What Sin Did the Angels Commit in 1 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6? (Article Review)

INTRODUCTION

Though the first book of Enoch is widely excluded from the inspired canon of scripture, the ripple effect of this mythic literature can be seen throughout the history of the Israelite religion. 1 Enoch is extremely helpful in understanding the context of scripture and is sometimes necessary for the exegesis of certain passages, such as the two being examined in this article review. The two passages (2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6) contain references to sinful angels who lived before the great flood and are used by the authors to illustrate important points.

In his article entitled “The Sin of the Angels in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6”, Dr. Kim Papaioannou explores the ancient context of these two passages, arguing that they are not a reference to the Watchers, who were guilty of sexual sins with human women, but rather a reference to angels who are guilty of blasphemy. Though the literary analysis is well thought out, and the reasoning appears consistent, Papaioannou seems to miss a few crucial details from the text of scripture itself which may refute his interpretation of these passages.

SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE PART ONE – 2 PETER 2:4

The purpose of 2 Peter 2 is to warn and rebuke false teachers. The chapter uses strong language, vivid imagery, and promises of destruction to teach the readers about the great evil being done by a false teacher who lives a life of greed and deception. This serves as both a warning to current false teachers, a deterrent for future false teachers, and a cautioning to believers who may be enticed to follow these wolves in sheep’s clothing. For this reason, the reference to the sinful angels must be interpreted with this broader context in mind.

Papaioannou notes that the example of the sinful angels is part of a three-fold warning to the false teachers, with the other two examples being the great flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (399-400). These examples are given in chronological order (angels first, flood second, and Sodom and Gomorrah last) and in a fashion that suggests that each example of punishment is distinct from the other two (400). This is the first piece of evidence against the angels being linked to the Watchers, as the author of 2 Peter draws no connection between the sinful angels and the flood, despite 1 Enoch naming the Watchers as the reason Yhwh caused the great flood (400).

Papaioannou then notes that the three punishments are strongly implied within the text of 2 Peter to parallel the three sins of the false teachers: sexual immorality, rejection of authority, and slander/blasphemy (400). The three punishments would then serve to warn the false teachers of the coming destruction which awaits them (400). Papaioannou connects Sodom and Gomorrah with the sin of sexual immorality, the sinful ancient world destroyed in the flood to despising authority, and the sinful angels locked up in chains to blasphemy (402). These connections would make the passage chiastic in form, with the punishments and the sins of the false teachers sitting in the common reverse-parallel structure (402-3).

Papaioannou argues that the traditional connection between the angels and blasphemy is as obvious as the connection between Sodom and Gomorrah and sexual immorality. He notes that Satan is often associated with being both an angel and a blasphemer, such as when his bold temptation of Eve in the garden contained promises of being like God (403). However, there is a problem with this interpretation of Satan, as it assumes that scripture strongly associates Satan as being an angel, like those who fell before the days of Noah. Dr. Michael Heiser’s view of Satan as a fallen member of the divine council seems preferable to him being a fallen messenger of God, though this is outside the scope of this paper. Papaioannou’s view of Satan also assumes that Satan and the serpent in Eden are the same being, which finds little to no scriptural support outside of – perhaps – Revelation 12:9 (See Heiser’s Unseen Realm and Stanhope’s Misinterpreting Genesis).

Either way, Papaioannou is correct in linking the Satan figure to various counts of blasphemy. However, when citing Revelation 13:1-10, he makes a connection between the blasphemous beast which is given the powers of Satan, and the blasphemy of the angels, which have nothing to do with one another (404). This seems to be an obvious logical fallacy of equating two things that have nothing to do with one another and using information about one to assume information about the other.

In short, all the arguments Papaioannou makes for the “long tradition of angelic blasphemy” rely on Satan being an angel. If Satan is a different type of being, the arguments fail. This is not to say that fallen angels never commit blasphemy, as it certainly seems obvious from scripture that angels rebel against the authority of God for their own selfish purposes (such as sleeping with human women), which is blasphemy in the sense that they give more authority to their own sinful desires than to the ruling power of Yhwh. This interpretation may even place the Watchers in closer connection to 2 Peter 2:4, as the angels committed blasphemy through the medium of sexual immorality. Though the arguments Papaioannou gives seem to be weak, the principle that fallen angels commit blasphemy seems to ring true.

CONCLUDING ANALYSIS OF 2 PETER 2:4

Whether the primary sin of the angels in 2 Peter 2:4 is blasphemy or sexual immorality, the purpose of mentioning them seems to be only to remind the reader that God destroys those who deserve destruction and spares those who are righteous. The author writes that God did not spare the sinful angels, nor the ancient world, nor Sodom and Gomorrah. God did, however, spare Noah and Lot, who were righteous. This passage serves as a warning to false teachers of the destruction awaiting them as well as a message of hope for those who remain righteous in the midst of evil. The specific sin of the angels does not change the meaning of the passage, but only serves to provide accuracy in the fine details.

Though it seems Papaioannou could be correct in his analysis, an alternate view of this passage is preferred. Perhaps the author is not connecting specific sins to specific groups, but rather he is showing that God judged the groups that committed these same sins that are being committed by the false teachers. Papaioannou does note that Enoch mentions various groups of angels who commit various sins (and not only the Watchers), which makes sense in this interpretation (397).

So, perhaps it seems equally or more correct to say that the author of 2 Peter is equating these three groups with the false teachers because they are all similar in the sins they commit, and therefore they will be judged and destroyed in similar ways. The angels, the ancient world, and Sodom and Gomorrah were known for sexual immorality, rejection of divine authority, and blasphemy, and they were all destroyed. Because the false teachers mentioned in 2 Peter are also committing these sins, they will be destroyed in the same way.

SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE PART TWO – JUDE 6

Papaioannou claims that the connection between fallen angels and blasphemy is even more definitive in Jude (405). Turning again to literary parallels, he notes that Jude connects the unbelievers during the Exodus, the angels, and Sodom and Gomorrah to three sins being performed by the false teachers (the context of these two passages is very similar, as is the message): defilement of the flesh, rejection of authority, and blasphemy (405). As with 2 Peter, he connects Sodom and Gomorrah to sexual immorality (or the defilement of the flesh). He then connects those who did not believe during the Exodus to the rejection of authority, since they listened to the spies who brought news of undefeatable giant peoples residing in the promised land rather than listening to Yhwh, who had promised the land to them (405). As in 2 Peter, the angels are connected then to blasphemy (405).

Jude does not stop at this one set of parallels, however. He gives a third set: Cain, Balaam, and Korah (v. 11). Papaioannou associates Balaam with Sodom and Gomorrah (because he (1) was metaphorically sexually immoral, lusting after riches and (2) caused the people of Israel to worship idols, which included sexually immoral practices), Korah with the rejection of authority (because he rebelled against Moses and was subsequently destroyed by the Lord), and Cain with blasphemy, as perhaps his murdering of his brother was due to him “setting his eyes upon that which was not proper for him,” in the same way that Satan seeks to set his throne above the stars in heaven (406). These parallels seem strained (except perhaps the example of Korah), so perhaps another interpretation is preferable.

CONCLUDING ANALYSIS OF JUDE 6

The example of the angels is used by Jude to remind the reader of the destruction coming for those who are wicked and sinful. In a similar fashion to 2 Peter 2, it seems that the point is not to parallel each specific sin of the false teachers with its own example, but rather to show that the false teachers are committing the same sins as these groups of people from the past who were destroyed by the Lord for performing those same sins. The angels, along with Sodom and Gomorrah, committed all three sins (sexual immorality, rejection of authority, and slander/blasphemy), and the people who doubted the Lord’s providence over their entry into the promised land can be said to perform all but sexual immorality. If the sins committed by the angels include all three, then perhaps the Watchers could be involved in this reference.

Additionally, the literary parallels to Cain, Balaam, and Korah do not seem to be clear in the text. Jude seems to be comparing the false teachers to popular “arch-villains” in Jewish tradition who were well-known for receiving due punishment from the Lord (406). In a more nuanced way, Jude is describing the path the teachers took in their descent to wickedness as well as showing where the path leads rather than making literary connections to the previous two triads. Jude writes that the teachers have gone the way of Cain (being wicked), and so because of their love of money they fell into the same error as Balaam (Papaioannou suggests that the error of Balaam was only leading Israel astray (406), which makes sense in the context of false teachers, though Jude’s claim of “greed” (literally, “for wages”) causing the error brings a fuller picture of the false teachers leading people astray so that they may gain personal wealth), and as a result, they will “perish in Korah’s rebellion,” (they will be destroyed by the Lord as Korah was when he defied Moses).

The emphasis on slandering or blaspheming comes after the reference to the angels in v. 8-10. Jude notes that even Michael the archangel, in all his authority, did not dare slander the devil, but rather left that privilege to the Lord. Jude insults the false teachers, claiming that – if they truly knew about the things they were slandering – they would not dare to do so. Instead, they only cling to things that their irrational animal brains can understand. Richard Bauckham notes that the false teachers are claiming to follow their special spiritual insight, though in reality, they are following their own sexual instincts, as animals do (63). Bauckham’s insight lends more credence to the importance of sexual sin being a key component of the false teacher’s failings, which strengthens the shared sin of sexual immorality between the false teachers and the previously mentioned sinful groups, namely the fallen angels.

Perhaps the largest criticism of Papaioannou’s argument comes from the use of the demonstrative pronoun τούτοις in v. 7. Papaioannou uses the NSRV translation, which leaves the demonstrative pronoun as an ambiguous “they” in the English rendering. However, Dr. Buist M. Fanning III et al. argue that τούτοις refers specifically to the angels mentioned just prior (2353). Thus, the New English Translation of the Bible renders the verse as: “So also Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire in a way similar to these angels, are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire.” If this is a correct rendering of the original grammar, then Papaioannou’s argument that the angels mentioned in Jude are not necessarily the Watchers as their sins are not sexual in nature falls apart completely.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Papaioannou argues that the scholarly consensus has identified the sinful angels in these two passages with the Watchers in part due to the popularity of the myth in Jewish tradition (393-4). He asserts that – despite the claims of Richard Bauckham and other scholars, who say that Enoch’s influence was universal – the book of 1 Enoch was not nearly as popular as popular scholarship thinks. He cites the apparent hesitancy of biblical translators to interpret biblical texts in light of the Watcher myth (394), the lack of Enochian influence in the targums (394-5), early historians (such as Philo and Josephus) (395), and the Talmud (395-6).

Though this appears to be good evidential support, there are two reasons to perhaps think that Enochian influence was prevalent in Jewish tradition, as most modern scholars assert. Firstly, the references in 2 Peter and Jude (as well as in other books like Hebrews and 1 Peter) are given without context, prologue, or explanation. This lends credence to the idea that the authors assumed their readers would understand the background material, as they did not feel the need to explain their reference.

Secondly, one should note the good reasons for excluding 1 Enoch from the biblical canon. Though those reasons will not be listed in this paper, it seems likely that God – through divine inspiration – caused hesitancy in citing Enoch as it was not a part of the inspired scriptures, except in times when it could be used well.

2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 represent two of those times when the references to the angels seem to be used as a useful example drawn from Jewish pop culture and common mythohistory.

Note also that all the references (the angels, the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Cain, Balaam, and Korah) are all examples that were well known to the contemporary readers of these books. The authors do not draw on little-known examples, but rather use common stories and well-known “arch-villains” (as Papaioannou calls them, referring to Cain, Balaam, and Korah on p. 406) to illustrate the messages even to readers who did not know the scriptures well. It seems strange, then, that the authors of 2 Peter and Jude would have used all well-known references and one lesser-known one.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Ultimately, the exegesis of these passages does not change much depending on the specific sins of the angels. Whether they are the Watchers or not, the point was that they were sinful beings who received due punishment from God, just as the false teachers will receive. Papaioannou makes good points, though it seems his arguments are stretching too far, and thus fall short. The sins of the angels appear to be both sexual and blasphemous in nature, which – if true – would disprove the literary parallelisms that Papaioannou draws from these two passages.

WORKS CITED

Bauckham, Richard. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Bks, 1983.

Fanning III, Buist M., et al. “Jude.” New English Translation. Thomas Nelson, 2019.

Papaioannou, Kim. “The Sin of the Angels in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 140, no. 2, 2021, pp. 391-408.