Who are the angels that sinned in 2 Pet 2:4 and Other Questions

Question:

Thirty-six men perished in the first campaign against Ai, which calamity is directly attributed to Achan’s sin. Is there some form of injustice here? Why should these men have lost their lives because of someone else’s sin?

Answer:

A cursory reading would suggest the con­clusion that they were the innocent victims of the consequences of the misdeeds of another, but it must be remembered that they actually declared war on Ai, who proved to be superior. Any warrior must accept the risk of dying in battle.

A closer look at the narrative reveals that these fatalities could have been avoided had Israel acted more wisely. They did not seek God’s counsel before rushing into battle, hav­ing the exhiliaration of the last victory still in their blood. They took the situation into their own hands, grasping at the report of the spies to send only 3,000 men. Though we may give them the benefit of the doubt that they trusted in God to deliver them, they certainly took Him for granted in arranging this plan them­selves without first consulting Him. Had they done so, what a different answer they would have received, and what distress they would have saved the bereaved families! If we do not call upon God for guidance we must accept the consequences of our own impetuosity or foolishness. What a potent lesson in our Ecclesial Life!

Question:

Have you any Scriptural clues to identify the angels that sinned in 2 Peter 2:4?

Answer:

In my view the context helps us. They are first compared with false prophets in the church who pervert the truth and invoke God’s wrath for scattering and devouring the sheep. A mill­stone around the neck and a bed in the deepest part of the ocean is a better punishment than their’s. Peter warns against such wanton de­bauchery and uses God’s wrath against the sinning angels (messengers) as a warning.

The next verse contrasts Noah’s salvation from the cataclysmic judgments avalanched upon the ungodly angels. It appears to me as if Peter was saying that the angels (Angeloi or messengers) perished, but Noah was saved. Notice his repetition of the same theme in the following verses where the destruction of So­dom and Gomorrah is contrasted to the sal­vation of Lot. It appears then, that prior to the flood there were teachers or messengers from God (Sons of God, Gen. 6:2) who per­verted and taught the perversion of God’s ways to others. These same perverters were (once) men of renown (or of the name) as the Hebrew is the same for either. (Gen. 6:4 R.V.) What a strong lesson to the teachers of the Ecclesia to learn that the angels still awaiting final judgment were men equipped with a message from God, but who chose to teach a perversion of His ways, bringing a yet greater judgment upon themselves than that terrible cataclysm sent to destroy both deceiver and deceived.

Question:

Why do you think the Greek term ‘tartan’s’ is used here and not ‘hades’, the usual term for desig­nating the state of the dead?

Answer:

Though hades, literally meaning ‘the unseen’, would suffice to serve the purpose in the other instances where the dead await resurrection, tartarus is the only term that gives full expression to what happened at the time of the flood. This is the only place where it occurs in the Bible. It is borrowed from Greek myth­ology where it was used to denote the sub­terranean turbulent waterways through which the departed would hazardously proceed en-route to their final destiny, the very wicked remaining therein. All water upon the face of the earth was supposed to flow into Tartarus where it surged and boiled until it emerged again to form lakes and streams, so completing the cycle.

Strip this description of its superstition re­garding the immortal soul, and you have a graphic picture of the Flood when the foun­tains of the deep were opened. The wells, fountains or springs from which issued water from gigantic underground reservoirs were broken so as to release in great gushes the reserves of tartarus’. No doubt the bloated bodies of the subjects of the wrath of God would be sucked into the bowels of the earth as the water completed its cycle and swirled back into ‘tartarus’. There the deceivers await, in the deep watery caverns of the underworld, the coming judgments of God. What would be more expressive of chains or pits of dark­ness, than the security of the earth’s broken fountains closing in again after her pent-up fury had subsided.

Question:

To whom does Zechariah 13:7 refer as God’s fellow?

Answer:

Jesus, the Son of God. He actually applied the latter portion of this verse to himself. “Smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered.” (Matt. 26:31) Zechariah used the term Givbor, that denotes a mighty man, re­minding us of the ‘mighty God’ of Isaiah 9:6, commented on in the Sept./Oct. issue of 1974. The term also describes man as distinct from God, so that Jesus cannot be confused with God, as do the Trinitarians.

The Hebrew term ‘Amith’ (fellow) is some­times translated as neighbour, and springs from a root signifying fellowship and com­munion, companionship or to be equal with. This latter could not possibly apply in every respect, seeing a term of distinction has already been used. However, in righteousness and truth Jesus was equal with God, and was com­parable to Him in being the ‘word made flesh’ (John 1:1, 14); just as though the mind of God in relation to the salvation of the race had been infused into the Son of God. The name of God befitted the Lord Jesus perfectly, having manifested it unto the end. Without taking any glory to himself nor boasting of any inherent native goodness, Jesus was merci­ful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who would, by no means, clear the guilty, even calling for judgment from heaven when the occasion warranted. (Exodus 34:6, 7). There was never any other man who could say, ‘I and my Father are one’. (John 10:30).

Let us indeed honour for their work’s sake those who have laboured in the Word and in the doctrine, and count ourselves blessed indeed in our heritage; but let us also honour Their request that a man should so account of them “as the ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God”, at the same time remembering their own example and advice to bring all things to the touchstone, not of man’s opinion, but of the Scriptures them­selves. Their outlook cannot be better summed up than in these words from The Ambassador, 1867, p.227: “A brother having written to Dr. Thomas, re­questing his ‘authoritative voice on points of doctrine submitted’, the Doctor remarks in reply, ‘If I consent, I should be set down for a pope at once. Let the voice of the Truth, in fraternal and kind contention for the faith, be the authority of each. There are partisan adherents to all causes, who surrender their minds to personal authority, and endorse whatever comes from that source without examination. I am opposed to “authorita­tive voices”, other than the voices of the prophets and apostles, and even theirs must be understood to be beneficial’.”