In part one of this series we studied the question of who the “sons of God” are as it pertains to Genesis 6:1-4. Next, in part two, we questioned if the book of 1 Enoch is a reliable interpretation of the events in Genesis 6. In this article, we’ll examine Peter and Jude’s quotes from 1 Enoch.
Didn’t Peter and Jude quote from 1 Enoch?
Jude and Peter either directly quote or allude to passages from the apocryphal book of 1 Enoch. Even so, their references do not endorse 1 Enoch as an inspired work. Paul also quoted Greek philosophers, but this didn’t mean he considered them inspired. Paul quoted the Gentile philosophers Aratus and Epimenides in Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12. Their well-known writings helped him make his point to the audience he was addressing. He wasn’t affirming the quoted works as true; he was simply adapting his message to resonate with his audience.
This is similar to a pastor using illustrations from The Lord of the Rings or The Chronicles of Narnia. They help listeners understand the point being made. No one would assume the teacher believed The Chronicles of Narnia was true from such an illustration. We all know these are fictional accounts and understand that the teacher is using them to make a point. Likewise, Peter and Jude knew 1 Enoch was fiction. They quoted it because their 1st Century readers were familiar with it.
What was Peter and Jude’s point?
Peter and Jude warn that false teachers have infiltrated the church. They make it clear that judgment for them is certain. Both apostles remind believers that such people will not escape God’s justice. Because 2 Peter 2 and Jude are so similar, I will focus mainly on Jude for clarity and brevity.
“4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. 5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (Jude 1:4–7 NKJV)
Those who treat 1 Enoch as a commentary argue that Jude 6 refers to angels who left the spiritual realm to mate with women. They conflate this with Genesis 6:1–4, claiming both passages describe the same event. As further support, proponents cite v. 7, which mentions Sodom’s sexual sins. From this, they conclude that Jude implies the angels engaged in similar sexually immoral behavior. However, a careful reading shows that the passage compares the penalty for the sins, not the sins themselves. They were citing historic examples of what happens to those who rebel against God.
| Who | Sin | Punishment |
| Exodus Israelites (v. 5) | Unbelief | Destroyed |
| Angels (v. 6) | Left assigned postition | Locked up for judgement |
| Sodom (v. 7) | Sexual immorality | Destroyed |
Notice in the table above that each group commits different sins, yet all receive punishment. Jude uses this to show that the punishment of the false brethren he warns about is just as certain.
One cannot read the Bible, and the Bible alone, and come to the conclusion that Jude and Peter are portraying the angel’s sins as sexual in nature. To reach this conclusion one has to import this view into the Bible from an outside source.
Nothing said by Jude or Peter suggest the angel’s sins were sexual in nature
Read this passage, and 2 Peter 2:1-9, very carefully and notice that neither say the angel’s sins were sexual in nature. Peter gives us no hint of what their sin was and Jude only says that they left their assigned domain. Again, the emphasis in this passage is not on the sins committed per se, but on the judgment that God metes out to people (or angels) who defy Him.
How translation choices affect interpretation
Aside from 1 Enoch, the assumed sexual nature of the angel’s sins is partly due to the wording of verse seven in some Bible translations. Modern translations make it appear that the sins of Sodom are similar to those of the angels. Take the ESV for example:
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7 ESV)
Each translation seems to have a slightly different rendering of this verse implying that the Greek might be a bit hard to pin down in translation. It would seem this has opened the door for unintentional bias based upon the translator’s doctrinal views concerning this matter.
What the KJV and NKJV get right
The KJV and NKJV are more consistent with the context of Jude. They suggest that the words “similar manner” or “likewise” are referring to the example of their punishment and not the nature of their sins. The phrase about going after strange flesh is a parenthetical thought. Below I’m replacing KJV and NKJV commas with parentheses to aid in demonstrating this:
“as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these (having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh) are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (Jude 1:7 NKJV)
What Jude is linking together by the word “likewise” or “similar manner” is the punishment, not the sins. The words inside the parentheses describe what Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as examples, just like the previous two examples of unbelieving Israel and the angels who abandoned their realm. This is a case where the KJV and NKJV get it right because their translation fits the context. It is not the sins that were the same, but the penalty of their sins that were the same.
Proponents of the idea that angels mated with human women say that Jude’s comments directly connect to the religious fiction documented in the Second Temple Period book of 1 Enoch. In doing so, they import non-canonical ideas into Scripture, claiming Peter and Jude endorse the fictional worldview of 1 Enoch. One cannot read the Bible, and the Bible alone, and come to the conclusion that Jude and Peter are portraying the angel’s sins as sexual in nature. To reach this conclusion one has to import this view into the Bible from an outside source.
No one advocates that 1 Enoch belongs in the canon
Let’s be clear, no one in the early church considered the books of Enoch inspired.1 The same is true today and not even the people who advocate this idea of angelic/human mating, claims the book of 1 Enoch is inspired or belongs in the canon!2
1 Enoch records a fictional account of 200 angels who left heaven for the express purpose of mating with the human women they lusted for. This is a fictional interpretation of Gen 6:1-4 based on Mesopotamian pagan mythology.3 Although Jude and Peter borrow phrases from 1 Enoch, they do so because it was a familiar piece of literature in their day and it helped them make their point. To impose these mythological stories from 1 Enoch upon the text of the Bible would be akin to building a system of theology based upon the popular notion of Saint Peter guarding the pearly gates.
Conclusion
The first four verses of Genesis 6 concerns the “multiplication” of mankind which is exactly what the genealogies of the two prior chapters communicate. There is no suggestion in these four verses that anything sinful was happening. Nothing in this text, nor in any other Bible passage, indicates that a bunch of amorous angels invaded the earth because they were hot to trot for human women.
There is no historical evidence indicating that the Jews of Jesus’s day believed the events of 1 Enoch were true. In fact, the book of Jude was disputed by some early Christians. Its canonicity was doubted because it quoted from apocryphal books!4 At most we could say that some Jews may have believed something like this.
A good Bible student will not allow uninspired, non-canonical fiction to dominate his or her conclusions about biblical texts. I will leave you with the words of John Sailhamer from his commentary on Genesis 6:
“[T]here is little to arouse our suspicion that the events recounted are anything out of the ordinary. As a summary of the preceding chapter, this little patch of narrative is a reminder that the sons and daughters of Adam had greatly increased in number, had married, and had continued to have children. The impression it gives is that of an interlude, a calm before the storm. For a brief moment we see a picture of human beings in the midst of their everyday affairs ‘marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away’ (Mt 24:38–39).”5
References
- Meade, John D.; Gurry, Peter J.. Scribes and Scripture (p. 150). Crossway. Kindle Edition.
- One exception is the Ethiopian Church, which accepts 1 Enoch as part of its biblical canon: Meade, John D.; Gurry, Peter J.. Scribes and Scripture (p. 155). Crossway. Kindle Edition.
- Kvanvig, Helge S. “The Mesopotamian Background of the Watcher Story.” Henoch 39, no. 1 (January 2017): 134.
- Moore, Nicholas J. “Is Enoch Also among the Prophets? The Impact of Jude’s Citation of 1 Enoch on the Reception of Both Texts in the Early Church.” Journal of Theological Studies 64, no. 2 (October 2013): 498.
- Sailhamer, John H.. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (p. 121). Zondervan.