Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parallels
 

Easias had some very good thoughts concerning book of Enoch, Jude, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter. I would like to investigate his thoughts on this subject and hope others would join in with their thoughts. It all started in a thread entitled "You Must Listen To this" concerning Dave Wilkerson telling everyone how tired he is that the rest of Christendom isn't up to snuff. Anyway, Mike the Disciple brought up hell as being the grave, I then asked him what he thought about hell in 2 Peter 2:4. Mike then threw it back on me saying he was limited in its meaning concerning hell, so I explained my thoughts on the word τάρταρον found in 2 Peter 2:4. Easias then asked if I believe that Peter said it because he was refuting Ancient Jewish literature. What Easias presented (I believe) was very interesting.


Here is my first post which was addressed to Mike the Disciple.

Hades was the place of rest, the final abode of shadows, while Tartarus was the place where the punishment fit the crime. The prison of the Titans, and the wicked elite. It is explained in Homeric literature as being as far from hades as the heaven is from earth. This is how the ancient Greeks, Persians, Latins, and Hellenized Judeans would of understood 2 Peter 2:4, due to the word also being found in the book of Job 41:24 in the LXX. τὸν δὲ τάρταρον τῆς ἀβύσσου ὥσπερ αἰχμάλωτον· ἐλογίσατο ἄβυσσον εἰς περίπατον, the lowest part of the deep as a captive: he reckons the deep as his range. The very deep, liar of the monster Leviathan. Tartarus was understood as the place of everlasting torment where no sleep or rest was found for the ones who offended god, in this case it was the Greek/Roman god Ζεύς. The evil King Σίσυφος had to push a rock up a hill and then watch it roll back down. This was done to him because he boasted about being more clever than Ζεύς, so therefore this torment was devised. Ἰξίων was chained to a wheel that eternally turned, without hesitation. Τάνταλος stole the food of the gods, and mutilated his own son to feed to the gods at a banquet to test their omniscience. Τάνταλος was to be punished by standing neck-deep in a pool of water, always thirsty but never able to catch a drink. A bowl filled with fruit hung above his head, but whenever he tried to reach the fruit the wind would blow the swinging bowl away out of his reach. Θησέας even though he was a hero, was also detained in Tartarus. When he was in his 20s Θησέας lost reverence for the gods and together with his best friend, Πειρίθους, decided they would marry daughters of Ζεύς: Πειρίθους desired Ελένη and Θησέας desired Περσεφόνη. First they kidnapped Ελένη, who was only ten (her brothers, Κάστορας and Πολυδεύκης, rescued her). Then they attempted to kidnap Περσεφόνη from the Underworld. Hades greeted his guests and invited them to sit in the stone chair of Λήθη, the chair of Forgetfulness. Ηρακλής later succeeded in rescuing Θησέας but not Πειρίθους. When Peter uses Tartarus in 2 Peter 2:4 it could only be understood as a place of one, eternal torment, two the place of no rest, three the abode, of wicked supernatural beings, monsters, giants, and wicked, and impious men. Definitely not, the grave.

Also the Hellenized Ethiopian Jews used the word Tartarus in their Book of Enoch. An arch angel named Uriel is supposed to be the guardian of the abyss, called Tartarus.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

Is it possible Peter was quoting Jewish literature in order to make a point without endorsing the historicity of the account?

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

(not quite sure how to copy entire posts, I can't 'edit' the post in order to copy the vbcode to make the copies appear original...)

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

...let me ask you about the following quotations from Peter:

2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

2Pe 2:11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

These two statements are very interesting. First of all, there is no scripture whatsoever (within the Canon) speaking about 'angels that sinned' and which were 'Tartarized' (literal meaning of the word translated 'cast (them) down into hell'), reserved to the judgment day. However, if I am not mistaken, this comes straight out of one of the Enoch books. It was well known among Jews (and Gentile 'God-fearers' as well) and Christians in the first century. It is likely to have been known to Jesus and his generation. It was extremely popular. So much so that some Christians considered it to be canonical scripture. Among the Jews it was very popular, but especially among the various Essene sects who appear to have been deeply involved in mysticism and 'gnosis'.

The fact Peter quotes from Enoch raises the question: Is Enoch canonical, is it indeed scripture? Did Peter think it was scripture? Or, was Peter quoting a well-known piece of Jewish literature in order to make a point? Much like a preacher nowadays who referred to a scene from a popular novel such as 'Lord of the Rings', perhaps, or 'Narnia' or maybe even the TV show 'Cheers' (me genoito!). The reference was meant to be an illustration, from popularly known literature of the day, that illustrated the point he was trying to make.

In fact, the second quote I listed above, about angels not bringing railing accusation against the revilers, seems to indicate as much. If I am not mistaken, according to the book of Enoch, it was indeed an angel who accused the enemies to God. So it seems Peter is specifically contradicting a point made in Enoch. This could not have been understood any other way by the original audience, as far as I can see. They would have been familiar with the book of Enoch, they would have been familiar with the citation from Enoch made by Peter (about the angels that sinned being cast into Tartarus*), They could not have failed to notice the glaring discrepancy between the account in Enoch, and Peter's words when he says 'but angels do not bring railing accusation against them before the Lord'.

The only solution to this, to my mind, is that Peter did not consider Enoch to be inspired, or scripture, or to have preserved an accurate trustworthy account of ancient history. Bu rather, that Enoch was uninspired, and in fact in error in many ways. Although the story in Enoch was useful as an illustration, it nevertheless gets corrected by the apostle.

Am I making any sense here?

*Note: The word translated 'cast (them) down into hell' in the Greek is ταρταρωσας (Tartarosas), from Tartaroo. This is a verb, is it not? Technically speaking, Peter did say the angels that sinned were 'placed in Tartarus', but rather they were 'tartarised'.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

... let me say that I believe Peter and Jude are in fact warning people to avoid the book of Enoch, specifically and directly. :)

As I pointed out, Peter not only quotes Enoch, but specifically contradicts Enoch a few verses later. Jude does the same thing, in fact.

Walk with me through the context for a moment:

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
2Pe 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

The apostolic doctrine and their faith is not based on myths, but on eyewitness testimony.

2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Superior even to eyewitness testimony of mystical visions of heavenly things, however, is the Word of God (the Scripture).

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So, there is a contrast being established between myths, on the one hand, and the doctrine of the gospel on the other hand. One is 'cunningly devised' and the other is based not only on recent eyewitness testimony of people still current and alive, but also (more importantly) on the Scripture itself. So, clearly, is Scripture is 'a more sure word' than apostolic testimony, it is certainly superior to 'cunningly devised fables/myths'. That is the immediate context of the discussion that follows.

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
2Pe 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

Peter warns about false teachers coming into the church, who will bring in damnable heresies, that lead to their own destruction. Many will follow these false teachers and their teachings. And 'the way of truth' will be maligned because of them. In other words, the false teachers and their 'many' followers will bring reproach on the way of truth because the false teachers misrepresent the truth. Also, these false teachers will make money off their followers. Yet, the false teachers are doomed, and their doom is certain.

So Peter, after contrasting the cunningly devised fables/myths with the more sure Word of the Scripture, now speaks about false teachers and false teachings and heresies (sects), which will cause the truth to be maligned, these teachers of fables (lies) will make merchandise of the gullible, and are subject to damnation because of their lies.

2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Peter is referring to the events described in Enoch 10 in regards to the binding of Azazel, Semjasa, and their cohorts unto the judgment day. Notice, he says 'if', meaning he is introducing an 'if...then...' statement. The 'if' is simply that if God bound the angels that sinned... then 'the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptation to reserve the unjust to punishment'.

What does that have to do with anything? Well, common Jewish 'fables/myths' in the first century included the idea that angels sinned, married women and fathered children in Noah's day (leading to the Flood), and that they and the spirits of the destroyed hybrid offspring are roaming the earth attacking people, tormenting them as 'demons', and so forth.

Remember, the immediate context is false teachers and 'cunningly devised fables' spread by those false teachers, often to 'make merchandise' of people. Exorcism was an actual paid profession in those times (and still is among various people groups today). Exorcists claimed to be able to deliver people from evil spirits by virtue of their superior knowledge of the evil spirits and how they operate, etc. And they did charge money.

Much of these Jewish myths were found expressed in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, and other similar Jewish mystical and religious fiction writings. These beliefs were very common, very popular, and very influential in many quarters, even among early Christians.

Peter is warning about 'fables' and false teachers looking to lead people astray and make some money off them. His argument begins with 'IF' and then cites the book of Enoch (one of the more popular Jewish fables then extant) as evidence that people need not fear evil spirits roaming around doing bad things to them, nor do they need any special teachers or 'specially anointed ministers' to 'deliver' them from the evil spirits, because 'the angels that sinned HAVE BEEN BOUND'. And because of this, the Lord can deliver the godly and punish the unjust. One need not seek after or follow after any teachers bringing 'the deeper things of the spirit world' into your life (for a small nominal fee, or for a love offering, or whatever).

Why does Peter cite Enoch? Because Enoch was one of the favorite texts used by various sects of Judaism and early gnostic Christianity. He thus proves their inconsistency using their own literature, just like one can quote JW literature in order to refute their doctrines, because their own literature often contradicts what they teach. Using the literature of the false teachers to prove their inconsistencies is not an endorsement of the false teachers' literature!

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
2Pe 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
2Pe 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
2Pe 2:8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds; )
2Pe 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

Following the citation from Enoch, he turns to the Scriptures and concludes with verse 9, as the conclusion to the 'if...then...' statement he introduced in verse 4.

He continues his argument:

2Pe 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

This is a description of the ungodly who are being reserved to punishment. Those who 'despise government'. These are not political anarchists, but they despise Divine government. They are presumptuous and self-willed, and are 'not afraid to speak evil of dignities'. Literally, they do not 'tremble to blaspheme glories'. The term 'glories' was a well-known term for the angelic hosts surrounding the court of God serving as a reflection of the divine majesty itself.

Exo 15:11 Who is like to thee among the gods, O Lord? who is like to thee? glorified in holiness, marvellous in glories, doing wonders. (Brenton's English translation of the Greek Old Testament)

Same word, 'glories'. The Testament of Judah (another of the popular 1st century era Jewish fables/myths) says 'the glories blessed Simeon', in a list of blessings on the twelve tribes (Test. Judah 4:29 - http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/fbe280.htm ).

(continued in next post)

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

(continued from previous post)

So these false teachers were speaking blasphemous things concerning the angelic and divine government of God. Obviously, Peter is saying these false teachers are teaching error (blasphemies) concerning angels (dominions and glories).

2Pe 2:11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

Peter here cites Enoch chapter 9, yet he contradicts the citation. In Enoch chapter 9 it was angels who accused the 'fallen angels' to God. Yet here, Peter specifically says the angels which were greater in power and might did not accuse them to God. This is a direct contradiction of the text of Enoch. The passage follows:

[Chapter 9]

1 And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel looked down from heaven and saw much blood being 2 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 cryingst up to the gates of heaven. 3 And now to you, the holy ones of heaven, the souls of men make their suit, saying, "Bring our cause 4 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 5 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 6 things, and nothing can hide itself from Thee. Thou seest what Azazel hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were (preserved) in heaven, which 7 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 9 women, and have defiled themselves, and revealed to them all kinds of sins. And the women have 10 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 11 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.' http://hiddenbible.com/enoch/online.html/

The four chief angels (archangels) of Jewish mythology accused the fallen angels to God. They accused the fallen angels of sinning, of miscegenation with humans, of fathering hybrid offspring, and of leading mankind into all sorts of evil. That is what the book of Enoch states. That is what the then[current Jewish fables stated. That is what was commonly taught among Jewish mystics and gnostics. But Peter specifically denies this.

2Pe 2:11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

Against whom? The 'glories' and dominion' spoken of previously. Peter is saying the false teachers are blaspheming angelic powers, whereas the angels themselves do no such thing - directly refuting the teaching of Jewish fable-masters who relied upon Enoch and other fables/myths for their authority. Enoch and the others have the archangels accusing the evil fallen angels of the various things the gnostics and fable-tellers likewise accused them of. Yet Peter specifically refutes this and denies it.

2Pe 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

The false teachers spreading fables and myths and making money off the gullible speak evil of things they do not understand (the dominion and glories, ie the heavenly government and the angelic orders). Furthermore, they will totally perish in their corruption. It is a serious matter the blaspheme the government of Almighty God. (What, do we think God alone is himself the whole entirety of his government? No, he has myriads of angelic beings that carry out the Divine will. To blaspheme the angelic beings is to blaspheme the government of God. Just as if railing blasphemies and calumnies against the police, sherriff's, judges, courts, etc is nothing less than a blasphemous assault on the entire national government. Rail against the king's men and spread lies and falsehoods about them, and you slander the king and his entire government!)

2Pe 2:13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
2Pe 2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
2Pe 2:15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
2Pe 2:16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.

These false teachers spreading their myths and fables which appear to center on blasphemy against angelic beings in the divine government of God are doomed, they are spots and blemishes in the church, they are immoral, they are greedy, they are cursed, and they divine for hire like Balaam.

2Pe 2:17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.

This is a series of references by Peter from the book of Enoch, paralleled in Jude, by the way, on the same subject, and making the same point. Peter (and Jude) applies these Enochian epithets to the false teachers teaching lies and fables regarding the 'angels' (namely that 'they sinned', fornicated with humans, produced hybrid offspring, and corrupted all mankind through teaching them forbidden knowledge and seducing them into rebellion, and resulted in the myriads of demons and evil spirits roaming the earth today which afflict mankind, and who can be taken care of by those 'in the know' - for a fee...).

2Pe 2:18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
2Pe 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

These fable-promoters and false teachers are leading people back into bondage, entangling people again in corruption and pollution. They are said to have turned from the 'holy commandment' and are like a dog going back to his vomit. In all these statements, Peter is saying these teachers and those they deceive with their fables and myths about 'angels sinning' etc are returning to something.

Israel came to the truth but often returned to idolatry and superstition. The Jews continued that tradition with their fables and myths, 'exorcism', mysticism etc, concerning Solomon and his command of demons through superior gnosis, the Star of Rempham (the so-called 'star of David' which is actually the hexagram of Solomon and is used for mystical and occultic purposes, usually exorcisms), their kaballah and all the other nonsense they came up with in the second temple period (and later). All that 'fable and myth' was really regurgitated pagan superstition brought from Babylon and Egypt, to which they were returning, with all it;s superstitions about divine beings leading man astray, fornicating with women, producing hybrids (demigods), being chained in Tartarus under the earth, below Hades, producing evil spirits that roam around tormenting people, requiring the services of 'experts in the spiritual deliverance ministry', etc etc etc.

So then Peter is actually refuting the Book of Enoch, and its fables and myths perpetrated by Jewish gnostic Essene and Pharisaic mystics and rabbis.

Which means the whole 'angels that sinned, mated with humans, producing hybrids, corrupting mankind, teaching and leading mankind into evil inventions and immorality, generating possessions etc etc' teaching is nothing more than Jewish fables and myths promoted by false teachers who are marked for destruction because of it.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

I'm just trying to work through this. On the one hand, a quick reading of 1 Peter and Jude implies they endorsed the book of Enoch and similar then-current ideas. On the other hand, those ideas are 1)nowhere found in actual canonical scripture, and 2)seem to be countered by a closer reading of 1 Peter and Jude, and 3)seem to be countered by other statements of canonical scripture.

I am open to other interpretations, but at the moment this seems to be what satisfies all the available data.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

Okay, so let's look at Jude for a bit.

First of all, I believe Jude is quoting 2 Peter.

Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

According to Jude, certain men had crept in unawares perverting the grace of God and even denying the Lord Jesus (obviously by contradicting His teachings). Jude says they had crept in.

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Peter, however, says 'there shall be' these false teachers who would even deny the Lord Jesus. Jude says they were already crept in. Thus, what was future for Peter is past and present for Jude. I believe this establishes which came first (2 Peter) and shows that Jude is expounding upon what Peter warned about.

Jud 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

Jude begins a similar process as Peter, using what amounts to the same outline. Firstly, he uses examples to show illustrate that the false teachers would face destruction, just as Peter showed. Secondly, the examples he chooses include examples of apostasy, just as Peter spoke about. The first example is of people being delivered from Egypt but later being destroyed because of their apostasy and backsliding. Thus, the false teachers are REintroducing something from the past, they are going BACK to something, as Peter talked about (dog returning to its vomit, etc).

Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Here Jude references the book of Enoch, as Peter did. According to Enoch, the angels that 'left their own habitation' (the 'angels that sinned' in Peter) have been reserved in everlasting chains to judgment day. I provided the quotation from Enoch for this in an earlier post so I'll not repeat it here.

Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

He then references the example of Sodom and Gomorrha. At this point a careless reading of Jude would seem to imply that the angels not keeping their first estate is paralleled by Sodom and Gomorrha going after strange flesh. But, a closer examination of the context indicates the parallel is of a different sort.

Remember, the context is false doctrines. Jude is referring to the same problem Peter was referring to (as evidenced by his use of 2 Peter's material and argumentation and examples and conclusions). That problem was a problem of false teachers bringing blasphemous accusations against heavenly beings (angels). We saw already that the book of Enoch and other popular Jewish myths did just that, accusing the angels of God of rebelling against God, fornicating with humans, producing hybrid offspring, teaching and leading mankind into sin, etc. In short, all the evil in the world was a result of 'fallen angels', instead of the wickedness of men's own hearts (as the canonical scriptures seem to indicate).

Here in Jude, we see the same false teachers. They are seducing people astray back into superstitious idolatry and demonism (remember Paul said the things the gentiles sacrifice to they sacrifice to demons). The sin of Sodom is set forth as an example of these false teachers. What did the men of Sodom actually do? They attempted to rape two angelic beings. While the men of Sodom may have not known the two men were angels, the fact remains they attempted to rape two angelic beings sent by God. So the men of Sodom were guilty of attempted horrific crimes against God's ministering agents, and were punished with a nuke from heaven for it. This ties into the next verse:

Jud 1:8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

The false teachers are called 'filthy dreamers', meaning their doctrines are really filthy imaginations. They despise dominion and speak evil of dignities'. This is what Peter said about these false teachers. They speak evil of heavenly beings who are in the employ of God and who represent the divine majesterial government of heaven. Their false teachers amount to blasphemous slanderings, in other words. Just as the men of Sodom attempted to do violence to angels, these false teachers 'likewise' attempt to do violence to angels (through false teachings and lies about them).

Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Now, this is fascinating. This event is nowhere described whatsoever in the Bible. But Jude did not pull this out of his yarmulka. This appears, however, to have been a popular Jewish myth. Clarke in his commentary states the following:

There is something very like it in Debarim Rabba, sec. ii., fol. 263, 1: “Samael, that wicked one, the prince of the satans, carefully kept the soul of Moses, saying: When the time comes in which Michael shall lament, I shall have my mouth filled with laughter. Michael said to him: Wretch, I weep, and thou laughest. Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy, because I have fallen; for I shall rise again: when I sit in darkness, the Lord is my light; Mic_7:8. By the words, because I have fallen, we must understand the death of Moses; by the words, I shall rise again, the government of Joshua, etc.”


According to Barnes, Origen in his commentary on this passage says it was taken from a writing called 'The Assumption of Moses' which at least in Origen's day was extant among the Jews, and which includes an account of Satan disputing with Michael the archangel about the body of Moses. Barnes says the original work is no longer extant. There is a 6th century Latin version of the Assumption of Moses, but it does not contain the account of Satan and Michael disputing about Moses' body. The point, however, is that such a belief was apparently in vogue in the days of Jude.

Jude identifies this myth and uses it to point out that 'even Michael did not bring a railing accusation against the devil'. This of course is parallel to Peter saying the angels which are greater in might do not bring accusations against their fellow angels. And apparently Jude is using this apocryphal Jewish fable to refute the practices of those teachers of apocryphal Jewish fables, showing their inconsistency and how their own fables contradict themselves and the ones who teach them. The false teachers bring slander and libel against the angels, making railing accusations against them, whereas even in their blasphemous fables such things do not usually occur. Thus showing the false teachers are caught up in contradictions and inconsistencies.

(to be continued)

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

(continued from previous post)

Jud 1:10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

The false teachers speak evil of the angels of God (making claims about them that are not only false but libelous, railing accusations and blasphemies). And so the false teachers, relying on carnal mythologies corrupt themselves with superstitions.

Jud 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

The false teachers have followed Cain's example (who slew someone much more holy than he himself was), Balaam's example (who tried to make merchandise of holy things, being a prophet for hire), and Core/Korah who despised the appointed messengers of God (the Aaronic priesthood and Moses especially) and rebelled against God ordained authority, and brought railing against Moses and the ordained priesthood. Again, the theme is that of false teachers railing against, blaspheming against, and thus doing 'violence to' the angelic government of God by making false accusations about angels. There is some connection also to monetary reward (travelling exorcists?) as well.

Jud 1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
Jud 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Jude uses language from the book of Enoch here. Language that in Enoch was used to refer to the punishments brought on by the sinning angels is used by Jude to refer to the false teachers. In other words, the 'angels that sinned' in Enoch are transposed by Jude into the false teachers teaching lies about the angels of God. Or in yet other words, the false teachers taught blasphemous lies against the angels of God and what they said about the angels actually applies to themselves.

Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Now, Jude quotes Enoch directly, where Enoch speaks about the impending judgment of the wicked who had blasphemed God. But remember Jude's context! Jude is using these accounts as illustrations of the character and fate of false teachers who lie about the angels. Notice what Jude says, 'And Enoch ... prophesied'. In the Greek, Jude says 'Enoch prophesied to these'. Jude is not saying Enoch successfully prophesied about the coming destruction of the wicked, but specifically prophesied about the false teachers Jude was referring to.

Green's Literal:

Jud 1:14 And "the seventh from Adam," Enoch, also prophesied to these men, saying, Behold, "the Lord came with" myriads "of His saints,"

Young's Literal:

Jud 1:14 And prophesy also to these did the seventh from Adam--Enoch--saying, `Lo, the Lord did come in His saintly myriads,

Geneva:

Jud 1:14 And Enoch also the seuenth from Adam, prophecied of such, saying, Beholde, the Lorde commeth with thousands of his Saints,

In other words, Jude uses a quote from the Book of Enoch, a favorite among the Jewish fable pushers, and applies it to the fable pushers themselves. Thus, Jude is saying that God is coming with all the heavenly host ('saints' being 'holy ones') to execute judgment against the false teachers pushing their blasphemous Jewish myths and fables about angels and who seek to make some money off their scams.

Jud 1:16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

They do not walk after Christ, they do not follow the truth, they follow their own desires. They speak great swelling words and show favoritism (Barnes supposes they admire the rich and flatter them) obviously for personal gain.

So what are they complaining and murmuring about? Those who believed that angels sinned and fell from heaven, and have been running amok causing trouble for everyone, obviously complain about their lot in life. 'The devil is attacking me, woe is me' they say, about practically everything. There is a demon behind every bush, it seems. They refuse to submit to the doctrine of Jesus Christ who 'holds ALL authority in heaven and in earth', and who taught that not one bird drops dead apart from God and that the very hairs of our head are numbered. Instead, they ascribe to satan that which is withint the Divine Providence of God. They essentially promote Dualism, Manichaeanism, Zoroastrianism, the 'good God vs the evil god'. The devil on your shoulder whispering in your ear to sin, 'the devil made me do it', blame the devil for this, that, and the other thing.

Demons everywhere, all your problems are caused by fallen angels. BUT, hey, we can take care of that problem... for a small nominal fee, of course...

In fact, the same thing exists today in much of the so called 'deliverance ministries' so popular among charismatics. They amount to travelling exorcist side shows, not much different than what is popular among Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox over in the Balkans.

The doctrines in fact are the same: Angels of God sinned, fell, became demons, trouble mankind constantly, all your woes are the fallen angels/demons, experts in these matters can take care of the problem, follow and support my ministry, etc.

In doing such, they blaspheme the angels of God. They rely on extrabibical sources for their doctrines, but those extrabiblical sources contradict the Bible, and contradict themselves, and contradict the ones who use them (as all cultic false doctrines do).

The remainder of Jude is a reminder that such things were foretold by the apostles, that false teachers and 'mockers' would come in following their own desires not heeding sound doctrine.

I notice that Jude seems to reference Zechariah chapter 3 when he says 'hating even the garment spotted by the flesh'. Zechariah 3 also contains an account of the Angel of YHVH rebuking satan by saying 'YHVH rebuke thee', in regards to the changing of Joshua's 'filthy garments' to new robes and his installation as priest.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

So then, it seems the teaching that there was an angel named Lucifer, who sinned and fell and became 'satan', and who led other angels in rebellion against God and who fell and eventually became demons, who are the source of all man's problems, and who can be exorcised by experts, is a false teaching, a Jewish fable or myth, and is to be avoided. It blasphemes God's angels, thus libels God Himself and His government, it contradicts the teachings of the Bible and especially of the Lord Jesus Christ, overthrows the concepts of Divine Providence and the spiritual Authority of Christ, leads people astray, and is promoted by arrogant people who's end game is making some money.

This of course does not deny the existence and reality of demons and unclean spirits, demon possession, the reality of satan, etc. But it DOES deny the validity of Jewish myths about such things that detract from the truth and which promotes pagan religious beliefs of Dualism under the guise of 'truth'.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

Supposing for the moment your exegesis of 2 Peter and Jude is correct, what then of these:

What are they? Where to they come from? How do they fit into the picture of God's Government and Providence?

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

In 2 Chronicles 18:18-21, we have God on His throne speaking to spirits and asks all of them the same question. God asks these spirits "Who will entice Ahab king of Israel to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?" Their reply is to offer God many different solutions, until in verse 20, a spirit walks up before the throne and tells God he will be the deceiver in the mouth of all the prophets. Even when Satan comes before the Lord to accuse Job, it seems that Satan is also in the service of God, and cannot operate outside of God's sovereign control.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

Whatever demons are, and whatever they are doing, it cannot be said scripturally that they are either the fallen angels, or the souls of the hybrid offspring of fallen angels and humans, or the souls of those who perished in the Flood, as quite a few people believe and teach.

I do not claim to know the origin of demons or unclean spirits. I think the term 'demon' is rather interesting, when we consider what the word actually connotes. The Greek term indicates that a 'daimon' is a part of the subconscious mind, the 'genius' or 'muse' for example. I studied this years ago and found that the term had a range of applications all stemming from it's origin referring to the 'inspiration' of poets, singers, and other highly creative type people. When that is taken into consideration, along with Paul's teaching that the gods of the gentiles were 'daimons', and further that according to Paul as far as Christians are concerned there is only ONE God, and that 'the idol is nothing', it seems that demons are psychological phenomenon of some sort. Please note I am not saying demons are simply figments of people's imaginations, or that they do not exist.

There are aspects of what we call 'the mind' that we still to this day do not understand. Things such as synchronicity, 'ESP', etc are phenomena that do not admit of easy definition. If we look at demons in the Scripture we see they appear to use the mind or consciousness of the person (or animal!) they are 'possessing' (controlling). For example, Legion possessed a man and made him act crazy, and was able to communicate through the man's vocal chords. However, when the spirit was sent into a herd of pigs they freaked out and ran into the sea and drowned. The pigs did not continue any conversations with anyone. The demon's 'manifestation' or existence was mediated through the consciousness or 'mind' of whatever it was possessing.

So this begs the question, do demons have an independent existence of their own? Perhaps they do, but it may not be in the sense we often think of, as though they were simply bad-mannered 'people' who happen to not have physical bodies. Demons are equated with 'unclean spirits', and a 'spirit' is literally a 'breath' or 'wind'.

(Keep in mind I am just rambling here, not trying to make a detailed, organised presentation of demonology. I am just trying to put all the data into a coherent whole. And I admit it may not entirely be possible. The Bible does not say where demons come from, or what exactly they are. And the term itself may be a catch-all term for various phenomena otherwise simply not explained.)

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

Yes, exactly. And in regards to satan, we should keep in mind the word is actually more a generic term than a proper name of some particular being. Thus 'satan' could be different things or persons, depending on the context.

Jesus said to Peter, 'Get thee behind me, Satan, for thou savourest not the things of God' in response to Peter's insistence that he would not allow Christ to be crucified. In this instance, Peter was 'satan', that is, 'the enemy', because Peter (in spite of all his good intentions) was in opposition to the Plan of God. Jesus was not saying 'Peter, thou art possessed of a demon, let me cast it out of you', but he was saying 'Peter, you are opposing the Divine Plan, and that will make you an enemy of God.' He was rebuking the mindset Peter had, the 'spirit' that prompted Peter's passionate declaration he would not allow Christ to be slain by wicked men.

Likewise, in regard to the census David undertook, which resulted in a plague upon Israel, one account says it was God, another says it was 'satan', meaning of course that God was a 'satan' to Israel at that time, ie that God had become Israel's enemy or opposer because of the census.

So the word 'satan' means 'enemy' rather than a personal, proper name of a fallen angelic super being. It can be applied to a host of things, people, spirits, things, diseases, etc. The woman was bound 18 years by a physical malady, yet it is also said she was 'bound by satan'. In Revelation the dragon, called 'the devil, and satan' sought to devour the Man-Child as soon as it was born. Who sought to kill Jesus at his birth? Herod, the Edomite king of Judea (appointed by Pagan Rome). He was a representative of the Roman government and all THAT represented (Roman society), and was a 'satan' or agent of 'satan' in that the Roman system attempted to destroy the Messiah.

And the Roman system seems represented in the Apocalyptic visions as a 'great serpent' or 'dragon' just as Egypt was represented as Leviathan the sea serpent. The Roman 'spirit' ruling the world, opposing Christ...

Well, we may be getting into a whole lot of other tangents, lol.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

I placed the word "satan" where it is found in the original Hebrew.

Numbers 22:22

And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for a satan against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him

Numbers 22:32

And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to satan thee, because thy way is perverse before me





1 Samuel 29:4

And the princes of the Philistines were wroth with him; and the princes of the Philistines said unto him, Make this fellow return, that he may go again to his place which thou hast appointed him, and let him not go down with us to battle, lest in the battle he (David) be a satan to us: for wherewith should he reconcile himself unto his master? should it not be with the heads of these men?

2 Samuel 19:22

And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be satans unto me? shall there any man be put to death this day in Israel? for do not I know that I am this day king over Israel?

1 Kings 5:4

But now the LORD my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there is neither satan nor evil occurrent.

1 Kings 11:14

And the LORD stirred up a satan unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king's seed in Edom.

1 Kings 11:23

And God stirred him up another satan, Rezon the son of Eliadah, which fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah:

1 Kings 11:25

And he was a satan to Israel all the days of Solomon, beside the mischief that Hadad did: and he abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

You are a veritable Treasury of Scripture Knowledge.
:thumbsup

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

Let me also say, as I look more closely at Jude in particular, as well as 2 Peter, it seems that the blasphemous allegations made by the false teachers against angelic beings is not the sole issue, nor even the most predominant one. It is, instead, a part of a larger picture. That larger picture being the infiltration of the church by people peddling superstitions, Jewish myths, false doctrines, rejection of the authority of the apostles and prophets of Jesus Christ, contradicting the teaching of Jesus Himself as well as the rest of the Scripture, introduction of various (false) doctrines concerning angels (in a wider sense), a rebellion against proper apostolic authority in the church, and other issues.

In fact, it seems some of this has some correlations to the epistles of John, which indicate a similar issue going on in his circles. The letters to the Seven Churches seem to indicate some similar things going, and of course Paul's farewell warning to the elders of the Ephesian assembly and his epistles to the Thessalonians seem to tie into all this as well.

(Just rambling out loud, once again...)

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

Wow. This is a lot of ground to cover.

NT writers occasionally quote from literature outside of the OT canon as we know it today. Having a line or two quoted in the NT does not justify including the entire body of literary work into the NT canon.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

I don't think anyone is arguing for including the Book of Enoch into the canon? But the issue is what exactly were Peter and Jude trying to accomplish when referencing Enoch (and possibly other writings)?

On a side note, I am not even entirely convinced they were quoting anybody except in the one instance of 'And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied...'etc. The other quotations and allusions to the Book of Enoch, and other apocryphal Jewish works, may not be quotations at all. Those works may be quoting Peter and Jude, to be honest. Also, I am currently looking at another possible explanation for the statements that do not involve any apocryphal Jewish beliefs at all... although I must confess that the understanding I outlined in this thread is - currently, to me - the strongest case I have seen that makes the most use of the available data.

I'll be back tomorrow (today? lol) to explore this some more.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

The biggest enemies to the Church at its infancy wasn't the Roman empire, but was the Judaizers, the religious Judeans, the political Judeans. Which would then use the the authority of Rome to go after the infant church. Gnosticism is really an offshoot of Kabbalah, and didn't really didn't fully get structured until the mid 2nd century. The early church didn't experience Gnosticism, but Judaic traditions, fables, and mysticism which she adopted from her stay in Babylon. Hence the Babylonian talmud is her most authoritative set of Talmuds.

The book of Enoch would of posed some issues for the fledgling church, because how Enoch contradicts the canon. Take for instance we have Enoch (father of Methuselah) telling Methuselah all about the flood. Genesis 6:11-13, we have God seeing the earth's corruption, and then because of this degradation we are told Noah was informed about a flood. Noah is the great grandson of Enoch, Enoch supposedly (according to the book of Enoch) was the one who knew about the approaching flood. Methuselah name was supposed to mean "when he dies it comes" but Methuselah actually means "man of the spear" like Cain means "possessor of the spear" Methuselah is parallel type to Cain as he was the first murderer. Methuselah name embodied everything which God would be destroying, the corruption of Cain. A carnal man who sought to kill his brother because the works from his religion were evil. There are other issues which the book of Enoch has which I would like to also discuss.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

Paul quoted Greek philosophers, in 1 Corinthians 15:33 is Menander an Athenian dramatist who lived between 342 BC to 291 BC. In Titus 1:12 Paul takes a racial jab at Cretans with their own philosopher Epimenides living between 7th or 6th century BC, who was a poet, philosopher, supposed seer/prophet. Hence Paul refers to Epimenides of Knossos as a prophet. Not that Paul believed he was a prophet, because Paul obviously includes Epimenides n his dig against the Cretans. In Acts 17:24-29, the apostle is confronted by Epicureans and Stoics, the apostle opposes the Epicureans by using the words from a Roman Stoic Philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca. Paul uses Roman/Greek philosophy theory (the origin of the world by mere coincidence and of atoms) which was what the Epicureans believed, and placed himself with the “Stoics” in their doctrine of the (Divine Wisdom and Providence creating and ruling all things). Not that Paul believed in the Σοφία the goddess of wisdom, just using their beliefs as an opening to the message of Christ. Σοφία is also what the Shekinah is in Mystic Kabbalah. Which the Gnostics would adopt into their Hellenized Kabbalist Christianity.

In Galatians 5:23, the Apostle Paul uses the words of Aristotle. We see in 1 Corinthians 9:24, 1 Corinthians 13:12, 2 Corinthians 7:2, Ephesians 1:22-23, Philippians 1:21, Philippians 3:19, 2 Timothy 4:6 Paul quotes Plato's words, and incorporates Plato's phraseology into his own Epistles. In Acts 14:15, Paul and Barnabas scream out a quote from Plato in Greek to get the mob's attention. In 1 Corinthians 12:14-17, 1 Corinthians 12:25 Paul incorporates Socrates.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

Yes, indeed. I am thinking there is a possibility that Peter and Jude may not have been addressing the Book of Enoch specifically, but may have been simply pointing out various things that later on have been re(mis)interpreted as being somehow related to Enochian fables. On the other hand, it is quite possible Peter and Jude, while not necessarily referring directly to the Book of Enoch, may have been referring to a milieu of Jewish myths and mysticism which later coalesced into the Book of Enoch and similar writings.

I think it has yet to be demonstrated conclusively that the Book of Enoch's quotations in Peter and Jude actually, definitively, and certainly came BEFORE Peter and Jude wrote what they wrote.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

I understand all that, but still we may not have the actual documents which Jude and Peter quoted from.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

I do however think this plays a part in it all:

Tit 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

What is fascinating to me is that 1st century Judaism was not monolithic. There were calendar disputes about when the Feasts were to be kept, or even what kind of calendar was to be used (some held to a solar calendar, represented by the Book of Jubilees). The Qumran sect denied the validity of the Temple priesthood. I discovered from FF Bruce's New Testament History that there was a competing Jewish Temple and priesthood in Egypt in those days, claiming legitimacy by geneology and denying the Jerusalem priesthood any legitimacy because of the Herodian appointments (begun during the Maccabean period, I think it was, under the Seleucids?).

Galatians and Colossians reveal it wasn't just plain old Pharisaism Paul and the churches had to deal with, but a weird cultic new agey type of syncretic Jewish-gnostic-pagan-occultic smorgasborg of false doctrines, false teachers, etc rampant within 'Judaism'.

Apparently, nothing has really changed much in 2000 years... :)

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

The temple of Onias wasn't ever an active temple used by any Diaspora Judeans or Israelis. It isn't recorded as such by any other ancient historian other than Josephus. Josephus is where F.F. Bruce got his information on this wanna-be temple in Alexandria. The temple of Onias is described by Josephus a few times in Antiquities a few times in some detail, but each time Josephus describes the Onias temple differently. Josephus in Antiquities 13:72, claims the temple of Onias was the same but smaller, not as elaborate. Josephus also tells us in Antiquities 13:72, that he didn't want to go over the dimensions again because he already explained them in his seventh book of the Wars of the Jew. But when we go check The War of the Jews, Book VII. we read that it wasn't like the temple in Jerusalem but was more like a tower, decorated with gifts. Maybe because there were two different writers (or more) to Josephus' records? but anyway, Josephus also records that the temple and Onias was a flop. Onias believed that he was some sort of prophesied messianic figure, so he built an area of worship. Yet, it seemed not to catch on with the Judeans in Judah, or the Diaspora Judeans. they understood that no where else on earth could a temple be built. But, I have my own issues with Josephus which would need a thread all by itself.

The War of the Jews Book VII.

3. So Ptolemy complied with his proposals; and gave him a place one hundred and eighty furlongs distant from Memphis. (19) That Nomos was called the Nomos of Heliopolis. Where Onias built a fortress; and a temple, not like to that at Jerusalem, but such as resembled a tower. He built it of large stones, to the height of sixty cubits.27 He made the structure of the altar in imitation of that in our own country, and in like manner adorned with gifts: excepting the make of the candlestick. For he did not make a candlestick; but had a [single] lamp hammered out of a piece of gold; which illuminated the place with its rays, and which he hung by a chain of gold. But the intire temple was encompassed with a wall of burnt brick, though it had gates of stone. The King also gave him a large country for a revenue in money; that both the priests might have a plentiful provision made for them; and that God might have great abundance of what things were necessary for his worship. Yet did not Onias do this out of a sober disposition.28 But he had a mind to contend with the Jews at Jerusalem; and could not forget the indignation he had for being banished thence. Accordingly he thought, that by building this temple he should draw away a great number from them to himself. There had been also a certain ancient prediction made by [a prophet] whose name was Isaiah, about six hundred years before, that this temple should be built by a man that was a Jew in Egypt. And this is the history of the building of that temple.
4. And now Lupus, the governor of Alexandria, upon the receipt of Cæsar’s letter, came to the temple, and carried out of it some of the donations dedicated thereto, and shut up the temple itself. And as Lupus died a little afterward [about A.D. 75], Paulinus succeeded him. This man left none of those donations there: and threatened the priests severely, if they did not bring them all out. Nor did he permit any who were desirous of worshipping God there, so much as to come near the whole sacred place. But when he had shut up the gates, he made it intirely inaccessible: insomuch that there remained no longer the least footsteps of any divine worship that had been in that place. Now the duration of the time from the building of this temple till it was shut up again was three hundred and forty-three years.29


You have nailed it! :thumbsup

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

Much of 1 Enoch is attested in fragments from the Qumran community, which existed well before 2 Peter and Jude were written. Does that mean the exact pieces quoted or alluded to are from then? Who can say?

My Cambridge Companion to the Bible claims Enoch was written and assembled over the course of approximately 200 years (From 250 BC to 50 AD). If this is accurate, then I think we can at least be certain that 1 Enoch existed before 2 Peter and Jude, especially the portion quoted in Jude, which is from the Book of the Watchers, which is dated to around 200 -150 BC.

Additionally, it seems pretty certain that more than just 2 Peter and Jude allude to or make reference to 1 Enoch. For example, the Messianic concept of the Son of Man, which Jesus used of Himself, finds reference in 1 Enoch (46:1–4, 48:2–7, 69:26–29).

Revelation 20:3 perhaps as well, in that it clearly indicates the cause of various deceptions extant among the various nations of the world is the Devil/Satan. This of course leads one back to the Enochian idea of the source of evil in the world being of demonic origin.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

One other quick note:

The story of Michael and the devil arguing over Moses' body is most likely from a non-canonical story found in the Assumption of Moses, now lost, but extant in the days of Origen, who claimed the reference in Jude was from it (it certainly isn't in the Canon of Holy Scripture!).

In fact, the Assumption of Moses is believed to have Jewish roots, and can easily be incorporated into the same category as 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and etc. Some scholars believe it was written in the 1st century, making it somewhat contemporaneous with 2 Peter and certainly predating Jude, which quotes from it.

This raises the question: Would the author of Jude really quote from a non-canonical source like the Assumption of Moses, to affirm the validity of the circumstances of Michael refusing to rebuke Satan as proof that he was really addressing false teachers who were, based on the just quoted Book of Enoch, actually blaspheming angels?

It doesn't make any sense. Jude wouldn't refer to one non-canonical source in a bad light to use it against those of whom he wrote, only to use another non-canonical source in a good light to prove his point that those against whom he wrote were wrong for using the same non-canonical source (i.e. Enoch) as justification for their doctrine of their belief in fallen angels, as Esaias has been asserting.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

Did you happen to read my post on Paul using Gentile philosophers and seers to convey the Gospel to His Gentile readers? Paul isn't giving them the thumbs up, but using them because his readers would understand how Paul was using the quotes. They were uninspired but Paul uses them, jut not validating them as Biblical sources. The same with Peter and Jude, the quote from Pseudepigrapha documents. Jesus also would use the doctrines of a certain sect He was dealing with to drive home a point. Jesus speaks about maiming yourself if a certain body part was offensive enough to lead you into sin. Jesus didn't believe that in the after life John the Baptist was walking around without his head, but used the doctrine of the Pharisees of how they would make sure every body part was intact at the burial to ensure they would be in one piece in the after life. The same with Peter and Jude. the Assumption of Moses was probably written in the first century A.D. as it may have been originally written in Latin. One incomplete manuscript is dated to the 6th century A.D.. it is an incomplete manuscript discovered by a Catholic priest, Antonio Ceriani. But consider the title, the Assumption of Moses, this in itself is a clear contradiction of Deuteronomy 34:6 which says that Moses was clearly buried in Moab, whether or not anyone was able to find the grave is not the point. But that the writer tells us that Moses was buried, and didn't ascend into heaven.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

Its odd that instead of commenting on Pauls plain statement that the SAINTS will have victory over death at the RESURRECTION you flew into all of these things about what the Greeks believed.

Do you have no better argument against what Paul taught the Corinthians?

Let us look at it again so the reader may know the CONTEXT of what I was referring to.


51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed--
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
55 "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" 1 Cor 15:51-55

Paul was teaching SAINTS about the resurrection. He said THEY would at that time become immortal. He finishes his teaching on the subject by saying death would be swallowed up in victory.

"Oh death where is thy sting? Oh HADES where is thy victory?" Verse 55.

Was Paul implying that the SAINTS had been held captive somehow in this dreadful underworld place that was ruled over by Greek gods?

Or rather was he implying that the SAINTS had been in Hades....the Greek counterpart of the Hebrew SHEOL....the grave?

Evidently THIS was Pauls meaning. The SAINTS had been dead, asleep in Hades/Sheol attested by the entire chapter 1 Cor 15. That was his whole purpose was to show them the "good news" of the resurrection of the dead.

It is taught to us by Paul that UNTIL THE RESURRECTION death and Hades has the victory over the SAINTS.

So it becomes apparent this whole idea that Hades was this great underworld civilization ruled and populated by the Greek gods is in error.

At death do SAINTS go to Hades?

We know for sure by Pauls teaching that HADES HAS THE VICTORY OVER THEM.....UNTIL THE RESURRECTION.

And my original point in all this which has now become an entirely new thread was that PAUL MENTIONS "HADES/HELL" only one time. The only time he does mention it is saying that SAINTS are in it UNTIL THE RESURRECTION.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

Mike, I didn't fly into anything. You were correcting Truthseeker telling him what he thought hell was might not be what he was taught? I then asked you to explain the difference of the translated English word for hell found 2 Peter 2:4? You then returned with a post stating how Hades is different than Tartarus.

You mentioned there being a difference which humans went to Hades, and angels Tartarus? That would of been ok, but it seems (since your recent posts) that you feigned wanting to be corrected in your opinion concerning the difference between the two?


You see that is why I went into showing what the ancients believed concerning the two Greek words.

I'll tell you what? You come down to the eschatology section, and answer my questions concerning: WHY an end time revival? Two Witness Prophets? The Manchild Ministry? The Angel preaching the everlasting gospel? God killing millions of his enemies through various judgments? Your right understanding of the book of Revelation and how it makes a difference? Also explain how many who at least think they are saved will wind up with the mark of the beast? What is that mark, and how do people unwittingly receive it? You see I started a thread in July 6 2014 wanting to deal with those questions? But never was able to have you respond? So, I know your frustration when someone on't deal with your questions. So, waiting to see you down in that section. :)

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...46&postcount=1

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

Just want to say to Esaias and EB that this is some good stuff you have posted, just came across this and read it through, not saying I agree or disagree just saying these post should at least make one stop and think.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

How do we know that Peter was referring to the book of Enoch at all? Just because there may be a few parallels of the book of Enoch and 1 Peter doesn't mean that was intentional. I certainly find this thread interesting, but I don't think we can do anything but speculate. The fact that Enoch and the canonized scripture are contradicting is probably largely the reason Enoch isn't canon.Although there may be some truth (?) in the book of Enoch, it isn't the scripture.

It is interesting to me in the OT hell is always translated seol, but in the NT it is Gehenna, Hades, and in 1 Peter Tartarus. Hades and Tarturus are places of the afterlife in Greek mythology. It is interesting to me how culture shapes our terminology.

A question: Is there anywhere in the OT that indicates a resurrection? I don't doubt the resurrection, but I don't see it in the OT.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

We are just discussing this topic, more input the better. :thumbsup

Just don't tell Elder LeDeay. :begging

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

The Apostle Peter uses Psalm 16:8-11 in Acts 2:25-28 to uses scriptural confirmation for the Lord's resurrection. The dry bones in Ezekiel 37:1-14 represent a resurrection of Israel/Judea coming up out of Babylonian captivity. Jonah in the belly of the whale Jonah 1:17, Jonah 2:1-9 again shows death, burial and resurrection.

What makes the Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parallel interesting to me is that Esaias presents an idea that Jude and Peter aren't advocating the Enochian material, or the Assumption of Moses. But like Paul who quotes Stoics, Epicureans, and Greek mystics, while not advocating them, Peter and Jude are doing the same.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

Very good. I should have thought about Psalms 16. The resurrection seems to be somewhat concealed in the OT. Of course there are illustrations that point to it, but it seems that their thinking in that time didn't include a resurrection as we present heaven and hell.

I should probably read the book Enoch before I interject very much. I have skimmed parts of it, but I don't know much of what the book says. Interesting thoughts being presented.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

Now please keep in mind that Esaias, or myself are not advocating the Enochian literature. But I do encourage people getting a good understanding of what the history was like, the literature was like, during the compilation of the Old and New Testament. Peter, and the apostles were dealing with all of the different Jewish schisms, plus Judaizers from their own ranks. Paul, dealt with not only Gentile literature, and culture. But also Judaizers who were creeping into his churches teaching things they ought not. In Titus 1:11-12 Paul doesn't pick Enochian literature to quote from, but a Pagan mystic Epimenides of Knossos. When Paul quotes the Greek mystic seer he is in no way agreeing with everything Epimenides promoted. Paul just chose to use that one quote which he did agree with.

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

Does it not seem more likely that Paul is saying "there are vain talkers who must be stopped" and that the vain talkers have Epimenides as "one of their own" who said some vain stuff like "Cretans are liars"? And the vain talkers need to be rebuked?

Re: Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parall
 

I think so, and therefore with Peter and Jude we may have the same situation, but just with Enochian material.

Who says the current book of Enoch was the one Jude quoted? It always baffles me that folks don't think of that.