dwb
Well-known
I don't see anything really controversial in that blog post. No different from the others. When scripture is not clear all we can do is interpret the way the Holy Spirit guides us.
Christian Community Forum
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate fully in the fellowship here, including adding your own topics and posts, as well as connecting with other members through your own private inbox!
Return of Nephilim: Giants, Hybrids, & the Final Deception :: By Joe Hawkins
- Thread starter Andy C
- Start date
TCC
Well-known
I appreciate @Andy C with this posting of AIG. Or rather Ham's personal take. While I still held to the fallen angel theory, I remember coming across that years ago and thinking that AIG can tend to rationalize things. Although I could be wrong, the response AIG gave to 9-23-2017 potential Rev 12 sign was bunk and rationalizing things. Even if I did not hold to lean in the direction of 2017 being the Rev 12 sign, I would still see too many holes in their approach. For example, they would say that you cannot borrow from one constellation and import it into another one to fit some biblical reference. Which on its face is sound. But further on AIG would only permit Gen 1:14 to mean "for seasons," and omit or allow any sense where "signs" meant anything more than season or for holy days.
Even more, what shocked me about AIG's argumentation style was that it said that the Rev 12 hype is mostly coming from youtube. And there has never been a church view that the Rev 12 sign meant the rapture. This is the one that signed the contract for me implying AIG seemed to me to be yupies using Christian audience for power. Because of what i found in a book i have from 1991, some 14 years prior to youtube even being a thing (youtube started in February of 2005). And in that book it showed differing denominational views on eschatology. And it had the Rev 12 sign for dispensationalism as a belief in it implying future church rapture.
So if a book in print on eschatology knew decades ago that there was a position held by dispensationalism on Rev 12 as a rapture potential passage, how is it that AIG then portends to assert insight into the first 11 chapters of Genesis (from which it got its name) some 6 thousand years ago? Well this is what i thought. But even so, I do have respect for that ministry on several other counts. Amen. But to me, AIG turned into an elementary schoolyard bully caveman mindset (pun intended) when proffering about how the church is to understand Rev 12. The thought in my mind at the time was that it would be pretty scary if the church has evolved to a state where it thought itself so sassy insightful that it would even argue against potential literal prophecy exploding in its face...lol. So today, the AIG reaction to the Rev 12 sign potential of 2017 is ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS i believe it was the Rev 12 sign, now.
I am not 100% certain 2017 was the Rev 12 sign. But all the things that have happen since seem to me to affirm it all the more. But i am ok with it just being something to hold on to. So when @Andy C was going to post something possibly controversial from AIG, what i was expecting was that Ken Ham secretly believed in the Enochian view. I was pleasantly surprised he is not. And even though i have had some history with AIG, I would still consider them to have a reasonable measure of accuracy, in general.
. . . . .
In regards to Arnold, wow...lol. I consider Arnold certainly with respect. I am always encouraged when the church reasonably considers the import God has placed on seeing the scriptures with Jewish consideration. JD Farag is one of the modern day pastors that tends to see Matthew 24+ as for the church. Where in that case I am grateful for JD's consideration of Andy Woods love for Arnold F. JD went as far as to be influenced by Andy (I believe) in his (JD) even considering the Kadesh Barnea view on the book of Hebrews (which is extremely Jewish centric and rarely held--but first postured I believe by theologian J. Dwight Pentecost). To me its odd to hold to Kadesh Barnea view and see so much of eschatology for the church and not as Israeli centric as others like Andy Woods would view eschatology.
So in general, I am surprised though that Arnold would go with angels having ability to procreate because of how much of an anchor Arnold is concerning the importance of Jewish thought in the bible even as a hermeneutic, amen. For me though, that sort of thing helps keep me humble and not place pastor's or theologians on a pedestal (which can be a tendency for any including me). So to me, Arnold holding to the Enochian view kind of right sizes him, for me, back down to the human level. Where he likely belongs...lol.
. . . . .
In any event I am very grateful for such a thread as this. For it has been a blessing to discuss such themes that can be fairly charged. And yet able to lovingly interact with the body of Christ even within those differences. Amen.
Even more, what shocked me about AIG's argumentation style was that it said that the Rev 12 hype is mostly coming from youtube. And there has never been a church view that the Rev 12 sign meant the rapture. This is the one that signed the contract for me implying AIG seemed to me to be yupies using Christian audience for power. Because of what i found in a book i have from 1991, some 14 years prior to youtube even being a thing (youtube started in February of 2005). And in that book it showed differing denominational views on eschatology. And it had the Rev 12 sign for dispensationalism as a belief in it implying future church rapture.
So if a book in print on eschatology knew decades ago that there was a position held by dispensationalism on Rev 12 as a rapture potential passage, how is it that AIG then portends to assert insight into the first 11 chapters of Genesis (from which it got its name) some 6 thousand years ago? Well this is what i thought. But even so, I do have respect for that ministry on several other counts. Amen. But to me, AIG turned into an elementary schoolyard bully caveman mindset (pun intended) when proffering about how the church is to understand Rev 12. The thought in my mind at the time was that it would be pretty scary if the church has evolved to a state where it thought itself so sassy insightful that it would even argue against potential literal prophecy exploding in its face...lol. So today, the AIG reaction to the Rev 12 sign potential of 2017 is ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS i believe it was the Rev 12 sign, now.
I am not 100% certain 2017 was the Rev 12 sign. But all the things that have happen since seem to me to affirm it all the more. But i am ok with it just being something to hold on to. So when @Andy C was going to post something possibly controversial from AIG, what i was expecting was that Ken Ham secretly believed in the Enochian view. I was pleasantly surprised he is not. And even though i have had some history with AIG, I would still consider them to have a reasonable measure of accuracy, in general.
. . . . .
In regards to Arnold, wow...lol. I consider Arnold certainly with respect. I am always encouraged when the church reasonably considers the import God has placed on seeing the scriptures with Jewish consideration. JD Farag is one of the modern day pastors that tends to see Matthew 24+ as for the church. Where in that case I am grateful for JD's consideration of Andy Woods love for Arnold F. JD went as far as to be influenced by Andy (I believe) in his (JD) even considering the Kadesh Barnea view on the book of Hebrews (which is extremely Jewish centric and rarely held--but first postured I believe by theologian J. Dwight Pentecost). To me its odd to hold to Kadesh Barnea view and see so much of eschatology for the church and not as Israeli centric as others like Andy Woods would view eschatology.
So in general, I am surprised though that Arnold would go with angels having ability to procreate because of how much of an anchor Arnold is concerning the importance of Jewish thought in the bible even as a hermeneutic, amen. For me though, that sort of thing helps keep me humble and not place pastor's or theologians on a pedestal (which can be a tendency for any including me). So to me, Arnold holding to the Enochian view kind of right sizes him, for me, back down to the human level. Where he likely belongs...lol.
. . . . .
In any event I am very grateful for such a thread as this. For it has been a blessing to discuss such themes that can be fairly charged. And yet able to lovingly interact with the body of Christ even within those differences. Amen.
TCC
Well-known
I felt the same way when i first came across it while holding the fallen angel view. One of the best off the curb happenstance run-ins i have had with some fairly robust and highlights of what scholarship can taste like is from Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. The following is rather lengthy BUT i got it from "biblehub.com" which posts about 8 or so conservative theologians on any given passage of scripture looked up on that website. I post this because over the course of a few decades I had held to the Enochian view, the features and flavors of scholarship that ooze out of this take are exceptional, rare, and gemlike in consideration. At least to me, and I consider myself fairly easy not to please...lol. So there is that. In any case it is fully worth the read to just even get a sense of how scholarship might work. Like what scholarship might look at. Or the kinds of nuts and bults scholarship can be made of. And when considering this issue, to me, takes it quite a bit deeper than the Seth angle. Almost to an ontological level (where since we are talking about ontological differences--can angels mate with humans for example), and that way of saying it is rather fitting. In any event, hope it is of help to any here. It stopped me in my tracks as a valuable rare find in any event. Blessings.
. . . . .
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. -- Gen 6:2
Genesis 6:1-2 relates to the increase of men generally (האדם, without any restriction), i.e., of the whole human race; and whilst the moral corruption is represented as universal, the whole human race, with the exception of Noah, who found grace before God (Genesis 6:8), is described as ripe for destruction (Genesis 6:3 and Genesis 6:5-8). To understand this section, and appreciate the causes of this complete degeneracy of the race, we must first obtain a correct interpretation of the expressions "sons of God" (האלהים בני) and "daughters of men" (האדם בנות). Three different views have been entertained from the very earliest times: the "sons of God" being regarded as (a) the sons of princes, (b) angels, (c) the Sethites or godly men; and the "daughters of men," as the daughters (a) of people of the lower orders, (b) of mankind generally, (c) of the Cainites, or of the rest of mankind as contrasted with the godly or the children of God. Of these three views, the first, although it has become the traditional one in orthodox rabbinical Judaism, may be dismissed at once as not warranted by the usages of the language, and as altogether unscriptural. The second, on the contrary, may be defended on two plausible grounds: first, the fact that the "sons of God," in Job 1:6; Job 2:1, and Job 38:7, and in Daniel 3:25, are unquestionably angels (also אלים בּני in Psalm 29:1 and Psalm 89:7); and secondly, the antithesis, "sons of God" and "daughters of men." Apart from the context and tenor of the passage, these two points would lead us most naturally to regard the "sons of God" as angels, in distinction from men and the daughters of men. But this explanation, though the first to suggest itself, can only lay claim to be received as the correct one, provided the language itself admits of no other. Now that is not the case. For it is not to angels only that the term "sons of Elohim," or "sons of Elim," is applied; but in Psalm 73:15, in an address to Elohim, the godly are called "the generation of Thy sons," i.e., sons of Elohim; in Deuteronomy 32:5 the Israelites are called His (God's) sons, and in Hosea 1:10, "sons of the living God;" and in Psalm 80:17, Israel is spoken of as the son, whom Elohim has made strong. These passages show that the expression "sons of God" cannot be elucidated by philological means, but must be interpreted by theology alone. Moreover, even when it is applied to the angels, it is questionable whether it is to be understood in a physical or ethical sense. The notion that "it is employed in a physical sense as nomen naturae, instead of angels as nomen officii, and presupposes generation of a physical kind," we must reject as an unscriptural and gnostic error. According to the scriptural view, the heavenly spirits are creatures of God, and not begotten from the divine essence. Moreover, all the other terms applied to the angels are ethical in their character. But if the title "sons of God" cannot involve the notion of physical generation, it cannot be restricted to celestial spirits, but is applicable to all beings which bear the image of God, or by virtue of their likeness to God participate in the glory, power, and blessedness of the divine life, - to men therefore as well as angels, since God has caused man to "want but little of Elohim," or to stand but a little behind Elohim (Psalm 8:5), so that even magistrates are designated "Elohim, and sons of the Most High" (Psalm 82:6). When Delitzsch objects to the application of the expression "sons of Elohim" to pious men, because, "although the idea of a child of God may indeed have pointed, even in the O.T., beyond its theocratic limitation to Israel (Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1) towards a wider ethical signification (Psalm 73:15; Proverbs 14:26), yet this extension and expansion were not so completed, that in historical prose the terms 'sons of God' (for which 'sons of Jehovah' should have been used to prevent mistake), and 'sons (or daughters) of men,' could be used to distinguish the children of God and the children of the world," - this argument rests upon the erroneous supposition, that the expression "sons of God" was introduced by Jehovah for the first time when He selected Israel to be the covenant nation. So much is true, indeed, that before the adoption of Israel as the first-born son of Jehovah (Exodus 4:22), it would have been out of place to speak of sons of Jehovah; but the notion is false, or at least incapable of proof, that there were not children of God in the olden time, long before Abraham's call, and that, if there were, they could not have been called "sons of Elohim." The idea was not first introduced in connection with the theocracy, and extended thence to a more universal signification. It had its roots in the divine image, and therefore was general in its application from the very first; and it was not till God in the character of Jehovah chose Abraham and his seed to be the vehicles of salvation, and left the heathen nations to go their own way, that the expression received the specifically theocratic signification of "son of Jehovah," to be again liberated and expanded into the more comprehensive idea of νἱοθεσία τοῦ Θεοῦ (i.e., Elohim, not τοῦ κυρίου equals Jehovah), at the coming of Christ, the Saviour of all nations. If in the olden time there were pious men who, like Enoch and Noah, walked with Elohim, or who, even if they did not stand in this close priestly relation to God, made the divine image a reality through their piety and fear of God, then there were sons (children) of God, for whom the only correct appellation was "sons of Elohim," since sonship to Jehovah was introduced with the call of Israel, so that it could only have been proleptically that the children of God in the old world could be called "sons of Jehovah." But if it be still argued, that in mere prose the term "sons of God" could not have been applied to children of God, or pious men, this would be equally applicable to "sons of Jehovah." On the other hand, there is this objection to our applying it to angels, that the pious, who walked with God and called upon the name of the Lord, had been mentioned just before, whereas no allusion had been made to angels, not even to their creation.
Again, the antithesis "sons of God" and "daughters of men" does not prove that the former were angels. It by no means follows, that because in Genesis 6:1 האדם denotes man as a genus, i.e., the whole human race, it must do the same in Genesis 6:2, where the expression "daughters of men" is determined by the antithesis "sons of God." And with reasons existing for understanding by the sons of God and the daughters of men two species of the genus האדם, mentioned in Genesis 6:1, no valid objection can be offered to the restriction of האדם, through the antithesis Elohim, to all men with the exception of the sons of God; since this mode of expression is by no means unusual in Hebrew. "From the expression 'daughters of men," as Dettinger observes, "it by no means follows that the sons of God were not men; any more than it follows from Jeremiah 32:20, where it is said that God had done miracles 'in Israel, and among men,' or from Isaiah 43:4, where God says He will give men for the Israelites, or from Judges 16:7, where Samson says, that if he is bound with seven green withs he shall be as weak as a man, for from Psalm 73:5, where it is said of the ungodly they are not in trouble as men, that the Israelites, or Samson, or the ungodly, were not men at all. In all these passages אדם (men) denotes the remainder of mankind in distinction from those who are especially named." Cases occur, too, even in simple prose, in which the same term is used, first in a general, and then directly afterwards in a more restricted sense. We need cite only one, which occurs in Judg. In Judges 19:30 reference is made to the coming of the children of Israel (i.e., of the twelve tribes) out of Egypt; and directly afterwards (Judges 20:1-2) it is related that "all the children of Israel," "all the tribes of Israel," assembled together (to make war, as we learn from Judges 20:3., upon Benjamin); and in the whole account of the war, Judges 20 and 21, the tribes of Israel are distinguished from the tribe of Benjamin: so that the expression "tribes of Israel" really means the rest of the tribes with the exception of Benjamin. And yet the Benjamites were Israelites. Why then should the fact that the sons of God are distinguished from the daughters of men prove that the former could not be men? There is not force enough in these two objections to compel us to adopt the conclusion that the sons of God were angels.
The question whether the "sons of Elohim" were celestial or terrestrial sons of God (angels or pious men of the family of Seth) can only be determined from the context, and from the substance of the passage itself, that is to say, from what is related respecting the conduct of the sons of God and its results. That the connection does not favour the idea of their being angels, is acknowledged even by those who adopt this view. "It cannot be denied," says Delitzsch, "that the connection of Genesis 6:1-8 with Genesis 4 necessitates the assumption, that such intermarriages (of the Sethite and Cainite families) did take place about the time of the flood (cf. Matthew 24:38; Luke 17:27); and the prohibition of mixed marriages under the law (Exodus 34:16; cf. Genesis 27:46; Genesis 28:1.) also favours the same idea." But this "assumption" is placed beyond all doubt, by what is here related of the sons of God. In Genesis 6:2 it is stated that "the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose," i.e., of any with whose beauty they were charmed; and these wives bare children to them (Genesis 6:4). Now אשּׁה לקח (to take a wife) is a standing expression throughout the whole of the Old Testament for the marriage relation established by God at the creation, and is never applied to πορνεία, or the simple act of physical connection. This is quite sufficient of itself to exclude any reference to angels. For Christ Himself distinctly states that the angels cannot marry (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; cf. Luke 20:34.). And when Kurtz endeavours to weaken the force of these words of Christ, by arguing that they do not prove that it is impossible for angels so to fall from their original holiness as to sink into an unnatural state; this phrase has no meaning, unless by conclusive analogies, or the clear testimony of Scripture,
(Note: We cannot admit that there is any force in Hoffmann's argument in his Schriftbeweis 1, p. 426, that "the begetting of children on the part of angels is not more irreconcilable with a nature that is not organized, like that of man, on the basis of sexual distinctions, than partaking of food is with a nature that is altogether spiritual; and yet food was eaten by the angels who visited Abraham." For, in the first place, the eating in this case was a miracle wrought through the condescending grace of the omnipotent God, and furnishes no standard for judging what angels can do by their own power in rebellion against God. And in the second place, there is a considerable difference between the act of eating on the part of the angels of God who appeared in human shape, and the taking of wives and begetting of children on the part of sinning angels. We are quite unable also to accept as historical testimony, the myths of the heathen respecting demigods, sons of gods, and the begetting of children on the part of their gods, or the fables of the book of Enoch (ch. 6ff.) about the 200 angels, with their leaders, who lusted after the beautiful and delicate daughters of men, and who came down from heaven and took to themselves wives, with whom they begat giants of 3000 (or according to one MS 300) cubits in height.
Nor do 2 Peter 2:4 and Jde 1:6 furnish any evidence of angel marriages. Peter is merely speaking of sinning angels in general (ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων) whom God did not spare, and not of any particular sin on the part of a small number of angels; and Jude describes these angels as τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον, those who kept not their princedom, their position as rulers, but left their own habitation. There is nothing here about marriages with the daughters of men or the begetting of children, even if we refer the word τούτοις in the clause τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις τρόπον ἐκπορνεύσασαι in Jde 1:7 to the angels mentioned in Jde 1:6; for ἐκπορνεύειν, the commission of fornication, would be altogether different from marriage, that is to say, from a conjugal bond that was permanent even though unnatural. But it is neither certain nor probable that this is the connection of τούτοις. Huther, the latest commentator upon this Epistle, who gives the preference to this explanation of τούτοις, and therefore cannot be accused of being biassed by doctrinal prejudices, says distinctly in the 2nd Ed. of his commentary, "τούτοις may be grammatically construed as referring to Sodom and Gomorrah, or per synesin to the inhabitants of these cities; but in that case the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah would only be mentioned indirectly." There is nothing in the rules of syntax, therefore, to prevent our connecting the word with Sodom and Gomorrah; and it is not a fact, that "grammaticae et logicae praecepta compel us to refer this word to the angels," as G. v. Zeschwitz says. But the very same reason which Huther assigns for not connecting it with Sodom and Gomorrah, may be also assigned for not connecting it with the angels, namely, that in that case the sin of the angels would only be mentioned indirectly. We regard Philippi's explanation (in his Glaubenslehre iii. p. 303) as a possible one, viz., that the word τούτοις refers back to the ἄνθρωποι ἀσελγεῖς mentioned in Jde 1:4, and as by no means set aside by De Wette's objection, that the thought of Jde 1:8 would be anticipated in that case; for this objection is fully met by the circumstance, that not only does the word οὗτοι, which is repeated five times from Jde 1:8 onwards, refer back to these men, but even the word τούτοις in Jde 1:14 also. On the other hand, the reference of τούτοις to the angels is altogether precluded by the clause καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, which follows the word ἐκπορνεύσασαι. For fornication on the part of the angels could only consist in their going after flesh, or, as Hoffmann expresses it, "having to do with flesh, for which they were not created," but not in their going after other, or foreign flesh. There would be no sense in the word ἑτέρας unless those who were ἐκπορνεύσαντες were themselves possessed of σάρξ; so that this is the only alternative, either we must attribute to the angels a σάρξ or fleshly body, or the idea of referring τούτοις to the angels must be given up. When Kurtz replies to this by saying that "to angels human bodies are quite as much a ἑτέρα σάρξ, i.e., a means of sensual gratification opposed to their nature and calling, as man can be to human man," he hides the difficulty, but does not remove it, by the ambiguous expression "opposed to their nature and calling." The ἑτέρα σάρξ must necessarily presuppose an ἰδία σάρξ.
But it is thought by some, that even if τούτοις in Jde 1:7 do not refer to the angels in Jde 1:6, the words of Jude agree so thoroughly with the tradition of the book of Enoch respecting the fall of the angels, that we must admit the allusion to the Enoch legend, and so indirectly to Genesis 6, since Jude could not have expressed himself more clearly to persons who possessed the book of Enoch, or were acquainted with the tradition it contained. Now this conclusion would certainly be irresistible, if the only sin of the angels mentioned in the book of Enoch, as that for which they were kept in chains of darkness still the judgment-day, had been their intercourse with human wives. For the fact that Jude was acquainted with the legend of Enoch, and took for granted that the readers of his Epistle were so too, is evident from his introducing a prediction of Enoch in Jde 1:14, Jde 1:15, which is to be found in ch. i. 9 of Dillmann's edition of the book of Enoch. But it is admitted by all critical writers upon this book, that in the book of Enoch which has been edited by Dillmann, and is only to be found in an Ethiopic version, there are contradictory legends concerning the fall and judgment of the angels; that the book itself is composed of earlier and later materials; and that those very sections (ch. 6-16:106, etc.) in which the legend of the angel marriages is given without ambiguity, belong to the so-called book of Noah, i.e., to a later portion of the Enoch legend, which is opposed in many passages to the earlier legend. The fall of the angels is certainly often referred to in the earlier portions of the work; but among all the passages adduced by Dillmann in proof of this, there is only one (19:1) which mentions the angels who had taken wives. In the others, the only thing mentioned as the sin of the angels or of the hosts of Azazel, is the fact that they were subject to Satan, and seduced those who dwelt on the earth (54:3-6), or that they came down from heaven to earth, and revealed to the children of men what was hidden from them, and then led them astray to the commission of sin (64:2). There is nothing at all here about their taking wives. Moreover, in the earlier portions of the book, besides the fall of the angels, there is frequent reference made to a fall, i.e., an act of sin, on the part of the stars of heaven and the army of heaven, which transgressed the commandment of God before they rose, by not appearing at their appointed time (vid., 18:14-15; 21:3; 90:21, 24, etc.); and their punishment and place of punishment are described, in just the same manner as in the case of the wicked angels, as a prison, a lofty and horrible place in which the seven stars of heaven lie bound like great mountains and flaming with fire (21:2-3), as an abyss, narrow and deep, dreadful and dark, in which the star which fell first from heaven is lying, bound hand and foot (88:1, cf. 90:24). From these passages it is quite evident, that the legend concerning the fall of the angels and stars sprang out of Isaiah 24:21-22 ("And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall visit the host of the height [המּרום צבא, the host of heaven, by which stars and angels are to be understood on high i.e., the spiritual powers of the heavens] and the kings of the earth upon the earth, and they shall be gathered together, bound in the dungeon, and shut up in prison, and after many days they shall be punished"), along with Isaiah 14:12 ("How art thou fallen from heaven, thou beautiful morning star!"), and that the account of the sons of God in Genesis 6, as interpreted by those who refer it to the angels, was afterwards combined and amalgamated with it.
Now if these different legends, describing the judgment upon the stars that fell from heaven, and the angels that followed Satan in seducing man, in just the same manner as the judgment upon the angels who begot giants from women, were in circulation at the time when the Epistle of Jude was written; we must not interpret the sin of the angels, referred to by Peter and Jude, in a one-sided manner, and arbitrarily connect it with only such passages of the book of Enoch as speak of angel marriages, to the entire disregard of all the other passages, which mention totally different sins as committed by the angels, that are punished with bands of darkness; but we must interpret it from what Jude himself has said concerning this sin, as Peter gives no further explanation of what he means by ἁμαρτῆσαι. Now the only sins that Jude mentions are μὴ τηρῆσαι τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν and ἀπολιπεῖν τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον. The two are closely connected. Through not keeping the ἀρχή (i.e., the position as rulers in heaven) which belonged to them, and was assigned them at their creation, the angels left "their own habitation" (ἴδιον οἰκητήριον); just as man, when he broke the commandment of God and failed to keep his position as ruler on earth, also lost "his own habitation" (ἴδιον οἰκητήριον), that is to say, not paradise alone, but the holy body of innocence also, so that he needed a covering for his nakedness, and will continue to need it, until we are "clothed upon with our hose which is from heaven" (οἰκητήριον ἡμῶν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ). In this description of the angels' sin, there is not the slightest allusion to their leaving heaven to woo the beautiful daughters of men. The words may be very well interpreted, as they were by the earlier Christian theologians, as relating to the fall of Satan and his angels, to whom all that is said concerning their punishment fully applies. If Jude had had the πορνεία of the angels, mentioned in the Enoch legends, in his mind, he would have stated this distinctly, just as he does in v. 9 in the case of the legend concerning Michael and the devil, and in v. 11 in that of Enoch's prophecy. There was all the more reason for his doing this, because not only to contradictory accounts of the sin of the angels occur in the Enoch legends, but a comparison of the parallels cited from the book of Enoch proves that he deviated from the Enoch legend in points of no little importance. Thus, for example, according to Enoch 54:3, "iron chains of immense weight" are prepared for the hosts of Azazel, to put them into the lowest hell, and cast them on that great day into the furnace with flaming fire. Now Jude and Peter say nothing about iron chains, and merely mention "everlasting chains under darkness" and "chains of darkness." Again, according to Enoch 10:12, the angel sinners are "bound fast under the earth for seventy generations, till the day of judgment and their completion, till the last judgment shall be held for all eternity." Peter and Jude make no allusion to this point of time, and the supporters of the angel marriages, therefore, have thought well to leave it out when quoting this parallel to Jde 1:6. Under these circumstances, the silence of the apostles as to either marriages or fornication on the part of the sinful angels, is a sure sign that they gave no credence to these fables of a Jewish gnosticizing tradition.)
It cannot be proved that the angels either possess by nature a material corporeality adequate to the contraction of a human marriage, or that by rebellion against their Creator they can acquire it, or that there are some creatures in heaven and on earth which, through sinful degeneracy, or by sinking into an unnatural state, can become possessed of the power, which they have not by nature, of generating and propagating their species. As man could indeed destroy by sin the nature which he had received from his Creator, but could not by his own power restore it when destroyed, to say nothing of implanting an organ or a power that was wanting before; so we cannot believe that angels, through apostasy from God, could acquire sexual power of which they had previously been destitute.
How is Rev 12 about the rapture?I appreciate @Andy C with this posting of AIG. Or rather Ham's personal take. While I still held to the fallen angel theory, I remember coming across that years ago and thinking that AIG can tend to rationalize things. Although I could be wrong, the response AIG gave to 9-23-2017 potential Rev 12 sign was bunk and rationalizing things. Even if I did not hold to lean in the direction of 2017 being the Rev 12 sign, I would still see too many holes in their approach. For example, they would say that you cannot borrow from one constellation and import it into another one to fit some biblical reference. Which on its face is sound. But further on AIG would only permit Gen 1:14 to mean "for seasons," and omit or allow any sense where "signs" meant anything more than season or for holy days.
Even more, what shocked me about AIG's argumentation style was that it said that the Rev 12 hype is mostly coming from youtube. And there has never been a church view that the Rev 12 sign meant the rapture. This is the one that signed the contract for me implying AIG seemed to me to be yupies using Christian audience for power. Because of what i found in a book i have from 1991, some 14 years prior to youtube even being a thing (youtube started in February of 2005). And in that book it showed differing denominational views on eschatology. And it had the Rev 12 sign for dispensationalism as a belief in it implying future church rapture.
So if a book in print on eschatology knew decades ago that there was a position held by dispensationalism on Rev 12 as a rapture potential passage, how is it that AIG then portends to assert insight into the first 11 chapters of Genesis (from which it got its name) some 6 thousand years ago? Well this is what i thought. But even so, I do have respect for that ministry on several other counts. Amen. But to me, AIG turned into an elementary schoolyard bully caveman mindset (pun intended) when proffering about how the church is to understand Rev 12. The thought in my mind at the time was that it would be pretty scary if the church has evolved to a state where it thought itself so sassy insightful that it would even argue against potential literal prophecy exploding in its face...lol. So today, the AIG reaction to the Rev 12 sign potential of 2017 is ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS i believe it was the Rev 12 sign, now.
I am not 100% certain 2017 was the Rev 12 sign. But all the things that have happen since seem to me to affirm it all the more. But i am ok with it just being something to hold on to. So when @Andy C was going to post something possibly controversial from AIG, what i was expecting was that Ken Ham secretly believed in the Enochian view. I was pleasantly surprised he is not. And even though i have had some history with AIG, I would still consider them to have a reasonable measure of accuracy, in general.
. . . . .
In regards to Arnold, wow...lol. I consider Arnold certainly with respect. I am always encouraged when the church reasonably considers the import God has placed on seeing the scriptures with Jewish consideration. JD Farag is one of the modern day pastors that tends to see Matthew 24+ as for the church. Where in that case I am grateful for JD's consideration of Andy Woods love for Arnold F. JD went as far as to be influenced by Andy (I believe) in his (JD) even considering the Kadesh Barnea view on the book of Hebrews (which is extremely Jewish centric and rarely held--but first postured I believe by theologian J. Dwight Pentecost). To me its odd to hold to Kadesh Barnea view and see so much of eschatology for the church and not as Israeli centric as others like Andy Woods would view eschatology.
So in general, I am surprised though that Arnold would go with angels having ability to procreate because of how much of an anchor Arnold is concerning the importance of Jewish thought in the bible even as a hermeneutic, amen. For me though, that sort of thing helps keep me humble and not place pastor's or theologians on a pedestal (which can be a tendency for any including me). So to me, Arnold holding to the Enochian view kind of right sizes him, for me, back down to the human level. Where he likely belongs...lol.
. . . . .
In any event I am very grateful for such a thread as this. For it has been a blessing to discuss such themes that can be fairly charged. And yet able to lovingly interact with the body of Christ even within those differences. Amen.
TCC
Well-known
Most theologians view Rev 12:5 as the ascension of Christ. The Greek term used for child could be plural. Rev 12:5 is in the section of prophecy aligned with things to come portion. Rev 12:5 is a sign. A sign is typically future, not commemorative. Do we have any signs in the bible that were mere reflections of the past? This article points out a few things interesting to note as well if you have a chance to read it.
https://worldviewtube.com/vault/article/3-reasons-revelation-125-describes-pre-triublational-rapture
Rev 3:21 / 20:6
In the case of Rev 3, this is the Laodicean church promise. "If" there is anything to the historical churches also being some form of church era, Laodicean being last--then this is a very fitting promise or reward to the church that will literally be the Rev 12:5 child "If" that passage refers to the rapture.
Of course that view could be inaccurate. But there are quite a few good reasons I believe to at least consider it as a possibility, and a real one. Hope that helps at least underscore where I am coming from. Thanks for asking brother. Blessings.
lismore
Well-known
You never know what might do it. Sometimes the most odd passages in the bible are the things that bring people in. The hardest passages are there for a reason. God Bless
TCC
Well-known
Wow. Thank you so much pastor. I really appreciate you saying so. I shared this same snippet at another forum a few years ago and it was not well received at all. It was immediately tossed out as bias...lol. I could not even get a casual "down-to-earth" conversation going about it (based on the merits or concerns of the snippet). It was just tossed to the wind. Some on the forum wondered why i would have been so vocal to try and keep the potential of a conversation alive about it--and your observation here testifies as to at least why I might have.
TCC
Well-known
Thanks for taking the time brother Andy
But you do have the mental gymnastics to see a sign of the future about something in the future, as a past event?
The way I understand it in simple terms is Christ honoring His own body as Himself. When He ascended as the Head (Col 1:18), so His body will. I see the level of Christ's body ruling with Him every bit as serious as He has made His body to be. In that sense, although admittedly I am not overly comfortable with it (coming from reformed: "You are just a worm" theology myself) stressed this way. But as for it belonging to the integrity of heart by which Christ sacrificed His life for to have ownership over His own body through its salvation and redemption, it would make sense He might use terms of such in His own words to suggest how much He loves us and wants us to share in that. Apparently not all who are His will have that honor to rule to that level (from what i understand about the theology of rewards). Even though we might see differently, hope that might make sense on some level. Blessings.
TCC
Well-known
Wow. That sounds pretty intense. So sorry you had to go through that dear sister. Is what he was saying in general something you could share so we have an idea? I'm not sure how to think about this portion of what you have shared in regards to the rest of the post. If you have a moment, and is something you are comfortable with clarifying a bit, it might be helpful for us to know. Thanks.
Blessings.
You're welcome. It is likely that there are two possible reasons the other forum did not like the article: One, that they were so heavily invested in their Enochian view that they could not countenance anything that might contradict it (intellectual dishonesty is a prevalent thing in many educated circles.) Or two, that they lacked the intellectual depth to appreciate the rigor of the arguments presented (intellectual pride is equally prevalent and can never admit an inability to track with a deep discourse.) In either case, they deprived themselves of a great lesson.Wow. Thank you so much pastor. I really appreciate you saying so. I shared this same snippet at another forum a few years ago and it was not well received at all. It was immediately tossed out as bias...lol. I could not even get a casual "down-to-earth" conversation going about it (based on the merits or concerns of the snippet). It was just tossed to the wind. Some on the forum wondered why i would have been so vocal to try and keep the potential of a conversation alive about it--and your observation here testifies as to at least why I might have.
Decades ago, when i was taking classes about philosophy (in my just trying to understand the grammar concepts used in that theater...along with theology) I dearly remember one professor I was very fond of. He asked us at one point if we ever ran into this type of argument: "What? Are you crazy?" This was years before society as a whole woke up to the room temperature ideologies associated with argumentational concepts come to be known as "gaslighting." But that was what that professor was highlighting. I thought it strange. In the theological world I was a part of at that time there was gaslighting and quite a bit of it, but it was more subtle and not really detectable. Almost like the gaslighting one might even want to defend for the use of it by another, if that might make sense.
So I bring that up just to share the depth and level of thanks from which I mean toward you professional and personal observation of that theological article. This article in particular had been completely shut down by one who had standing, social weight, and a following of sorts (from another forum). So to that forum, my trying to revive the sense of reasonable consideration toward that theological article even seemed strange to them. Like why i would not just let it go...lol. The reason was because i did not post that article for it to be tauted as pure biased rubbish. If people disagreed with it (and that forum was heavy into the Enochian theory) I just thought it would be a great source to talk about it from. And although the potentially defensive cancel culture mechanics in operation at another forum years ago would have no consideration for such an article, its nice to know I'm at least not delusional for appreciating this snippet of scholarly prose toward themes in scripture.
So it really does mean a lot pastor.
sums it up for me too.
Hol
Well-known
St. Peter Getting Tired of Answering Questions About The Nephilim
PEARLY GATES — Heavenly sources confirmed that Saint Peter had grown weary running the front desk of Heaven due to the number of questions he continually received about the Nephilim."Wow, is this Heaven? Cool! So anyway, what are the Nephilim? Were they giants?" one newly deceased man was heard asking, prompting an eye roll from the saint.
"I mean, I'm in Heaven, so I'm not exactly unhappy. But it's very draining talking about the Nephilim every day," Peter said. "I'd just like to talk about something else, you know?"
St. Peter Getting Tired of Answering Questions About The Nephilim
PEARLY GATES — Heavenly sources confirmed that Saint Peter had grown weary running the front desk of Heaven due to the number of questions he continually received about the Nephilim.
babylonbee.com
TCC
Well-known
Very cute. Thanks Hol for the chuckleSt. Peter Getting Tired of Answering Questions About The Nephilim
PEARLY GATES — Heavenly sources confirmed that Saint Peter had grown weary running the front desk of Heaven due to the number of questions he continually received about the Nephilim.
"Wow, is this Heaven? Cool! So anyway, what are the Nephilim? Were they giants?" one newly deceased man was heard asking, prompting an eye roll from the saint.
"I mean, I'm in Heaven, so I'm not exactly unhappy. But it's very draining talking about the Nephilim every day," Peter said. "I'd just like to talk about something else, you know?"
St. Peter Getting Tired of Answering Questions About The Nephilim
PEARLY GATES — Heavenly sources confirmed that Saint Peter had grown weary running the front desk of Heaven due to the number of questions he continually received about the Nephilim.
Similar threads
