The Apostate Angels of 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6

By David W. Jones

[Assistant Professor of Christian Ethics, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587]

In spite of their short length, the books of 2 Peter and Jude have historically generated a fair amount of controversy and discussion within the church. Indeed, some scholars have suggested that the letter of 2 Peter should be excluded from the canon in light of the fact that it was not included in the early canon of Marcion, the Muratorian Fragment, and was named among the antilegomena books of the Cheltenham canon. Even church fathers such as Origen, Jerome, Eusebius of Caesarea, and reformer John Calvin questioned the authenticity of 2 Peter. The canonicity of the Epistle of Jude, likewise, has been contested since it too was conspicuously left out of Marcion’s canon, the Cheltenham canon, and was included among the disputed books by Eusebius in his Historia ecclesiastica. Moreover, the Protestant giant Martin Luther put the Book of Jude at the end of his German translation of the New Testament, obviously a position of lesser importance.

Another reason why the canonicity of these two books has historically been challenged is that they refer to events and doctrines that are only scarcely mentioned elsewhere in Scripture, if at all. One of these such doctrines is the fall of the apostate angels, alluded to in 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6. This brief article will investigate this event (1) by closely examining these two verses of Scripture in an exegetical manner, (2) by analyzing the similarities and differences between these two verses in regard to their syntax, vocabulary, and grammar, and (3) by attempting, in the conclusion of this work, to identify the event in question.

The Apostate Angels of 2 Pet. 2:4

The second chapter in the second letter of the apostle Simon Peter contains one of the most stinging descriptions of the certain destruction of the false teachers who had infected the first-century church. The fourth verse of this vivid chapter begins Peter’s contention that the Lord would indeed punish the “brute beasts” (2 Pet. 2:12).

Peter started his argument in 2 Pet. 2:4 with a first-class conditional sentence, “Εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς [For if God]. .. .”[1] The fact that Peter began with a first-class conditional sentence allows one to make two important observations. First, grammatically, 2 Pet. 2:4 cannot in itself constitute a complete conditional sentence, for it lacks an apodasis. It is rather just one link in a three-part protasis that runs from verses 4 through 8. It is not until verse 9 that Peter gives his apodasis and completes his argument. Second, Peter assumed that the event to which he appealed was true. Grammarian Daniel B. Wallace wrote that “the first class condition indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument.”[2] Logic, then, suggests that Peter assumed his readers were both familiar with and accepting of the event that formed the basis of his argument in this verse, for otherwise, the case he makes with his illustration would hold little weight.

Peter continued, “ ᾿Αγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ ἐφείσατο [spared not angels having sinned]. .. .” The finite verb ἐφείσατο describes the action of the substantive θεὸς and is in the aorist tense. Peter was focusing upon the time that the aorist tense implied in order to strengthen his argument. He was saying, in effect, “If God did not spare the angels at a point in time when they sinned, neither will he spare the false teachers now.” Note that the anarthrous noun ἀγγέλων is in the genitive case, rather than in the expected accusative. This is because the verb φείδομαι usually takes a genitive. Greek scholar A. T. Robertson suggested that the reason why the noun ἀγγέλων is anarthrous is to make it emphatic, and that it may be translated “even angels.”[3] This being the case, one can conclude that Peter’s argument was not only an argument based on God’s proclivity, but also an argument from greatest to least. That is, Peter was saying, “If God did not spare even the angels [who are great] when they sinned, then He certainly will not spare the false teachers [who are least].” The fact that the adjectival participle ἁμαρτησάντων, like the verb ἐφείσατο, is in the aorist tense, strengthened Peter’s argument further by suggesting that perhaps God spared not the angels at the very moment that they sinned.[4]

Peter proceeded by expounding upon what God’s judgment entailed. He began the second half of the verse with the conjunction ἀλλά (but). This is probably a contrastive conjunction meant to show a difference between the action of the angels and the action of God. Peter wrote that God “σειραι̑ς ζόφου ταρταρώσας παρέδωκεν [sent them to Tartarus, delivered to chains]. .. .” Observe that the adverbial participle ταρταρώσας is a hapax legomenon. As with any word that occurs only once in Scripture, some investigation needs to be done in order to explore both the meaning and the significance of this word.

It is noteworthy that every major English translation of 2 Pet. 2:4 renders the word ταρταρώσας as “hell.”[5] If this is indeed a legitimate translation of the term, one is moved to question why Peter did not use a more-common word than ταρταρώσας to communicate the idea of hell. The most frequently employed term in the New Testament used to convey the image of hell is γέεννα. This word is used twelve times in the New Testament, eleven times in the Gospels, and once in the Epistle of James. It is the term that one would expect Peter to have employed in 2 Pet. 2:4, if his intention was to refer to hell. Peter was undoubtedly familiar with the term, for every time that the word was used in the Gospels it was articulated by Jesus. In all probability Peter was present on some of the occasions on which the Lord spoke of γέεννα.[6] So although Peter never used the word γέεννα himself,[7] he was surely familiar with the term. Additionally Peter could have employed the somewhat less-common word ᾅδη̑ if his intention was to refer to hell. This term is used ten times in the New Testament and was also spoken by Jesus in the presence of Peter.[8] Why then does Peter use the rare word ταρταρώσας in 2 Pet. 2:4 instead of the more common γέεννα or ᾅδης? Some scholars have sought to answer this question by concluding that ταρταρώσας should be considered equal to γέεννα.[9] Even lexicographer Joseph Henry Thayer wrote that ταρταρώσας “answers to gehenna of the Jews.”[10] This, however, does not seem to be a satisfactory conclusion in light of the fact that ταρταρώσας is used only here in the Bible, and considering that the apostle was familiar with more popular terms that he could have been employed. Presumably, Peter had a reason for selecting the vocabulary that he did. However, since ταρταρώσας is used only here in the Scriptures, extrabiblical sources must be consulted in order to determine the reason behind the apostle’s choice of this rare term.

A brief survey of the extrabiblical literature available during the first century reveals that the word “Tartarus” enjoyed widespread use both in the Greek mythologies[11] and in the Hebrew apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books.[12] An analysis of the use of the word ταρταρώσας in these extrabiblical writings may help to explain Peter’s choice of the term in 2 Pet. 2:4. Interestingly, in the majority of the instances in which the word “Tartarus” is used in both the Greek mythological accounts and in the noncanonical Hebrew books, it is used within the context of the punishment of spiritual or immortal beings. Perhaps this is why Peter penned the word ταρταρώσας in his letter, rather than the more common γέεννα or ᾅδης, for he was writing of fallen angels, not of fallen men. Γέεννα or ᾅδης refers to the realm of fallen men, whereas Tartarus is the place where fallen angels are confined. Respected theologian W. E. Vine was in agreement with this conclusion when he wrote, “Tartarus. .. is neither sheol nor hades nor hell, but the place where those angels whose special sin is referred to in that passage [2 Pet 2:4–9] are confined.”[13]

Peter, however, not only writes that God sent the sinning angels to Tartarus but also that “σειραι̑ς ζόφου. .. παρέδωκεν [He delivered them to chains of gloom].” It is important to note that there is a variant reading in this text. While some manuscripts have the rare word σειραι̑ς [chains],[14] others have the equally rare σειροις [dungeons].[15] Both words plausibly fit the context of the verse, yet clearly convey different ideas. Since the choice of either word would be a hapax legomenon, biblical usage can not help determine the correct rendering of the verse. Yet, for two important reasons it seems that σειραι̑ς is the superior reading. First, σειραι̑ς conveys an idea much closer to that conveyed by the word δεσμοι̑ς in the parallel account of the angels’ fall in Jude 6. Indeed, one commentator has written that σειραι̑ς is “no doubt a rendering of δεσμοι̑ς in Jude 5.”[16] Second, the reading with σειραι̑ς is much closer to the apocryphal descriptions of the fall of the angels than the reading with the word σειροις.[17] Peter concluded this verse by writing that the angels were “εἰς κρίσιν τηρουμένους [being kept for judgment].” That the participle τηρουμένου̑ is in the present tense emphasizes the fact that the angels whom God judged are still in Tartarus. The preposition εἰς is a preposition of purpose. This preposition along with τηρουμένους, an adverbial participle of purpose, reveals that the reason why the angels are being kept in Tartarus is that they are awaiting judgment. Thayer suggested the word κρίσιν here may even be translated “sentence of condemnation, damnatory judgment, [or] condemnation and punishment.”[18]

The Apostate Angels of Jude 6

When Jude, the brother of James and half-brother of Jesus, began to write the short epistle that now bears his name, his intent was to write to his readers about the salvation that they shared in common (cf. Jude 3). However, due to the fact that heretical teachers had slipped into the church, Jude found it necessary to write and warn his readers about the false teachers who were in their midst. In his letter Jude argued against the false teachers by likening them to several historical examples of apostates whom God had punished in recorded biblical history.

Similar to 2 Pet. 2:4, Jude 6 is an account of how God dealt with certain angels who had sinned. Jude began by writing, “ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτω̑ν ἀρχὴν [‘And angels who did not keep their origin’].. . .” Note that the first word in the verse, ἀγγέλους, is in the accusative case, thus making it the direct object of the verb τετήρηκεν that does not occur until the end of the verse. This emphatic positioning of the direct object shows that Jude’s focus was not upon God’s judgment, but rather upon the angels’ sin. The connective conjunction τε hints at the fact that the angels are just one example of many in Jude’s train of thought that runs from verses 5 through 7. Τηρήσαντας is an adjectival participle, and is a consummative aorist that is “used to stress the cessation of an act or state.”[19] The state that the angels have ceased to keep is τὴν ἑαυτω̑ν ἀρχὴν. The accusative noun ἀρχὴν, serving here as the direct object of τηρήσαντας, is a difficult word to translate. The majority of the times that the word ἀρχή, appears in the New Testament it is rendered “beginning”; however, this term can also be translated “dominion,” “power,” or some other such word that conveys the idea of authority.[20] Indeed, most popular English translations have understood the occurrence of ἀρχὴν in Jude 6 to mean authority.[21] Rendering ἀρχὴν as authority in Jude 6, however, is questionable in light of the fact that every time that ἀρχή is used to mean authority in the New Testament it is coupled with the word ἐξουσία,[22] a term foreign to Jude 6. Taking this into account, one should probably best understand the phrase “τὴν ἑαυτω̑ν ἀρχὴν” to refer to the angels’ beginning—that is, their sacred creation. Theologian Augustus Strong agreed with this conclusion when he wrote that “ἀρχὴν seems here [in Jude 6] to mean their [i.e., the angels’] beginning in holy character, rather than their original Lordship or dominion.”[23]

Jude continued to describe the angels’ sin by writing “ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον [‘but left their own dwelling’].. . .” The contrastive conjunction ἀλλά is meant to contrast what the angels did not do—that is, keep their holy origin—with what they did do: leave their own dwelling. The adjectival participle ἀπολιπόντας is a constative aorist, communicating the idea that the angels left their own dwelling at a point in time. ᾿Απολιπόντας is a form of the word ἀπολείπω, which is a relatively rare word in the New Testament, occurring only seven times. While it is usually translated “leave,” lexicographer G. Abbot-Smith suggests that the word may be better translated “to desert” or “to abandon.”[24] The implication being that the angels not only left their dwelling, but also that they willingly abandoned it. A survey of the use of ἀπολείπω in other New Testament books seems to support the conclusion that the word implies a willful leaving.[25] That which the angels left is said by Jude to be their οἰκητήριον. This is also a rare term in the New Testament, used only here and in 2 Cor. 5:2. The Apostle Paul used this word when writing to the Corinthians in reference to believers’ heavenly bodies—that is, the proper dwelling place for human spirits. By implication, then, that which the angels abandoned was their proper dwelling place, which is heaven. Indeed, after a study of the uses of οἰκητήριον both in ancient Greek extrabiblical sources and in the apocryphal books, theologian Gerhard Kittel concluded that “οἰκητήριον is thus used especially for the seat of the angels in heaven.”[26]

After identifying the angels’ sin in the first half of the verse, Jude described God’s punishment of the angels for their evil deeds in the second half of the verse. He began by writing “δεσμοι̑ς ἀῒδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν [‘He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness’].. . .” Note that the finite verb τετήρηκεν is in the perfect tense. Wallace has classified τετήρηκεν as a consummative perfect, which is “used to emphasize the completed action of a past action or process from which a present state emerges.”[27] In light of Jude’s stated purpose, however, this classification of the verb seems tenuous, at best. Recall that Jude’s intention, unlike Peter’s, was not to emphasize God’s past judgment, but rather to equate the character of the present-day false teachers with that of the fallen angels. With this fact in mind, one may more reasonably identify τετήρηκεν as an intensive perfect, as opposed to a consummative perfect. Even Wallace wrote in his grammar that an intensive perfect “may be used to emphasize the results or present state produced by a past action.”[28] Jude, then, by the use of an intensive perfect, along with an argument of simile, describes the false teachers, along with the fallen angels, as being in a current state of judgment. Jude continued writing that part of God’s judgment was to keep the sinning angels δεσμοι̑ς ἀῒδίοις. While δεσμοι̑ς is a common New Testament word for “bonds” or “chains,” ἀῒδίοις is a rare term, used only here and in Rom 1:20, where Paul wrote of God’s power being eternal. Strong suggests that ἀῒδίοις conveys “the unrealizable conception of endless time,”[29] and Kittel writes that the word means “to be without beginning or end.”[30] In either case, Jude made it clear that God’s punishment for apostasy is both severe and permanent.

Jude finished this verse writing that God has bound the sinning angels “εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας [‘for judgment of the great day’].” Note that μεγάλης ἡμέρας is a rare, anarthrous, adjective-noun construction,[31] and is likely a reference to the day of divine judgment. This is significant, considering that the phrase μεγάλης ἡμέρας was rarely used in the New Testament to describe the eschatological day of divine judgment, only here and in Rev 6:17, but was frequently used in the apocryphal literature to describe the same day. This has prompted some scholars to suggest that Jude borrowed the phrase from the Book of 1 Enoch, which is entirely possible, since Jude clearly quotes the Book of 1 Enoch elsewhere in his letter (e.g., Jude 14–15).[32]

A Comparison and Contrast of 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6

When one is exegeting two parallel verses, it is not only important to study each verse individually but also to compare the Scriptures with one another. There are at least three areas that should be investigated when making this comparison: syntax, vocabulary, and grammar.[33] As has already been alluded to earlier in this work, the individual authors of 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6 had very different purposes for employing the example of the fallen angels in their respective letters. Peter, it was pointed out, by using a conditional sentence, was building an evidence-inference type argument against the false teachers based upon the proclivity of God to judge apostates.[34] Jude, on the other hand, intended to warn his readers about the false teachers by constructing an argument of simile, likening the false teachers of his day with the judged angels of long ago. These two differing purposes had a great impact upon the syntax of the individual verses. In fact, structurally speaking, 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6 have little, if anything, in common.

The most obvious example that illustrates the vast difference between the syntax of these two verses is the way in which each author begins his verse. Indeed, Jude, wanting to emphasize the character of the sinning angels, began by writing “ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτω̑ν ἀρχὴν [‘And angels who did not keep their origin’].. . .” On account of these opening words, the reader’s attention is immediately drawn to the angels and their sin. In fact, Jude spent more time describing the angels’ sin in this verse than he did writing of God’s judgment. Peter, however, began not writing about the fall of the angels, but about God. Peter’s first four words, “Εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς [‘For if God’],. . .” made it difficult for the recipients of his letter to miss his focus upon God and divine judgment.

Unlike the contrasting syntax between 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6, the vocabulary of these two verses is quite similar. Indeed, the similar vocabulary between these two verses has led some to question whether or not one of the authors may have used the other as a primary source in writing his own letter. For example, both Peter and Jude used the word ἄγγελος. This would not seem strange except that both authors used this term to identify fallen angels. Of the 176 times that ἄγγελος is used in the New Testament, there are only six univocal examples of the term being used to refer to fallen angels.[35] Yet, on these occasions, ἄγγελος is always used in conjunction with the term “Satan,” or a synonym for Satan, except in 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6. The common New Testament word for a fallen angel is δαιμόνιον, which occurs some sixty times. That neither Peter nor Jude employed this term, but rather used the word ἄγγελος, apart from the term “Satan,” to refer to fallen angels, is perhaps telling. Another example of the similar vocabulary between these two verses is the use of the rare word ζόφος. Outside of these two books this term is only employed three times in Scripture. Even though Peter and Jude were presumably writing about the same event, it seems unlikely that both authors would use the same exact rare word. The use of such rare vocabulary by both Peter and Jude, along with the obscurity of the event in question, leads one to conclude that one of these authors likely did use the other when writing his own letter.[36]

Although much of the vocabulary between these two verses is identical, there are a few noteworthy differences that require investigation. For example, Jude used the verb τετήρηκεν to communicate that God has kept the angels in chains, whereas Peter employed the term παρέδωκεν to say that God has delivered the angels to chains. This difference does not present a problem, though, for both words convey a similar action, and Jude’s use of τετήρηκεν can probably be explained as a word play on the term τηρήσαντας, a word that he had used previously to describe the angels’ sin. A second difference in terminology between these two verses worth investigating is that while Jude uses the fairly common word δεσμοι̑ς to identify the chains with which the angels had been bound, Peter uses the hapax legomenon σειραι̑ς, which was discussed previously. This dissimilarity in vocabulary, however, does not jeopardize the analogous relationship between these two verses since the two words in question are synonyms, and considering that Peter was “fond of using rare words instead of the more commonplace.”[37]

A brief survey of 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6 reveals that the grammar present in these two verses is almost as similar as the vocabulary. Perhaps the most obvious grammatical correlation between these two verses is that both authors make frequent use of participles. Peter uses three participles in his short verse, while Jude uses two. Considering that participles only occur at a rate of about one in every twenty-one words in the New Testament, this is an extremely high number of participles when describing the fall of the angels. Not only is this additional proof that one of these verses is dependent upon the other, but also it helps to explain why neither author gave many details regarding the identity of the exact sin in question; that is, both authors were simply viewing the fall of the angels as a snapshot “without regard for the internal make-up of the occurrence.”[38] Another example of grammatical similarity between these two verses is that when both authors wrote of the ἄγγελοι, the noun is anarthrous. This is probably due to the fact that if the definite article were present, the readers of these epistles may have mistaken the noun as being collective, referring to all of the angels rather than to just the fallen angels.

Conclusion

With all of the above exegesis and analysis completed, there still remains at least one unanswered question concerning 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6—that is, the question of the identity of the event being referenced in these two Scriptures. While it is clear that both Peter and Jude have cited a certain angelic fall, neither author explains when this event happened or what it entailed. Certainly it would be helpful to the modern reader to be able to identify the obscure event in question, for it is difficult to appreciate the strength of the authors’ respective arguments without knowledge of the happenings to which they appeal.

The reader is presented with three possible options as to the identification of the event being referenced in 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6. First, the angelic fall cited by both Peter and Jude may be an incident that is not recorded within the pages of Scripture. This does not seem likely, however, for as was previously discussed, when the Apostle Peter wrote of this angelic fall, he did so in the protasis of a first-class conditional sentence. By structuring his argument in this way, Peter was implying that his readers knew of the event to which he was referring, and that they accepted it as true. It seems unlikely that they would accept the truthfulness of such an obscure teaching if it were not already a canonical doctrine, or at least so well known by the early church that it could still be easily identified today. A second possible solution to the identity of the event in question is that both Peter and Jude were referring to the great angelic fall that presumably occurred when Satan fell from heaven (cf. Isa. 14:12–21; Ezek. 28:12–17; Luke 10:18; Rev. 12:4). This, too, seems to be an unlikely conclusion, for the angels described by Peter and Jude are clearly said to be in chains of darkness awaiting the Lord’s judgment. The Scriptures present the angels who fell with Satan as active and free both to roam about the earth and to tempt mankind.[39] The third and final possibility is that fallen angels referred to in 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6 may be the “sons of God” who were judged for cohabiting with the daughters of men in Gen 6:1–4. This option, which has been the historical interpretation of 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6 embraced by the church, seems to be the best view for several reasons. First, this is the only scriptural possibility that satisfies both the grammatical and contextual requirements of 2 Peter and Jude. Second, all of the historical examples appealed to by both Peter and Jude in their respective books come from the Pentateuch, most of which occur in the Book of Genesis.[40] Third, Jude’s account of the angelic fall seems to be a parallel summary of the angelic fall recorded 1 Enoch 6, which is surely an elaboration of the Gen. 6:1–4 account. Considering the fact that Jude quotes 1 En. 1:9 nearly verbatim in Jude 14–15, the connection between Jude 6, 1 Enoch 6, and Gen. 6:1–4 seems even more likely. Fourth, Jude 7 implies that the sin that prompted the angelic fall in question was a sexual sin that involved the pursuit of “unnatural desires.” The fall of the sons of God in Gen. 6:1–4 is the only scriptural fall that potentially meets this requirement. With all of the exegesis, analysis, and possibilities taken into account, then, it seems best to conclude that the angelic fall of 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6 is indeed the same as the fall of the “sons of God” recorded in Gen 6:1–4. This connection, however, is less than obvious, ensuring that the books of 2 Peter and Jude will continue, as always, to spark controversy and discussion within the church.

Notes

1. It must be noted that not all scholars agree that 2 Pet. 2:4 begins with a first-class conditional sentence. Randolph O. Yeager identifies this as a second-class, contrary-to-fact, sentence in his exegetical work, The Renaissance New Testament, vol. 17 (Gretna, LA: Pelican, 1985), 234. This, however, seems unlikely in light of the fact that the verse contains the negative οὐκ, which points to a first-class conditional sentence, rather than the negative μή, which would be expected in a second-class sentence. Cf. A T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1934), 1011, 1016. Note also that the apodosis of this sentence in 2 Pet. 2:9 lacks the particle ἄν that would likewise be expected in a second-class conditional sentence.
2. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 690.
3. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 6 (Nashville: Broadman, 1933), 162.
4. Wallace writes that “when the aorist participle is related to an aorist main verb, the participle will often be contemporaneous. .. to the main verb.” Wallace, Greek Grammar, 624.
5. English translations that render ταρταρώσας as “hell” include: KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NLT, TNIV, NCV, CEV, ISV, and ASV. Of the more than fifty English translations surveyed by the author, only the HCSB renders ταρταρώσας with the English transliteration “Tartarus.”
6. For example, Peter was probably present when Jesus spoke of γέεννα during the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Matt. 5:29–30).
7. Unless, of course, one holds to the theory that Peter was either the author or dictator of the Gospel of Mark.
8. Cf. Matt. 16:18.
9. David Lyle Jeffery concludes that “Tartarus. .. is the Greek equivalent of Gehenna.” David Lyle Jeffery, A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 341. And even the respected theologian John F. Walvoord wrote that “the Greek word Tartarus is found in 2 Peter 2:4. .. and [is] considered equivalent to Gehenna.” John F. Walvoord, “Chapter Title,” in Four Views on Hell, ed. William Crockett (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 19.
10. Joseph Henry Thayer, The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1981), 615.
11. An example comes from Homer’s Iliad. On one occasion when Zeus, the king of the gods, was making a speech from Mount Olympus to his fellow immortals about the consequences of betrayal he said, “I shall take him and dash him down to the murk of Tartaros [sic], far below, where the uttermost depth of the pit lies.” Homer, The Iliad, 8.13, trans. Richard Lattimore, The Iliad of Homer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 182.
12. Cf. 1 Enoch 2:20; Revelation of Esdras, Gospel of Thomas 32; Book of Jubilees 5:243; 7:248; 22:21; 24:27; Apocalypse of Baruch 56:10–13.
13. W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 213.
14. Including the Majority Text, Codices Cyprus, Porphyrianus, and Athous Laurae, most important copies of the Vulgate, the majority of lectionaries, and Bodmer Papyrus (¸72), the earliest known copy of 2 Peter. Cf. textual apparatus in Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, eds., The Greek New Testament, 3d ed. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1983), 808.
15. Including Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Ephraemi. Codex Sinaiticus has the reading σιροις, which is probably a misspelling of σειροις. Cf. textual apparatus in Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoules, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce Metzger, eds., Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed. (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993), 610.
16. R. H. Strachan, 2 Peter, The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 134.
17. The Siriac Apocalypse of Baruch lvi. 12–13 reads, “And some of them came down to earth and had intercourse with women. And those who did so then were tormented in chains.” The Apocryphal Old Testament, trans. Hedley Fredrick Davis Sparks (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), 876. The Book of Enoch, liv. 4–5, reads, “And I asked the angel of peace who went with me, saying: ‘For whom are these chains being prepared?’ And he said unto me: ‘These are being prepared for the hosts of Azazel, so that they may take them and cast them into the abyss of complete condemnation.” The Book of Enoch, trans. Robert Henry Charles (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912), 105–6. The apocryphal book The Apocalypse of Peter also represents fallen angels as being in chains. Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude, The Tyndale New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 110. For a contrary opinion, see Thomas R. Schreiner’s commentary on 2 Peter in which he prefers σειροι̑. Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2003), 337.
18. Thayer, The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, 361.
19. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 559.
20. For example, the word ἀρχή occurs fifty-six times in the New Testament and is translated “beginning” forty times in the King James Version and thirty-one times in the New International Version.
21. For example, both the NKJV and NASB render ἀρχήν “domain,” while the NIV and ESV use “authority.”
22. Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 482.
23. Augustus Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 1993), 450.
24. G. Abbot-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950), 52.
25. Cf. 2 Tim. 4:13, 20; Titus 1:5.
26. TDNT, 5, 155.
27. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 577.
28. Ibid.
29. Strong, Systematic Theology, 1046.
30. TDNT, 1, 482.
31. This type of construction occurs in only about one-fourth of all adjective-noun constructions. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 311.
32. The phrase μεγάλης ἡμέρας is also used in Acts 2:20, but is a quotation from the Old Testament Book of Joel (2:31).
33. For example, cf. Charles Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1946), 329.
34. Cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 683, for an excellent discussion of the use of a conditional sentence in this type of argument.
35. Cf. Matt. 12:41; 2 Cor. 11:14; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6; Rev. 12:7, 9.
36. There are, in fact, four logical possibilities that could explain the similarity between the vocabulary of these two verses. First, the same author may have written both verses. This, however, seems unlikely since both books are canonical and claim independent authorship. Second, there may have been an independent third source on which both Peter and Jude relied. This, too, however seems unlikely, for if a third source existed that was so well known as to be used by both Peter and Jude, it is suspect that it did not survive. Third, Jude may have relied on the Book of 2 Peter when writing his letter. This also seems to be an unlikely solution, though, for if the Book of 2 Peter existed before the Book of Jude, it is not likely that such a similar book (Jude) written by one who was not an apostle, would have survived. Fourth, Peter may have relied on the Book of Jude when writing his letter. This is the better solution for two reasons: (1) Jude is the shorter book; and (2) Jude cites apocryphal books whereas Peter does not. It is more likely that the borrowing author would expand the source, not shorten it. Also, he would leave out citations from questionable sources in his work, not add them to it.
37. Strachan, 2 Peter, 134.
38. B. M. Fanning describing adjectival participles in Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 97.
39. Cf. 1 Tim. 4:1.
40. For example, Peter refers to the great Flood (2 Pet. 2:7–9), the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Pet. 2:6), and the error of Balaam (2 Pet. 2:15). Jude cites the Exodus event (Jude 5), the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 7), the death of Moses (Jude 9), the error of Cain (Jude 11), the error of Balaam (Jude 11), the rebellion of Korah (Jude 11), the example of Enoch (Jude 14), and Adam (Jude 14). Note also that Peter seems to be citing events in chronological canonical order. If this is the case, then the angelic fall to which he refers must be a fall that occurred sometime in Scripture before Noah’s Flood.