In Mark 12:24-25 Jesus is talking to the Saducees and they asked him about marriage in heaven. Jesus said "you err because you don't know the Scriptures" and then explains that they don't marry but are like the angels in heaven. There is no Scripture that I know of anywhere In the 66 books that explains that, yet Jesus rebuked them and said they didn't know the Scripture. I Enoch 15:6-7 says "But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling." If Jesus said it is Scripture why the pushback?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Did Jesus not validate Book of Enoch?
- Thread starter IserveIam
- Start date
I note that in Mark 12:26 Jesus was pretty clear about identifying what book He was quoting. He clearly stated the Book of Moses when quoting the Scripture.
Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ Mark 12:26 NIV
Why would He refer to something else without similarly identifying the source, and quoting the appropriate verse?
Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ Mark 12:26 NIV
Why would He refer to something else without similarly identifying the source, and quoting the appropriate verse?
I don't think Jesus was referring to like the angels in heaven as much as He was referring to the resurrection. Since the Sadducees didn't believe in a resurrection or angels their question was clearly meant as a trap. Paul's statement about bodies not of the dust of the earth is cohesive with Jesus's "like the angels".
...the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Genesis 6:2 NIV
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. Genesis 6:4 NIV
It seems to me that the same principle of angels no longer marrying can be derived from Genesis 6. If this refers to angels marrying human women, their offspring were the Nephilim. The fact that there are no longer Nephilim on the earth leads to the conclusion that angels no longer marry human women. All in the Books of Moses, which the Sadducees were familiar with and accepted. Why quote a book to the Sadducees that they didn't accept, and may not have even been very familiar with?
Last edited:
Truthfrees
Member
excellent and compelling point
Razeontherock
Member
He did this frequently. You may ask Him why. Many times He quotes the book of Enoch.
Why did Jews detest it? It speaks of Christ as we do, more clearly than any other writing that predates the NT by (at least) hundreds of years, by any reasonable accounting.
There are whole sections that have no value to us, but some sections are good. You won't miss anything Salvific by not reading it, but anything Jesus quotes that many times I want to familiarize myself with, to see if it gives me any insight into His words.
Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Angels have no gender and are spirit being. They never marry or procreate so if we are to be like the angels in heaven I can only assume since we will be like them the same will be for us.
Enoch also wrote of this: 1 Enoch 15:5. Therefore have I given to them wives, that they might cohabit with them; that sons might be born of them; and that this might be transacted upon earth. 6. But you from the beginning were made spiritual, possessing a life which is eternal, and not subject to death for ever. 7. Therefore I made not wives for you, because, being spiritual, your dwelling is in heaven.
This is speaking about both angels and those of the earth as we will be like the angels in heaven. Our dwelling will be in the New Jerusalem as we will be like the angels in heaven and also like Jesus when we see Him as He is.
When we are transformed into the image of Christ when He returns. This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality for we know not what we will look like, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
1 Corinthians 15:52, 53; 1 John 3:2, 3.
Angels have no gender and are spirit being. They never marry or procreate so if we are to be like the angels in heaven I can only assume since we will be like them the same will be for us.
Enoch also wrote of this: 1 Enoch 15:5. Therefore have I given to them wives, that they might cohabit with them; that sons might be born of them; and that this might be transacted upon earth. 6. But you from the beginning were made spiritual, possessing a life which is eternal, and not subject to death for ever. 7. Therefore I made not wives for you, because, being spiritual, your dwelling is in heaven.
This is speaking about both angels and those of the earth as we will be like the angels in heaven. Our dwelling will be in the New Jerusalem as we will be like the angels in heaven and also like Jesus when we see Him as He is.
When we are transformed into the image of Christ when He returns. This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality for we know not what we will look like, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
1 Corinthians 15:52, 53; 1 John 3:2, 3.
I agree as the book of Enoch is just as important as all the books of the Apocrypha even though they are not included in the Bible. It was man that decided which writings made it into the Bible as I believe they were inspired of God to which ones were of the most importance.
No, this does not validate the Book of Enoch, and Jesus is quoting Moses, not Enoch.
There are reasons why the Book of Enoch is called "pseudoepigrapha" which means "false writing." For one, the style of writing is post-exilic, not paleo, and the book is dated about 150 BC as to when written. Therefore the claim that the writer is "Enoch, the seventh from Adam" is a false claim. Jude is quoting an oral tradition, possibly even distinguishing his quote from the Book of Enoch by the phrase "seventh from Adam."
There are some problems in the Book of Enoch which can't be resolved by comparison to scripture:
1. The idea that the Nephilim are offspring of angels and women is false, since Gen. 6 clearly states that the Nephilim were already in existence when "the sons of God" married the "daughters of men."
2. Angels do not (and likely cannot) marry "daughters of men" because they are spirit beings, not physical, and such as is the nature of the species difference, certainly could not have offspring.
3. Since Jesus declared that angels do not marry, they likely don't even have the function to do so.
4. It states in the book that this "Enoch" had a vision in a certain valley in the land of Dan. But Dan did not exist until 1300 years after Enoch was taken up.
5. The book tells about giants 3000 els (cubits) tall, which translates to 4500 feet tall. Ludicrous. Stuff of Tolkien.
There are other issues I won't mention here. The point is that Enoch is fiction. The fact that it has some truth in it doesn't make it canon material.
TD
Razeontherock
Member
This does not address the many times that Jesus did quote Enoch, with the saying not written down anywhere else that we know of. Nor does it consider the possibility of quoting both Enoch and Moses simultaneously.
This is near useless. Militant atheists claim no Scripture was written before the Babylonian captivity. That notion fails to account for the many reasons to create new manuscripts at that time, (their language was changing, old manuscripts were falling apart, and they had nothing else to do) or that old manuscripts were destroyed once new were created, much like we burn a tattered flag.
It's also beyond likely that at least some Scripture was oral tradition for generations before ever being written down.
The reasoning behind the stated conclusion here, while popular, does not withstand scrutiny.
You state that as though it were accepted fact, and the gullible reader might just accept that. The fact is this is a highly contentious claim that isn't about to be resolved here.
So symbolic language really eludes you? I find that hard to believe. Or that scribes could embellish as centuries roll on, re-naming a plot of land in a manner that's meaningful to the readership?
It's also pretty evident that different sections of Enoch could easily have different authors, from widely different time periods. There is no good reason to consider it as all having the same merit, and ample reason not to.
No one is suggesting that Enoch is Canon (except the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which holds Enoch 1 in that esteem)
Jim Parker
Member
Jesus often quoted scripture without identifying the author.
Mat 12:3 But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him:
Mat 12:5 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?
Mat 19:4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[fn] them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,'
Mat 21:16 and said to Him, “Do You hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read, ‘Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have perfected praise'?”
Mat 21:42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD's doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes' ?
Because there were no chapters and verses in the scriptures Jesus quoted. They were not added until the 16th century.
Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” Jude 14-15
JLB
Jim Parker
Member
While Jesus did not say it was scripture in so many words, you do make a good point.
The Scripture that was most widely known at the time of Jesus and the apostles was the Septuagint. (LXX - The Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.) That is the scripture quoted in the NT. (Although, I remember reading that Paul corrected the LXX when it deviated from the Hebrew.)
The LXX included the apocrypha as did the KJV until thee mid 1800s when it was decided to remove it.
It seems to me that the "pushback" is an artifact of the fundamentalist response to the "higher criticism" of the German scholars and a new emphasis on the precision with which the Bible had been transmitted down to them. It looks like an over reaction to me.
Jude also quotes an apocryphal book; "The Assumption of Moses," in which he cites the angel disputing with the devil for possession of the body of Moses. It created a conundrum. The "Assumption of Moses" we are told is "not an inspired book" yet there it is in the "inspired" New Testament.
Do we make more of the issue than is necessary?
Do we create an issue where there is none?
I don't let the issue distract me.
iakov the fool
Last edited:
Edward
2024 Supporter
I've read the book of Enoch, I don't see where it disagrees with any canonized scriptures. Enoch 1 starts out saying, this book is not for this generation, but for a distant generation to come...and our canonized scripture says...in the last days knowledge of God will be increased. Well, these are the last days. Knowledge is being increased.
The way I figure it, if the book of Enoch was a...carefully crafted fable, then it would be endorsed by the world. Well it is not endorsed. Their main weapon and tool is deception, we know that. Plus, Jesus did quote Enoch in Jude. From what I understand, it was lost for many years and "rediscovered" in the latter part of last century...so thats prolly the Holy Spirit's work. Many professing Christians say they believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and that the canonized scripture is the word of God, but will have tunnel vision and reject any teachings that are not in our canon...so if knowledge is said that it will increase in the last days...(so that must be true), where is it going to come from if all we have that is true is the canon?
Our scripture: The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth. We're 'sposed to study to show ourselves approved. So wouldn't rejecting new teachings from the Holy Spirit be blasphemy? In the OT, it is replete with examples of, before God carries out a judgment, He always sends His Prophets to warn the people. Prophets are not well received nowadays either. I think thats dangerous to reject new knowledge even if it's something you don't like.
It doesnt say that the Holy Spirit will lead you into some truth. It says all truth. So study hard with an open mind, and pray hard about these things. God is not one to not deliver on His promises.
The way I figure it, if the book of Enoch was a...carefully crafted fable, then it would be endorsed by the world. Well it is not endorsed. Their main weapon and tool is deception, we know that. Plus, Jesus did quote Enoch in Jude. From what I understand, it was lost for many years and "rediscovered" in the latter part of last century...so thats prolly the Holy Spirit's work. Many professing Christians say they believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and that the canonized scripture is the word of God, but will have tunnel vision and reject any teachings that are not in our canon...so if knowledge is said that it will increase in the last days...(so that must be true), where is it going to come from if all we have that is true is the canon?
Our scripture: The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth. We're 'sposed to study to show ourselves approved. So wouldn't rejecting new teachings from the Holy Spirit be blasphemy? In the OT, it is replete with examples of, before God carries out a judgment, He always sends His Prophets to warn the people. Prophets are not well received nowadays either. I think thats dangerous to reject new knowledge even if it's something you don't like.
It doesnt say that the Holy Spirit will lead you into some truth. It says all truth. So study hard with an open mind, and pray hard about these things. God is not one to not deliver on His promises.
I like what you have to say about these things.
However “knowledge will increase” doesn’t necessarily mean the knowledge is from God. We are living in what is called the information age and much of it seems to be about evil, just as it was in the days of Noah.
Furthermore Daniel says “many will go to and fro” which refers to travel, especially world travel.
Your reference to the Holy Spirit leading us into all truth is true and the book of Jasher in another one mentioned in the Bible that is amazing.
I would encourage those you desire to look into these things to be first, founded on the solid rock of the doctrine of Christ and His sayings, teachings, instruction, commandments and message so as to not be carried away with some of these other things.
Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
2 John 9
JLB
What difference does it make anyway about the book of Enoch as it is intertwined within the scriptures just as probably most of the Apocrypha. Do we have total knowledge of everything that the 66 books of the Holy Bible contains, no, so why not concentrate on what we already have before us to learn from. The Apocrypha can be found online if anyone wants to read them so what is the big deal. 
Jim Parker
Member
Some folks have been taught that it is a big deal and they should take immediate action to suppress any references to Apocrypha et. al.The Apocrypha can be found online if anyone wants to read them so what is the big deal.
jasonc
Member
The mishna,talmud,Babylonian,and Jerusalem type were around .
I could go into sheol from the mishna ,but that might support purgatory ,2 Peter 3 looks like a case for it.
Meh,I dont buy purgatory but I have questioned the teachings on sheol,hell ,hades,and learned from that .
Sheol is ,however ,another topic, but despite that by ad 100 the jews remove any of apocryphal books from the tanach and the karaites,which we used their mss to translate from didn't have it either.the masoretic texts ,and it's oral passing didn't habe that to my knowledge
I could go into sheol from the mishna ,but that might support purgatory ,2 Peter 3 looks like a case for it.
Meh,I dont buy purgatory but I have questioned the teachings on sheol,hell ,hades,and learned from that .
Sheol is ,however ,another topic, but despite that by ad 100 the jews remove any of apocryphal books from the tanach and the karaites,which we used their mss to translate from didn't have it either.the masoretic texts ,and it's oral passing didn't habe that to my knowledge
Jim Parker
Member
But the Church did not. They remained until the Bible Society decided to remove them in the 1800s.