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

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Just a note to say I have considered Esaias' viewpoint on this, and am not convinced, but have not totally scrapped it either. I still find it hard to think Jesus and the apostles wrote of things that were blatantly wrong in order to use sinners' own ammo against them.

Paul uses Greek philosophers. Paul in Acts 17:28 quotes two poets Epimenides' Cretica and Aratus' Hymn to Zeus. 1 Cor. 15:33 Paul uses a quote from Euripides, or Menandros. Titus 1:12 is Epimenides of Knossos, in Crete. Titus even tells us that Epimenides is a Cretan prophet. This is how they were able to reach others in their world. Not that they were advocating this individuals or their writings.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Paul uses Greek philosophers. Paul in Acts 17:28 quotes two poets Epimenides' Cretica and Aratus' Hymn to Zeus. 1 Cor. 15:33 Paul uses a quote from Euripides, or Menandros. Titus 1:12 is Epimenides of Knossos, in Crete. Titus even tells us that Epimenides is a Cretan prophet. This is how they were able to reach others in their world. Not that they were advocating this individuals or their writings.

I understand those references. But when I read Jude, he sandwiches the reference to the angels losing their first estate between the doubtgers in the Exodus who did not believe they could enter Canaan and the people of Sodom and Gommorha who were judged due to sin, as though all the accounts ere factual. He said that the fall of these angels was judgment just as with the Exodus doubters and Sodom and Gommorha. And he makes no distinction between those stories.

Jude 1:5-7.. 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. ..(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. ..(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.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I understand those references. But when I read Jude, he sandwiches the reference to the angels losing their first estate between the doubtgers in the Exodus who did not believe they could enter Canaan and the people of Sodom and Gommorha who were judged due to sin, as though all the accounts ere factual. He said that the fall of these angels was judgment just as with the Exodus doubters and Sodom and Gommorha. And he makes no distinction between those stories.

Jude 1:5-7.. 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. ..(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. ..(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.

Placed in the larger context of his epistle, all three stories fit, and make sense why they are used. To me, at least. Mainly because the "angels that sinned" terminology and event is straight out of Enochite writings (including Qumran copies which predate Jude by about 1 or 2 centuries). The theme and subject of both 2 Peter and Jude is false teachers. Both epistles quote Enochite literature some 30 times, but specifically apply Enochite claims about fallen angels to the false teachers themselves.

A perfect example is verse 9, another citation of a popular Enochite Jewish myth. Yet it is cited as a polemic against false teachers who promote myths, and who "speak evil of dignities", or as the NIV renders it, "slander celestial beings".

I mean no other explanation actually makes full sense of everything, all the data.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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)

bump

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

bump

Sooooo we shouldn't talk smack about the Debbil? 🤣

[Ronnie G]

I’m just going to Say this Esaias,

I don’t know you, but I admire how headlong you can get into an analysis.

You literally wrote a book here. You should just go ahead and write an actual book on this.

Hat’s off, sir.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Ronnie G

I’m just going to Say this Esaias,

I don’t know you, but I admire how headlong you can get into an analysis.

You literally wrote a book here. You should just go ahead and write an actual book on this.

Hat’s off, sir.

Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses????

I don't know Ronnie G, I didn't put him up to this. He i giving you his unbiased opinion. So, my brother, when will the book be finished?

[Ronnie G]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses????

I don't know Ronnie G, I didn't put him up to this. He i giving you his unbiased opinion. So, my brother, when will the book be finished?

I don’t know you either. I promise, it’s not a ruse!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Ronnie G

I don’t know you either. I promise, it’s not a ruse!

[Amanah]

Bump for review