Last Things and Last Judgments

Question #1:  

Are angels God's creations before this creation (earth and humanity)? Namely archangel Gabriel and Michael. Are they saints who have become angels after their physical death?

Response #1: 

Angels are a separate order of creature from human beings. They were created before the destruction of the world seen in Genesis 1:2 (which necessitated the seven days of re-creation in the rest of Genesis chapter one; please see the link: SR2: The Genesis Gap). They were created perfect, but Satan rebelled from God and took one third of angelic kind with him in rebellion. After some indeterminate time, the Lord judged the rebellion by devastating the original earth and blacking out the universe. Instead of throwing the devil into the lake of fire immediately, however, God turned the lights back on (though dimly in comparison which the original creation and also in comparison with the eternal state to come) and re-created earth, then created a new order of beings, human beings. We are akin to the angels in that we bear the image of God (i.e., we have cognizance of our situation and the free will to decide for or against God's truth and God's will). In many respects, humanity was created for God's purpose in the judgment, restoration, and replacement of the effects of Satan's rebellion. All this (and much more) is covered in great detail in the five part Satanic Rebellion series, and I would strongly encourage you to begin your studies of these issues there (see the link). You might also see part 2A of Bible Basics: Angelology, for specific details about the angels (although much of this information can also be found in the Satanic Rebellion series as well).

Human beings do not become angels and angels do not become human beings. Together, resurrected believers and elect angels (who did not follow Satan) will form the eternal family of God. When we are resurrected (at Christ's return), we will possess bodies like that of our Lord Jesus Christ which are, from all scriptural description, superior to those of angels, and of course we will "judge angels" (1Cor.6:2-3). The archangels are a particular rank of angel (and there apparently only seven of them); please see the following link: in BB 2A "Archangels".

Hope this helps with your questions. Please feel free to write me back about any of this.

In our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob Luginbill

Question #2:

I read your email response and I am failing to see how there is any reference to the antichrist being half Jewish. I believe it is possible that the antichrist may be the devil's actual seed (son), but I would have to study scripture a bit closer to verify that. However, none of the names given to the antichrist seem to point to him being half Jewish. When I hear names like "King of the North", "King of Babylon", "The Assyrian" (all names that were on the list that you wrote up on the page you gave me the link to), it does not draw up a mental image in my mind of a person who is of Jewish descent. The term "King of Babylon" seems to strongly point to the fact that the antichrist will be the leader of the end time Mystery, Babylon at the onset of the Tribulation. My understanding from having read scripture is that the destruction of Mystery, Babylon happens at the beginning of the Tribulation (not the end of the Tribulation).

Response #2: 

Antichirst's paternity is explained at the following link: in CT 3B: "The Origin of Antichrist"

As to the question of the beast being "Assyrian", two passages frequently adduced by those making this claim are the following:

Isaiah 10:5 is a direct historical reference to Assyria – a country which was used by God as a scourge, which did over-do it, and which was destroyed by the Lord. Calno and Carchemish (v.9) are literal places, e.g., and the whole passage has a direct literal application to history past (history, that is, as laid out in scripture). It is true that the passage is (secondarily) also symbolic of antichrist – but in this respect the appellation "Assyrian" is symbolic too, thus telling us nothing of the beast's true origin.

Micah 5:5-6 is similar. I do find an eschatological aspect to it, but, again, through symbolic analogy, meaning, therefore, that "Assyrian" in that case would be no more literal than "Nimrod" in verse six, a pagan god of that day. Now "Nimrod" might represent something else – but then in that case so would the appellation "Assyrian".

As you will see in the link above, the interpretation of antichrist's maternal origin is based in part on Genesis 49:16-17 and the prophecy about Dan.

Dan is a serpent and a viper (satanic; cf. the Gen.3:15 prophecy about the serpent's seed striking Messiah's heel); Dan will rule his people (the beast's world rule and control of Israel in particular where he will have his final headquarters), "as if he were one of the tribes of Israel" (the falsity of his claim to Messiahship); "I wait for your deliverance, O Lord!" (indicating the tribulational application of the prophecy). To my mind the above verses and their fairly obvious interpretation makes the rise of the beast from the tribe of Dan a virtual certainty (and if so, his maternal origin will have to be Jewish).

There is much more as well about all this at the link above. You are certainly free to disagree. The interpretation, however, rests upon a long list of biblical evidence, all of which would have to be considered for the argument to receive a fair hearing.

In our dear Lord Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #3:  

Dear Dr. Luginbill,

I have been reading a very interesting book and wanted to get your opinion on some of the authors views. The book is God's War on Terror, Islam, Prophecy and the Bible. It is written by an ex-Muslim terrorist , Walid Shoebat, who after reading the Bible believed he was not worshiping the one true God and became a believer in Jesus Christ. What he says in the book is that westerners are looking for the antichrist to be from revived Rome when in fact he feels scripture says that the antichrist will be a Muslim and that the Messiah who will come to Islam, their Madhi will in fact be our antichrist. There is a lot in Isaiah, Daniel and Revelation that he says points to this. Isaiah 14:25 "That I will break the Assyrian in My land, and on My Mountains tread him underfoot." He says that all the neighbors of Israel are today Muslim countries. Jeremiah 12:14 "Thus Says Jehovah against all mine evil neighbors that touch the inheritance which I have caused my people Israel to inherit." That the Mark of the Beast is in fact the Islamic Creed whereby they put badges on their foreheads and arms with blasphemous declarations on them doing this in obedience to the (Quran 27:82) which spoke of the end days regarding the "beast of the earth" and how this beast will mark all Muslims on the forehead in order to distinguish them from non-Muslims. He also noted that the Greek letters (Chi XI Stigma) that are used to translate 666 very much resemble the most common creed of Islam Bismillah written in Arabic and literally means 'In the name of Allah" and followed by symbol of crossed swords used universally throughout the Muslim world to signify Islam. There is a lot more, some 400+ pages all of it based on scripture and seems to make a lot of sense given the increase in Islam and their hate for the infidel, the Jews and Christians. What is your thought on this? Thanks for all you help. You are a wonderful resource for us longing for the truth on His word.

Blessings,

Response #3:    

Always good to hear from you. As to your first question, I am very sorry to hear this theory (which is not unique to this person) being advanced by what seems to be a credible source. It is almost certainly the case (as I have written in some detail) that the early part of the Tribulation will indeed see the rise of an Islamic confederacy led by a self-proclaimed Mahdi. The problem for Christians who will be around at that time is that seeing this person as antichrist will be exactly what the real antichrist wants and desires. The beast will proclaim himself to be Christ, and will lead a "Christian crusade" against this "king of the south" during the first half of the Tribulation. I fully expect that one major factor in energizing the Great Apostasy (wherein fully one third of genuine Christians will fall away from the faith) will indeed be the patriotic and religious fervor ginned up by the beast (proclaiming himself to be Christ) against this other charismatic ruler (whom the beast will deem "antichrist"). As you and others and this person point out, there will be many similarities between this "Mahdi" and the beast – that will not make him antichirst (any more than the superficial similarities between the beast and the true Christ will make him Christ). True Christians will be reviled during this time for turning against their country and rejecting their God. With the entire religious establishment of those who are Christian in name only supporting the beast, many true Christians will succumb to this pressure and propaganda, being weak in their faith and having spent little time in their lives paying attention to scripture. They will apostatize and follow the false Christ against the (wrongly named) antichrist to their eternal undoing. This is, therefore, a very dangerous teaching. Scripture clearly has the beast connected with revived Rome, and I know of no verse that can be made to connect him to Islam instead. He is, after all, "substitute-Christ" (a basic meaning of the Greek preposition anti: "against" in the sense of a substitution), and the actual beast's opposition to the true Jesus cannot be fully understood apart from this critical aspect of his modus operandi of dissimulation. Just as Satan attempted to usurp Jesus' role in pre-history, so at the end of history his son will proclaim himself the Christ and attempt to deceive the world in a similar fashion. This is one reason why scripture goes out of its way to give us a "test" to identify potential antichrists (i.e., the "number of the beast") – and uniquely so. This would not be necessary if what one would expect to happen based on contemporary geopolitics is what actually will happen.

You mention the "Assyrian" passages (Is.14:25 et al.), and I note that this a false interpretation that has been making the rounds of late. This is a good example of how the KJV (and versions which follow it) can be very misleading. "The Assyrian" was not a bad translation for 'ashur in its day, but only if we understand this as a generic description. But in the Hebrew we actually have just 'ashur , Assyria, with no "the". "I will break Assyria" is what the Hebrew actually says; that is the sense in which the KJV meant it the 17th century. But today "the Assyrian" sounds like a single person. The Hebrew cannot mean that and does not mean that, but that (incorrect) meaning is essential for this particular false theory. As I say, on the one hand I know of no biblical support for this theory of an Islamic antichrist (despite all the "neat" parallels from contemporary Islamic usage), and on the other hand there is a mountain of evidence to connect the beast with 1) revived Rome and 2) eschatological Babylon (which rules the west, biblically speaking). This is all written up in detail in part 3B of the Coming Tribulation series, "Antichrist and his Kingdom".

Thank you so much for your kind words of encouragement! I greatly appreciate them.

In our dear Lord Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #4: 

Dr. Luginbill,

Am I to understand then that the 12th Imam, or Madhi that the Muslims are looking for is not the antichrist as this author is saying and in fact we are to look for another person from revived Rome that will be the antichrist? In your response you said that true Christians will be reviled during this time for turning against their country and rejecting their God, would you explain what you mean by this further? I don't understand what you mean by their country and rejecting their God.

I will look again at your tribulation series that I copied a while ago. Does it mean anything that all the countries that surround Israel are Muslim countries and sit on the largest area of oil?

Again, thanks for you help.

Response #4:   

Antichrist will come from Babylon, and Babylon will almost certainly be the tribulational U.S. After gaining control of Babylon, the beast will establish his empire first by taking over revived Rome; second by overcoming the three "horns" (i.e., the greater part of the Islamic world) which were part of Rome but do not initially flock to his banner. In fact, the opposition of the three horns and "the king of the south" will be the key justification for the political and military operations that bring the beast so far so fast, namely, the threat from Islam. So there no doubt will be someone along the lines of what you report (I can't vouch for the specifics about him, because they are not in the Bible); but this person will only seem to be antichrist; antichrist will call him "antichrist", even as the beast calls himself "Christ".

I mentioned that Christians will be reviled, that is, will be discriminated against and placed under great pressure because they "inexplicably" are unwilling to follow "Christ" in his "new religion" and "crusade" to destroy "the beast". It will be analogous to being a German in 1933 who had the good sense to see that Hitler was bad and not good; such persons usually ended up in concentration camps if they were detected. For us it will be worse because we will refuse to take the beast's mark. Since the beast will proclaim himself to be "Jesus", and all of his false Christian followers will accept that, when we true Christians do not support him, do not join in the "cause", do not take the mark, etc., we will be considered not only bad Christians (or not really Christians), but also bad Americans. We will be reviled. This is a very important point since most Christians are under the impression that antichrist will be obvious as such and very easy to sport, and that resisting him will just be a manner of being willing to suffer for what we believe. In fact, it will be much more insidious than that. Only those with a strong and mature faith capable of seeing through the beast's lies will recognize that the real antichrist is not the evil person who runs the Middle East and parts surrounding (evil though he will be, and a threat to the west as he will be), but instead the person whom almost all of the west will see as their "Savior". He will not have horns and a red epidermis. He will no doubt be very attractive and seemingly God like – just like you would imagine Jesus to be. Not for nothing is he called anti-Christ, for although he is not Christ, most will accept him as such. The sort of misguided interpretation from the book you shared will only play right into his hands. Those who fall for this deceit will either be Christians in name only or part of the Great Apostasy.

You can find all this at the following link:

In our dear Lord Jesus.

Bob L.

Question #5:

Not to belabor the point but will not the "man of peace' who in fact is the antichrist make an agreement with Israel for 7 years and then after 3 1/2 years break the promise and reveal his true colors, at that time instituting the mark and his power? If this is the case would we Christians not know this 'man of peace' for what he is knowing that after those 7 years that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will come and do battle at Armageddon and destroy him and his followers. Am I missing something here? Also, from the ex-Muslim author he says that the temple destroyed in 70AD were 'the people of the prince (antichrist)" and although they were Roman legions and Roman citizens that they were not of European descent and heritage but primarily from the Middle East-Arabs, Syrians and Turks. That Titus lead the Eastern Legion of the Roman Empire, not the Western and is saying that it was an Islamic Empire and this being said the antichrist will be Islam not Roman. Daniel 9:26, "The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." Those "the people (ancestors) of the prince (antichrist) who is to come (during the tribulation) will sack Jerusalem and the Temple". There are so many opinions out there. Pretrib, Midtrib, Posttrib, mystery Babylon, the antichrist, etc. I just want to be sure I am on the right side of scripture. Thank you so much for listening to me and always being willing to answer questions. I hope I am not being argumentative just curious since I felt he had a lot of scripture, many of the same ones you site related to the end times.

Blessings,

Response #5: 

I'm always happy to answer your questions. First, the Great Apostasy takes place during the first half of the Tribulation, not the second. By the time the beast is demanding the mark from all of the world's inhabitants, those who have cast their lot with him will already be in too deep in most cases to turn back from their apostasy. Therefore whatever deception takes place will take place in the main before this particular "obvious" sign of the mark surfaces (which may not be as obvious as it seemed twenty years ago when almost no one had a tattoo and now it seems almost everyone in the younger generation does, for example). Antichrist will only "reveal his true colors" to the extent that he ever does so after it is too late for most weak Christians who will have already fallen away. This is an important point. Most Christians imagine that the apostasy will in the first instance be a collapse of faith under pressure. While pressure will indeed be a critical factor in both halves of the Tribulation, the number one initial reason for the Great Apostasy will be seduction. The beast will come upon the scene in a world filled with anxiety, unrest, and great fear. He will be incredibly charismatic and seemingly unique. His claim to be Christ will seem genuine, backed up by miracles, and impossible for most of the world to resist; and his "salvation" of the west from the threat of the southern kingdom will make everyone cheer (everyone, at least, who is ignorant of scripture). The beast will, moreover, have a new world religion that "transcends" traditional Christianity and which offers something for everyone. In short, for positive and negative reasons, out of self-interest and self-preservation, and in response to a person who seems to be the most unique person ever to have lived (with the exception of the true Christ), the majority of the west at first, and, after his victories in the middle east, the entire world will flock to his standards and to his religion. It will take undivided and solid faith to resist these temptations, not only because of their inherent seductiveness, but also because by failing to jump on the bandwagon true Christians who really do know their God will be considered traitorous and heretical. I fully expect the societal pressure coming from all quarters to play a very big role in the apostasy (after it has already picked up a very large head of steam). For while a person who is being persecuted because he/she is a Christian and acknowledged as such by the persecutors might possible bear up, when it is a case of being made to doubt that one is even really a Christian (since the people doing the persecuting are claiming the same and indeed claiming to serve Christ "come again in the flesh"), it will take the most intransigent and iron faith to persevere.

As to Rome, during the days of Nero Rome ruled all ten "horns", that is, all ten areas of the empire as biblically described. In Daniel chapter seven, the little horn throws down three of these horns – these represent the southern alliance which is opposed by Babylon and the revived Roman empire. Note, all ten belong to Rome proper, but it will take two major campaigns before all ten horns are subject to the beast (as they clearly are by the time of Babylon's destruction at Rev.17:16). From the prophetic viewpoint, there is no specific identification of Islam, there is only Babylon (the west), Rome (the north), the three horns under the king of the south (the south – what today is the Islamic world for the most part), and later at the end also the kings of the east (the east). Also, the racial composition of the Roman legions at the time of Jerusalem's destruction is not something that biblical prophecy takes into account (or needs to). In any case, there is nothing in scripture which is in any way contradictory in this respect. The idea of "European descent" in respect to revived Rome is a modern idea that is neither historical nor biblical. By the time of Nero, Roman citizenship had passed to many who were not European in any sense of the word (racial, geographic, linguistic, what have you). Paul was a Hebrew-speaking Jew from Asia . . . but a Roman citizen.

Titus had three legions under his command, the 5th (Macedonian – that would be European; Greek, Thracian, Dacian – also all European), the 10th, Julius Caesar's favorite legion, based now in Syria, originally raised in Gaul, but no one knows its ethnic composition at this time (undoubtedly mixed), and the 15th, raised by Octavian/Augustus and so largely Italian (but again no doubt somewhat mixed at this point, with many Illyrians [Europeans] due to its posting in that area for many years, along with [European] German/Gallic stock, since it spent many years in the campaigns on the Rhine). But none of that is really here nor there since all of these common soldiers, and much more their commanders, would be considered "Roman" at the time of writing of the book of Revelation, for example. Any confederation whose geography encompasses that of the Roman empire in Nero's day (apart from Africa, Egypt, and Syria, the centers of gravity of the three horns of the south, not subdued by antichrist until the middle of the Tribulation) should be considered the empire of the prince whose "people" sacked Jerusalem.

It is certainly true what you relate, that there are many interpretations out there nowadays, and though this ministry has been on the internet since 1997, in the intervening time "Bible study" sites have multiplied ad infinitum. What is a Christian to do? My answer is what it has always been: judge a tree by its fruit. Anyone, even someone without training or any particular knowledge of scripture – or even without any great faith, can easily put together some verses and a wild theory or two that may sound "interesting". But it takes actual preparation and diligent study to put things together consistently in a biblically accurate way, and it is only by discovering a helpful and legitimate ministry and persevering with it that true spiritual growth is possible. As I always say, "find a good source of truth and stick with it". That is the best way to get somewhere in personal spiritual growth.

In our dear Lord Jesus who is the only truth.

Bob L.

Question #6:  

Dr. Luginbill,

Thank you again for your response. You are certainly a faithful servant to our Lord and to those of us who rely on your sound knowledge of scripture. I'm sure I will be seeking your guidance again. I only pray I will keep the faith and stand firm for Jesus when the time of trials come our way. God's blessings,

Response #6:    

Thank you, for your kind and supportive words – and most of all for your prayers.

In our dear Lord Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #7: 

Revelation 14:10 - The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

2 Thessalonians 1:9 - Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Why does Rev. 14:10 tell us that unbelievers will be punished "in" the presence of the Lord while 2 Thess. 1:9 tells us that unbelievers will be punished "from" the presence of the Lord? Are both verses referring to the Lake of Fire? I interpret Rev. 14:10's fire and brimstone as the Lake of fire. Is this correct, because Revelation 19:20 also uses the words "fire and brimstone" which is the Lake of Fire or the eternal state of the damned.

Response #7:   

I take Revelation 14:10 to be limited to the (last) judgment which will indeed take place "before Him". Thus the "before Him" refers to the judgment, not to the eternal torment which will indeed be away from His presence, not before it. So I do not take this passage to mean that (nor does it actually say that) the lake of fire will be in His presence forever (although it does seem to be visible from the new earth: Is.66:24). As you rightly point out, 2Thes.1:9 teaches exactly the opposite (i.e., unbelievers will be away from His presence). So the two passages are not actually in conflict. All who experience the last judgment will do so in the presence of the Lamb; but the penalty of their unbelief will be an eternity separated　from Him and His glorious presence. Please see the following link for more on this:

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #8:

In bible studies someone said that if Jesus suffered for our sins which is eternal punishment, then does that mean that the punishment for our sins is still on Him and that He is still suffering? I told him that Jesus can take our punishment because He is eternal, therefore He can take our punishment which is eternal. Then he said that it can't be eternal if the punishment that He took for us isn't still continuing and told me that it would be a contradiction since eternal means without end. He said that if God's eternal punishment for us is completed by Jesus, then how can it be eternal if it doesn't last forever?

Response #8: 

Let me start by saying that you are absolutely correct that Jesus is not experiencing continual punishment. Scripture makes it quite clear that He suffered to propitiate our sins "once and for all", and that this (spiritual) death which wipes away our sins stands in stark contrast to the animal sacrifices of the law for this very reason (among many others):

Salvation was accomplished at Calvary's cross some two thousand years ago – as any Christian should understand quite clearly. But if Christ were still suffering for sin, then salvation would not yet be complete. However, after He had borne our sins in the darkness and paid the price for those sins, Jesus Himself told us from the cross that His mission had been successfully accomplished:

I think the "problem" here comes as a result of a false assumption: "if Jesus suffered for our sins which is eternal punishment". Nowhere in scripture is the work of Christ on the cross called "eternal punishment". It is true that the unrighteous do go off into "eternal punishment" (Matt.25:46; Jude 1:7), but it does not logically follow that therefore Christ would have had to suffer forever in order to pay for the sins of the world. That is certainly not in the Bible, and, indeed, as the quotes above make clear, the opposite is in fact affirmed by scripture. This is not in any way to diminish what our Lord did for us in dying for our sins – far from it! It only means that the suffering He endured in the three hours of darkness on the cross did in fact propitiate the Father's righteous demand for satisfaction in order for all sin to be forgiven. What Jesus endured during that time will not be completely known this side of heaven, but passages such as Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 make it quite clear that the intensity of what He had to do to wash away our sins was immense. It was not eternal in the sense of lasting forever; it is eternal in that it has yielded the eternal result of life everlasting for all who believe in Him.

I have recently written quite a bit about this subject (metaphorically called in scripture "the blood of Christ"), and I invite you to have a look at the following link: in BB 4A, "The Spiritual Death of Christ".

In the Name of the One who has given us His body to eat and His blood to drink, dying in our place that we might live forever with Him, our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob L.

Question #9:  

Hi Bob,

A very long time ago I heard from a preacher that there is a hole in Heaven that allows the Saints to look into hell and see the torment of those who rejected Jesus. I read your response to Is. 66:24 but it didn't say anything about a hole in Heaven. I'm glad I found your web site.

Response #9:    

Good to make your acquaintance. You may be referring to Luke 16:19-31 where we find that Abraham and Lazarus could see the rich man in hell across the "great gulf fixed". It is important to consider that these departed believers were apparently not in the least interested in what was going on in Torments (the compartment of Hades where the unsaved dead currently reside, a.k.a. "hell"), and only even responded to his entreaties because of his importunity. Since the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, departed believers now reside in the presence of God (i.e., in the third heaven), so that the previous "paradise" below the earth described in Luke 16 is now unoccupied (see the link: in BB 4A, "The Transfer of Believers from the Subterranean Paradise to the Third Heaven").

As to Isaiah 66:24, this and other passages do seem to indicate that in the eternal state, the lake of fire (the place to which the unsaved dead are remanded following the Last Judgment) will be visible from some vantage point outside of the New Jerusalem which will come down from heaven to the New Earth at the end of human history following the Millennium (covered in the email response at the link "Will those in Hades be able to see Christ's return?"). However, as in the case of Abraham and Lazarus, it does not appear that this will be a much frequented venue or that we will be at all concerned or interested in it, preferring instead the presence of our Lord and the Father, and reveling in all the eternal blessings with which we shall be provided (cf. Rev.21:4).

Your particular question of course involves the visibility of torments (i.e., the present-day, temporary "hell") from the third heaven, and I find no scripture which indicates that the lost are presently visible to believers in heaven. The Bible does provide some indications that present events on earth are indeed visible to the assembly of saints in the third heaven through the heavenly sea described in the book of Revelation, and that may be the "hole" you are referring to (see the link: "the heavenly sea" in CT 2B). However, the temporary torments of the present day hell are nowhere described as visible to any but God from the third heaven (as far as I know). Even if it were possible (and even if it is possible, just not detailed in scripture), it is my guess that it would be of little interest for those in God's presence.

Please feel free to write me back about any of this.

In our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob Luginbill

Question #10: 

I've been taught that Genesis 6 "sons of God" refers to fallen angels as in your articles on your website and emails, but I came across this article which gives counter arguments that denies that view and is giving me some trouble. I still believe that the sons of God were angels nonetheless, but I can't seem to get past some of these arguments against it in this article. Here's the article:

What are the errors that this person is making in trying to disprove the fallen angels view on Genesis 6?

Response #10:   

I would be happy to respond. To begin, I do not believe I have ever said that the phrase "sons of God" (without the definite article) always refers to angels. I have only pointed out that the phrase can refer to angels, and that when it is accompanied by the definite article, "the", always does so. This person attempts by a sort of sleight of hand to reverse the traditional discussion on this point. This is very much like setting up a straw man (i.e., just to be able to knock it down). The question here for believers who want to know what the Bible really teaches is "what does the phrase 'sons of God' mean in Genesis 6?" I and others have of necessity been forced to demonstrate that the phrase "sons of God" can refer to angels only because those of the other persuasion have argued vociferously that it never refers to angels, and have done so in my view only so as to refute the correct view of Genesis 6.

Further, there are differences in the phraseology between Genesis 6:1 and Hosea 1:10 (Hebrew 2:1), and such differences can be critical. For example, we certainly wouldn't agree to a claim that because Jesus is called "son of God" that He is no more unique than we are since we too are "sons of God"; if we are thinking, we would object and say, "Jesus is the Son of God, and that is quite a difference!" Likewise, the phrase "sons of the living God (beney-'el chay)" in Hosea is significantly different from "the sons of God (beney-ha'elohiym)" in Genesis 6. The difference between the singular and the plural name of God mentioned by this e-mail is not theologically significant, true, but it does make the phrases different. Much more important is the lack of the "the" in Hosea, for just as it is the definite article which marks Jesus out as the unique Son of God, so it is the definite article in Genesis which marks these individuals out as distinct from the others in the narrative: they are "the sons of God", i.e., (fallen) angels, even though human too might be perhaps be described as "sons of God". So this first criticism is not only irrelevant to my writing on the subject – it is also misleading at best, and misses the entire grammatical point behind the comparison of the phrases. For a Hebrew reader, beney-'el chay is altogether a different thing from beney-ha'elohiym, irrespective of the context.

Paragraph two sets up another straw man. In my writing, the fact that in the Job parallels "sons of God" does refer to angels shows that the phrase not only can refer to angels but also that it probably does refer to angels in any context which seems to point in that direction. In Genesis 6, for example, where we also have "men" and "daughters of men" in addition to "the sons of God", the very existence in the context of three carefully and purposefully distinguished categories gives us the presumption that we are dealing with angels. Since we know very well who the men and the women are (human beings), it would stand to reason that the "sons of God" are somehow different, and would probably suspect them to be angels, even without the Job parallels. With the Job parallels it would take some sort of strong semantic cue in the context to turn us away from the natural conclusion that they are angels. But in fact, everything else in the context confirms this conclusion which is the simplest and most straight-forward when considering the language as actual language (i.e., "mighty men", nephilim, the contrast in the phrase "the sons of God went into the daughters of men", etc., all point emphatically in that direction). This concept may indeed be difficult for many people who are not well-versed in angelology or Satan's rebellion. But just in terms of the text as language, assuming that "the sons of God" are angels is the most natural way to read these words. The fact that this person finds it "unlikely" that the Bible would call fallen angels "the sons of God" is not a convincing argument at all. We only call them fallen angels to distinguish them from holy angels for convenience sake, but in the Bible, they are usually just "angels" (cf. Rev.9:11; 9:14). If the Bible can call both good and bad members of that category "angels" (since that is what they are), then there is no good reason to suppose that it would not also call both categories of angels "the sons of God". After all, even if we were to erroneously assume that the sons of God were human beings, given the context of apostasy it would unquestionably be the case that most would be unbelievers (and would yet still be called "the sons of God" even though opposing God).

Jude 1:6 does indeed refer to this event. The reasoning is not circular. For one thing, every verse in the Bible means something important. If the "angels who left their first estate" are not those involved in this clear violation of the angelic estate in commingling with the human estate, to whom is Jude referring? It would be unprecedented for a New Testament writer to make such a reference if there were not an Old Testament passage/incident/teaching with which his readers would readily identify (this becomes even more clear when the parallel passages in the Petrine epistles are considered, conveniently left out by this author; see below). These angels in Jude cannot be all of the fallen angels, because far from all of the fallen angels are incarcerated at present: most are still at liberty (as all spiritually advancing Christians know only too well).

As to the last two paragraphs you include, since the second of the two deals with a bizarre argument I would not wish to defend (and know of no responsible party who advances), I will deal only with the first. I have no doubt that this person could adduce an entire parade of evangelical scholars who are in print as opposing the clear meaning of Genesis chapter 6. There are very persuasive reasons to want to abandon the clear meaning of the text and come up with some "softer" interpretation. To put it bluntly, Genesis chapter 6 is uncomfortable. But the truth is often uncomfortable. If you reject Jesus, you will be damned for all eternity. I know of nothing more uncomfortable. Now I am sure this person and his ilk would quickly protest that they would never dream of watering down the gospel, but in fact every attack on the truth of the scripture is an attack on the gospel. The devil is far too intelligent to attack our belief in the truth head on in the case of those who are committed to spiritual advance. Instead, he tries to undermine some small part where we are unclear or unsure or "uncomfortable", and worm his way in from there. To be spiritually safe, the only proper attitude is an uncompromising commitment to the truth, to follow it wherever it leads no matter the cost. For at the end of that road we find Jesus Christ, but all other roads lead ultimately to hell.

Jesus says that angels do not marry. That is all He says. He does not even address the issue of whether or not there are female angels (as there certainly seem to be: Zech.5:9), and certainly not whether angels are capable of having sexual relations with each other – why would He? This is an area where we should be reluctant to speculate. What we do know is that angels can and have affected the material world in ways we would never dream possible were it not for the testimony of scripture. If scripture says that angels cohabited with human woman before the flood and had off-spring by them, then that is what happened. Nothing in Jesus' words render this impossible. This issue will be even more important to "get right" during the Tribulation, for antichrist, as it turns out, is also a nephilim (the seed of the devil; please see the link: in CT 3B: The Origin, Character and Rise of Antichrist).

Finally, please do read over the links below (you may have already done so). Apart from the fact that this article you quote merely seeks to sow seeds of doubt (i.e., I do not see any alternative explanation presented here), there are other good and pressing reasons for accepting the interpretation which has been advanced by myself and many others. If these are not angels, why does the text give us three categories? How could it be that the "sons of God" took some time to realize that daughters were being born (after all, the first wave of daughters certainly were not born without males)? What does it mean that the offspring of this group alone were "mighty men"? What does it mean that only Noah (along his family) was "perfect in his generations"? Why are they called nephilim ("fallen ones")? Why is God so upset with mankind in this context if it is just a matter of normal and divine commanded human procreation (Gen.6:2 first, followed later by the apostasy of Gen.6:5-7 and the flood)? Weren't they told to "be fruitful and multiply"? Does it not concern any godly interpreter that "the sons of God went into the daughters of men" makes no sense whatsoever if only a natural human process is in view? And what about the passages in Peter? These have been conveniently overlooked, but there is no other way to interpret them than as has understanding the nephilim as fallen angels:

What other "sin" "in the days of Noah" are we talking about here? In short, the evidence for the truth is so overwhelming that calling the correct interpretation a "view" is actually insulting. The only reason to reject what is clearly being taught by scripture is out of embarrassment. I freely admit that this is an uncomfortable subject, but I stress again that for someone to warp the truth to make it "more palatable" is the first step towards their own spiritual destruction. And if they go even farther and attempt to erode the faith of others so that they can feel more comfortable, I am afraid that all the prayers in the world will not avail to keep them safe until they turn back to the truth. Here are those links:

In the Lord Jesus who is the Truth, who never flinched from telling us all the truth.

Bob L.

Question #11:

This person has always argued that "sons of God" in the OT refers to believers even though it is clear by the majority of bible scholars that it refers to angels. I think he takes this view because he thinks it is ridiculous that fallen angels could cohabitate with women. He wrote:

I believe that the passage in Job refers to angels, but he uses Genesis 18 in an attempt to prove otherwise. Is his interpretation correct? Thanks in advance!

Response #11: 

I'm not sure of the percentage of scholars who hold with the truth, but there is certainly no logic in the first part of the quote you give from this person. "The sons of God" in the Old Testament almost always refers to angels (see the link: "The sons of God"). But even were this not so, clearly, since "every family in heaven and on earth" derives its name from God (for God created all, angels and men alike: Eph.3:15), there is no reason why the term couldn't refer to angels (which in fact of course it does) even if it sometimes refers to men (which in this precise formulation it never does, even in this lengthy example given by your correspondent). The point is that biblical terminology is often important, and the fact that beney ha-'elohiym, "sons of God" always refers to angels and never to human beings is significant, not least as a means of interpretation for this passage where its use clearly shows that individuals in question were fallen angels.

As to Genesis 18, the argument seems to be that being "before the Lord" can take place on earth as well as in heaven. That is certainly true; but it is not the case that since this can occur on earth that it cannot occur in heaven. Therefore every instance of "before the Lord" has to be analyzed according to its context to decide where such meetings are taking place. In Genesis 18, the Lord came to Abraham on earth in a Christophany, that is, appearing as a man before His incarnation (as such He is often described as "the Angel of the Lord"; see the link: "Theophany and Christophany"). Jesus has not yet returned to planet earth. He was here for 33 years, and will return at the second advent, but He was not generally present on earth after the expulsion from Eden and before the flood. Therefore how would, how could the "sons of God" come to Him to present themselves "before Him" on earth when He wasn't here? He could come to them individually; they could not come before Him collectively (as Job says, "Oh that I knew where I might find Him, That I might come to His seat": Job 3:23). And really, the presence of Satan in a colloquy with the other "sons of God" makes the argument for these being human beings rather silly. We do not "get together" with the devil or any other angels for that matter for any purpose this side of heaven and the resurrection. These events clearly took place in heaven. What does the devil say to the Lord's question, "Where have you come from?"? He replies "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it". This, and our Lord's latter observation about Job that there is no one on earth like Job, make no sense whatsoever if we assume that this is all taking place on earth. Finally, if these are "righteous believers" with whom Satan appears before God, why then isn't Job, the most righteous of all then living, present as well?

In our dear Lord Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #12:  

I forwarded your response and he's still insistent that his interpretation is correct. He wrote:

I'm unsure as to how he came up with this interpretation. Is any of his interpretations in line with context? Thanks in advance!

Response #12:

For your sake, I'll have one last go at this, but these objections are so far out in left field and so non-responsive to the important points raised previously that they really don't deserve a response.

1) No response to the fundamental point that "the sons of God" always means angels in scripture.

2) No response to the equally fatal point that it certainly can mean angels, even if point #1 is disputed.

3) Job 1-2 describes a formal assembly of "the sons of God" in the presence of the Lord. Clearly, what the devil does invisibly on earth among mankind not so assembled has nothing to do with this scene in Job.

4) Job 1-2 clearly describes all the assembled parties as witness to this conversation. If Job were "there", he would have heard all this.

5) Therefore all of these "points" fail to address the central issue that Job 1-2 is clearly describing a formal assembly of angels in the presence of God; angels are the only ones who could at that time appear before the Lord; whether or not Satan was "invited" is entirely beside the point; scripture tells us that he was there with the other angels – the sons of God.

6) This meeting had to be in heaven because God is in heaven. The earth is described throughout as another place (from whence Satan came; where Job is). This meeting could not be on earth because God will not return to earth and hold court as God until the second advent (when Christ will do so) and the eternal state (when the Father will do so).

7) I suppose I'll have to spell it out.

a) Satan shows up at a conference before God

b) God asks him where he's been

c) he says "roaming on earth" (which means ipso facto that they are not on earth, otherwise it would be a non-descriptive and pointless answer unworthy of recording in scripture)

d) God then asks him "have you considered My servant Job?"

e) So clearly Job was not there because

i) he would have heard God if this were a conference God had called

ii) the devil describes him in the third person and thus as not at the conference

iii) Job is at home (on earth) in the very next verse (1:13)

iv) in Job 2:7, after another conference, Satan afflicts Job immediately (Job who is still at home [on earth] and not at any conference).

v) and of course God is in heaven not on earth – so that was the place of the conference and the reason why earth is presented in opposition to the place of the conference.

8) Can this person cite anyone else who has taken this conference before God to be on earth and involving men and not in heaven concerning angels? The clear meaning of these chapters is so obvious as to require a very high burden of proof from anyone who seeks to overturn what any reader, sophisticated or first-time, would naturally glean from these verses. We know God is in heaven and we know Satan is an angel. Thus to suggest that somehow the conference is made up of human beings and being held on earth flies in the face of the entire context we are given (all the more so when "the sons of God" is examined elsewhere in scripture and seen to always refer to angels elsewhere too). This person not only does not supply convincing proof that the clear and obvious meaning is mistaken; he supplies no proof whatsoever.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #13: 

I forwarded your email on the eternal nature of the last judgment to someone on a website who denies eternal punishment in an attempt to show him that he's wrong and he replied with the following that I'm having difficulty refuting. He wrote:

My friends have also read it and believe it and I don't know how to change their minds back to the truth. Is the above correct in any way?

Response #14: 

Your friends are easily influenced if they found this gobbledygook persuasive! One of my old professors many, many years ago once remarked as to how it was easy for a pastor with a smidgen of Greek to throw a word or two into a sermon and seem authoritative. This person uses the technique, and on top of that his hermeneutic principles are sadly wanting. Ancient Greek is a very well-documented language spanning over a millennium of time, millions upon millions of speakers, and all sorts of literature. To find one metaphorical meaning of a word and take that to be the end all and be all of what the word can mean is highly deceptive. The word group kolaz- kolas- means, without a special context, "punishment", especially in later Greek (cf. Acts 4:21; 2Pet.2:9). The word group aoion, aoionios means, without a special context, "eternal", especially in biblical literature (cf. Rom.1:25; Rev.1:6, etc., etc.).

Picking one passage which is not directly related to the issue at hand and massaging it to make a favorite point is the worst sort of sophistry masquerading as "exegesis". The passages in Revelation 18-19 regarding Babylon are not even speaking about the lake of fire; they are somewhat metaphorical in that they are talking about the punishment of a place (and a place shrouded in mystery at that), and not about the punishment of individuals, men and angels, who have chosen against God. This person is also highly confused (or is deliberately trying to obfuscate) regarding eschatological chronology. The Last Judgment does not occur until the end of history (Rev.20:11-15). When it does, all who have not been resurrected unto life will be resurrected unto death – not lack of consciousness (far from it). Those unbelievers who are "dead" now are conscious – in torments (cf. Lk.16:19ff.).

The language of Matthew 25:46 is very clear: aionion kolasin means "eternal punishment"; that is what the Greek says, that is how all the major versions take it. Not only that, but this "eternal punishment" is in direct and parallel contrast in the same verse to "eternal life". The same word, aionios, is used in both cases. If the punishment is not really "eternal", then neither would the life be. Likewise, if those resurrected unto death are only so "temporarily", that would seem to have to hold for those of us who are resurrected unto life (and we have a better hope than that!). Scripture very clearly teaches eternal punishment for those who willfully reject God (see the link: "Literal Hell"). Teaching the contrary is the worst sort of heresy. The fact that in order to do so, convoluted and deceptive arguments such as these have to be resorted to only proves the point.

If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Revelation 20:15

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #15:  

He sent this paper regarding Matthew 25:46:

I don't quite understand all of this about Matthew 25:46, but I know that Daniel 12:2 says:

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. That would seem irrefutable since the word everlasting is used for both life and contempt. I just don't understand his interpretation of "punishment" on Matthew 25:46. Does the "these" in Matthew 25:46 refer to all unbelievers? Thanks again.

Response #15:    

Yes, I agree entirely with your assessment vis-a-vis Daniel 12. The sheep and the goats judgment of Matthew 25 is the last judgment, and, yes "these" who go into eternal punishment are all of the unbelievers. That is, Matthew 25 relates the same event as Revelation 20:11-15 (although of course the "sheep", that is, the final echelon of the resurrection, are not mentioned there).

You don't have to be a theologian to read Matthew 25 and understand that you don't want to be a goat. Trying to make this group which goes off into "eternal punishment" believers is mind-bogglingly foolish.

I am amazed at the ground-swell lately of supposed Christians who wish to absolve unbelievers of their rejection of Christ. If that were possible, Jesus would have died for nothing (since He then would not have needed to die, if absolution without faith were possible). But I suspect that this is a case of non-Christians and very weak Christians wishing to cover for their own lack of faith and for their own addiction to sin. For if unbelievers are forgiven, then nothing we do here on earth matters (thus unbelief and all bad behavior, no matter how wicked, would be no reason to fear God).

In our Lord Jesus without whose sacrifice we could never have eternal life,

Bob L.

Ichthys Home