and spoke evil of the truth. These are those messengers (preist, rulers and elders) like Isaiah said have eaten up the vineyard (Isaiah 3:14) For they have called evil good and good evil (Isa.5:20). Peter and Jude was warning the church that false teachers would likewise come into the fold as tares among the wheat, so that they would be aware and to contend for the faith. For if God had not spared these men God then will not spare others. Even Sodom and Gormorrha is for an example of God's swift judgment upon the wicked.

So as you might see that the messengers that kept not their first estate were casted into everlasting chains under darkness until their judgment. Jude has just stated that those that didn't believe were destoryed and that would include those messengers that were under darkness. There is no reason to be specific all of the messengers that taught evil would be destoryed.

If you read my posts with Richard you will see that five years ago Richard had already come to the right conclusion that the Book of Enoch could not be trusted and was full of made up stuff. Jude did quote a verse which is in that Book, but it does not mean that Jude was quoting from a the same book that it now is. There is allot in that book that does not harmonize with the Bible. The fact that Jude quotes Enoch has nothing to do with the angels in verse 6. It is a red herring and you are not following the context of verse 5 when associating Jude with Enoch.

As I stated in my pervious post the book of Enoch were written around the second century, but alot that is written has being in traditions and as Jude indicates in prophecy.

God's Holy Angels are supernatural beings. They can take on the appearance of humans but that is the only real similarity on occasions. Angels are sent by God to do His will and carry out His instructions and therefore do not sin. This is the paradox you have to reconcile if you say that God's Holy Angels sinned. It is an other subject for another thread, but I have stated elsewhere that I do not believe Satan or the Devil is a supernatural being. The terms are used in a personified way which makes them sound like they are real beings. Satan can be a human just as an angel can be human

It seems you are contradicting yourself. If Satan isn't supernatual why do you force the Holy Messengers to be supernatural? We are the sons of God, but yet not supernatural in any way. The 'holy angels' that sinned where men that where given the words or commandments of God to teach the people the truth and the way to live. This same imagery is used in the cosmos where the sun, moon and stars relate to those that reflect the light of God. These men have been seen by Daniel to denote the holy messengers or host of heaven as stars being casted down to the ground (Daniel 8:10-11)

Judgment will come to all who are to be judged at the appointed time. You can try and match these expressions with any other event in the Bible, but to do so is not staying in the context of verse 5.

I agree it's pass tense, but what I'm saying is that to leave their estate is to leave their first love and that they were forever bond in chains under darkness. Where darkness is the same as Paul mentioned in Ephesians 5:6-8. Paul told the Ephesains that they were sometimes in darkness, but now in the light of day. Clearly this darkness isn't the grave, but the grave as toward death is mention as a metaphor and alludes to the pit of darkness, yet this expression is clearly denoting the darkness of not knowing the truth.

[David M]

So as you might see that the messengers that kept not their first estate were casted into everlasting chains under darkness until their judgment. Jude has just stated that those that didn't believe were destoryed and that would include those messengers that were under darkness. There is no reason to be specific all of the messengers that taught evil would be destoryed.

I agree that there are people, whether ministers, priests whatever, change their beliefs and begin teaching falsely. As you say they have gone from the light to the darkness of this world. If you are happy that you do not have to be specific about who the priests and ministers Jude is talking about are, that is fair enough, as long as "angels" are not associated with God's Angels which do not sin.

It seems you are contradicting yourself. If Satan isn't supernatual why do you force the Holy Messengers to be supernatural? We are the sons of God, but yet not supernatural in any way. The 'holy angels' that sinned where men that where given the words or commandments of God to teach the people the truth and the way to live. This same imagery is used in the cosmos where the sun, moon and stars relate to those that reflect the light of God. These men have been seen by Daniel to denote the holy messengers or host of heaven as stars being casted down to the ground (Daniel 8:10-11)

I did not reply concerning the 'sons of God' because you changed the question to a better one.

Are you associating the 'sons of God' as humans to these supernatural beings? I guess the better question in your understanding is there any supernatural beings?

God's Angels are those with Him in Heaven and who are sent to earth. I am not confusing these with 'sons of God' who are human and I agree 'sons of God' are not supernatural. I do not think I was forcing anything, just a misunderstanding to the question you were asking. I can be an angel spreading the 'Good News' and I am sanctified with those to whom Jude is addressing in verse1, but I am not one of God's Angels in the presence of God in Heaven. Jesus said; (Mat 26:53) Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? Where do you think these angels would have come from and who are these angels? When I used the title 'God's Holy Angels' I wanted to make the distinction between angels which can be human and angels which are not human. Maybe I can drop the word Holy and just make the distinction by using the title 'God's Angels' or just 'Angels'.

I agree it's pass tense, but what I'm saying is that to leave their estate is to leave their first love and that they were forever bond in chains under darkness. Where darkness is the same as Paul mentioned in Ephesians 5:6-8. Paul told the Ephesains that they were sometimes in darkness, but now in the light of day. Clearly this darkness isn't the grave, but the grave as toward death is mention as a metaphor and alludes to the pit of darkness, yet this expression is clearly denoting the darkness of not knowing the truth.

I agree with this and if you do not want "angels" in Jude 6 to be specific, that's OK; as long as the mistake is not made of assuming "angels" to be Angels with God in Heaven. God controls and instructs His Angels in Heaven and sends them to earth from His dwelling place to act as His representatives and to carry out specific tasks.

Incidentally, what would happen if someone saw the error of their ways and came to see the light once more and changed again? Does "forever" mean only as long as they are in the darkness of their false thinking/teaching? Expressions like "cast down to Hell" (meaning the grave) used by Peter is very specific and not just about leaving their first love as in the example of Jude. "Leaving their own habitation" was the same consequence (in my understanding) as "cast down to Hell" used by Peter.

I hope this now means we are in agreement.


All the best.

David

[Beck]

I agree that there are people, whether ministers, priests whatever, change their beliefs and begin teaching falsely. As you say they have gone from the light to the darkness of this world. If you are happy that you do not have to be specific about who the priests and ministers Jude is talking about are, that is fair enough, as long as "angels" are not associated with God's Angels which do not sin.

Yes I can agree to this.

God's Angels are those with Him in Heaven and who are sent to earth. I am not confusing these with 'sons of God' who are human and I agree 'sons of God' are not supernatural. I do not think I was forcing anything, just a misunderstanding to the question you were asking. I can be an angel spreading the 'Good News' and I am sanctified with those to whom Jude is addressing in verse1, but I am not one of God's Angels in the presence of God in Heaven. Jesus said; (Mat 26:53) Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? Where do you think these angels would have come from and who are these angels? When I used the title 'God's Holy Angels' I wanted to make the distinction between angels which can be human and angels which are not human. Maybe I can drop the word Holy and just make the distinction by using the title 'God's Angels' or just 'Angels'.

Okay, Your right we are in agreement about the 'sons of God' and it does seem I might have misunderstood. Although you use the term 'God's Angels' which are in heaven. I don't want to get into a great deal of details, but just where is this heaven to which these Angels come from. It seems to me such terms as 'God's Angels, Host of Heaven, Host of Angels and the Army of God' doesn't describe any supernatural beings, but describes the people of God of Israel which make up the temple of God where God dwells. I believe the book of Hebrew bring out the clearest meaning of the 'host' as a multitude that can't be numbered. Hebrews 12:22-23 tells us of the people that had come to the mount Zion the New Jerusalem and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and the church of the first born, which are written in heaven.

Another clear image is found in Revelation 19:14-15 where the army of God comes clothed in fine linen, white and clean. They fight along side the one Faithful and True in which out of his mouth goes a sharp sword and with it smites the nations. To understand these verse in Revelation one would not read this event in any literal sence, but of a metaphor of how the good news is spoken which brings life or death. In this particular instance it shows how it as a two edge sword bring about death to the nations of heathens. The angels of the army of God is his messengers of the good news.

Incidentally, what would happen if someone saw the error of their ways and came to see the light once more and changed again? Does "forever" mean only as long as they are in the darkness of their false thinking/teaching? Expressions like "cast down to Hell" (meaning the grave) used by Peter is very specific and not just about leaving their first love as in the example of Jude. "Leaving their own habitation" was the same consequence (in my understanding) as "cast down to Hell" used by Peter.

We have to understand that is one reason Jesus spoke in parables. It was to conceal the truth so that those that were blinded and leaded others into the pit of darkness would not have the light shined on them that they might be saved.(such as the Pharisees and Sudducees.) They were to be reserved until the day of Judgment, But as many that were decevied iby these if they received the good news they were then as Paul said onces in darkness, but now of the light of the day.

Jesus told Peter that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the church, here the 'gates of Hell' is spoken as the grave as if one had died, but this is only by an spiritual death to which the church has been set free. Hell also denoted darkness such as also does the grave and death. Jesus is saying that the gates or doors of darkness of not knowing the true God of Israel shall not be victorious over the church. So when one is casted down to Hell it is saying that one has fallen into the pit of darkness of not knowing the true God of Israel. We might also note that the mountain is presented as heaven such as the mount Zion where God is to dwell. Jerusalem is one such mountain and hell is to denote the lower valley as such names Gehenna (Valley of Hinnom). So when one thinks of heaven and hell the mountain and valley is the image one might see and Jerusalem with it's temple as heaven and hell outside of the mountain of Jerusalem.

I hope this now means we are in agreement.


All the best.

David

I think overall we agree.

[David M]

Incidentally, what would happen if someone saw the error of their ways and came to see the light once more and changed again? Does "forever" mean only as long as they are in the darkness of their false thinking/teaching? Expressions like "cast down to Hell" (meaning the grave) used by Peter is very specific and not just about leaving their first love as in the example of Jude. "Leaving their own habitation" was the same consequence (in my understanding) as "cast down to Hell" used by Peter.

We have to understand that is one reason Jesus spoke in parables. It was to conceal the truth so that those that were blinded and leaded others into the pit of darkness would not have the light shined on them that they might be saved.(such as the Pharisees and Sudducees.) They were to be reserved until the day of Judgment, But as many that were decevied iby these if they received the good news they were then as Paul said onces in darkness, but now of the light of the day.

I think overall we agree.

Hello Beck
I am glad we are in overall agreement. I agree, we have to be very careful about the style of language used and the context. Parables and metaphors have to be carefully understood.

Your reply to my question, was not quite as I expected and therefore I should have been more careful in the way I phrased it. Instead of someone, I meant these "angels". I will try to make my point again.

I got the impression from your reply that you think the "angels" in Jude, who are human, lost sight of the truth and went from light to darkness and remained that way whilst still alive. They were held in darkness until the Day of Judgment and were restrained from converting back. I just wondered how you squared that with them being cast into Hell, which I undestand to be the grave. There is no return from the grave until resurrected.

If alive, there is no reason a person might not see the error of their ways and convert back. Mark 3:29 does say; But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:.

If you say that the angels' sins were so bad, they could not be forgiven or allowed to revert to their original state, that is OK. I really wanted to distinguish between the "angels" remaining alive (as you think) and being dead (as I think).

I appreciate your comments on Heaven and Hell.

Great chatting.

David