The Book of Enoch's Influence on the New Testament (Pt 5)

In the last part we looked at what Jude had to say about the judgment of the angels in chains and now I turn the attention to 2 Peter 2:4-11

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 the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked...; then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord. (2 Peter 2:4-11 ESV)

As we found in Jude, we have angels who sinned and were cast in chains awaiting judgment, followed by a mention of Noah, which reveals to us that the timing of this sinning of the angels was prior to the flood, and this is then followed by again mentioning a connection with Sodom’s destruction, and he also connects that to the lust of defiling passion and despising of authority in his own time.

While this section is usually understood by scholars as borrowing from the Jude passage, note that Peter adds a bit more to it than Jude, and that extra information he mentioned adds even more to the obvious connection between this verse and the Book of Enoch as his source.

The Book of Enoch's Influence on the New Testament (Pt 1)

I would like to step outside of the Bible in order to step back into the Bible - well sort of something like that. I’d like to start by stating these basic principles that I believe most everyone would agree with. The Bible was written by an ancient people of a different time, culture and mentality than us. We know and understand that there are many things we struggle to understand in the scriptures because of this fact. And because of this, we take to the study of ancient writings, people and times. But, as we know, not everyone does this sadly.

The battle continues over the opinions on the creation account and the book of Genesis. Studies in the writings from the surrounding nations at the time period of the writing of Genesis give scholars insight into the types of writing styles and language use for the period. Through this, alternative meanings can be discovered for words we thought we understood already.

The same principle is applied to our study of Scripture elsewhere - we have to understand the culture and it’s use of phrases, idioms and terminology, in order to best understand what was written in Scripture at the time.

I wish to take a look at one piece of influential literature, an ancient writing that you have probably at least heard of its name - the Book of Enoch. I hope to show you how this writing, which was lost or ignored by the church for nearly two thousand years, was actually a key influential writing that had a big impact upon our New Testament Scriptures.

Now, when it comes to the discussion of extra-biblical literature like this, people tend to have different reactions. Mention something like the Apocrypha to a Protestant - their instinct is to raise their fists in preparation for a fight. When you bring up Jewish writings that come from the biblical period, people either simply ignore or dismiss them as useless, or simply deny they contain any truth at all, and think instead that they contain error and myth.

We may hold to inspiration of Scripture, and we believe all of Scripture is true, but such a view does not require that we view everything outside the Scripture as necessarily false. Some people do exactly that, particularly when it comes to other scripture-like material from days of old. “If it was true, why did the early church not include it in the canon?” some may ask.

Review: The Unseen Realm - Michael S. Heiser

The Unseen Realm by Michael S. Heiser
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

When it comes to the topic of the divine council and the unseen realm stuff, I guess I kind of felt a good majority of people already had a general grasp on it. About a year ago I was given the opportunity to preach at our church and I spoke on some basics of the divine council view (view sermon here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV9P_...), and found out that the understanding was nowhere near as common as I guess I thought it was.

A month or so later I was asked if I had checked out Michael Heiser's stuff, of whom I had never heard of, and was glad to see I was on a lot of the same paths that he was. So, when I heard of this book coming out, I HAD to get it. It was everything I hoped it would be and MORE.

Review: The Sons of God and the Nephilim - Tim Chaffey

The Sons of God and the Nephilim by Tim Chaffey

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



Another great and well-researched book on the topic of Genesis 6. I just previously finished Van Dorn's volume on the topic, Giants: Sons of the God which I found to be more in-depth and exhaustive in ways, but I still found Chaffey's work to add additional information to the discussion.

As expected, he lists the alternate views, and then disassembles them by showing their weaknesses. In the end, only the fallen angel view can match all of the criteria of original language, other use in scripture, as well as other historical writings. The historical writings sections had some pieces I was unfamiliar with too, which was nice to see.

In both this and Van Dorn's book, they go the extra mile to show that there is a better than good possibility that God had his people on a mission to wipe out this giant threat, as is evident from the battles He sent them on. If this is true (and evidence seems to point that way), then it is a game changer when it comes to understanding the OT and all that was happening as far as the people being sent to wipe out whole people groups.

I give this book two thumbs up as a great starting point for the discussion of Gen. 6, the Sons of God and the Nephilim.

View all my reviews
 

The Book of Enoch (Pt 8) - Angels & Objections (Pt 2)

This week I purchased a copy of The Genesis Debate: Persistent Question about Creation and the Flood for the sole purpose of reading debate section nine between F.B. Huey, Jr. and John H. Walton on "Are the 'Sons of God' in Genesis 6 Angels?" but in having it will be much interested in many of the other topics discussed.

I immediately jump into reading the John H. Walton section who took the negative position on the discussion, hoping to find some additional theological objections to the angels view of Genesis 6. Unfortunately, this book has proved to be of little to no use in my quest on this topic. However, I will share what Walton does discuss.

He starts by laying out the three basic views that are associated with this discussion (see my previous post for a breakdown of them again), and he states his adherence to the position that the "sons of God" were rulers or princes, and the daughters of men simply the commoners. I breezed over this view in part 7 because it was basically thrown out by the book I was quoting from, as the least substantiated position.

He says he is setting out to "indicate the weaknesses in that (angels) position" and will then "proceed to a defense of position three," (the rulers/prince position). He begins by setting out to establish the principal defenses of the angel view, first quoting from U. Cassuto's "The Episode of the Sons of God and the Daughters of Man" from his book Biblical and Oriental Studies:

Firstly it is impossible that the words benoth ha'adam [daughters of man] in verse 2 should be used in a different sense from that which they have in verse 1 (ha'adam...ubenoth)[man began to multiply and daughters were born...]; and since in verse 1 the human species as a whole is certainly referred to, it cannot be doubted that in verse 2 it is human beings in general that are intended. Since, moreover, the expression bene ha'elohim [sons of God] is employed in antithesis to benoth ha'adam [daughters of man], it is clear that the former pertains to beings outside the human sphere. Secondly, wherever bene (ha)'elohim or bene'elim [literally 'sons of Gods'] occurs (Psalm 29:1; 89:7 [Eng. 6]; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; also Deuteronomy 32:8 according to the text of the Septuagint) angels are referred to. When, therefore, we find in our section the expression bene ha'elohim without any explanatory addition, we have no right to attribute to it a connotation other than that which it normally has in the Bible.

Maybe you are not as dense as me, but I had to re-read that quote about three times or so before it really sunk in what was being so eloquently said. In summary, he is saying the two terms are set against each other to represent two different "types" of beings, not just two different "classes" of humans. He then says that in all of the other places the terms are used it is clearly in reference to angels, and therefore we have no exegetical reason to interpret the term differently in this one verse simply because no clear cut mention of angels is present. To my knowledge, this is one of the foundational and basic exegetical/interpretation principals of interpretation...let the Bible interpret itself. If the Bible defines a term in one place and then uses it in multiple other places, we can easily assume it has the same meaning. Well, surprisingly, Walton takes such an application of interpretation with a grain of salt:

The treatment of the phrase "sons of God" in the history of interpretation provides us with a good example of the potential that exists for the misuse of lexical data. (Now, catch this - JM) It is true that the phrase "sons of God" refers to angels every time that it is used in the Old Testament, but what is the significance of that piece of information? (emphasis mine - JM)

So, he admits that every other place in scripture it does means angels, but that such a fact has no bearing on its use here in Genesis 6. Wow, I find such a statement to be shockingly ridiculous both logically and biblically. His defense of such a statement is simply because "that phrase only occurs three times in the form that occurs in Genesis 6" and that "This makes for a very small lexical base and cannot be considered sufficient to make broad sweeping statements about exclusiveness in the semantic range of the phrase." So, because it is used consistently to means angels in the other three times it is used, that has no bearing on the fourth use of it, simply because it is only three other times being defined. Three or three hundred times, how can that make a difference? If it is clearly defined the all other cases, why would we even try to assume it to be different in the fourth case, especially when there is nothing in the text of Genesis 6 to imply it should be interpreted differently?

As we have previously pointed out, the evidence from other Jewish writings, from the understanding of it in history, from the quotes referencing it in the NT, this angel view is the prominent interpretation, and I personally still see no reason why so much trouble is being made to dismiss it. A question that is likewise brought up in the defense of the angel position by Walton's opponent in this book, F.B. Huey, Jr. In his section he quotes from another writer who makes this comment about interpretations of this section by liberal and conservative scholars:

Liberal scholars who usually are associated with denial of the supernatural generally accept Genesis 6:1-4 as an account of a liaison between divine beings and humans, whereas conservative scholars, who believe implicitly in angels, are the ones who tend to disallow any such import to this passage.

I find this to be the case in most conservative churches that I attend. They openly believe in angels, yet as we have seen, seek to dismiss this position in Genesis 6. But why? He continues on by quoting another author, W.A. Van Gemeren, who points out this inconsistency with these unsettling questions:

Why does the theology in which creation, miracles, the miraculous birth and resurrection of Jesus have a place, prefer a rational explanation of Genesis 6:1-4?...Normally, the goal of interpretation has been the elucidation of the word of God so the community of faith may know what to believe and what to do. When, however, the object of interpretation becomes the removal of apparent obstacles to which the passage may give rise, reinterpretation is introduced, and one may wonder how this differs from demythologization...Is the difficulty so great that it must be removed as something offensive? Is it possible that theology has taken the place of exegesis? ("The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 (An Example of Evangelical Demythologization?)," Westminster Theological Journal 43 (Spring 1981) 320.

In short he is asking what the big deal is that we have to reinterpret a verse rather than accept the interpretation as the Bible lays it out? Has our theological and belief systems overthrown proper exegesis/interpretation of the text?

Getting back to Walton's opposing position he goes on to say "it must be admitted that from a theoretical point of view it is still possible that the phrase "sons of God" was limited to angels in ancient Hebrew idiom." But of course follows by saying though, that the narrow range of examples cannot give us conclusive evidence. He then goes through a couple other examples where the individual words (mainly 'elohim) are used to refer to humans, implying that since it can be used to speak of human judges, that it weakens the position that it must always be referring to supernatural beings. He admits a bit of the weakness of this part of his argument by stating "This is of course speculative, but the main point is that there is no sound basis for placing strict limitations on the semantic range of the phrase "sons of God".

In his conclusion on this section of the term, he says "Our conclusion is that there is no element of the text that requires that the sons of God be understood as angels, although we would admit that understanding as one of the possible readings of the text if no other suitable or preferable explanation can be found (emphasis mine - JM). Since when do we interpret the texts based on our "preferable" views? Is that why there is such a fuss...because the angel view is not preferred by some? I still ask WHY?

This is a similar argument that we find in the discussion of eschatology, when one side says that the word "generation" is always used referring to the current, living generation of people hearing the message, except when it comes to Jesus' words in Matthew 24 for example, where it obviously has to mean something totally different than a reference to his generation being spoken to...but hey, that is a topic for another day ;-]

I must say the second part of his discussion, attacking the historical understanding of the term, gives even less insight or help on the matter. Built upon his idea that 'elohim can refer to human judges/kings, he starts a comparison of the attributes revealed in the "well-known Gilgamesh epic" to show that this ancient poem about the fictitious king displays attributes similar those of the Nephilim mentioned in Gen. 6. This basically implies that such terminology was common in pagan literature, and could easily have been likewise used in biblical literature. His concluding points on this are:

I have attempted to demonstrate that each element of Genesis 6:1-4, however vague it may be, has a parallel of sorts in the Gilgamesh epic, as follows: (1) Gilgamesh qualifies as a "son of God" by virtue of titulary; (2) as a hero of old he personifies the biblical category of gibborim [hero], and as a giant he qualifies as one of the nephilim (if such an understanding of nephilim is considered accurate); (3) through the exercise of jus primae noctis [law of the first night] Gilgamesh takes wives (whichever ones he wants), and even in the Gilgamesh epic this is used to characterize his unjust behavior; (4) Gilgamesh is frustrated in his attempts to gain immortality.

He admits that the parallel in itself is not the point, but that this story shows the ancient royal motifs that may have been influential in the Genesis writer's use of terms.

This interpretation makes sense of the elements of Genesis 6:1-4 in the context of its ancient Near Eastern background. The fact that it fits does not of course prove that it is right. In the case of this difficult passage, however, anything that even fits is worthy of consideration.

A couple questions on his last statement there: (1) Why is this passage so difficult in light of the other clear uses in Scripture? in History? in other Jewish writings? (2) Why go to such extremes to rationale another view as "worthy of consideration" to begin with...I still wonder that.
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
 

---

The Book of Enoch (Pt 7) - The Angels of Jude

In continuing to look at the controversial discussion on angels and women procreating in Genesis 6, as laid out in detail in the book of Enoch and elsewhere, I wish to share a bit of modern scholarship on the topic from the recently released Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, from the discussion of the book of Jude. This book breaks down the verses and discusses them from various angles; NT Context, OT Context, and Jewish Context (with others). While this section is quite lengthy, I will try to compact it some, but this post will be a bit more lengthy than previous posts, so as to not lose the content.

In this section on Jude, they also tie it in and deal somewhat with a similar mention in 2 Peter:

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 the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2 Peter 2:4-5)

Notice, again, the connection between the angels sinning followed by mention of Noah that I mentioned in previous articles. Then, in moving to Jude.

And the angels that did not keep within their original authority, but abandoned their proper sphere, he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for the Judgment of the Great Day. And S’dom, ‘Amora and the surrounding cities, following a pattern like theirs, committing sexual sins and perversions, lie exposed as a warning of the everlasting fire awaiting those who must undergo punishment. (Jude 6-7 CJB)

The following are excerpts from the author on the topic:

The most plausible interpretation of Jude 4 is that the author has in mind ancient Jewish prophecies found in the Scriptures, for these are the examples that he proceeds to list in vv. 5-7, 11...These ancient prophecies may, in Jude's mind, include prophetic words from 1 Enoch.

Under the assumption that the OT background to Jude 6 is Gen. 6:1-4, we must ask what the latter passage means. There have been three primary interpretations: (1) the "sons of God" are angels who crossed species lines and married human women, producing "Nephilim" who were "heroes of old, men of renown" (Gen. 6:4); (2) the "sons of God" were kings, judges and other members of aristocratic nobility who displayed their own greatness by indulging in polygamy and creating harems; (3) the "sons of God" were human males from the putatively godly line of Seth who freely married women from ungodly lines.

Nowadays the majority of interpreters from across the theological spectrum accept the angel interpretation...This interpretation is assumed by the LXX, and supported by most early Jewish exegesis, though not quite all, as well as by all the earliest church fathers and some later ones (including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Lactantius), but not by some later fathers (Chrysostom, Augustine, Theodoret). "Sons of God" (in the plural) refers elsewhere in the OT to angels - certainly so in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7, and probably so in Ps. 29:1; 89:7; Dan. 3:25 (where bar-'elahin underlies the traditional rendering "mighty ones" or the like found in most English versions). Yet the interpretation does not easily fit the context of the flood, since that judgment is pronounced against humanity. (I fail to see the issue here personally...if the marriage produced wicked offspring, mixing the blood of species, and if the angels and their offspring taught mankind all kinds of sinful practices, weaponry, war, astrology, etc. then all of mankind has been tainted by this wickedness, and therefore mankind needed cleansed...save Noah and his family who had not been tainted by this union and its teachings - JM). According to Jesus, angels do not marry (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25) (do not marry each other...that is about the most you can take from this reference by Jesus, that the common practice of marriage is a covenant that angels do not engage in, in their spiritual existence - since he is relating it to man in his post-resurrected state. However, this does not in anyway make a case for the inability of angels to marry or procreate with other species, which is the case in Gen 6 - JM), and although excellent efforts have been undertaken to avoid this and other objections to the angel interpretation, the niggle make it less than a sure thing.

I will skip the majority of the refutation on the authors part of the view that "sons of God" refers to kings, nobles, and other aristocrats, since personally I have found this to be a less often used view in this discussion. But in brief, his conclusion to the refutations is:

...there is no linguistic warrant outside of Gen. 6:1-4 for supposing that "sons of God" refers to "divine kings" or, more generally, to aristocratic ruling figures, wheras the reading of "angels" has a long track record, including the LXX (Septuagint - JM).

He then continues in the sons of Seth view:

The view that "sons of God" refers to the line of Seth, while daughters of human beings" refers to non-Sethian women, not only suffers from an absence of philological support but also has few elements in its favor compared with the "diving kings" view.

To me it seems like a pretty big leap to say the sons of Seth and the ungodly human marriage would produce such notable and giant offspring that would so taint mankind that they would need exterminated. Breaking covenant is one thing, but throughout the rest of the OT, we find other sons of godly Israel intermarrying with pagan neighbors, and no such odd offspring or repercussions come about.

He goes on in the following sub-sections to state:

The interpretation of Gen. 6:1-4 that takes "the sons of God" to be angels (often called "Watchers") who have sexual intercourse with women is widespread in early Judaism (e.g., 1 En. 6-19; 21; 86-88; Jub. 4:15, 22; 5:1; CD=A II, 17-19; 1QapGen ar II, 1; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 6:1-4; T. Reub. 5:6-7; T. Naph. 3:5; 2 Bar. 56:10-14).

However we understand "the sons of God" in the Hebrew of Gen. 6:1-4, the LXX refers to them as angeloi, which word is picked up in both Jude 6 and 2 Pet. 2:4 and, in the NT, is almost always used of angels, rarely "messengers," and never of aristocratic figures such as kings and nobles. In other words, on the basis of philology alone, the angel interpretation seems most credible, unless one accepts the synthesis of Waltke and others who see that the "divine kings" are "possessed" by fallen angels, combining the strengths of the first two interpretations.

So, all in all, another mostly positive testimony for the historic view.

Here is an article I found that goes into a lot of interpretive detail on the subject. Though I do not agree with all of what is said, much of it provides good insight in the matter. Click HERE
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
 

---

The Book of Enoch (Pt 6) - Genesis 6, Angels & Objections (Pt 1)

OK, so we have gathered a few objections to the angels and women understanding of Genesis 6. However, we have also received some from a reader, so I wanted to deal with them a little also.

But first, let us turn to the early church fathers again. I gave a couple quotes from them in the two part discussion on the Nephilim (see HERE), but here is quite a few more, only a couple I will share here:

The other angels were created by Him, and entrusted with the control of matter and the forms of matter...Just as with men, they have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice...Some of them have continued in those things for which God had made them. They have remained over the things to which He had ordained them. But some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the oversight entrusted to them...These angels fell into impure love of virgins and were subjugated by the flesh...Those who are called giants were begotten from these lovers of virgins. Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.142

The angels are likewise possessed of personal freedom. For we can be sure that if the angels had not possessed personal freedom, they would not have consorted with the daughters of men, thereby sinning and falling from their places. In like manner, also, the other angels, who did the will of their Lord, were raised to a higher rank because of their self-control. Bardesanes (c. 222, E), 8.725.

But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards
subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness. Justin Martyr (c. 160) 1.190

...in the days of Noah He justly brought on the deluge for the purpose of extinguishing that most infamous race of men then existent, who could not bring forth fruit to God, since the angels that sinned had commingled with them... Irenaeus (c. 180) 1.524

To which also we shall add, that the angels who had obtained the superior rank, having sunk into pleasures, told to the women the secrets which had come to their knowledge... Clement of Alexandria (c. 195) 2.446

I could quote many, many more as evidence that this was pretty much the common understanding amoung the Ante-Nicene fathers, but I will stop at this point. Like I said before, I do not hold the early church up as an infallible rule, but since so many other people look to them for defending other historic doctrines, it is at least prudent to look at their teachings in such matters as these.

Now, the first objection is edited and summed up like this:

Objection #1

How could a spiritual being, an angel, impregnate a woman. Angels do not have physical bodies, they cannot take on physical bodies at will, and they do not have the creative power of God to beget life on their own. In the case of mortals, God has determined how mankind shall reproduce, and it is He who gives life. In the case of these depraved angels, it would seem impossible for them to beget children through women, or any other creature.

Now of course this objection was a quick post summed up by the writer from a lecture heard on the topic, and does not provide much depth or defense for this position, but let us briefly look at it as it is simply stated.

Where do we find in the Bible any support for these claims:

1) Angels are spiritual beings and can't impregnate women
2) Angels do not/cannot have physical bodies (or not take them on at will)
3) Angels do have the ability to beget life on their own

Interestingly, we can easily dismiss part of point two from the Scripture. Genesis 18 tells of Abraham meeting three angels, in human form, whose feet he washed, and then sat eating and drinking with them. So they obviously can take on physical bodies when needed. Most commentators agree these three visitors were angels, and I will mention just one esteemed commentator:

Before Moses proceeds to his principal subject, he describes to us, the hospitality of the holy man; and he calls the angels men, because, being clothed with human bodies, they appeared to be nothing else than men. - John Calvin

This is further enforced as being the case when just one chapter later we find:

The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth (Genesis 19:1)

And again, we find them in physical form, being touched, and eating with Lot. And then what are we to make of the exhortation in Hebrews 13:2:

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

It seems plain that angels can, have, and will take human form to appear to us for various reasons. Do they have power to do so at anytime as they will? Who knows. I don't believe the Scripture says much of anything relating to this, for or against, so how can we just throw the whole topic out based on silence? We have evidence they can become physical, so that is enough to dismiss the second part of this objection.

So, if they are indeed able to take human, physical form, who says they cannot have relations with or procreate with mankind? Who says they are totally unable to procreate? How do we know they indeed cannot beget life on their own? Where in the canon of Scripture is this topic even addressed?

Such objections seems solely based on speculation, and as we see, these speculations fly in the face of the church historic.

You have sometimes read and believed that the Creator's angels have been changed into human form, and have carried about so real of a body that Abraham even washed their feet and Lot was rescued from the Sodomites by their hands. An angel, moreover, wrestled with a man so strenuously with his body, that the latter desired to be let loose. Tertullian (c. 210, W), 3.523.

So, we see the Scriptures do reveal that while angels are spiritual beings, some in the order of angels, can, have, and still do take on physical form to interact with mankind. We find no evidence from canonical Scripture that these beings are incapable of sexual relations or procreation, and therefore can make no clear doctrine on the topic.

So, in my mind, this objection is no real objection based on Scripture at all.
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
 

---

The Book of Enoch (Pt 5) - More Genesis 6 "Bonus Tracks"

Nephilim Skeleton Found!!

Proof positive of an ancient breed of giants in mankind's past, exactly as mentioned in Genesis 6!

OK, so this is an obvious fake photo, but it got your attention I assume.

We pick up with this part of our series on the Book of Enoch right where we left off in part four. In the previous part, we saw the behind the scenes history of what was said happened between the angels of God and the daughters of men, stopping right as the cries of men went up to heaven.

This is where additional "behind-the-scenes" information that fills in some gaps with how Genesis 6 jumps so quickly into God's plan to destroy mankind, taken from chapters 9-10 of The Book of Enoch

And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel looked down from heaven and saw much blood being shed upon the earth, and all lawlessness being wrought upon the earth. And they said one to another: 'The earth made without inhabitant cries the voice of their cryings up to the gates of heaven. And now to you, the holy ones of heaven, the souls of men make their suit, saying, "Bring our cause before the Most High."' And they said to the Lord of the ages: 'Lord of lords, God of gods, King of kings, and God of the ages, the throne of Thy glory standeth unto all the generations of the ages, and Thy name holy and glorious and blessed unto all the ages! Thou hast made all things, and power over all things hast Thou: and all things are naked and open in Thy sight, and Thou seest all things, and nothing can hide itself from Thee.

The one thing that stood out to me in many of these type sections, is how the chain of command of things tends to go. Not just in the Book of Enoch but in other Jewish writings like it, we find how the Lord God has created and assigned angels to each task of universe management (sometimes it becomes so detailed as to sound pretty silly...but who knows). Here we find the cries of mankind being first brought to the attention of some of the key angels in God's command. Even the very angels who are said to have sinned with the women, as called the Watchers, because their job was to be mainly responsible for watching and protecting mankind on earth. now, the cries of mankind reach out to those above, and those named angels take the issue to the very throne of God.

The way they address the Lord is so amazing, and sends shivers down my spine to think of the reverance even they have when going into the presence of the Lord's throne. It doesn't say much for the way people today jump into the presence of the Lord in a haphazardly manner, as if he is just a good friend. Where is our reverence and awe in the Lord's presence? Well, not to digress down that avenue, let's continue

Thou seest what Azazel hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were preserved in heaven, which men were striving to learn: And Semjaza, to whom Thou hast given authority to bear rule over his associates. And they have gone to the daughters of men upon the earth, and have slept with the women, and have defiled themselves, and revealed to them all kinds of sins. And the women have borne giants, and the whole earth has thereby been filled with blood and unrighteousness. And now, behold, the souls of those who have died are crying and making their suit to the gates of heaven, and their lamentations have ascended: and cannot cease because of the lawless deeds which are wrought on the earth. And Thou knowest all things before they come to pass, and Thou seest these things and Thou dost suffer them, and Thou dost not say to us what we are to do to them in regard to these.'

Here we find a basic overview of the events being stated before the Lord God (as if he didn't already know what happened...which they point out to him themselves).

There is always one question I think of whenever I read when people seek to explain away the idea of Genesis 6 teaching a joining of women with angels. The most common belief is that the "sons of God" in Genesis is just the godly line of Seth, and their intermarriage with the line of Cain. Sounds like a plausible explanation, but how would such a union bring forth giants? If both groups who were joined were human, why would giants come forth from it? Just a thought I always had.

Then said the Most High, the Holy and Great One spake, and sent Uriel to the son of Lamech, and said to him: Go to Noah and tell him in my name "Hide thyself!" and reveal to him the end that is approaching: that the whole earth will be destroyed, and a deluge is about to come upon the whole earth, and will destroy all that is on it. And now instruct him that he may escape and his seed may be preserved for all the generations of the world.

So, this would explain why we go from Genesis 6 saying their was this union of sons of God and daughters of men, to all of a sudden God declaring the need for a flood to destroy mankind in such a quick span of a few verses. Seems kind of drastic to say Seth's kids intermarried with Cain's kids, and therefore the whole earth needed destroyed because of it. However, if this alternate history is true, then obviously a union of men and angels, and the revealing of secrets and sins beforehand unknown to men, would provide more than ample need for wiping out all of those effected by these teachings.

Now, we find descriptions of the judgment to befall these wicked angels, and we find language pretty much identical to that spoken of in the Greek Scriptures (as mentioned in previous parts of this series).

And again the Lord said to Raphael: Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgment he shall be cast into the fire. And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.

And to Gabriel said the Lord: Proceed against the bastards and the reprobates, and against the children of fornication: and destroy the children of fornication and the children of the Watchers from amongst men and cause them to go forth: send them one against the other that they may destroy each other in battle: for length of days shall they not have. And no request that they (i.e. their fathers) make of thee shall be granted unto their fathers on their behalf; for they hope to live an eternal life, and that each one of them will live five hundred years.

And the Lord said unto Michael: Go, bind Semjaza and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them in all their uncleanness. And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgment and of their consummation, till the judgment that is for ever and ever is consummated. In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: and to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. And whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound together with them to the end of all generations. And destroy all the spirits of the reprobate and the children of the Watchers, because they have wronged mankind. Destroy all wrong from the face of the earth and let every evil work come to an end: and let the plant of righteousness and truth appear: and it shall prove a blessing; the works of righteousness and truth shall be planted in truth and joy for evermore.

There is so much eschatological applications in this section, but I will refrain from going there ;-)

Hopefully, you can see that this alternate history not only fills gaps in the Genesis account, but makes better sense of many things in Genesis 6 and elsewhere. Again, I hope to uncover and discuss some of the objections to this view, but at this time do not have many in my own collection to choose from, so will eventually research and dig for more.
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
 

---

The Book of Enoch (Pt 4) - Genesis 6 "Bonus Tracks"...?

We've made a case so far that the Book of Enoch is a worthy read due to its historical context, and its acceptance by most in early church history, including the writers of the Greek Scriptures. So, I turn now to pulling tidbits from this book that are worth looking at for some of the interesting pieces they add to some "gaps" in Scripture.

As a follow up to our previous digression of the two parts dealing with the early church's understanding and acceptance of the "sons of God" of Genesis 6, I now turn to quote a portion of the Book of Enoch that offers additional information - filling in a back story to that brief mention in Genesis 6. This is information that the early church leaders knew and from where they probably received most of their understanding for their view we discussed in the previous two writings (found HERE). From the Book of Enoch:

And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations5 not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Samlazaz, their leader, Araklba, Rameel, Kokablel, Tamlel, Ramlel, Danel, Ezeqeel, Baraqijal, Asael, Armaros, Batarel, Ananel, Zaq1el, Samsapeel, Satarel, Turel, Jomjael, Sariel. These are their chiefs of tens.

And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjaza taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, 'Armaros the resolving of enchantments, Baraqijal (taught) astrology, Kokabel the constellations, Ezeqeel the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiel the signs of the earth, Shamsiel the signs of the sun, and Sariel the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven. (Book of Enoch, Ch. 6-8)

So this section reveals the "behind the scenes" story of Genesis 6, as understood and promoted by the Jewish community at least as far back as a couple hundred years before Jesus came on the scene, and for the first few hundred years of early church history. The story continues with the response from heaven to the cries of mankind, and we'll look at that in upcoming sections.

What makes such a story so impossible to believe by most today? Why in more recent history has this view been utterly outcast from orthodox theological circles? Those are some of the questions I would like to look into, and will try to dig up some of the objections to this line of thinking to discuss in future segments.
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
 

---

The Book of Enoch (Pt 3) - Life of... (Pt 1)

At this point, I wish to simply share with you the history of the life of Enoch, according to the Jewish writing known as the Book of Jasher. While there is much discussion over the validity of this book actually being that which was spoken of in Joshua and 2 Samuel, most agree that it is of historic Jewish persuasion, and sheds light on early Biblical text.

I found it a fascinating read (though I have not finished it all yet), so I thought it worth sharing in this little series on Enoch. The Bible says very little about Enoch, while this Book of Jasher includes much more details, which is what I share with you here.

Book of Jasher - Chapter 3

And Enoch lived sixty-five years and he begat Methuselah; and Enoch walked with God after having begot Methuselah, and he served the Lord, and despised the evil ways of men. And the soul of Enoch was wrapped up in the instruction of the Lord, in knowledge and in understanding; and he wisely retired from the sons of men, and secreted himself from them for many days.

And it was at the expiration of many years, whilst he was serving the Lord, and praying before him in his house, that an angel of the Lord called to him from Heaven, and he said, Here am I. And he said, Rise, go forth from thy house and from the place where thou dost hide thyself, and appear to the sons of men, in order that thou mayest teach them the way in which they should go and the work which they must accomplish to enter in the ways of God. And Enoch rose up according to the word of the Lord, and went forth from his house, from his place and from the chamber in which he was concealed; and he went to the sons of men and taught them the ways of the Lord, and at that time assembled the sons of men and acquainted them with the instruction of the Lord. And he ordered it to be proclaimed in all places where the sons of men dwelt, saying, Where is the man who wishes to know the ways of the Lord and good works? let him come to Enoch. And all the sons of men then assembled to him, for all who desired this thing went to Enoch, and Enoch reigned over the sons of men according to the word of the Lord, and they came and bowed to him and they heard his word.

And the spirit of God was upon Enoch, and he taught all his men the wisdom of God and his ways, and the sons of men served the Lord all the days of Enoch, and they came to hear his wisdom. And all the kings of the sons of men, both first and last, together with their princes and judges, came to Enoch when they heard of his wisdom, and they bowed down to him, and they also required of Enoch to reign over them, to which he consented. And they assembled in all, one hundred and thirty kings and princes, and they made Enoch king over them and they were all under his power and command. And Enoch taught them wisdom, knowledge, and the ways of the Lord; and he made peace amongst them, and peace was throughout the earth during the life of Enoch. And Enoch reigned over the sons of men two hundred and forty-three years, and he did justice and righteousness with all his people, and he led them in the ways of the Lord.

And these are the generations of Enoch, Methuselah, Elisha, and Elimelech, three sons; and their sisters were Melca and Nahmah, and Methuselah lived eighty-seven years and he begat Lamech. And it was in the fifty-sixth year of the life of Lamech when Adam died; nine hundred and thirty years old was he at his death, and his two sons, with Enoch and Methuselah his son, buried him with great pomp, as at the burial of kings, in the cave which God had told him. And in that place all the sons of men made a great mourning and weeping on account of Adam; it has therefore become a custom among the sons of men to this day. And Adam died because he ate of the tree of knowledge; he and his children after him, as the Lord God had spoken.

And it was in the year of Adam's death which was the two hundred and forty-third year of the reign of Enoch, in that time Enoch resolved to separate himself from the sons of men and to secret himself as at first in order to serve the Lord. And Enoch did so, but did not entirely secret himself from them, but kept away from the sons of men three days and then went to them for one day. And during the three days that he was in his chamber, he prayed to, and praised the Lord his God, and the day on which he went and appeared to his subjects he taught them the ways of the Lord, and all they asked him about the Lord he told them. And he did in this manner for many years, and he afterward concealed himself for six days, and appeared to his people one day in seven; and after that once in a month, and then once in a year, until all the kings, princes and sons of men sought for him, and desired again to see the face of Enoch, and to hear his word; but they could not, as all the sons of men were greatly afraid of Enoch, and they feared to approach him on account of the Godlike awe that was seated upon his countenance; therefore no man could look at him, fearing he might be punished and die.

And all the kings and princes resolved to assemble the sons of men, and to come to Enoch, thinking that they might all speak to him at the time when he should come forth amongst them, and they did so. And the day came when Enoch went forth and they all assembled and came to him, and Enoch spoke to them the words of the Lord and he taught them wisdom and knowledge, and they bowed down before him and they said, May the king live! May the king live! And in some time after, when the kings and princes and the sons of men were speaking to Enoch, and Enoch was teaching them the ways of God, behold an angel of the Lord then called unto Enoch from heaven, and wished to bring him up to heaven to make him reign there over the sons of God, as he had reigned over the sons of men upon earth.

When at that time Enoch heard this he went and assembled all the inhabitants of the earth, and taught them wisdom and knowledge and gave them divine instructions, and he said to them, I have been required to ascend into heaven, I therefore do not know the day of my going. And now therefore I will teach you wisdom and knowledge and will give you instruction before I leave you, how to act upon earth whereby you may live; and he did so. And he taught them wisdom and knowledge, and gave them instruction, and he reproved them, and he placed before them statutes and judgments to do upon earth, and he made peace amongst them, and he taught them everlasting life, and dwelt with them some time teaching them all these things.

And at that time the sons of men were with Enoch, and Enoch was speaking to them, and they lifted up their eyes and the likeness of a great horse descended from heaven, and the horse paced in the air; And they told Enoch what they had seen, and Enoch said to them, On my account does this horse descend upon earth; the time is come when I must go from you and I shall no more be seen by you. And the horse descended at that time and stood before Enoch, and all the sons of men that were with Enoch saw him.

And Enoch then again ordered a voice to be proclaimed, saying, Where is the man who delighteth to know the ways of the Lord his God, let him come this day to Enoch before he is taken from us. And all the sons of men assembled and came to Enoch that day; and all the kings of the earth with their princes and counsellors remained with him that day; and Enoch then taught the sons of men wisdom and knowledge, and gave them divine instruction; and he bade them serve the Lord and walk in his ways all the days of their lives, and he continued to make peace amongst them. And it was after this that he rose up and rode upon the horse; and he went forth and all the sons of men went after him, about eight hundred thousand men; and they went with him one day's journey. And the second day he said to them, Return home to your tents, why will you go? perhaps you may die; and some of them went from him, and those that remained went with him six day's journey; and Enoch said to them every day, Return to your tents, lest you may die; but they were not willing to return, and they went with him. And on the sixth day some of the men remained and clung to him, and they said to him, We will go with thee to the place where thou goest; as the Lord liveth, death only shall separate us. And they urged so much to go with him, that he ceased speaking to them; and they went after him and would not return; And when the kings returned they caused a census to be taken, in order to know the number of remaining men that went with Enoch; and it was upon the seventh day that Enoch ascended into heaven in a whirlwind, with horses and chariots of fire.

And on the eighth day all the kings that had been with Enoch sent to bring back the number of men that were with Enoch, in that place from which he ascended into heaven. And all those kings went to the place and they found the earth there filled with snow, and upon the snow were large stones of snow, and one said to the other, Come, let us break through the snow and see, perhaps the men that remained with Enoch are dead, and are now under the stones of snow, and they searched but could not find him, for he had ascended into heaven.

This is an account that has been considered historically by many in the early church,to be the account of Enoch's life prior to be taken by God. We will resume our look at what followed in Enoch's life in a later section, but first we will look into some of the details that led up to the calling of Enoch away from earth.
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
 

---

The Book of Enoch (Pt 2)

I just found a great introductory piece describing the background and some history surrounding the Book of Enoch and church history. Well worth a read.

About the Book of Enoch

The Book of Enoch (also known as 1 Enoch) was once cherished by Jews and Christians alike, this book later fell into disfavor with powerful theologians - precisely because of its controversial statements on the nature and deeds of the fallen angels.

The Enochian writings, in addition to many other writings that were excluded (or lost) from the Bible (i.e., the Book of Tobit, Esdras, etc.) were widely recognized by many of the early church fathers as "apocryphal" writings. The term "apocrypha" is derived from the Greek word meaning "hidden" or "secret". Originally, the import of the term may have been complimentary in that the term was applied to sacred books whose contents were too exalted to be made available to the general public.

In Dan. 12:9-10 we hear of words that are shut up until the end of time and, words that the wise shall understand and the wicked shall not. In addition, 4 Ezra 14:44ff. mentions 94 books, of which 24 (the OT) were to be published and 70 were to be delivered only to the wise among the people (= apocrypha). Gradually, the term "apocrypha" took on a pejorative connotation, for the orthodoxy of these hidden books was often questionable. Origen (Comm. in Matt. 10.18; p. 13.881) distinguished between books that were to be read in public worship and apocryphal books. Because these secret books were often preserved for use within the esoteric circles of the divinely - knit believers, many of the critically - spirited or "unenlightened" Church Fathers found themselves outside the realm of understanding, and therefore came to apply the term "apocryphal" to, what they claimed to be, heretical works which were forbidden to be read.

In Protestant parlance, "the Apocrypha" designate 15 works, all but one of which are Jewish in origin and found in the Septuagint (parts of 2 Esdras are Christian and Latin in origin). Although some of them were composed in Palestine in Aramaic or Hebrew, they were not accepted into the Jewish canon formed late in the 2nd cent. AD (Canonicity, 67:31-35). The Reformers, influenced by the Jewish canon of the OT, did not consider these books on a par with the rest of the Scriptures; thus the custom arose of making the Apocrypha a separate section in the Protestant Bible, or sometimes even of omitting them entirely (Canonicity, 67:44-46). The Catholic view, expressed as a doctrine of faith at the Council of Trent, is that 12 of these 15 works (in a different enumeration, however) are canonical Scripture; they are called the Deuterocanonical Books (Canonicity, 67:21, 42-43).

The three books of the Protestant Apocrypha that are not accepted by Catholics are 1-2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh. The theme of the Book of Enoch dealing with the nature and deeds of the fallen angels so infuriated the later Church fathers that one, Filastrius, actually condemned it openly as heresy (Filastrius, Liber de Haeresibus, no. 108). Nor did the rabbis deign to give credence to the book's teaching about angels. Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai in the second century A.D. pronounced a curse upon those who believed it (Delitzsch, p. 223). So the book was denounced, banned, cursed, no doubt burned and shredded - and last but not least, lost (and conveniently forgotten) for a thousand years. But with an uncanny persistence, the Book of Enoch found its way back into circulation two centuries ago.

In 1773, rumors of a surviving copy of the book drew Scottish explorer James Bruce to distant Ethiopia. True to hearsay, the Book of Enoch had been preserved by the Ethiopic church, which put it right alongside the other books of the Bible. Bruce secured not one, but three Ethiopic copies of the book and brought them back to Europe and Britain. When in 1821 Dr. Richard Laurence, a Hebrew professor at Oxford, produced the first English translation of the work, the modern world gained its first glimpse of the forbidden mysteries of Enoch.

Most scholars say that the present form of the story in the Book of Enoch was penned sometime during the second century B.C. and was popular for at least five hundred years. The earliest Ethiopic text was apparently made from a Greek manuscript of the Book of Enoch, which itself was a copy of an earlier text. The original was apparently written in Semitic language, now thought to be Aramaic.

Though it was once believed to be post-Christian (the similarities to Christian terminology and teaching are striking), recent discoveries of copies of the book among the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran prove that the book was in existence before the time of Jesus Christ. But the date of the original writing upon which the second century B.C. Qumran copies were based is shrouded in obscurity. It is, in a word, old. It has been largely the opinion of historians that the book does not really contain the authentic words of the ancient biblical patriarch Enoch, since he would have lived (based on the chronologies in the Book of Genesis) several thousand years earlier than the first known appearance of the book attributed to him.

Despite its unknown origins, Christians once accepted the words of this Book of Enoch as authentic scripture, especially the part about the fallen angels and their prophesied judgment. In fact, many of the key concepts used by Jesus Christ himself seem directly connected to terms and ideas in the Book of Enoch. Thus, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Jesus had not only studied the book, but also respected it highly enough to adopt and elaborate on its specific descriptions of the coming kingdom and its theme of inevitable judgment descending upon "the wicked" - the term most often used in the Old Testament to describe the Watchers.

There is abundant proof that Christ approved of the Book of Enoch. Over a hundred phrases in the New Testament find precedents in the Book of Enoch. Another remarkable bit of evidence for the early Christians' acceptance of the Book of Enoch was for many years buried under the King James Bible's mistranslation of Luke 9:35, describing the transfiguration of Christ: "And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, 'This is my beloved Son: hear him." Apparently the translator here wished to make this verse agree with a similar verse in Matthew and Mark. But Luke's verse in the original Greek reads: "This is my Son, the Elect One (from the Greek ho eklelegmenos, lit., "the elect one"): hear him." The "Elect One" is a most significant term (found fourteen times) in the Book of Enoch. If the book was indeed known to the apostles of Christ, with its abundant descriptions of the Elect One who should "sit upon the throne of glory" and the Elect One who should "dwell in the midst of them," then the great scriptural authenticity is accorded to the Book of Enoch when the "voice out of the cloud" tells the apostles, "This is my Son, the Elect One" - the one promised in the Book of Enoch.

The Book of Jude tells us in vs. 14 that "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied..." Jude also, in vs. 15, makes a direct reference to the Book of Enoch (2:1), where he writes, "to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly..." The time difference between Enoch and Jude is approximately 3400 years. Therefore, Jude's reference to the Enochian prophesies strongly leans toward the conclusion that these written prophesies were available to him at that
time.

Fragments of ten Enoch manuscripts were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The famous scrolls actually comprise only one part of the total findings at Qumran. Much of the rest was Enochian literature, copies of the Book of Enoch, and
other apocryphal works in the Enochian tradition, like the Book of Jubilees. With so many copies around, the Essenes could well have used the Enochian writings as a community prayer book or teacher's manual and study text.

The Book of Enoch was also used by writers of the noncanonical (i.e.apocryphal or "hidden") texts. The author of the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas quotes the Book of Enoch three times, twice calling it "the Scripture," a term specifically denoting the inspired Word of God (Epis. of Barnabas 4:3, 16:5,6). Other apocryphal works reflect knowledge of the Enoch story of the Watchers, notably the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Book of Jubilees.

Many of the early church fathers also supported the Enochian writings. Justin Martyr ascribed all evil to demons whom he alleged to be the offspring of the angels who fell through lust for women (from the Ibid.)-directly referencing the Enochian writings. Athenagoras, writing in his work called Legatio in about 170 A.D., regards Enoch as a true prophet. He describes the angels which "violated both their own nature and their office." In his writings, he goes into detail about the nature of fallen angels and the cause of their fall, which comes directly from the Enochian writings.

Many other church fathers: Tatian (110-172); Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (115-185); Clement of Alexandria (150-220); Tertullian (160-230); Origen (186-255); Lactantius (260-330); in addition to: Methodius of Philippi, Minucius Felix, Commodianus, and Ambrose of Milanalso-also approved of and supported the Enochian writings.

One by one the arguments against the Book of Enoch fade away. The day may soon arrive when the final complaints about the Book of Enoch's lack of historicity and "late date" are also silenced by new evidence of the book's real antiquity.
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
 

---