The Book of 2 Peter explained with illustrations
Want to see more?
Our Website:

Say hello or follow us here:

This video explores the main ideas and flow of thought through the Book of 2 Peter.

The Bible Project is a non-profit creating animated videos that explain the narrative of the Bible. These videos are free to use for personal and educational purposes. Download a full resolution version of this video along with a study guide at

Support us so we can make more videos! You can give to the next video at

Help us translate this video into more languages! Email

About the author:

Tim Mackie is a Pastor of Door of Hope church and a Professor at Western Seminary –


34 thoughts on “Read Scripture: 2 Peter

  1. I thought this was a Bible Project and not an apocrypha bible project… Peter did not refer to the Apocrypha book of Enoch. He was just speaking about Genesis. The sons of God were not evil angels. They were the descendants of Seth. The righteous people.

    According to Jesus angels cannot marry or reproduce. Do not make people think that Peter disagreed with the teachings of Jesus.

    Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, “Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.”

    And Jesus answering said unto them, “Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.” Mark 12:19-25

    • +kevfoda //They were the descendants of Seth. The righteous people. // Are you able to prove this from the text itself?

      Origin of the Sethite View

      It was in the 5th century a.d. that the “angel” interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The “angel” view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)

      Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional “angel” belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox “angel” position with the “line of Seth” interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal “angel” view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view.

      Problems with the Sethite View

      Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the “Days of Noah.” Some of the many problems with the “Sethite View” include the following:

      1. The Text Itself

      Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the “Sethite” view. (In data analysis, it is often said that “if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.”)

      The term translated “the Sons of God” is, in the Hebrew, B’nai HaElohim, “Sons of Elohim,” which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels, and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to “godly leadership” is without Scriptural foundation.

      The “Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain” interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the “angels” and the women of the Earth.

      If the text was intended to contrast the “sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain,” why didn’t it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the “sons of Cain” and the “daughters of Seth?” There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam’s descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)

      And how does the “Sethite” interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support.

      The Biblical term “Sons of Elohim” (that is, of the Creator Himself), is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order. In Luke’s genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a “son of God.” The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam’s initial immortality forfeited. Christ uniquely gives them that receive Him the power to become the sons of God. Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation, at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God and in every respect equal to the angels. The very term oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.

      The attempt to apply the term “Sons of Elohim” in a broader sense has no textual basis and obscures the precision of its denotative usage. This proves to be an assumption which is antagonistic to the uniform Biblical usage of the term.

      2. The Daughters of Cain

      The “Daughters of Adam” also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens:

      And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:1,2
      It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the Benoth Adam, “the daughters of Adam.” There is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain? All of Adam’s female descendants seem to have been involved. (And what about the “sons of Adam?” Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in?)

      Furthermore, the line of Cain was not necessarily known for its ungodliness. From a study of the naming of Cain’s children, many of which included the name of God, it is not clear that they were all necessarily unfaithful.

      3. The Inferred Lines of Separation

      The concept of separate “lines” itself is suspect and contrary to Scripture. National and racial distinctions were plainly the result of the subsequent intervention of God in Genesis 11, five chapters later. There is no intimation that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves separate nor were even instructed to. The injunction to remain separate was given much later. Genesis 6:12 confirms that all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth.

      4. The Inferred Godliness of Seth

      There is no evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Seth was godly. Only one person was translated from the judgment to come (Enoch) and only eight were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah’s immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others. (There is no evidence that the wives of Noah’s sons were from the line of Seth.) Even so, Gaebelein observes, “The designation ‘Sons of God’ is never applied in the Old Testament to believers,” whose sonship is “distinctly a New Testament revelation.”

      The “Sons of Elohim” saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them wives of all that they chose. It appears that the women had little say in the matter. The domineering implication hardly suggests a godly approach to the union. Even the mention that they saw that they were attractive seems out of place if only normal biology was involved. (And were the daughters of Seth so unattractive?)

      It should also be pointed out that the son of Seth himself was Enosh, and there is textual evidence that, rather than a reputation for piety, he seems to have initiated the profaning of the name of God.

      If the lines of Seth were so faithful, why did they perish in the flood?

      5. The Unnatural Offspring

      The most fatal flaw in the specious “Sethite” view is the emergence of the Nephilim as a result of the unions. (Bending the translation to “giants” does not resolve the difficulties.) It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which seems to be cited as a primary cause for the Flood.

      Procreation by parents of differing religious views do not produce unnatural offspring. Believers marrying unbelievers may produce “monsters,” but hardly superhuman, or unnatural, children! It was this unnatural procreation and the resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood.

      The very absence of any such adulteration of the human genealogy in Noah’s case is also documented in Genesis 6:9: Noah’s family tree was distinctively unblemished. The term used, tamiym, is used for physical blemishes.

      Why were the offspring uniquely designated “mighty” and “men of reknown?” This description characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merely men, even if godly.

      A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no “women of reknown” are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only “Y” chromosomes available in this line?)

    • pure luminous and kevfoda It was insightful to read the dialogue between the two of you and I strongly admire that it was done in a decent way.

      I just wanted to add that Goliath and Samson were both men with supernatural powers. Both were descendants of humans. Although Samson is not described as a giant, he did have superhuman powers.

      IF humans and fallen angels could procreate then they were all destroyed in the flood. IF humans and angels could procreate, they would have continued to do so after the flood up to today. IF angels actually possessed the same physical attributes like humans that would allows them to procreate, they would do so among themselves and produce little demon babies or whatever.

      The thought that fallen angels could procreate is not supported in the Bible.

    • Felecia Datus
      If I may…

      In the case of Samson the Holy Spirit came upon him. God was the source of his power.

      Goliath, however, the Bible doesn’t say he had supernatural power. It just says that he was a descendent of the Nephilim. We know that Goliath was probably about 9 feet tall. King Og of Bashan some estimate at over 13 feet tall.

      The Bible never says the nephilim and descendants had supernatural power, but they were just incredibly humongous. But why? How?

      You make the claim that if angels could procreate they would with each other. I don’t understand how you could make this claim considering every angel mentioned is a male. Nowhere in the Bible do we ever hear of a female angel. Genesis six is clear that the sons of God, are male, and they took wives from the daughters of Adam. Males cannot reproduce with males. By the angels reproducing with humans, they look to achieved two things.

      1) increase their numbers, because they can’t reproduce on their own, and only a third rebuild with the Satan.

      2) corrupt the line of genetics of men in order to prevent the prophecy of the seed of the woman crushing the head of the serpent in Genesis chapter 3.

      Some people argue that this is impossible because Jesus says the angels in heaven neither marry or are given in marriage. But this passage is referring to the resurrection, not procreation. What they fail to realize is Jesus makes it clear Angels cannot reproduce with one another. He doesn’t say they cannot reproduce with humans. He also says the angels in heaven, but we’re not talking about heaven in this passage, genesis six, we’re talking about fallen angels on earth hell-bent on mischief.

      To believe any other view than the fallen angel view, you have to make wild assumptions and impart things on the text that just isn’t there.

      To me it’s crazy people want to take the supernatural aspects out of the Bible because they’re not comfortable with with the text actually says.

      13 foot tall abominations do not come from kissing cousins. They come from Angel x human hybridization.

      Just my thoughts.

    • Hypernikao Productions I see where you are coming from, but I do respectfully disagree. Let me ask you though, Do you think these fallen angels are still reproducing with female humans today? If so, who are their descendants? If not, why not?

    • Felecia Datus thank you. I remember reading about these super hard skulls scientists found, they did DNA test on them and they determined that the mother was human but couldn’t figure out what the father was. it just had me wondering about genesis 6

    • Bible Made Simple— YouTube so Peter misinterpreted Genesis 6? So did Jude apparently? Can you account for all the ancient hybridization cults? Roman pantheon? Egyptian pantheon, Greek pantheon, etc? Fallen Angels came to corrupt the seed of men to prevent the seed of the woman prophecy. It’s the correct interpretation of the text. It may be uncomfortable, and seemingly unimaginable, BUT THAT IS WHAT THE TEXT SAYS. Blessings, brother.

    • I don’t think that is what the text says at all. Genesis 6 is God’s condemnation of MEN not angels. That is why God brings the flood to remove men from the earth at that time. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. God bless.

    • You act like yours is the only interpretation of these scriptures. It is popular today to preach what you are preaching, but many people believe the way I do. Proper study of the scripture will show that you are reading into these scriptures. I don’t want to debate it with you here because it is easy to misunderstand and hard to explain particular points in this forum. That is why I referred you to my article above. I cover most of what you are asking. I don’t think you’ve taken the time to read it. I’d like to end this debate now, okay? God bless.

  2. Here is what love is.It is not that we loved God.It is that he loved us and sent his son to give his life to pay for are sins.(1 John 4:10,NIrV)

Leave a reply

Restoring Hebrew Roots To Christians
CIF: 000000
215-25 Hollis Avenue, Suite 101
CP: 11429 Queens Village (U.S.A.)
Tel: (347) 395-4422

For Christians Seeking Knowledge Of Their Hebraic Roots…