Against the Genesis 6 Connection in Jude 6-7 and 2 Peter 2:4-10: A Case for Internal Textual Coherence

Abstract

The traditional interpretation connecting Jude 6-7 and 2 Peter 2:4-10 to Genesis 6:1-4 has achieved near-consensus status in contemporary biblical scholarship, sustained largely by the influence of Second Temple literature and the apparent parallelism between angelic transgression and Sodom’s sexual immorality. This paper challenges that consensus through close grammatical analysis of the Greek text, attention to immediate literary context, and application of the hermeneutical principle that Scripture interprets Scripture. I demonstrate that: (1) Jude explicitly identifies authority rejection, not sexual transgression, as the unifying pattern across his judgment triad; (2) the phrase “other flesh” (sarkos heteras) in Jude 7 grammatically modifies Sodom and the surrounding cities, not the angels of verse 6; (3) both Peter and Jude maintain complete silence regarding the nature of angelic sin beyond positional rebellion; and (4) the parallel structure and shared restraint of both passages constitute mutual hermeneutical commentary that excludes the Genesis 6 reading. The Genesis 6 connection represents an importation of extrabiblical tradition that obscures rather than illuminates the inspired authors’ stated theological purpose.

Keywords: Jude, 2 Peter, Genesis 6, angelic sin, Sodom, biblical hermeneutics, authority rejection, Second Temple Judaism

Introduction

Few interpretive questions in New Testament exegesis enjoy broader scholarly consensus than the identification of Jude 6 with Genesis 6:1-4. The connection appears in standard commentaries, theological dictionaries, and popular Bible study resources with remarkable uniformity. The argument proceeds straightforwardly: Jude 6 describes angels who “left their proper dwelling,” verse 7 describes Sodom pursuing “other flesh,” and the comparative language (”in like manner”) allegedly connects these transgressions. The Genesis 6 narrative of “sons of God” taking “daughters of men” provides the obvious historical referent, especially given its prominence in Second Temple interpretive traditions like 1 Enoch.

Yet this consensus rests on assumptions that deserve reexamination. Does the Greek text actually support reading Jude 7’s “in like manner” as creating comparison between angelic and human sexual transgression? Does the silence of both Jude and Peter regarding the nature of angelic sin carry interpretive weight? Most critically, do the inspired authors themselves provide hermeneutical keys that render the Genesis 6 connection unnecessary?

This paper argues that careful attention to grammatical structure, immediate literary context, and the mutual interpretation provided by parallel passages demonstrates that the Genesis 6 connection is exegetically unwarranted. The judgment triads in both Jude and 2 Peter function to establish judicial certainty through the pattern of authority rejection, with Sodom’s sexual transgression serving as one manifestation of that broader pattern rather than as a parallel to supposed angelic sexual sin.

The Text and Its Traditional Interpretation

Jude 5-8

The relevant Greek text (Nestle-Aland 28th edition) reads:

[5] Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς πάντα, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν, [6] ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν, [7] ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὐπέχουσαι. [8] Ὁμοίως μέντοι καὶ οὗτοι ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι σάρκα μὲν μιαίνουσιν, κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν, δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν.

For fuller context, the World English Bible renders Jude 3-16:

[3] Beloved, while I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I was constrained to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. [4] For there are certain men who crept in secretly, even those who were long ago written about for this condemnation: ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into indulgence, and denying our only Master, God, and Lord, Jesus Christ.

[5] Now I desire to remind you, though you already know this, that the Lord, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who didn’t believe. [6] Angels who didn’t keep their first domain, but deserted their own dwelling place, he has kept in everlasting bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day. [7] Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, having in the same way as these given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are shown as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. [8] Yet in the same way, these also in their dreaming defile the flesh, despise authority, and slander celestial beings.

[9] But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the devil and arguing about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him an abusive condemnation, but said, “May the Lord rebuke you!” [10] But these speak evil of whatever things they don’t know. They are destroyed in these things that they understand naturally, like the creatures without reason. [11] Woe to them! For they went in the way of Cain, and ran riotously in the error of Balaam for hire, and perished in Korah’s rebellion. [12] These are hidden rocky reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you, shepherds who without fear feed themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; [13] wild waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness has been reserved forever. [14] About these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, [15] to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” [16] These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their lusts—and their mouth speaks proud things—showing respect of persons to gain advantage.

The traditional interpretation proceeds as follows: The angels of verse 6 are those of Genesis 6:1-4 who transgressed boundaries by having sexual relations with human women. Verse 7’s description of Sodom pursuing “other flesh” (sarkos heteras) parallels this angelic transgression, with “in like manner to these” (ton homoion tropon toutois) creating explicit comparison between the two sexual sins. Both the angels and the Sodomites pursued sexual relations outside their proper sphere, the angels crossing the divine-human boundary and the Sodomites either pursuing angels (as some argue) or violating natural sexual order in parallel fashion.

2 Peter 2:4-10

Peter’s parallel passage follows similar structure. The Greek text reads:

[4] Εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ ἐφείσατο ἀλλὰ σειραῖς ζόφου ταρταρώσας παρέδωκεν εἰς κρίσιν τηρουμένους, [5] καὶ ἀρχαίου κόσμου οὐκ ἐφείσατο ἀλλὰ ὄγδοον Νῶε δικαιοσύνης κήρυκα ἐφύλαξεν κατακλυσμὸν κόσμῳ ἀσεβῶν ἐπάξας, [6] καὶ πόλεις Σοδόμων καὶ Γομόρρας τεφρώσας καταστροφῇ κατέκρινεν, ὑπόδειγμα μελλόντων ἀσεβέσιν τεθεικώς... [10] μάλιστα δὲ τοὺς ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ πορευομένους καὶ κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντας.

The World English Bible provides the fuller context (2 Peter 2:1-22):

[1] But false prophets also arose among the people, as false teachers will also be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction. [2] Many will follow their immoral ways, and as a result, the way of the truth will be maligned. [3] In covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words: whose sentence now from of old doesn’t linger, and their destruction will not slumber.

[4] For if God didn’t spare angels when they sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus, and committed them to pits of darkness to be reserved for judgment; [5] and didn’t spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others, a preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood on the world of the ungodly; [6] and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, having made them an example to those who would live in an ungodly way; [7] and delivered righteous Lot, who was very distressed by the lustful life of the wicked [8] (for that righteous man dwelling among them was tormented in his righteous soul from day to day with seeing and hearing lawless deeds): [9] the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptation and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment; [10] but chiefly those who walk after the flesh in the lust of defilement and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries; [11] whereas angels, though greater in might and power, don’t bring a railing judgment against them before the Lord. [12] But these, as unreasoning creatures, born natural animals to be taken and destroyed, speaking evil in matters about which they are ignorant, will in their destroying surely be destroyed, [13] receiving the wages of unrighteousness; people who count it pleasure to revel in the daytime, spots and defects, reveling in their deceit while they feast with you; [14] having eyes full of adultery, and who can’t cease from sin; enticing unsettled souls; having a heart trained in greed; children of cursing; [15] forsaking the right way, they went astray, having followed the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of wrongdoing; [16] but he was rebuked for his own disobedience. A mute donkey spoke with a man’s voice and stopped the madness of the prophet.

[17] These are wells without water, clouds driven by a storm; for whom the blackness of darkness has been reserved forever. [18] For, uttering great swelling words of emptiness, they entice in the lusts of the flesh, by licentiousness, those who are indeed escaping from those who live in error; [19] promising them liberty, while they themselves are bondservants of corruption; for a man is brought into bondage by whoever overcomes him. [20] For if, after they have escaped the defilement of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in it and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. [21] For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. [22] But it has happened to them according to the true proverb, “The dog turns to his own vomit again,” and “the sow that has washed to wallowing in the mire.”

Peter similarly uses a judgment triad (angels, Noah’s generation, Sodom) applied to false teachers, culminating in verse 10’s dual charge of sensuality and despising authority (kyriotētos kataphronountas). The traditional reading sees both authors referencing the same Genesis 6 event in their angelic examples.

Problems with the Traditional Reading

The Grammatical Structure of Jude 7

The critical interpretive question concerns the referent of τούτοις (”to these”) in verse 7. The traditional reading requires this dative plural to refer back to the angels in verse 6, creating the comparison: “Sodom, in like manner to these [angels], committed sexual immorality.”

However, basic principles of Greek syntax render this reading problematic. The phrase τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις appears within a participial construction that modifies the compound subject Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις(”Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them”). The immediate antecedent for τούτοις is αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις, the surrounding cities just mentioned.

The sentence structure is:

Subject: Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them
Participial modifier: having committed fornication in like manner to these and having gone after other flesh
Main verb: are set forth as an example

The principle of immediate context governing interpretation requires τούτοις to refer to the nearest grammatically suitable antecedent unless contextual factors demand otherwise. Here, “the cities around them” provides a perfectly coherent referent: Sodom and Gomorrah acted “in like manner to these [surrounding cities],” all committing the same sexual transgression together.

This reading eliminates any grammatical connection between the angels’ sin in verse 6 and Sodom’s sexual immorality in verse 7. The participial phrases ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας describe what Sodom and the surrounding cities did, not what the angels did.

The Function of ὡς in Verse 7

The conjunction ὡς beginning verse 7 further supports this reading. While ὡs can introduce comparison, in context it more naturally functions to introduce another example in the sequence: “just as [God also judged] Sodom and Gomorrah...”

The structure mirrors typical triadic legal witness patterns:

• Verse 5: First witness (Israel judged)

• Verse 6: Second witness (angels judged)

• Verse 7: ὡς + third witness (Sodom judged)

The ὡς is additive and sequential rather than comparative. Jude is building a legal case through accumulated examples, not drawing parallels between the nature of different sins.

The Silence Regarding Angelic Sin

Perhaps the most telling evidence against the Genesis 6 reading is what the text does not say. Verse 6 describes the angels’ transgression with two participial phrases:

1. τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν - “those not having kept their own authority/rule”

2. ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον - “having left their own dwelling”

Notice what is absent: any sexual language whatsoever. The term ἀρχή carries the semantic range of beginning, rule, authority, or position. In this context, the angels “did not keep their assigned authority” and “left their proper dwelling/station.” This language describes positional or hierarchical rebellion, not sexual transgression.

If Jude intended to reference Genesis 6, this would have been the natural place to indicate it. Yet he provides no mention of daughters of men, no reference to the Nephilim, no hint of cross-species sexual union. The restraint is interpretively significant.

Jude’s Explicit Interpretive Framework

The most decisive evidence comes from verse 8, where Jude explicitly states the pattern he sees in verses 5-7:

Ὁμοίως μέντοι καὶ οὗτοι ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι σάρκα μὲν μιαίνουσιν, κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν, δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν.

“Likewise, nevertheless, also these, dreaming, flesh indeed defile, but authority reject, and glorious ones blaspheme.”

Jude identifies two characteristics that the false teachers share with the preceding examples:

1. They defile the flesh (σάρκα μιαίνουσιν)

2. They reject authority (κυριότητα ἀθετοῦσιν)

This is Jude’s own summary of what unifies his triad. When we read verses 5-7 through this stated framework:

• Israel (v.5): Rejected God’s authority through unbelief

• Angels (v.6): Rejected their assigned authority (their ἀρχή)

• Sodom (v.7): Rejected natural order through sexual transgression

The unifying pattern is authority rejection, with sensuality appearing as one particular manifestation in Sodom’s case. Jude states this explicitly. To make the passage primarily about sexual transgression by angels requires ignoring Jude’s own interpretive key.

The Problem of Thematic Asymmetry

If sexual transgression were the common thread connecting the angels and Sodom, we would expect thematic consistency across the triad. We do not find it:

• Israel’s sin (v.5) is unbelief (μὴ πιστεύσαντας), not sexual

• The ancient world’s sin in Peter’s parallel is ungodliness broadly (κόσμῳ ἀσεβῶν), not sexual

• Both passages culminate in charges of despising/rejecting authority

Only Sodom receives explicit sexual description. This asymmetry makes sense if authority rejection is the unifying pattern (all three examples exhibit it), but creates problems if sexual transgression is supposed to link the angels and Sodom (why would only one example clearly show it?).

The Meaning of Σαρκὸς Ἑτέρας

Lexical Considerations

The phrase σαρκὸς ἑτέρας (”other flesh”) has been central to arguments for the Genesis 6 connection. The King James Version’s rendering as “strange flesh” suggested ontological foreignness, leading interpreters to read “flesh of a different kind/species.” However, this reading imports more into ἕτερος than the term inherently carries.

Ἕτερος means “other” or “different” in the sense of “another of a different kind” (as opposed to ἄλλος, “another of the same kind”). But “different kind” does not necessarily imply “different species” or “ontologically alien.” Context must determine the nature of the difference.

Contextual Determination

The immediate context of verse 7 is Sodom and Gomorrah. Genesis 19 provides the historical referent for Sodom’s sexual sin: the men of the city demanding sexual relations with Lot’s male visitors. In this narrative context, “other flesh” most naturally refers to same-sex transgression - men pursuing men rather than women. The “otherness” consists in violating the male-female sexual order, not in crossing species boundaries.

This reading requires no importation of external tradition. It simply connects Jude’s language to the Genesis 19 narrative he explicitly references. The “other flesh” is other than what natural sexual order prescribes, not other than human nature itself.

The Translation History

The interpretive trajectory from “other” to “strange” to “different species” reveals how translation choices can drive exegesis. Modern translations vary:

• ESV: “unnatural desire”

• NASB: “strange flesh”

• NIV: “perversion”

• CSB: “unnatural desire”

The variation reflects interpretive judgment about what ἑτέρας signifies in context. The more neutral “other” or “different” allows the Genesis 19 context to determine meaning; “strange” or “alien” prejudges the question in favor of the Genesis 6 reading.

The Peter-Jude Parallel as Mutual Hermeneutical Commentary

Structural Parallels

The parallel between Jude and 2 Peter extends beyond mere similarity to constitute mutual interpretation. Both passages employ a judgment triad structure: 2 Peter uses angels (v.4), Noah’s generation (v.5), and Sodom/Gomorrah (v.6), while Jude uses Israel (v.5), angels (v.6), and Sodom/Gomorrah (v.7). Both apply these examples to contemporary false teachers, and both culminate in the same dual charge: 2 Peter identifies “sensuality and despising authority” (v.10), while Jude specifies “defile flesh and reject authority” (v.8).

The differences in ordering (which generation serves as witness, whether Israel or Noah’s generation appears) are less significant than the shared elements: both use three divine judgments to establish certainty, both apply these to contemporary false teachers, and both identify the same dual pattern of sensuality and authority rejection.

The Shared Silence

Most tellingly, both authors maintain complete restraint regarding the nature of angelic sin:

2 Peter 2:4: “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until judgment...”

Peter tells us:

• Angels sinned (ἁμαρτησάντων)

• They were confined to Tartarus

• They await final judgment

He does not tell us what they did. No Genesis 6 reference. No daughters of men. No elaboration whatsoever.

Jude 6: Provides slightly more detail (they didn’t keep their authority, they left their dwelling), but still no sexual language, no Genesis 6 connection, no elaboration of mechanism.

This shared restraint is hermeneutically significant. Both authors had every opportunity to clarify the nature of angelic transgression. Both chose not to. When two inspired writers address the same subject with parallel structure and maintain the same silence on the same detail, that silence becomes interpretive data.

The Interpretive Principle

The parallel passages function as mutual commentary:

1. Peter’s restraint confirms that elaboration of angelic sin is unnecessary for the argument

2. Jude’s explicit statement of the unifying pattern (authority rejection) provides the interpretive key for both passages

3. Both culminate in identical dual charges against false teachers

4. Neither requires or supports the Genesis 6 reading

Scripture interprets Scripture. When Peter and Jude interpret the same events with the same structure, the same application, the same restraint, and the same stated purpose, their mutual witness establishes the proper reading. The Genesis 6 connection violates this mutual interpretation by introducing elements neither author includes or requires.

The Role of Second Temple Tradition

1 Enoch and the Interpretive Tradition

The Genesis 6 reading of Jude 6 draws substantial support from the interpretive tradition preserved in 1 Enoch, particularly the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 6-16). This text elaborates Genesis 6:1-4 into an extended narrative of angelic rebellion through sexual transgression with human women, resulting in the Nephilim and precipitating divine judgment.

The connection to Jude appears strong:

• Jude 14-15 explicitly quotes 1 Enoch 1:9

• Early Christian writers frequently understood Jude 6 through the lens of Enochic tradition

• The language of angels being “kept” in chains until judgment appears in both texts

However, the question is not whether Jude was familiar with Enochic tradition, but whether that tradition is necessary for understanding Jude 6 or whether Jude’s quotation of 1 Enoch in a different context mandates reading all angelic references through Enochic angelology.

The Problem of Canonical Warrant and Sola Scriptura

The crucial hermeneutical question concerns authority and sufficiency, engaging directly with the Reformation principle of sola scriptura. Even granting that:

1. Jude knew Enochic tradition

2. Early interpreters read Jude through that tradition

3. The tradition was widespread in Second Temple Judaism

None of these facts establishes that the inspired text requires or even supports the Enochic reading. The principle of sola scriptura maintains that Scripture is sufficient for its own interpretation. Where Scripture provides clear indication of meaning (as Jude does in verse 8), external tradition cannot override internal evidence.

Furthermore, Jude’s quotation of 1 Enoch 1:9 demonstrates his willingness to cite texts explicitly when he intends to invoke them. His silence regarding Genesis 6 and his restraint in describing angelic sin become more, not less, significant given his demonstrated practice of explicit citation. Had Jude intended to invoke the Enochic interpretation of Genesis 6, he had both opportunity and established precedent for doing so. His choice not to is hermeneutically determinative.

The issue is not whether early Christians were familiar with Enochic angelology (they were), but whether that familiarity makes the tradition necessary for understanding the biblical text. Sola scriptura denies this necessity. The inspired text must be sufficient to communicate its intended meaning without requiring readers to supply content from extrabiblical sources. If the Genesis 6 connection were essential to Jude’s argument, the sufficiency of Scripture would require Jude to state it clearly. He does not.

The Distinction Between Background and Meaning

Second Temple tradition may provide background for understanding first-century Jewish thought without determining textual meaning. That Jude’s audience might have been familiar with Enochic interpretation of Genesis 6 does not establish that Jude intended to invoke that interpretation, particularly when:

1. He provides no explicit connection to Genesis 6

2. He offers his own interpretive framework (v.8) that works without the Enochic reading

3. His description of angelic sin focuses on authority/position rather than sexual transgression

4. The parallel in 2 Peter shows the same restraint

Confusing background with meaning risks subordinating canonical text to extracanonical tradition.

Theological Implications

The Nature of Judgment

The primary theological point of both passages concerns the certainty and comprehensive scope of divine judgment. God judges rebellion at every level:

• Cosmic (angels)

• Human-covenantal (Israel/Noah’s generation)

• Societal (Sodom)

The force of the argument is not “here’s what these beings did” but “rebellion has been judged at every level of created order; false teachers are not exempt.” This purpose requires no elaboration of mechanisms, only establishment of pattern.

Making the passages about the mechanics of angelic sexual transgression shifts focus away from the theological point the authors explicitly state.

Authority and Order

Both passages culminate in charges against those who reject authority. This theme unifies the examples:

• Angels who did not keep their assigned ἀρχή

• Israel who rejected God’s word through unbelief

• Sodom which violated natural order

• False teachers who despise κυριότης

The theological pattern is consistent: God establishes order, rebellion consists in rejecting that order, and judgment follows inevitably. This framework works perfectly without the Genesis 6 connection and better preserves the authors’ stated theological purpose.

Hermeneutical Method

The interpretive choice between the traditional Genesis 6 reading and the internal-coherence reading advocated here reflects broader hermeneutical commitments, particularly the Reformation principle of sola scriptura. This principle holds that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, sufficient for its own interpretation, and not dependent on extrabiblical tradition for establishing doctrine or understanding its message.

The Genesis 6 reading fundamentally violates sola scriptura by making Second Temple tradition (specifically 1 Enoch) necessary for understanding what Jude and Peter meant. If the Enochic angelology is required to grasp the authors’ intended meaning, then Scripture is not sufficient for its own interpretation. The text becomes dependent on external tradition to supply what the inspired authors allegedly assumed but did not state.

The Genesis 6 approach prioritizes:

• Extrabiblical tradition as necessary interpretive framework

• Parallelism of sin-types across examples

• Elaboration of unstated details through inference from non-canonical sources

The internal-coherence approach prioritizes:

• Scripture’s self-interpretation through stated frameworks (sola scriptura)

• Grammatical-syntactical analysis in immediate context

• Authorial restraint as interpretive data

• Parallel passages as mutual commentary

• The sufficiency of what Scripture actually says

The Reformation principle of scriptura sui ipsius interpres (Scripture is its own interpreter) applies directly here. Jude provides his own interpretive key in verse 8. Peter’s parallel passage confirms that key through shared structure and restraint. When Scripture interprets itself clearly, appealing to external tradition to override or supplement that interpretation violates the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture.

This is not merely a technical exegetical dispute but a question of authority. Do we interpret Scripture by Scripture, or do we require tradition to fill in what the text allegedly leaves unclear? The Genesis 6 reading, however ancient and widespread, makes extrabiblical tradition functionally authoritative for understanding the biblical text. The internal-coherence reading honors sola scriptura by demonstrating that the text is sufficient, clear, and self-interpreting when we attend to what the inspired authors actually wrote.

Alternative Interpretations

Generic Angelic Rebellion

If not Genesis 6, what event does Jude 6 reference? The most parsimonious answer: the original angelic rebellion described in Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:11-19 (however those passages are understood) and referenced in Jewish tradition regarding Satan and the demons.

The language of not keeping assigned position and leaving proper dwelling fits generic descriptions of prideful rebellion against divine hierarchy. No sexual component is required or suggested by the text.

Regarding the Genesis 6 narrative itself and the origin of the Nephilim, I have addressed alternative interpretations elsewhere that do not require angelic-human unions. Readers interested in a sustained analysis of the human-lineage interpretation may consult my previous work: “Reassessing the Nephilim: Human Lineage and the Sons of God” (https://www.oddxian.com/p/reassessing-the-nephilim-human-lineage). The present article focuses not on resolving Genesis 6 but on demonstrating that Jude and Peter do not require any particular resolution of that question.

The Sufficiency of Restraint

Perhaps the best approach acknowledges that neither Jude nor Peter intends to explain which angels sinned or what specifically they did. The examples function juridically, not historically. The restraint is deliberate because elaboration is unnecessary for the theological purpose.

Conclusion

The traditional identification of Jude 6 with Genesis 6:1-4 fails on multiple levels:

1. Grammatically: The phrase “in like manner to these” in verse 7 refers to the surrounding cities mentioned in that verse, not to the angels of verse 6

2. Contextually: “Other flesh” makes perfect sense as a reference to Sodom’s same-sex transgression in Genesis 19 without invoking Genesis 6

3. Structurally: The ὡς in verse 7 introduces another example in sequence, not a comparison of sin types

4. Exegetically: Jude explicitly states the unifying pattern (authority rejection) in verse 8, providing an interpretive key that works without Genesis 6

5. Hermeneutically: Both Peter and Jude maintain studied silence on angelic sin details, a shared restraint that renders elaboration through tradition both unnecessary and inappropriate

6. Theologically: The passages’ stated purpose (establishing judicial certainty against authority-rejecting sensualists) works better without the distraction of sexual mechanics

The Genesis 6 reading represents an importation of Second Temple tradition that, however historically interesting, obscures the inspired authors’ stated argument. It requires ignoring explicit textual indicators (v.8’s summary), violating principles of grammatical analysis (immediate context governs referents), and prioritizing external tradition over internal textual evidence.

Most fundamentally, the Genesis 6 interpretation violates the Reformation principle of sola scriptura. It makes extrabiblical tradition necessary for understanding what the inspired authors meant, effectively denying Scripture’s sufficiency for its own interpretation. If Jude’s meaning cannot be grasped without importing Enochic angelology, then Scripture is not sufficient. If we must supply from 1 Enoch what Jude chose not to state, then we have subordinated canonical text to extracanonical tradition.

Scripture interprets Scripture. When Jude provides his own framework for understanding his examples, when Peter’s parallel passage confirms that framework through shared structure and restraint, and when the grammar places sexual language squarely on Sodom rather than the angels, the text has interpreted itself. The extrabiblical tradition, whatever its historical interest, cannot override the biblical text’s self-testimony.

The implications extend beyond this particular exegetical question. The choice between readings reflects fundamental commitments about Scripture’s sufficiency, the role of tradition, and the principle that the clearer passages interpret the more difficult ones. In this case, verse 8 is the clear passage, and it decisively interprets verses 5-7 in a way that renders the Genesis 6 connection unnecessary, unwarranted, and ultimately incompatible with what the inspired authors actually wrote.

The principle stands: scriptura scripturae interpres. Scripture is its own interpreter. When we honor that principle by attending to what Jude and Peter actually say, the Genesis 6 connection dissolves as speculative tradition imposed upon rather than derived from the biblical text.

---

Note: This article represents independent theological research and does not reflect the views of any employing institution. Greek text follows the Nestle-Aland 28th edition. English Scripture quotations are from the World English Bible (public domain) unless otherwise noted.