Introduction
The notion of “fallen angels” is one that is mentioned in Jude and in 2 Peter. For the moment we will leave the question of the relationship between Jude and 2 Peter to one side and we will treat both epistles as essentially identical; addressing the same audience and the same problems.
In this paper, we will sketch the background to the letters and offer an interpretation of the fallen angels of Jude v. 6 and 2 Pet 2:4.
Background
The hypothesis presented here is that both epistles were necessitated because certain elements in the ecclesias were deliberately twisting the teachings of the apostle Paul (2 Pet 3:15, 16). This suggestion is not new and it has long been recognised that scepticism about the return of Christ (2 Pet 3:4) and moral libertinism (2 Pet 1:4; 2:10, 19; Jude vv. 4, 8) form the background problems that necessitated the corrective letters of Jude and 2 Peter.
However, it is possible to be more specific and identify the exact Pauline writings that his opponents were perverting. If we pay careful attention to the counter arguments presented by Jude/2 Peter we can reconstruct the heresy and identify the Pauline sources.
- The false teachers asserted that they were no longer answerable to the Law, for Jesus had, “spoilt” (distorting Col 2:15) the angels who administered the Law. Christians (like their Lord) have been elevated in status “above the angels” (who administered the Law) and now have similar powers to the angels— therefore the Law is no longer effective or necessary; Christians are not bound by any code of legal morality.
- They affirmed that they were even now “living and reigning” with Christ (distorting 1 Cor 4:8)—they had the powers of the “new age” and the prophetic visions to prove it (“filthy dreamers”—Jude 8; cf. Deut 13:1-5). The saints had already been judged and were already reigning—the Holy Spirit was proof of the presence of the eschatological age.
- Jesus had already condemned and judged sin in the flesh—negating the need for a final judgment or for the literal return of Christ (distorting Rom 8:3). Paul was wrong about an imminent return—the “fathers” had already died (correcting 1 Thess 4:15).
- Believers were now not obligated to exercise moral restraint of any kind. In fact their disregard for any normative behaviour demonstrated their superiority and allowed the grace of God to work unimpeded by human presumption or weakness (distorting Rom 6:1). Christians live under grace not under Law – their sins will be forgiven; therefore they do not have to fear judgement or condemnation.
In (1)-(4) above, we have “mirror-read” Jude and 2 Peter in order to get a background: what Peter and Jude criticize constitutes the teaching of the heretics. We can go further and recognise the influence of Enochic Judaism.
Enochic Judaism[1]
The main charge made in Jude is that “certain men” were “turning the grace of God into lasciviousness” (v. 4; 2 Pet 2:10). In addressing this situation, Jude states “I will therefore put you in remembrance” (v. 5) and he cites several examples of the judgment of sin. One of these examples relates to fallen angels and it is the use of this example which allows the hypothesis that the false teachers were influenced by Enochic Judaism. In using this example, it is proposed that Jude is turning one of their preferred writings against them in an ad hominem way.
Boccaccini offers an introductory description of Enochic Judaism:
…it seems that we may now with some confidence talk of Enochic Judaism as a nonconformist anti-Zadokite, priestly movement of dissent, active in Israel since the late Persian of early Hellenistic period (fourth century B.C.E.). At the center of Enochic Judaism was neither the temple nor the torah but a unique concept of the origin of evil that made the “fallen angels” (the “sons of God” also recorded in Gen 6:1-4) ultimately responsible for the spread of evil and impurity on earth.[2]
Such a doctrine would lend itself to the promotion of lasciviousness insofar as it was claimed that moral impurity was not the fault of human beings. Such a teaching would fit with a distorted use of Paul in promoting grace and forgiveness.
The use of the example of fallen angels in Jude and 2 Peter allows the suggestion that such a doctrine is one of the roots of the problems that the two letters address. Even a cursory examination of them (without any knowledge of Enochic Judaism) would suggest that we are dealing with some sort of doctrine concerning angels which might be being used to justify aberrant behaviour.
It has been observed by A. D. Norris that we can align Jude and 1 Enoch.[3] He avers that “Jude, 2 Peter and ‘Enoch’ [are] undeniably in some way interconnected”.[4] He includes a table of connections of which our revised presentation is as follows:
| Jude | Enoch |
|---|---|
| And the angels which kept not their first estate (v. 6) | …the watchers of heaven who have abandoned the high heaven 1 Enoch 12:4 |
| …he hath reserved in everlasting chains… (v. 6) | They will put you in bonds…unto all eternity 1 Enoch 13:2; 14:5 |
| …under darkness… (v. 6) | …cast him [the leader] into darkness…cover him with darkness… 1 Enoch 10:4-6 |
| …the judgment of the great day… (v. 6) | …until the great day… 4QEnb IV, 11[5] |
| giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh (v. 7) | …and defiled themselves with women 1 Enoch 12:4 |
| speak evil of dignities (v. 8) | Enoch was told to reprimand the sons of heaven (1 En.13:8) |
| filthy dreamers (v. 8) | Enoch was a Dreamer (1 En.13:8) |
| Michael the archangel (v. 9) | Michael accused the Watchers (1 En.9:1-10) |
We can offer this argument for the view that Jude’s opponents were using 1 Enoch as “scripture”. If we combine the warnings in Jude with those of 2 Peter, the mention of the angels that sinned (2 Pet 2:4) is preceded with a reference to those “exploit you with stories that they have made up” (2 Pet 2:3, NIV). This is a perfect lead in to an argument that uses the “story” of an opponent.
His opponents had “wrested” Pauline theology (2 Pet 3:16) and taught falsehood based on the book of Enoch, but (says Jude) “we did not preach cunningly devised fables” [myths] (2 Pet 1:16) or “follow cleverly invented stories” (2 Pet 1:16, NIV). Indeed they had “a more sure word of prophecy” (2 Pet 1:19) than “Enochic fables”. Enoch was supposedly a witness of angelic glory and hearer of God’s words on “the mountain the point of whose summit reached to heaven” (1 Enoch 17:1). On the other hand Peter was a living witness of the glory of Christ on the transfiguration mount (2 Pet 1:16-19— “No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation; for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:20, 21). Prophecy was inspired, not dreamed up by “filthy dreamers”, it was the “more sure word of Prophecy” (2 Pet 1:19).
Accordingly, Norris concludes,
This provides a basis for a reconstruction of the situation in Jude, with regard to the relationship with the Book of Enoch also. Some aggressive and heretical party, we might suppose, had invaded the peace of the congregation with a complex package of false teachings. They taught that freedom in Christ might be used as an excuse for lustful behaviour [.4]; they apparently supported this by exploiting the story in 1 Enoch about the ‘angel marriages’ [.6], and they needed reminding that, even in the teaching of ‘Enoch’ it was unchastity which had brought about the undoing of the angels.[6]
Norris does not hypothesize about how the false teachers “exploited” 1 Enoch, and we have suggested the hypothesis that the work offered an explanation of the origin of moral impurity in human behaviour. However, there is a problem with this alignment of Jude/2 Peter and 1 Enoch. This is simply the observation that the promotion of lasciviousness does not sit comfortably with a myth that roundly condemns the behaviour of the fallen angels. This weakness can be seen in Norris’ interpretation of Jude/2 Peter and the words “they needed reminding”—we should give false teachers more credit for understanding such preferred scriptures.
The Glories
A better way of understanding the relationship of Jude to Enoch is to consider v. 8,
Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones. v. 8 (RSV), cf. 2 Pet 2:10
This tells us that there was a group within the ecclesia which believed themselves superior to the angels; they insulted and vilified the “glories”. The term “glories” is used for angels in the DSS (1 QH 10:8) and in other writings of the era (2 Enoch 22:7; Ascension of Isaiah 9:32; T. Judah 25:2).[7] It is also encountered in first-century Philonic literature:
Moses said….I ask you [God] that I may behold the glories that are around you. [On the Special Laws 1.45]
The term might be grounded in the LXX of Exodus,
Who is like unto thee among the gods O Lord? Who is like unto thee, glorified in holiness, marvellous in glories, doing wonders? Exod 15:11 (LXX)
From our discussion, it is important to note that there is a parallelism to note in Jude v. 8 between “authority” and “glorious ones”. The best hypothesis to explain this juxtaposition is that the anti-Law group encouraged and justified fornication with pagan temple prostitutes, and as a corollary reviled those angels that were the guardians of the Law. The Law had been mediated by angels and its observance was supervised by angels (Jub. 1:27-29; Ant. 15.136; Acts 7:38, 53; Heb 2:2).[8]
The letter of Jude contains an addressee and a third party. The addressees are being taught about the punishment of fornication in v. 6; in v. 8 they are being told about the third party – the “these men”. Such men rejected the authority of the Law and reviled the angels. This third party appears throughout Jude:
Certain men crept in unawares (v. 4) giving themselves over to fornication (v. 7) these filthy dreamers (v. 9) these speak evil (v. 10) these are spots in your feasts (v. 12) And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these (v. 14) these are murmurers (v. 16) these be they who separate themselves (v. 19).
Norris is therefore wrong to suggest that such a party “needed reminding” of anything because they are not the addressee of the letter.
We can surmise that the group against which Jude delivers his warning in v. 8 believed themselves superior to the angels of the old order, considering themselves at least their equal (Lk 20:36) and a new order. In v. 6, Jude is making a comparison using 1 Enoch, for the benefit of the faithful, seeing such men as like the Watchers who rebelled from the assembly in heaven and sought women on earth.
Enoch and Scripture
Jude describes the antinomians as “dreamers” (“filthy dreamers”, KJV). This language indicates claims to prophetic revelation and it alludes to those who had false dreams (Jer 23:32; Zech 10:2). There is also a likely allusion to 1 Enoch 99:8 which describes the sinners in the last days having visions and dreams.[9] Certainly, the mention of “defiling the flesh” alludes to the sin of the Watchers which Jude has already referenced in v. 6, as it is a motif in 1 Enoch (1 Enoch 7:1; 9:8; 10:11; 12:4; 15:3, 4)
Along with v. 6, v. 8 raises the question of the status of 1 Enoch for the diaspora Christians to which Jude addresses his letter. There are two possibilities to sketch.
- We might imagine how 1 Enoch was being selectively quoted as authoritative scripture by the antinomians to easily confuse novice gentile converts. The antinomians’ strategy was similar to that of Balaam (Jude v. 11) in the Old Testament, encouraging the people of God to commit fornication. This was a deliberate exercise in subversion; accordingly, Jude uses 1 Enoch to counter their arguments
- We might also surmise that the faithful believed the account in 1 Enoch of the origins of misfortune (the story of the Watchers), and that Jude is using that account in ad hominem way to make his points, mixing both the Old Testament and 1 Enoch.
We have argued against (1), even though there is certainly support in 1 Enoch for the antinomians if they were looking to validate their visions and dreams. 1 Enoch would allow them to assert that they were ‘like Enoch’ in having dreams and visions and being guided by angels. The problem with this view is that 1 Enoch strongly condemns fornication and if the book was being used by the antinomians, their beliefs and practices are fatally undermined as Jude demonstrates.
It is more likely that (2) is the case. The diaspora Christians to whom Jude writes venerate 1 Enoch (it was evidently popular Jewish literature of the day). This does not mean that Jude, an inspired writer, validates the beliefs in 1 Enoch, anymore than Jesus in the Parable of Dives and Lazarus validates heaven-going; it is an ad hominem use of 1 Enoch.
There are thirty or more references to 1 Enoch in 1 and 2 Peter and Jude. For instance, Jude vv. 13-15 employs language used in 1 Enoch about false shepherds of Israel. The wandering stars of Jude v. 13 primarily refer to the “fallen stars” chained up in the underworld prison-house (1 En. 18:14; 21:1-10). The word “wanderer” can only be found in an OT description of Jewish errorists (Hos 9:17), and Jude is casting the false teachers themselves in the role of the fallen angels. If we look for allusions in 2 Peter, the following text is an example:
These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. 2 Peter 2:17 (KJV)
The reference to “wells without water” is an allusion to the ‘springs’ of 1 Enoch 48:1, and the ‘waterless clouds’ allude to 1 Enoch 41:2.
Conclusion
The Epistle of Jude employs literary-rhetorical conventions and an unusual selection of extra canonical source material. It is in essence a polemical work of great passion written to address genuine pastoral needs. Was Jude lending credence to 1 Enoch? Or, was he applying polemical techniques such as the argumentum ad hominem in respect of his opponents?
[1] The term “Enochic Judaism” is a scholarly construct for a strand within first century Judaism that gave rise to the writings ascribed to Enoch. For a brief overview see G. Boccaccini, “Introduction; From the Enoch Literature to Enochic Judaism” in Enoch and Qumran Origins (ed., G. Boccaccini; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 1-14.
[2] Boccaccini, “Introduction; From the Enoch Literature to Enochic Judaism”, 6.
[3] For the texts of Enochic Judaism, see J. H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols; New York: Doubleday, 1983-1985).
[4] A. D. Norris, Acts and Epistles (London: Aletheia Books, 1989), 763.
[5] The adjective ‘great’ is found only in the DSS fragment, R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC; Waco: Word Books, 1983), 52.
[6] Norris, Acts and Epistles, 763.
[7] Bauckham, Jude, 57.
[8] Bauckham, Jude, 58.
[9] Bauckham, Jude, 55.
The Library of St. Catherine’s Monastery digitises ancient texts