The angels in Jude 6 is a reference to the apocalyptic books of Enoch. The fallen angels in Enoch are the sons of God in Gen. 6. That’s usually where the strong argument comes from. The “unnatural desires” or “other flesh” or “strange flesh” in v. 7 is what was pursued lustfully in Sodom and Gomorrah (homosexual sodomite men with strong desires for the men in Lot’s house – which were angels that assumed flesh).

The significance of this is in Jude’s appeal to Enoch’s account of the fall of the angels which was believed at the time as what we read about in Genesis 6. Jude is saying “just as” Sodom… and “which likewise…” So if anyone is interpreting “strange flesh” as the angels in Jude 6 which (according to Enoch whom Jude quotes) are the angels in Genesis 6, then simply point out to them their error. The ESV translates this passage well:

And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— **just as Sodom and Gomorrah** and the surrounding cities, **which likewise** indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Because verse 8 continues the example by connecting the example to the real life situation of v. 4 (certain men crept in unawares) – verse 8 begins, “Yet in like manner these people (of v. 4) also…defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones.”

Here’s something to think about, in Job the sons of God, come to present themselves and satan with them. Satan is not a son of God, so I can’t see his fallen angels, as being sons of God, either.

The one that gets me, is when they try to make the “strange flesh” of Jude 7, apply to the angels in Jude 6. When it’s talking about, Sodom and Gomorrah

That wasn’t my argument, but it turned out Chuck, doesn’t believe that or he wouldn’t admit it, after the book came out.

My question is, if these are angels, why no mention of their judgment. The focus if on man and flesh. So by your interpretation, the son of God, in the new testament are angels as well, since the meaning has been established? Of course not. Jesus, says angels, done marry. How does a spirit, have sex with a women, and produce on spring? Isn’t the rule of reproduction, after it’s own kind?

I’m not trying to use an argument, because I interpreted this, in this manor, the first time I looked into this, with no outside help. I was completely surprised when I read, the people thought these were angels. The interpretation is not flat, isn’t any one that is in right standing with the Lord, one of His children? Israel was called His son, there’s is more to interpretation then a phrase. Angels in right standing with God, son. For this to apply to Genesis 6, that would mean that rebellious angels are, son, as well. That’s the problem I see with that interpretation.

Augustine, used allegoric methods, for his interpretation. All his ideas were not sound. Like his love analogy of the Trinity, the lover, the loved, and the bound of love, the bound isn’t a person. Augustine, Chuck, Fred, Johnny, whoever, all have things that are off. So just because someone believe whatever, isn’t a reason for me to believe it. The history of the Church’s interpretation of the Bible, have been wrong before. The history of the Jew’s interpretation of the Bible, have been wrong as well. The Reformation, was about, salvation issues. When it came to the end times, it wasn’t their, thing, so to speak. They brought us back to a Biblical faith. When ever there is a reformation of a doctrine in Church history. There is an over compensation.

Would you agree that persons in right standing with God, are His, sons (children)? The righteous are His.

I am familiar with the position you are arguing for. It is actually one of the weaker arguments for that position. For instance, going back to 4:25 for context will not help in understanding the Hebraic phrase “sons of God.” The phrase was already a known concept among the Jews since it had been revealed prior to Genesis. I find the interpretation “flat,” as in the “flat Bible problem.”

It also does not reflect the earlier interpretations of “sons of God.” The Targums and Midrash prove that the Rabbinical interpretation was “angels.” The Septuagint (Alexandrian) translates “bene-ha ‘elohim” as “angels of God” in Gen. 6:4. Alexandian Septuagint is third century B.C. about the same time much Jewish apocalyptic literature was being written.

The post-Julian/Augustine debate should be between your (geneological line of Seth) view and the predeluvian magistrate (Nachmanides) view – both of which entered history for the first time around the third century AD (maybe late second century AD if you count Simeon ben Yochai’s curse as the marker).

Plus, Chuck Smith holds the “angels” view! That should settle it.

Genesis 6:1-3 “Now it came to pass, when MEN began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”

The context is “men” and “flesh”, but we need to go back to Genesis 4:25-26, to get the full context of what is going on in chapter 6.

“And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.” And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord.”

Genesis 4:17-24, is the genealogy of Cain, notice, no mention of daughters being born to his line. Except for, Tubal-Cain, had a sister.

Chapter 5 is the genealogy of Adam, we see in verse 32, Noah, was born to this line, which was calling on the Lord. Since we know that Noah, found favor or grace in the sight of God. Notice, they had, sons and daughters. Then the beginning of chapter 6, brings out that they, Cain’s line, began to have daughters. The sons of God, being the righteous line that is part of the Promise, to bring forth the Messiah. I don’t see, anything that would lead to angels, in the context. Verse 4 “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown”
The giants were there before and after the sons of God came in to the daughter of men. Now the children they had were men of renown. If these giants, were part of a mixture of flesh and angels, we wouldn’t see more giants, in the Bible, because God judged this behavior. I know people say that those angel are, reserved in chains of darkness, for judgment. But that would mean a second fall, of angels. If these were angels, why would the Holy Spirit, call them sons of God? Wouldn’t the lust for flesh, be sin, which would disqualify them as sons of God?

I talked with Dr Ronald Youngblood about this, when Missler and Eastman, wrote their book. He said, these were not angels, in a book he wrote, on Genesis, I can’t for the life of me, remember what that book is called. I talked with Dr Mark Eastman, about their interpretation of these verses. All kept saying Chuck Smith and other names, believe this. That didn’t, mean much to me, I don’t think that is a good reason to believe anything, you can use whatever name you want. I just wanted to know, how he came to the conclusion.

MacArthur has some excellent research on the RCC that has been very helpful to me. I haven’t seen much from him on the Eastern Orthodox church which is my current obsession.

Check out some quotes about Mary (by Palamas, one of the EO heroes):

“She (Mary) passed not a few years in the Holy of Holies itself, wherein under the care of an angel she enjoyed ineffable nourishment such as even Adam did not succeed in tasting; for indeed if he had, like this immaculate one, he would not have fallen away from life, even though it was because of Adam and so that she might prove to be his daughter, that she yielded a little to nature, as did her Son, Who has now ascended from earth into heaven”.

“The King of all ‘hath desired a mystic beauty’ of the Ever-Virgin, as David foretold…”

“For, as she co-operated and suffered with that exalting condescension (kenosis) of the Word of God, she was also rightly glorified and exalted together with Him, ever adding thereto the supernatural increase of mighty deeds”.

“For while she (Mary) alone stood between God and the whole human race, God became the Son of Man and made men sons of God;she made earth heavenly, she deified the human race and she alone of all women was shown forth to be a mother by nature and the Mother of God transcending every law of nature, and by her ineffable childbirth- the queen of all creation both terrestial and celestial”.

“The strips of linen and burial clothes afford the apostles a demonstration of the Theotokos’ resurrection from the dead, since they remained alone in the tomb and at the apostles’ scrutiny they were found there, even as it had been with the Master”.

…”thus she is worshipped and marvelled at and hymned by all the faithful”.

…”Yet it is meet to chant hymns of praise to thee, for thou art a vessel containing every grace, the fulness of all things good and beautiful, the tablet and living icon of every good and all uprightness, since thou alone has been deemed worthy to receive the fulness of every gift of the Spirit”.

“She (Mary) is both wondered at and praised by God Himself”…

“Do you see how the entire creation praises the Virgin Mother, and not only in times past, but ‘forever and unto the ages of ages’?”

“…and as many as hymn God praise her together with Him. She is the cause of what came before her, the champion of what came after her and the agent of things eternal. She is the substance of the prophets, the principle of the apostles, the firm foundation of the martyrs and the premise of the teachers of the Church. She is the glory of those upon the earth, the joy of celestial beings, the adornment of all creation. She is the beginning and the source and root of unutterable good things; she is the summit and consumation of everything holy”.

Wild stuff…

Job 1:6 clearly states that the “sons of God” were presenting themselves before the Lord. Although the text does not state if they were fallen, we are told that Satan was among them.

Job 2:1 describes another scene perhaps a year later (if the day was “a” day on the calendar so to speak) with Satan among them again (1:12 and 2:7 says that Satan left the presence of the Lord to go to work Job).

Job 38:7 describes the “sons of God” as those that witnessed the creation of the earth. The text says they shouted with joy and sang together, implying an unfallen bunch, but not definitively.

The Hebrew of Psalm 29:1 and 89:6 that is rendered “heavenly beings” (ben el) in the ESV, “sons of the mighty” in the KJV and NASB. Interestingly, I just checked the LXX (BGT) and the Greek says sons of “Theos.” This is the same term used for the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 that took the daughters of men and created the hybrid breed of nephilim – which appeared *after* the flood, the catastrophic event that destroyed all flesh but the 8 (how did they reappear???).

Sounds like some kookie stuff, but it’s there in Scripture.