And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day (Jude 6).
Some Christians use this text to gloss Gen 6:1-4. There are, however, a range of possibilities to consider:
i) Jude 6 is directly alluding to Gen 6:1-4.
ii) Jude 6 is directly alluding to 1 Enoch, which is, in turn, alluding to Gen 6:1-4.
iii) Apropos (ii), that breaks down into two further possibilities:
a) Jude is alluding to Gen 6:1-4 via 1 Enoch. Gen 6:1-4 is the intended secondary referent.
b) Jude is only alluding to 1 Enoch. The fact that Enoch alludes to Gen 6 doesn't commit Jude to do the same. Commentators admit that Jude is very selective in his appropriation and adaptation of his sources. In v6, he also uses a stock phrase from Classical Greek literature.
iv) Jude is alluding to other OT passages which depict a "war in heaven" and/or "fall from heaven" motif (Isa 14; Isa 22:21-22; Ezk 28; cf. Judges 5:20; Jude 13). Scripture sometimes employs stellar imagery to figuratively depict a moral and/or political downfall.
v) Jude is simply trading on a common Jewish belief. Popular demonology. He doesn't require a literary source.
In Scripture, the fall of angels is generally a theological presupposition rather than an explicit statement. Something readers took for granted (e.g. Mt 8:29).
Now let's quote a couple of scholars who buck the majority view:
Genesis 6 makes no reference to the punishment of the sons of God, and the punishment of chains is applied to angels on a number of other occasions in 1 Enoch (e.g. 1 En. 21; 54:3-6). J. Walton, "Sons of God, Daughters of Man," T. D. Alexander & D. Baker, eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (IVP 2003), 794b.
It is true that the punishment cited in Peter and Jude is the same punishment meted out to the angels in 1 Enoch's interpretation of Genesis 6, but it must also be admitted that this same punishment is cited in the book of 1 Enoch on other occasions as applied to disruptive angels. Furthermore, Jude does not cite marriage of angels to human women, though he easily could have. Finally, to speak of an act of porneia by the angels, as Jude does, is inappropriate to in describing Genesis 6, for there the women are taken as wives, whereas porneia is usually reserve for extramarital activity. J. Walton, Genesis (Zondervan 2001), 297.
In dealing with a passage which of itself is inherently difficult, e.g., 1 Pet 3:19 or Jude 6, one's exegesis is at best tenuous when one's interpretation rests upon the exegesis of another notoriously problematic passage, e.g. Gen 6:1-4. J. D. Charles, Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude (USP 1993), 148.
Virtually all commentary, past and present, has related Gen 6:1-4 in some way to Jude 6 and 2 Pet 2:4. This is largely due to two reasons: (1) a mistaken linking of the angels in v6 with Sodom and Gomorrah in v7 and (2) the association of demons with Gen 6:1-4 which began to emerge in the 2C BC. The thread in Jude that links Israel (v5), the angels (v6), and Sodom (v7), however, is not sexual sin, rather dispossession, falling from their allotted place (109).
The angels of v6, mentioned parenthetically, share something in common with Israel in v5 and Sodom and Gomorrah of v7: punitive intervention (110).
Verses 5-7 of Jude, taken together, as they are meant to be syntactically, stress the loss or disenfranchisement of the three subjects (112).
It is furthermore significant that Jude does not associate the fall of angels with the flood… (112).
Corresponding typology to the fallen angels of Jude might well be drawn from several prophetic oracles in the OT–oracles that serve as graphic illustrations of fall or ruin: (1) Isa 14:5-23, a taunt (v4) against the king of Babylon, (2) Isa 24:21-22, a symbolic representation of Yahweh's judgment, and (3) Ezk 28:1-19, a prophetic funeral dirge (v12) against the king of Tyre (113).
The objects of condemnation in all three texts tumble from the heavens as if stars (cf. Jude 13). A key in interpreting Isa 14, Ezk 28, and Jude 5 lies in recognizing antecedent action. Falling from glory–whether it is the king of Babylon, the ruler of Tyre, or the Christian community to whom Jude is writing–has an antecedent in the heavenly realm (115).
" i) Jude 6 is directly alluding to Gen 6:1-4.
ReplyDeleteii) Jude 6 is directly alluding to 1 Enoch, which is, in turn, alluding to Gen 6:1-4."
Out of i) and your ii), ii) comes close to what I think is actually the case, since the whole of Jude 6 is almost certainly a loose summary/paraphrase of 1 Enoch 12:4, 10:4 and 10:6 respectively (does anyone really argue for i) in it's pure form)? But I think the more accurate way to characterize it may be your point iii)a); namely, Jude 6 is directly alluding to Gen 6 as informed by 1 Enoch.
"iv) Jude is alluding to other OT passages which depict a "war in heaven" and/or "fall from heaven" motif (Isa 14; Isa 22:21-22; Ezk 28; cf. Judges 5:20; Jude 13). Scripture sometimes employs stellar imagery to figuratively depict a moral and/or political downfall."
This seems to be the default view of those who dislike the connection (directly or indirectly) to Gen 6. But the parallels with 1 Enoch (see above) are far too pronounced to make this a plausible referent, and Jude's paraphrase of 1 Enoch 1:9 in Jude 14-15 makes it clear that he has 1 Enoch well in mind as he pens this letter.
Besides, this particular class of angels is said to be "bound" with everlasting chains and "kept" in darkness (literally, "under gloom" or "the under-gloom" or "gloom of the underworld"). Peter's parallel is even more explicit: "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell (tartarus), and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness darkness to be kept until the judgment ..." (2 Pet 2:4). Since we know by the NT witness that demons in general (and Satan in particular) roam the earth freely, then Jude (and by extension, Peter) cannot here be referring to the general population of fallen angels--demons in general have clearly not yet been "cast into tartarus," but these particular angels have. As an aside, Peter almost certainly has this same class of angels in mind in 1 Pet 3:19-20 when he refers to "the spirits now in prison, who formerly did not obey when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared."
“v) Jude is simply trading on a common Jewish belief. Popular demonology. He doesn't require a literary source. “
Not sure what is to be gained exegetically by introducing a non-sourced common Jewish belief when we have a known, concrete referent readily available in 1 Enoch--and one to which Jude clearly alludes at least twice in this epistle. The same argument could be made in each and every case where a NT writer quotes, paraphrases, or alludes to an OT passage; namely, that he's not really citing Scripture--he's merely citing common Jewish belief that doesn't require a literary source. (cont'd ...)
"iii) Apropos (ii), that breaks down into two further possibilities:
ReplyDeletea) Jude is alluding to Gen 6:1-4 via 1 Enoch. Gen 6:1-4 is the intended secondary referent.
b) Jude is only alluding to 1 Enoch. The fact that Enoch alludes to Gen 6 doesn't commit Jude to do the same. Commentators admit that Jude is very selective in his appropriation and adaptation of his sources. In v6, he also uses a stock phrase from Classical Greek literature."
I think iii)b) can be dismissed on contextual grounds. Whatever else Jude may think of 1 Enoch, he doesn't treat this particular story as a mere passing reference. Rather, he states he wants to "remind" his readers of things they already "fully know" (or should know) about God's judgment on the disobedient, and he clearly wants them to take heed to it. He references three events to support that point, the first and third of which are events they'd clearly "know" from Scripture. It would be incongruous for Jude to cite two OT events (both of which he presumably believes actually occurred), only then to sandwich in between them a mere myth that does not rise to the same level of authority and which he believes didn't actually occur.
"Genesis 6 makes no reference to the punishment of the sons of God, and the punishment of chains is applied to angels on a number of other occasions in 1 Enoch (e.g. 1 En. 21; 54:3-6). J. Walton, "Sons of God, Daughters of Man," T. D. Alexander & D. Baker, eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (IVP 2003), 794b."
1 Enoch 21 simply refers to the "the prison of the angels," which is undoubtedly a reference to the same place in which 1 Enoch 10 and 12 earlier tells us the angels who cohabited with women would be cast. I'm uncertain what Walton wants us to glean from this--nor his 1 citation of Enoch 54:3-6, which refers to the group of angels.
"It is true that the punishment cited in Peter and Jude is the same punishment meted out to the angels in 1 Enoch's interpretation of Genesis 6, but it must also be admitted that this same punishment is cited in the book of 1 Enoch on other occasions as applied to disruptive angels."
Where exactly? If Walton is referring here to chapters 21 and 54, then he's wrong, since both passages refer to the same group of “disruptive angels” to which as every other passage in 1 Enoch refers.
"Furthermore, Jude does not cite marriage of angels to human women, though he easily could have."
He also didn't mention the golden calf in his allusion to the Exodus event, though he easily could have. When the audience already "fully knows" the entire episode, details may safely be omitted to maintain focus on the larger point. (cont'd ...)
Having said this, I think he in fact DOES allude to the angels cohabitation with women, albeit indirectly. In verse 7 we are told that Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities "“in the same way as these” indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh."
ReplyDeleteThe question becomes, What is the antecedent of the masculine demonstrative pronoun "these"? It cannot be Sodom (a neuter noun), nor Gomorrah (a feminine noun), nor even "the surrounding cities" (also feminine). While it might refer to the heretics themselves, we would need to reach all the way back to v. 4 for that antecedent. The more natural (and closest) antecedent is "angels" in v. 6 (“in the same way as these angels …”). If this is correct, then what we are told is that Sodom and Gomorrah "indulged in gross immorality and went after "strange flesh," and they did so "in the "same way" as "these [angels]." In other words, these angels, too, "engaged in “gross immorality," and they too "went after strange flesh." The Greek behind "strange flesh" is sarkos heteras (lit. "flesh of a different kind"). The sarkos heteras that the men of Sodom and Gomorrah pursued was the unnatural coupling with men rather than women. But the angels, too, went after sarkos heteras, but in their case the "flesh of a different kind" was the unnatural coupling of angels with humans.
Michael Green notes (in his commentary on Jude) that Jude may very well be thinking specifically of the episode in Genesis 19, in which the two angels (disguised as men) visit Lot and are harassed by the men of Sodom who want to have sexual relations with them. If Jude is thinking of this episode then the episode of the angels who lusted after the “daughters of men” in Genesis 6 is directly reciprocated in the episode of the men of Sodom who (unwittingly) lusted after the angels in Genesis 19. As Green puts it, "sarkos heteras indeed!"
"Finally, to speak of an act of porneia by the angels, as Jude does, is inappropriate to in describing Genesis 6, for there the women are taken as wives, whereas porneia is usually reserve for extramarital activity. J. Walton, Genesis (Zondervan 2001), 297."
Porneia is a generalized term that refers broadly to illicit sexual relations. Obviously, an angel having sex with a human female would be included in this, and marriage between the two would not make those relations any less illicit. (cont'd ...)
"In dealing with a passage which of itself is inherently difficult, e.g., 1 Pet 3:19 or Jude 6, one's exegesis is at best tenuous when one's interpretation rests upon the exegesis of another notoriously problematic passage, e.g. Gen 6:1-4. J. D. Charles, Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude (USP 1993), 148."
ReplyDeleteWhile I acknowledge that connections have to be made, I just don't share the view that Jude 6 is "inherently difficult," although I suppose it is for those who are looking for an interpretation that seeks to avoid a connection to 1 Enoch. Exegetical options plague nearly every passage in the Bible, but that doesn't mean all of them are of equal weight. And, for the record, we have to make the same kinds of connections any time a biblical writer quotes or paraphrases another writer, or uses an outside source. That task is made more difficult when we don't have access to that source material and we are left to guess at what it might have said.
In the present case, however, we have Jude's source material right in front of us (1 Enoch), and it's interpretation of Genesis 6 is undisputed. If Jude alludes to/summarizes/paraphrases a particular story in his source material, and he does so approvingly (which he most certainly does here), then it's simply a matter of reading the source at that point and figuring out what it says. Is it *possible* that Jude wants to "remind" us of this episode, impress upon us the great weight of its lessons, and bid us to take heed of its warnings of impending condemnation, but at the same time *doesn't* want us to believe the actual story itself? I suppose that's possible. But one who adopts that interpretation should perhaps refrain from concluding that the more straightforward exegesis is the one that is "tenuous."
"Virtually all commentary, past and present, has related Gen 6:1-4 in some way to Jude 6 and 2 Pet 2:4. This is largely due to two reasons: (1) a mistaken linking of the angels in v6 with Sodom and Gomorrah in v7 ..."
Nothing mistaken about it. That linking flows quite naturally in the exegesis of the text (as I've already explained above).
"... and (2) the association of demons with Gen 6:1-4 which began to emerge in the 2C BC. The thread in Jude that links Israel (v5), the angels (v6), and Sodom (v7), however, is not sexual sin, rather dispossession, falling from their allotted place (109)."
I disagree. It's pretty clear that Jude directly connects the sexual immorality in these examples with the practice of the heretics in v. 8: "in like manner" they "defile the flesh," in v, 18: "they follow their own ungodly passions," and in v. 23: [their garments are] "stained by the flesh."
"Verses 5-7 of Jude, taken together, as they are meant to be syntactically, stress the loss or disenfranchisement of the three subjects (112)."
I think this is a real stretch. The theme of vv 5-7 is more naturally that of rebellion (manifested in various ways that are related to the specific practices of the heretics). (cont'd ...)
"It is furthermore significant that Jude does not associate the fall of angels with the flood… (112)."
ReplyDeleteWhy should this be significant? He summarizes the story from 1 Enoch, which makes that association explicit, and he's made it clear that his readers are already "fully aware" of that story. What need does he therefore have to relay the story in detail?
"Corresponding typology to the fallen angels of Jude might well be drawn from several prophetic oracles in the OT–oracles that serve as graphic illustrations of fall or ruin: (1) Isa 14:5-23, a taunt (v4) against the king of Babylon, (2) Isa 24:21-22, a symbolic representation of Yahweh's judgment, and (3) Ezk 28:1-19, a prophetic funeral dirge (v12) against the king of Tyre (113)."
As I've mentioned, fallen angels in general are not currently in chains, have not been cast into tartarus, and are not currently suffering eternal punishment as this group of angels clearly is.
Now, add to this the Gen 6 evidence itself:
(1) every single instance of the phrase “sons of God” that occurs in the OT refers to angels, not men;
(2) if “sons of God” simply refers to the “godly line of Seth” (as is commonly asserted) then we are left with the absurd conclusion that God deems it necessary to destroy all of mankind simply because human sons of God began marrying human daughters of men (which is precisely the direction he gave mankind after creation—“multiply and fill the earth”). Is marrying the woman of your choice (I’ll even grant for the sake of argument that “daughter of men” refers to “unbelieving women,” though the text nowhere states this) really an egregious enough sin to warrant annihilation? Isn’t marrying unbelieving women the very thing just about every OT patriarch did after the flood, including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, etc.? On the other hand, if “sons of God” is taken in the same since that it appears elsewhere, then the contrast with the “daughters of men” begins to make sense, as does the reason for God’s decision to wipe out mankind.
(3) Why did this union result in offspring that were giants? Is this the normal result when a believing man marries an unbelieving woman? This offspring (not to mention the contrast with “daughters of men”) makes sense only if we allow the phrase “sons of God” to have the meaning it has elsewhere in the OT.
My apologies for the long-winded comment (and very likely the myriad of typos). Just wanted to show the exegetical basis for a view that you’ve dismissed in the past as entailing a low view of Scripture. I’m sure you won’t ultimately agree with the conclusions, but I‘m hoping you’ll recognize the reasonableness of the view itself.
e.d. skovbo: I've not read the book of Enoch, but I find your interpretation that human-angelic miscegenation as the reason for the flood pretty unfounded in the text of Genesis. The text talks about man's wickedness, violence etc. as the reason for God's anger; perhaps the miscegenation was a factor, but I don't see that in the text.
ReplyDeleteTK, I'd agree that the text of Gen 6 is not explicit on this point (which is why I think we must start with Jude), and I agree that it would have been only one factor among many. However, the "sons of God" taking for themselves the "daughters of me" (however you might define these groups and the associated sin) forms an inclusio in that pericope, and so the writer positions THAT particular sin (whatever it was) as the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
ReplyDelete