Who are the angels who sinned according to literally every commentary I own?
In my video Theopolis vs. Heiser: The Divine Council Debate Explained, I worked through Christopher Kou’s review of Michael Heiser’s Divine Council Worldview for the Theopolis Institute. One of the places where Kou and Heiser part company is Genesis 6:1–4. Kou rejects the angelic reading and proposes instead that the passage describes human cultic unions. I said in that video that the supernatural reading is the most straightforward reading of the text, that it fits the wider biblical and Second Temple context better than the alternatives, and that Peter and Jude read Genesis 6 that way.
A viewer disagreed and left this comment.
angels who sinned is a reference to Genesis 6 ? Really? That's a stretch bro
This is not an argument about the Greek, or about Peter’s sequence from the angels to the flood to Sodom, or about the verb Peter reaches for, and no other New Testament writer uses. It is a claim about plausibility, literally what seems right to the commentator in his no doubt limited understanding of the scholarship. The claim is that connecting 2 Peter 2:4 to Genesis 6:1–4 is idiosyncratic, that is, that there is no real connection at all. My readers/viewers know that there is far more to this, but I wanted to know what commentators from a broad subsection of Christianity say about it.
I reviewed 190 commentaries on 2 Peter 2:4 in my own library: 4 Reformation, 58 Modern, and 128 Contemporary. The authors represent a broad range of traditions, including Anabaptist, Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Congregational, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Messianic, Methodist, Pentecostal, Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterian, Reformed, Seventh-day Adventist, and broadly Protestant or other. Of the 190 commentaries, only 82 discuss the nature of the angels’ sin in 2 Peter 2:4. Among those, 60 explicitly connect the passage to Genesis 6:1–4, interpreting the “sons of God” as angels who sinned by taking human wives. Ten reject or favor alternative interpretations, most commonly identifying the sin with Satan’s primordial rebellion, while some instead adopt the Sethite interpretation of Genesis 6. The remaining 12 present two or more possible interpretations without expressing a preference, often contrasting the Genesis 6/Watchers view with a pre-Adamic angelic rebellion. Among those twelve, a few understand Peter’s reference more generally as encompassing the rebellion of fallen angels without tying it to a specific event.
A word about my method. These are commentaries I happen to own because I’ve purchased large packages of books from many different traditions through Logos Bible Software. This is not a selection I assembled to make a point. It’s kind of random, to be honest. I took every one that addresses the issue, and I didn’t leave any out. I also deliberately did not go to the fathers or to the medieval theologians. Much of that ground is already covered inside the commentaries themselves, so I didn’t find that helpful for this. When Reformed, Baptist, Nondenominational, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist, Pentecostal, and many other interpreters arrive at the same reading of a verse, they are not agreeing because they share a tradition of interpretation. They are agreeing because they have each worked through the same text and the same interpretive history and honestly landed at the same conclusion.
Roughly three out of four commentators who address the question at all connect Peter’s angels to Genesis 6. The 108 that pass over the question are not evidence against the reading. Most are devotional, homiletical, or brief enough that they never specify what the angels did, so I thought it wise to remove them from consideration, since we cannot guess what they thought about the nature of angelic sin.
The more useful number is with those who reject the angelic view. Rejection of the angelic reading is concentrated in the Modern commentaries and becomes more acceptable to today’s scholars. Contemporary scholarship on 2 Peter and Jude has largely returned to the historic reading, and done so on textual and historical grounds rather than out of enthusiasm for the supernatural. We’re not dealing with the emergence of a fringe view. It is closer to the opposite. Both the Sethite reading and the primordial-rebellion reading were stronger in a particular period, but this historic view has reemerged as the dominant view.
None of this makes the reading correct, per se. The count establishes that the position is mainstream, not that it is true. Sixty commentators can be wrong together, and I have said many times that I am critical of any position that has to be assumed onto the text rather than drawn out of it. What counting does establish is that the commenter’s objection is not an objection to Heiser, or to me. It is an objection to the ordinary reading of the verse across most of the Christian tradition, and it needs an argument behind it rather than his incredulous question.
I found that modern evangelical scholarship overwhelmingly treats 2 Peter 2:4 as referring to the Watchers tradition. Richard Bauckham, D. A. Carson, Scot McKnight, N. T. Wright, Tom Schreiner, Daniel Akin, David Wheaton, Kenneth Wuest, David Stern, and Doug Moo, and many others all make this connection, though they differ on how directly Peter depends on 1 Enoch. Below are quotations with citations of every commentary I read on the subject of angels who sinned, in no particular order.
Angels who sinned are the ‘sons of God’ of Genesis 6
Tom (N.T.) Wright says this “refers back to the famous story of the wicked angels in Genesis 6.”
Early Christian Letters for Everyone: James, Peter, John and Judah, For Everyone Bible Study Guides (London; Louisville, KY: SPCK; Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 111.
J. Rawson Lumby contrasts men who sinned with the antediluvian angels who sinned, “These men were proud; so were the angels that sinned, but their pride was only a prelude to their fall. These men were disobedient; so were the antediluvian sinners.”
“The Epistle of St. Peter,” in The Expositor’s Bible: Ephesians to Revelation, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, vol. 6, Expositor’s Bible (Hartford, CT: S.S. Scranton Co., 1903), 737.
Paul Gardner writes that “Peter does indeed have Genesis 6 in mind as he speaks of God’s judgment on the angels for their sin,” and further, “Peter argues from this example that there is a final judgment and that the fallen angels are evidence of that event.”
1 and 2 Peter and Jude: Christian Living in an Age of Suffering, New Edition, Focus on the Bible Commentary (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2013), 236-237.
John Gill clearly affirms the ‘sons of God’ reading of Genesis refers to angels, though he seems to think “angels who sinned” refers broadly to all angels who sin, not simply those of Genesis 6. He writes, “Aza and Azael, angels, who, they say, sinned by lusting after the daughters of men, they frequently affirm, that God cast them down from their holiness, and that he אפיל לון לתתא, cast them, down below in chains; and that God cast them down from their holiness from above; and when they descended, they were rolled in the air—and he brought them to the mountains of darkness, which are called the mountains of the east, and bound them in chains of iron, and the chains were sunk into the midst of the great deep: and elsewhere they sayo, that God cast them down from their holy degree, out of heaven—from their holy place out of heaven—and bound them in chains of iron, in the mountains of darkness.”
An Exposition of the New Testament, vol. 3, The Baptist Commentary Series (London: Mathews and Leigh, 1809), 597.
Zane C. Hodges writes, “the reference in v 4 to the angels who sinned can hardly be to those angels who followed Satan in his original rebellion against God. The angels Peter refers to are now under restraint, having been cast … down to hell, bound by chains of darkness. But this is certainly not the case with most fallen angels today (cf. Eph 6:12), who are both free and actively oppose believers. The reference here is to ‘the sons of God’ (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1) who intermarried with human women in the days of Noah (Gen 6:2).”
“The Second Epistle of Peter,” in The Grace New Testament Commentary, ed. Robert N. Wilkin (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), 1178.
Miguel Nunez writes, “Peter also makes mention of a number of angels who sinned in the days of Noah, who have been kept in dark prisons due to the magnitude of their transgression (1 Peter 3:19–20). These events related to the judgment of angelic beings clearly made a strong impression on Peter’s mind—to the point that he mentions them in both of his epistles. Jude also does so in Jude v 6, as we will see later in this book. What did these angels from Noah’s days do? Genesis 6:2 describes a moment in time when the ‘sons of God’ entered into union with the ‘daughters of man.’”
2 Peter & Jude for You, ed. Carl Laferton, God’s Word for You (The Good Book Company, 2022), 49.
The broadly evangelical Life Application New Testament Commentary favors the Genesis 6 interpretation, noting, “This could be a reference to the angels who rebelled along with Satan (Ezekiel 28:15) or to the sin of the angels described in Genesis 6:1–4 (see also Jude 1:6 and Revelation 12:7). More likely, it is the incident recorded in Genesis 6, because the following verses relate to incidents also taken from that portion of Genesis—the Flood.”
Bruce Barton et al., Life Application New Testament Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 2001), 1137.
Robert H. Mounce writes, “The most common interpretation of this incident is that the angels were the ‘sons of God’ (see Gen. 6:1–4) who cohabited with the ‘daughters of men’ and produced the Nephilim (giants).”
A Living Hope: A Commentary on 1 and 2 Peter (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2005), 125.
William Barclay affirms, “The story of the fall of the angels is one which rooted itself deeply in Hebrew thought and which underwent much development as the years went on. The original story is in Genesis 6:1–5. There, the angels are called the sons of God…These angels came to earth and seduced mortal women. The result of this lustful union was the race of giants, and through them wickedness came upon the earth.”
The Letters of James and Peter, 3rd ed. fully rev. and updated, The New Daily Study Bible (Louisville, KY; London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 371.
Though Douglas J. Moo outlines several ways the angels who sinned could be understood, he clearly affirms, writing, “The story finds its most developed form in the pseudepigraphical book 1 Enoch, but it is alluded to in several other writings as well. This tradition was not simply made up from whole cloth; the writers were elaborating on Genesis 6:1–4, a passage that tells about ‘sons of God’ who were attracted to the ‘daughters of men,’ married them, and had children with them. In the Jewish tradition we are referring to, the ‘sons of God’ were angels, and their cohabiting with women was a basic reason why God judged the world of Noah’s day. I think it is likely that Peter has this story in mind.”
2 Peter, Jude, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 101–102.
John Wesley’s notes are brief; however, he writes, “Like condemned criminals to safe custody, as if bound with the strongest chains, in a dungeon of darkness, to be reserved unto the judgment of the great day: though still those chains do not hinder their often walking up and down, seeking whom may they devour.” A keen eye will notice that he sees the spirits of these ‘angels who sinned’ as demons who, like the Devil, roam the earth, seeking whom they may devour, tying the angels who sinned to the Enochic literature commenting on the Genesis 6 narrative. This could be classified as uncertain, but I think the underpinnings of the Genesis 6 narrative is clear.
Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament, Fourth American Edition (New York: J. Soule and T. Mason, 1818), 649.
Lewis R. Donelson affirms in a roundabout kind of way, since 1 Enoch also comments on Genesis 6: “Although the opening example is, in some ways, derived from the story of the Nephilim in Gen 6:1–4, it comes more immediately from Jude 6, which is in turn dependent on 1 Enoch.”
I & II Peter and Jude: A Commentary, First edition, The New Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 243.
For Philip W. Comfort, “it is more likely that…they were familiar with the story of the Watchers in 1 Enoch and their banishment to pits,” affirming the correlation with the angels who sinned with 1 Enoch and the sons of God narrative in Genesis 6.
New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008), 761.
Again, Tom (N.T.) Wright says Peter “refers back to the famous story of the wicked angels in Genesis 6. God has kept them guarded until the day of judgment.”
New Testament Wisdom for Everyone (London: SPCK, 2013), 85.
Lawrence R. Farley writes that Peter “calls attention to the sinning angels, the sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6:1–4.”
Universal Truth: The Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, Jude, and John, The Orthodox Bible Study Companion (Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2008), 124.
Michael Green writes, “Destruction awaits them [false teachers], as it does the fallen angels (2:4–8). He is thinking of Genesis 6, the angels whom God condemned to the depths of hell for having had sex with human women.”
Through the New Testament with Michael Green: Matthew to Revelation (Nashville, TN; Bath, England: Kingsley Books, 2019), 309.
Terrance Callan says Peter and Jude both “presume the elaboration of Gen. 6:1–4 in extrabiblical writings like 1 Enoch (cf. 12.4). While Gen. 6:1–4 does not refer to angels, sin, or punishment, 1 Enoch understands the passage as speaking about all three. The author of 2 Peter likewise seems to presume that Gen. 6:1–4 narrates the sin of angels.”
“Second Peter,” in First and Second Peter, ed. Mikeal C. Parsons and Charles H. Talbert, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 180.
Robert W. Wall and David R. Nienhuis affirm: Readers of the biblical canon might be left wondering about the identity of these angels. Their subsequent connection with the judgment of the world in Noah’s day (v. 5) may lead readers to recall the strange section of Genesis just prior to the Noah story, where “sons of God” observe beautiful human women and capture them to be their wives (Gen. 6:1–2). Immediately after this God sees that the wickedness of humanity has become so pervasive that the only thing to do is to blot out humanity with a flood. Jewish tradition made much of this strange scene, eventually coming to teach that these “angels” (later called “the Watchers”) were captured by God and imprisoned in the deepest, darkest part of hell to await the final judgment.
Reading the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude as Scripture: The Shaping and Shape of a Canonical Collection (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2013), 137.
This source clearly states, “The first of the three biblical witnesses appears to rely upon Genesis 6:1–4, according to Neyrey, because it ‘forms a unity with other examples from Genesis, Noah, and Lot.’ More likely Genesis is a tertiary source that is embedded in a secondary source, 1 Enoch, that Peter discovered in Jude 6, his primary source.”
Richard B. Vinson, Richard F. Wilson, and Watson E. Mills, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude, ed. R. Alan Culpepper and Leslie Andres, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Incorporated, 2010), 333.
Donald P. Senior and Daniel J. Harrington note that “For the sin of the ‘sons of God’ with the daughters of humans see Gen 6:1–4. The episode is told at much greater length in 1 Enoch 1–36 (the Book of Watchers). For the details, see the Notes on Jude 6.” In that section, “the ‘sons of God’ (generally interpreted by Jews as angels) had sexual relations with human women and produced the “fallen ones” (Nephilim).”
1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, vol. 15, Sacra Pagina Series (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2003), 265, 196.
G. K. Beale and Benjamin L. Gladd unambiguously refer to angels who sinned as “a particularly difficult reference to the angels who committed sin in Genesis 6.”
The Story Retold: A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2020), 439.
Ruth Anne Reese says, “v. 4 is a reference to the story in Gen 6:1–4 about the sons of God who intermarried with human women.”
2 Peter and Jude, The Two Horizons New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007), 150.
Patrick Schreiner says it refers to “the angels in Genesis 6 who sinned by coming to sleep with women on the earth.”
The Visual Word: Illustrated Outlines of the New Testament Books, ed. Connor Sterchi (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2021), 157.
Fred B. Craddock says it refers to “the sinning angels (sons of God) of Gen. 6:1–4. The author here reveals familiarity with a Jewish writing, 1 Enoch (probably dated between the third century b.c. and the first century a.d.) which offers an elaborate interpretation of biblical history.”
First and Second Peter and Jude, ed. Patrick D. Miller and David L. Bartlett, Westminster Bible Companion (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 112.
Terry L. Wilder writes, “God judged the angels who sinned (cp. Gen 6:1–4),” note the citation of Genesis 6.
“2 Peter,” in Holman Illustrated Bible Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen and Jeremy Royal Howard (Broadman & Holman, 2015), 1364.
H.L. Ellison writes, “‘The angels when they sinned’ (2:4): see 1 Peter 3:19f. Clearly this does not refer to Satan.” On 1 Peter 3:19, he notes, “he made proclamation of his triumph (“preached”) to the angels (“spirits”; the word is not used of the dead) imprisoned in the days of Noah; see also Jude 6. They had done their best to destroy the world (Genesis 6:1–8).”
H.L. Ellison, “1 & 2 Peter,” in The New Testament Page by Page, ed. Martin Manser, Open Your Bible Commentary (Creative 4, 2018), 927, 919.
This commentary notes of Peter, “His first example is from Genesis 6—fallen angels God judged for rebellion and immorality (Genesis 6:1–5; Jude 6).”
Mark Strauss, ed., Hebrews Thru Revelation, vol. 12, Layman’s Bible Commentary (Barbour Publishing, 2008), 109.
Earl Richard sees Peter as providing “a primordial [example], of ungodly figures who did not escape divine punishment. Its elements are drawn from Jude 6 and some of its vocabulary (‘angels,’ ‘gloom,’ ‘keep,’ ‘for judgment’). Uninterested in the details of the offense committed, the author states simply that they are angelic figures ‘who sinned.’ Further, seemingly to add a Hellenistic note to the discussion, 2 Peter points out that they were ‘held captive in Tartarus’ (tartaroo), thereby alluding to the frequent comparison made between the fall of the Watchers (1 Enoch 6f; see Gen 6).”
Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Reading the New Testament Series (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2000), 356.
Michael Green is certain Peter refers to “the fallen angels of Genesis 6,” noting, “Peter may have been influenced by the embellishment of the Genesis account in the apocryphal 1 Enoch.”
2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 121.
Another commentary affirming that “Peter offers the fallen angels of Genesis 6.”
Robert Harvey and Philip H. Towner, 2 Peter & Jude, ed. Grant R. Osborne, vol. 18, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 80.
Pheme Perkins sees Peter utilizing the “demonstration of judgment taken from Jude,” in which Perkins notes Jude speaks of “The angels lusted after creatures it was not right for them to have, namely, human beings.”
Pheme Perkins, First and Second Peter, James, and Jude, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1995), 182, 150.
According to Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter 2:4 follows Jude’s understanding of the Watchers tradition, which interprets Genesis 6:1–4 as the account of the angels’ fall. He argues that “the author of 2 Peter has followed Jude” and that the story of the Watchers “was well known in contemporary Judaism.” Although 2 Peter does not specify the angels’ sin, Bauckham maintains that this omission is not significant, since the author and his readers “must have known” that “the angels sinned by taking human wives.” Rather than repeating the details, Peter summarizes the sins of his examples collectively in verse 10, where he places “a strong emphasis to sexual indulgence.”
Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 50, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1983), 248–249.
Edwin A. Blum: “The most common interpretation is to relate the judgment Peter speaks of with the mention of angels in Genesis 6:1–4 (where ‘sons of God’ apparently means ‘fallen angels’; cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). Another interpretation relates this judgment to the original sin of the angels. But the explanation in relation to Genesis 6:1–4 is best because (1) it was common in Jewish literature (Enoch 6:2; 1QapGen col. 2), (2) the three examples (angels, Flood, and cities of the plain) all come one after another in the early chapters of Genesis, and (3) the angels referred to here in 2 Peter are confined to ‘gloomy dungeons.’ Apparently some fallen angels are free to plague mankind as demons while others such as these are imprisoned. The connection with Genesis 6:1–4 provides a reason for this phenomenon.”
“2 Peter,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 278.
Andrew M. Mbuvi writes, “2 Peter focuses on the angels being chained or confined for their sins, assuming that his readers know what he is referencing (Gen 6; 1 Enoch 6:1–26).”
Jude and 2 Peter: A New Covenant Commentary, ed. Michael F. Bird and Craig Keener, New Covenant Commentary Series (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2015), 108.
Peter H. Davids says Peter “refers to Gen 6:1–4 as it was passed on in Jewish tradition in 1 Enoch. In Gen 6:1–4 we have a reference to the “sons of God” (beney ha-elohim) mating with human women.”
The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2006), 225.
Thomas R. Schreiner writes, “Peter followed Jewish tradition at this point and referred to the sin angels committed with women in Gen 6:1–4 (1 Enoch 6–19, 21, 86–88; 106:13–17; Jub. 4:15, 22; 5:1; CD 2:17–19; 1QapGen 2:1; T. Reu. 5:6–7; T. Naph. 3:5; 2 Bar. 56:10–14; cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.73). Under Jude v. 5 I have summarized more completely the Jewish tradition that identifies the sons of God in Gen 6:1–4 with angels, and I also briefly explain there why such a view is a plausible reading of Genesis 6. The sin committed by angels was sexual intercourse with the daughters of men.”
1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 336.
According to R. H. Strachan, 2 Peter 2:4 reflects the Enochic tradition of the fallen angels, even though he does not explicitly mention Genesis 6:1–4 in this section. He argues that Peter’s use of Tartarus is significant because “the word also occurs in Enoch xx. 2, where Gehenna is the place of punishment for apostate Jews, and Tartarus for the fallen angels.” Strachan concludes that “2 Peter uses this word in agreement with the Book of Enoch and Greek mythology, because he is speaking of fallen angels and not of men.” By further citing 1 Enoch 10:4, 12 and 88:2 as parallels for the angels’ confinement until judgment, Strachan indicates that he understands 2 Peter 2:4 within the Enochic interpretation of the Watchers, the traditional Second Temple reading of Genesis 6:1–4.
“The Second Epistle General of Peter,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament: Commentary, vol. 5 (New York: George H. Doran Company, n.d.), 134–135.
Marton and Elliott agree, “God’s not sparing either the sinful angels before the Flood or the ancient world during the Flood, is contrasted to his preserving righteous Noah and his family. Here the sequence of events contained in Jude 5b–6 is inverted so as to coincide with the chronology of Gen. 6:1–4 (angels) and 6:5–8:22 (sinful world, Flood, Noah).”
R. A. Martin and John H. Elliott, James, I-II Peter, Jude, Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1982), 148.
“The most likely background for this account is Gen 6:1–4, in which case the angels are identified with the heavenly beings (‘sons of God’) who came down to earth and married mortal women. Later writings built on the Genesis account, telling of the sins of these heavenly beings and their subsequent punishment.”
Daniel C. Arichea and Howard Hatton, A Handbook on the Letter from Jude and the Second Letter from Peter, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 109.
“Peter, like Jude, uses the examples of the rebellious angels.” “Jude mentions…angels leaving their ‘proper dwelling place.’ This image refers to an early Jewish understanding of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1–4.”
John D. Barry and Miles Custis, 2 Peter & Jude: Contend for the Faith, Not Your Average Bible Study (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014), 15, 14.
According to David Strange, the dominant scholarly view is that the “angels who sinned” in 2 Peter 2:4 are the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1–4, as interpreted in the Enochic tradition. He notes that many commentators identify these angels with the heavenly beings of Genesis 6 whose sin involved taking human wives, observing that “the angels referred to here and in Jude 6 are the heavenly beings spoken of in Genesis 6:1–4” and that, if the readers knew the Watchers tradition, “they would have known that it was by taking human wives that the angels sinned.” At the same time, Strange also summarizes minority views, including that the sin was primarily rebellion, that the nature of the sin is unspecified, that the angels fell before Adam, or that the identity of the angels and their sin are unknown.
An Exegetical Summary of 2 Peter, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 108–110.
This resource understands 2 Peter 2:4 as referring to the same fallen angels tradition as Jude 6 and likely alludes to the Genesis 6 account, though it notes that “the nature of the sin is not stated” explicitly in Peter. Huther observes that the connection is “only faintly hinted at by the circumstance that the example of the flood immediately follows,” suggesting an intentional link between the angels’ sin and the events preceding the Flood.
Joh. Ed. Huther, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the General Epistles of Peter and Jude, trans. D. B. Croom and Paton J. Gloag, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1893), 334–335.
Craig S. Keener emphasizes, “One of the most prominent themes of ancient Jewish tradition, though usually suppressed by the later rabbis, was the idea that the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6:1–3 were angels who lusted after women and so fell (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls CD 2.16–18; 4Q180 f1.7–8; 1 Enoch 6–7; 16:2; 69:5; 106:13–15; Jubilees 4:22; 5:1; 7:21; 2 Baruch 56:10–15; Testament of Reuben 5:6; Philo, That God Is Unchangeable 1).”
The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, Second Edition (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2014), 702.
According to J. N. D. Kelly, 2 Peter 2:4 refers to the same angels as Jude 6, identifying them as “the heavenly beings mentioned in Gen. 6:1–4 who lusted after earthly women.” He explains that their punishment “was enlarged upon in late Jewish speculation” and that the author of 2 Peter, like Jude, “is acquainted with Jewish haggadah and with apocryphal literature,” though he is “more sparing in the detail he supplies and abstains from direct quotation.” Kelly further notes that God “cast the angels into hell and consigned them to pits of darkness to be kept until the judgment,” understanding Peter’s description as drawing on the well-known Enochic interpretation of Genesis 6 while presenting it more concisely than Jude.
The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, Black’s New Testament Commentary (London: Continuum, 1969), 331.
F. F. Bruce says Peter “recalls the angels who sinned, probably an allusion to Gen. 6:2.”
New International Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), 1567.
According to Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter 2:4 refers to the angels of Genesis 6 in a way that intentionally evokes the Greek story of the Titans’ imprisonment in Tartarus. He observes that the author’s description of the angels “seem[s] tailored here to evoke a reminiscence of the Greek story of punishment of the Titans in Tartarus,” noting that Hesiod’s account includes the same basic elements: the rebels are “hurled under the earth in chains into gloomy Tartarus.” Neyrey also cites Josephus’ observation that the angels of Genesis 6 resemble the Greek giants and argues that Peter employs an example “readily recognized by Greek and Jewish hearers,” suggesting that the reference to the fallen angels would have resonated with both Jewish traditions about Genesis 6 and familiar Greco-Roman imagery of divine judgment.
2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 37C, Anchor Bible (Doubleday, 1993), 202.
According to Charles Bigg, 2 Peter 2:4 refers to the fallen angels of the Enochic tradition behind Genesis 6. He notes that Peter’s phrase “even angels” heightens the force of the example and argues that both Peter and Jude have the Book of Enoch “in view.” Bigg suggests that 1 Enoch 10 “was actually in St. Peter’s mind,” pointing to parallels such as the angels being bound, confined in “pits,” and “kept unto trial.” He also compares 1 Enoch 54 and 2 Baruch 56, where the angels who “mingled with women” are punished in chains, concluding that Peter’s description reflects the familiar Jewish tradition of the Watchers’ imprisonment while awaiting the final judgment.
Charles Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark International, 1901), 274–275.
According to Kenneth S. Wuest, 2 Peter 2:4 refers to the same angels described in Jude 6–7, stating that “the angels that sinned are the angels of Jude 6, 7 whose sin was that of fornication.” He explains that Peter’s point is that if God “did not spare a higher order of being to man, namely, angels, He will surely not spare human beings.” Wuest further identifies their place of confinement as Tartarus, “the prison of the fallen angels until the Great White Throne Judgment,” and, citing R. H. Strachan, notes that Peter uses this term “in agreement with the Book of Enoch...and Greek mythology because he is speaking of fallen angels and not of men.” Although Wuest does not explicitly mention Genesis 6, his identification of these angels with Jude 6–7 and their sin as “fornication” clearly places him within the traditional Enochic interpretation of the Watchers.
Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 49–50.
“Peter is probably taking us back to the dawn of human history and a mysterious moment fromGenesis 6:1–4a…That strange tale of the angels (as the phrase ‘the sons of God’ was understood) mating with human beings was frequently used as an example of sin.”
R. C. Lucas and Christopher Green, The Message of 2 Peter & Jude: The Promise of His Coming, The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 95-96.
According to David H. Wheaton, 2 Peter 2:4 should be understood in light of both Genesis 6:1–4 and Jude 6, explicitly directing readers to “See Gn. 6:1–4 and Jude 6.” He explains that Peter’s reference to Tartarus draws on Greek mythology, where it is “reserved especially for those superhuman beings who rebelled against the supreme god,” and notes that the imagery of the angels’ imprisonment “is drawn from apocryphal writings.” Although Wheaton does not elaborate on the nature of the angels’ sin, his appeal to Genesis 6, Jude 6, and the apocryphal tradition indicates that he understands 2 Peter 2:4 against the background of the Enochic interpretation of the Watchers.
“2 Peter,” in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, ed. D. A. Carson et al., 4th ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 1392–1393.
According to David H. Stern, the “angels who sinned” in 2 Peter 2:4 are the bene ha-elohim (“sons of God” or “sons of angels”) of Genesis 6:2, also identified with the Nephilim (“fallen ones”) of Genesis 6:4. He explains that these angels “fell from heaven,” left “their proper sphere” (Jude 6), and “came in to the daughters of men” (Genesis 6:2, 4). As a result, they are now the “imprisoned spirits” of 1 Peter 3:19, whom God has placed “in gloomy dungeons lower than Sheol to be held for judgment,” “in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for the Judgment of the Great Day” (Jude 6). Stern thus explicitly identifies 2 Peter 2:4 with the traditional Enochic interpretation of Genesis 6.
Jewish New Testament Commentary : A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament, electronic ed. (Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996), 2 Pe 2:4.
John MacArthur refers to “the angels who sinned (v. 4)—Apparently, this is a reference to the fallen angels of Genesis 6 who left their normal state and lusted after women.”
1 & 2 Peter: Courage in Times of Trouble, MacArthur Bible Studies (Nashville, TN: W Publishing Group, 2000), 98.
James Shaddix and Daniel L. Akin say “it’s likely that [Peter]’s referring to the story in Genesis 6:1–4 where certain angels somehow crossed species lines and had sexual relations with women on earth. Their actions obviously involved both rebellion and sensual lust (cf. Jude 6), which is consistent with both Peter’s and Jude’s arguments.”
Exalting Jesus in 2 Peter, Jude (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2018), 2 Pe 2:4.
Thomas Hale says, “These angels are mentioned in Genesis 6:1–4, where they are called sons of God. God sent them to hell, where they are now being held for judgment.”
The Applied New Testament Commentary (Colorado Springs, CO; Ontario, Canada; East Sussex, England: David C. Cook, 1996), 927.
This resource briefly states that Peter references “the fallen angels of Genesis 6:1–4.”
Craig A. Evans and Craig A. Bubeck, eds., John’s Gospel, Hebrews–Revelation, First Edition, The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary (Colorado Springs, CO; Paris, ON; Eastbourne: David C Cook, 2005), 320.
Michael A. Eaton writes, “Peter’s first example of God’s judgement upon wickedness is taken from the story of the angels in Genesis 6. At that time, human beings were increasing in number (Gen 6:1) and angels took human wives (Gen 6:2).”
The Branch Exposition of the Bible: A Preacher’s Commentary of the New Testament (Carlisle, Cumbria: Langham Global Library, 2020), 1114.
E. H. Plumptre writes, “We may think either of a rebellion of angels headed by Satan, such as Milton has represented in Paradise Lost, or of the degradation of their spiritual nature by sensual lust, as in Gen. 6:2. Looking to the more definite language of Jude, verses 6–8, where the guilt of the angels is placed on a level with that of Sodom, it seems probable that the Apostle had the latter in his thoughts.”
The General Epistles of St Peter and St Jude, with Notes and Introduction, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890), 179.
According to D. A. Carson, 2 Peter 2:4 most likely refers to the angels of Genesis 6 as understood in the Enochic tradition, though he acknowledges that the identification is not certain. Carson notes that “nowadays the majority of interpreters from across the theological spectrum accept the angel interpretation,” identifying the “sons of God” as angels who crossed “species lines and married human women.” He observes that this reading was assumed by the Septuagint, embraced by “most early Jewish exegesis,” and held by “all the earliest church fathers.” He further explains that the interpretation of Genesis 6 involving the Watchers is “widespread in early Judaism,” especially in 1 Enoch, and that “both Jude and 2 Peter apparently pick up on at least some of these themes.”
“2 Peter,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos, 2007), 1048–1051.
Scot McKnight says 2 Peter 2:4 refers to the fallen angels of the Genesis 6/Enochic Watchers tradition. He explains that Peter’s first example of judgment is drawn from “a strange collocation of ancient Jewish and Christian ideas” found in texts such as “Gen. 6:1–4; 1 Enoch 6–19...1 Pet. 3:18–22; Jude 6,” together with “the Greek myth about the Titans.” McKnight states that Peter draws “the analogy between the false teachers and the fallen angels, sometimes called the Watchers (esp. in 1 Enoch).”
“2 Peter,” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, ed. James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 1508.
“The first example comes from Genesis 6:1–4…According to Genesis 6:1–4, the nature of the angels’ sin was marrying human women they found attractive and producing offspring with them. Despite never being mentioned again in the OT, this event is mentioned and explained in a number of non-inspired Jewish texts.”
Matthew S. Harmon, “2 Peter,” in Hebrews–Revelation, ed. Iain M. Duguid, James M. Hamilton Jr., and Jay Sklar, vol. XII, ESV Expository Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 388.
Uncertain about the definition of angels who sinned
The New Testament commentary provides a brief treatment of the passage that does not directly mention angels who sinned, though it notes the parallel with Jude and the Enochic reference and ties the passage to the Noah narrative: “In another striking modification, the author adds the dimension of salvation to the judgment and punishment motif in the examples of the flood (‘Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others’)”
Neil Elliott et al., “Introduction to Hebrews, the General Epistles, and Revelation,” in The New Testament, ed. Margaret Aymer, Cynthia Briggs Kittredge, and David A. Sánchez, Fortress Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014), 688.
Adam Clarke broadens the passage to potentially refer to all fallen angels: “The angels were originally placed in a state of probation; some having fallen and some having stood proves this. How long that probation was to last to them, and what was the particular test of their fidelity, we know not; nor indeed do we know what was their sin; nor when nor how they fell. St. Jude says they kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation; which seems to indicate that they got discontented with their lot, and aspired to higher honours, or perhaps to celestial domination.”
The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical Notes, New Edition, vol. 6 (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife Corporation, 2014), 885.
Robert Tuck: “Whether the antediluvian sinners or beings of another world, are meant, is disputed. There is no Old Testament record of, or allusion to, any fall of angels. Plummer thinks the reference is to statements in the book of Enoch, that certain angels sinned by having intercourse with women (see T. Moore’s poem, “The Loves of the Angels”). ‘Angels’ may be a translation of ‘Sons of God’ (Gen. 6:2).”
I & II Peter, I, II & III John, Jude, Revelation, The Preacher’s Complete Homiletic Commentary (New York; London; Toronto: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1892), 191.
David R. Helm can’t draw a clear line: “Interestingly, if the portrait here is painted from the same charcoal drawings found in the book of Jude, Peter may not be referring to the Milton-like description of the angels’ early fall from Heaven, but the later act of demonic activity found in the opening verses of Genesis 6. There the sons of God (at times a biblical term for angels) transgressed their proper domain and began to take up demonic residence in some men for the purpose of pleasing their own insatiable, lustful appetite for ravishing women.”
1 & 2 Peter and Jude: Sharing Christ’s Sufferings, Preaching the Word (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 226.
Michael Bentley says, “Peter speaks about fallen angels (2:4). We do not know whether this passage is referring to the fall of Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12–15), or to the puzzling incident recorded in Genesis 6:1–4.”
Living for Christ in a Pagan World: 1 and 2 Peter Simply Explained, Welwyn Commentary Series (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 1990), 214.
Ray Summers: “These angels who sinned are not identified. Some interpreters think the reference is to “the sons of God” who entered into sexual union with ‘the daughters of men’ to produce ‘the Nephilim’ of Genesis 6:1–7. Some think the reference may be to the noncanonical book of 1 Enoch 10:4; Revelation 12:7–12 pictures the archangel Michael and his angels fighting with Satan (the dragon) and his angels. The passage reflects the common view of the New Testament day that there were angels who had fallen from their once lofty place of service to God.”
“2 Peter,” in Hebrews–Revelation, ed. Clifton J. Allen, Broadman Bible Commentary (Broadman Press, 1972), 181–182.
Charles S. Ball notes of 2 Peter 2:4 that the sinful angels serve as Peter’s first historical example and suggests that many interpreters connect their sin with Genesis 6:2, while others also consider Jude 6, Matthew 25:41, and John 8:44. He acknowledges that both 2 Peter and Jude may allude to the Book of Enoch but emphasizes that Peter’s point is that “even though they were angels, they would not escape God’s condemnation and judgment.”
“First and Second Peter,” in Hebrews-Revelation, vol. 6, The Wesleyan Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966), 293–294.
Kenneth O. Gangel says “fallen angels…refers either to their fall with Satan in his rebellion against God (Ezek. 28:15) or to the sin of angels in Genesis 6:1–4. Since Peter’s other two illustrations in this section are from Genesis (chaps. 7; 19), perhaps this one is too, though it is difficult to be sure.”
“2 Peter,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 870.
This commentary highlights “two main interpretations” of 2 Peter 2:4, depending on one’s understanding of Genesis 6:1–6. They explain that many interpreters identify the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 as angels “who rebelled against God and their role in creation” by engaging “in forbidden practices with the daughters of men,” resulting in their being “cast into hell, or Tartarus.” They also note, however, that “a second group of commentators” rejects the idea of sexual relations between angels and women and instead understands the passage as referring “simply...to those angels who fell with Satan.”
Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne House, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1999), 1697.
“The reference to the angels who sinned (v. 4; see Jude 6) is frequently interpreted as the story of the ‘sons of God’ (an expression that sometimes refers to angels) in Genesis 6:1–4 (also mentioned in the apocryphal book of 1 Enoch 6:2). Others take it as a reference to the original fall of Satan and his angels.”
William H. Baker, “2 Peter,” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, vol. 3, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1995), 1174.
According to Catherine Gunsalus González, 2 Peter 2:4 refers to the fallen angels but does not definitively identify them with Genesis 6. She explains that Peter’s description “may be based on non-biblical sources that extrapolate from Genesis 6:1–4, the account of the angels or ‘the sons of God’ who had children with human women,” or “it may be a more common understanding that some angels fell and became the demonic host.”
1 & 2 Peter and Jude, ed. Amy Plantinga Pauw and William C. Placher, Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 187.
According to Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, 2 Peter 2:4 refers to the fallen angels of Jude 6 but does not explicitly identify them with Genesis 6 or the Enochic Watchers tradition. They describe the angels as “the highest of intelligent creatures,” who nevertheless “were not spared when they sinned,” and explain that God delivered them to Tartarus.
A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments: Acts–Revelation, vol. VI (London; Glasgow: William Collins, Sons, & Company, Limited, n.d.), 623–624.
Angels who sinned are not the ‘sons of God’ of Genesis 6
Revere F. Weidner writes, “The reference here is to the fall of Satan and his angels at the beginning (John 8:44; 1 John 3:8), and not to Gen. 6:2 as many moderns hold. The passage in Gen. 6:2 refers to the intermarriage of the Sethites (sons of God) with the Cainites (daughters of men).”
Annotations on the General Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude, ed. Henry Eyster Jacobs, vol. XI, The Lutheran Commentary (New York: The Christian Literature Co., 1897), 231.
Robert E. Picirilli: “Those interpreters who think the ‘spirits in prison’ in 1 Peter were angels who sinned in Noah’s day—either by intermarrying with the ‘daughters of men,’ or by influencing those who wickedly rebelled against God—tend to identify these angels in 2 Peter with those. But those of us who prefer the view that those ‘spirits in prison’ were the spirits of the wicked men of Noah’s time will not make any such identification or see any relationship between this passage and that one.” What’s funny about this one is that his argument against angels who sinned being a reference to Genesis 6 is simply that he denies the correlation of 2 Peter 2:4 with Jude and Enoch, not that there is any logical reason to do so, particularly when the correlation to the flood narrative is in the immediate context.
“Commentary on the Books of 1 and 2 Peter,” in James, 1, 2 Peter, & Jude, ed. Robert E. Picirilli, First Edition, The Randall House Bible Commentary (Nashville, TN: Randall House Publications, 1992), 269.
This commentary completely misses the context in both Peter and Jude: “Probably the reference is to the angels who fell when Satan fell (Jude 6).”
Ralph W. Harris, ed., Hebrews–Jude, The Complete Biblical Library: Study Bible (World Library Press, 1989), 335.
This commentary proclaims, “If God did not spare angels (2:4) takes Peter back to pre-Genesis history. The fall of one-third of the angelic host coincided with the fall of Satan prior to Genesis 1.”
David A. Case and David W. Holdren, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude: A Commentary for Bible Students (Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House, 2006), 172.
David Walls and Max Anders: “At one time before the creation of the universe as we know it, they served God the Father. Even in that context, they rebelled against him. As a result, God judged them.”
I & II Peter, I, II & III John, Jude, vol. 11, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 125.
This resource rejects the view that 2 Peter 2:4 refers to the angels of Genesis 6:1–4. While acknowledging that many interpreters have connected Peter’s statement with the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6, it argues that “we are unable to abandon the view that it relates to the amalgamation of the Sethites and Cainites.” The commentary contends that 2 Peter “can only be understood of the revolt of Satan and his associates,” maintaining that Jude 6 has been misread as referring to angelic sexual sin. It further notes that the angelic interpretation was held by many early Jewish and Christian writers, whereas the Sethite interpretation was adopted by others, including Julius Africanus, Ephrem the Syrian, Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin.
John Peter Lange et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: 2 Peter (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 27.
According to R. C. H. Lenski, 2 Peter 2:4 does not refer to the angels of Genesis 6 or the Enochic Watchers tradition. He argues that the angels are “those who did not keep the principality belonging to themselves but left their own proper habitation,” identifying them as “angels that fell before Adam’s fall,” while insisting that “what their sin was neither Peter nor Jude state.” Lenski explicitly rejects the interpretation that these angels cohabited with women, calling it one of the “fables of the Jewish gnosticizing Haggadah.” He maintains that “Genesis 6 says nothing about angels,” interpreting the “sons of God” as the descendants of Seth and the “daughters of men” as the descendants of Cain. Although he acknowledges that the Book of Enoch developed the story of angels begetting children, he regards this as a “late addition” rather than the background of Peter’s statement.
R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1966), 309–310.
According to John MacEvilly, 2 Peter 2:4 refers to the original rebellion of Satan and the fallen angels. He states that Peter “refers to the sin of the rebel angels” and argues that “the most probable opinion is, that it was the sin of pride,” connecting it with Lucifer’s desire to “become like the Most High” in Isaiah 14.
An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul and of the Catholic Epistles, vol. 2 (Dublin; New York: M. H. Gill & Son; Benziger Brothers, 1898), 381.
Tony Evans’ notes say, “This is a reference to the prehistoric rebellion of Satan and the angels who sided with him.”
The Tony Evans Bible Commentary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2019), 1364.
This resource treats the “angelic sinners” of 2 Peter 2:4 as the angels who first rebelled against God. It describes them as “the most ancient sinners,” arguing that “they were the first transgressors of Heaven’s eternal law” and that, unlike Adam, “they had no tempter.”
Joseph S. Exell, The Biblical Illustrator: II. Peter (London: James Nisbet & Co., n.d.), 118.
