Logo Copyright © 2007 NCCG - All Rights Reserved
Return to Main Page




Symphony of Truth

In a Nutshell

Topical Guide


5 Commissions

10 Commandments

333 NCCG Number

144,000, The


Action Stations

Agency, Free





Apostolic Interviews

Apostolic Epistles

Archive, Complete

Articles & Sermons





Baptism, Water

Baptism, Fire

Becoming a Christian

Bible Codes

Bible Courses

Bible & Creed


Calendar of Festivals


Charismata & Tongues

Chavurat Bekorot

Christian Paganism

Chrism, Confirmation


Church, Fellowship

Contact us



Covenants & Vows












Ephraimite Page, The

Essene Christianity




Family, The



Festivals of Yahweh

Festivals Calendar



Gay Christians


Godhead, The






Hebrew Roots





Holy Echad Marriage

Holy Order, The

Home Education


Human Nature




Intro to NCCG.ORG



Jewish Page, The

Judaism, Messianic

Judaism, Talmudic


KJV-Only Cult





Marriage & Romance



Messianic Judaism






NCCG Origins

NCCG Organisation

NCCG, Spirit of

NCCG Theology



New Age & Occult



New Covenant Torah

Norwegian Website


Occult Book, The

Occult Page, The

Olive Branch



Paganism, Christian















RDP Page




Satanic Ritual Abuse



Sermons & Articles

Sermons Misc







Swedish Website


Talmudic Judaism



Tongues & Charismata



True Church, The




United Order, The




Wicca & the Occult


World News


Yah'shua (Jesus)




Month 11:24, Week 4:2 (Shanee/Matzah), Year:Day 5937:320 AM
Gregorian Calendar: Monday 23 February 2014
The Book of Enoch
2. Theology & Construction Examined

    Continued from Part 1



    Originally conceived as a medium-sized article that would take two days to write, Part 2 of this series ended up as a small book that took two weeks. Obviously there is still a lot more research work that could, and needs to, be done. Nevertheless I feel that most of the main elements have been sufficiently covered to give the student of the Book of Enoch a sound overview with which to make a reasonably informed judgment on its claims. Part 3 will deal separately with the calendar issue and Part 4 with the elements I believe to be authentic fragments from a truly ancient text or oral tradition. My purpose, unapologetically, is to separate out the mythological pseudo-Enoch invented by some early Pharisees from the true Enoch of antiquity.

    Hillringsberg, Sweden
    8 March 2014

    Paragraphs have been numbered to allow easy referencing and navigation for study


    SECTION Paragraph
    Historical and Text Criticism 1
    The Five Divisions of the Book of Enoch 16
    Division 1 17
    Division 2 25
    Division 3 27
    Division 4 29
    Division 5 33
    New Testament - Book of Enoch Table 56
    1. The Enochian Kingdom 62
    2. The Enochian Messiah 72
    3. The Enochian Sheol 90
    4. The Enochian Resurrection 99
    5. Enochian Demonology 103
    Conclusion 133


    Introduction - Explaining Historical and Text Criticism

    1. Before we get underway with Part 2, I must first answer the accusation made in response to my first article that I have employed German 'higher criticism' which is used by liberal theologians to discredit the inspiration of the Bible itself and that to be consistent I should subject the Synoptic Gospels snd the rest of the Bible to the same treatment for showing 'apparent contradictions' like the Book of Enoch. Let me therefore state my position clearly from the outset so that there are no misunderstandings:

    • 1. I neither accept as valid, nor analyticslly employ, the so-called atheistic historical-critical method otherwise known rather arrogantly as 'Higher Criticism' or 'Historical Criticism' which denies the existence of the supernatural, prophecy, the work of the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) or revelation in general, and which therefore seeks to examine a text as purely a function of historical events in humanistic terms without divine input of any kind. Whilst I knowledge the validity, importance and necessity of some form of historical criticism, and employ it myself, I do not use all the tools of unbelievers;

    • 2. I absolutely do employ what is insultingly called 'Lower Criticism' (better known now as Textual Criticism) by liberal believers, atheists and agnostics. This method is a branch of textual scholarship, philology and literary criticism that is concerned with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes sometimes made errors or deliberate alterations when copying manuscripts by hand, like the Masoretes. Given a manuscript copy, several or many copies, but not the original document, the textual critic seeks to reconstruct the original text (the archetype or autograph) as closely as possible. The same processes can be used to attempt to reconstruct intermediate editions, or recensions, of a document's transcription history. The ultimate objective of the textual critic's work is the production of a 'critical edition' containing a text most closely approximating the original. Textual Criticism does not necessarily deny inspiration, prophecy or revelation, and in my case, I do not.

    2. I apply textual and historical criticism to existing biblical manuscripts within these parameters. Indeed, it is partly because I have done this over the years that I am convinced, as a scientist, the Bible is authentic. The Bible texts match the historical and literary (form) styles of the times they purport to represent. Every piece of new archaeology confirms the texts. When Chronicles quotes a Psalm of David, the time periods match as they ought.

    3. In applying the same scientific rules to pseudepigraphical documents like the Book of Enoch I am equally convinced, as this series will I hope demonstrate, that Enoch is a fraud. It demonstrably uses material, as Part 1 showed, on the wrong side of the Flood (such as Israelite geography of the Tribe of Dan). It uses Aramaic literary terms before they were invented (such as 'the Ancient of Days'). Part 2 will take a closer look at the Book of Enoch by using legitimate form criticism and comparing its doctrines with those of the Bible.

    Historical Review

    4. As we saw in the previous part of this series, the Book of Enoch was held in such high regard at one time that it was quoted in other pseudepigrapha from the same time period (200 BC - 100 AD) like the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Book of Jubilees, and was regarded in certain circles as inspired. By the time we arrive at the first century AD, we find a short quotation (two verses) in the Epistle of Jude. In the second century this recognition is extended amply in the Epistle of Barnabas (16:6), by Athenogoras in Legatio pro Christianis (24); and in the third century by Clement of Alexandria, by Irenaeus (4.16.2), by Tertullian in De Cultu Fem. (1:3), De Idol. (15) (of the Western fathers, he was the only one to call it "Holy Scripture"), by Zosimus of Panopolis, etc.. But by the fourth century the book had become discredited after the Council of Laodicia, and having been banned by Rome, gradually passed out of circulation.

    How We Got the English Version of the Book of Enoch

    5. Though never canonised by either the Jews or by the Western (Catholic) Church, the Eastern Ethiopic Church did, which is how Bruce rediscovered it. But even before Bruce, rumours of its existence had circulated within Protestant circles. A number of forgeries of the Book of Enoch were at first passed off as being this 'original' before being exposed. Bruce's publication aroused little interest initially, the book being viewed more as an embarrassment by the religious establishment than anything else, and it was not until R.H.Charles' publication in 1912 that renewed interest was shown. In the following years several portions of the Greek text surfaced. Then with the discovery of Cave #4 of the Dead Sea Scrolls, seven fragmentary copies of the Aramaic text were also found.

    An Artificial Five-fold Division

    6. Perhaps in mimicry of the Pentateuch, Psalms, Proverbs, Sirach and many other Israelite works, the Book of Enoch was intended by its final editor to consist of five sections - 1-36, 37-71, 72-82, 83-90, and 91-108. Behind this apparently artificial division lies a real difference as to its authorship, system of thought, and date which we need to take a closer look at.

    How Corrupted Has the Text Become?

    7. As I mentioned in Part 1, it is not my purpose to judge the whole of the Book of Enoch as a fraud just because of the many obvious corruptions. There is usually truth behind every legend with more and more accretion and distortion taking place the farther back one goes. There may well be inspired portions within it and not just from the patriarch Enoch alone, but from other unknown writers too, conceivably even close to the time it was penned around 200 BC - 100 AD. Determining what is what is the real challenge, and probably (ultimately) impossible to establish.

    A 'Christian' Portion

    8. Take, for example, the opening verses of Chapter 46 that are so 'Christian' that it does lead one to wonder if it was penned by some zealous (though misguided) believer after the books of the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) had already been written:

      "There I beheld the Ancient of days ("I saw one who had a head of days" - R.H.Charles) whose head was like white wool, and with him another, whose countenance resembled that of a man. His countenance was full of grace, like that of one of the holy angels. Then I inquired of one of the angels, who went with me, and who showed me every secret thing, concerning this Son of man; who he was; whence he was; and why he accompanied the Ancient of days. He answered and said to me, This is the Son of man, to whom righteousness belongs; with whom righteousness has dwelt; and who will reveal all the treasures of that which is concealed: for the Lord of spirits has chosen him; and his portion has surpassed all before the Lord of spirits in everlasting uprightness."

    Obvious Similarities With Daniel

    9. The similarity of this passage with Daniel and the Book of Revelation is immediately apparent:

      "I watched till thrones were put in place, and the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, its wheels a burning fire; a fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated, and the books were opened" (Dan.7:9-10, NKJV).

      "I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed" (Dan.7:13-14, NKJV)

      "I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the qodeshim (saints, set-apart ones), and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favour of the qodeshim (saints, set-apart ones) of El Elyon (the Most High), and the time came for the qodeshim (saints, set-apart ones) to possess the kingdom" (Dan.7:21-22, NKJV).

      "His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire" (Rev.1:14, NKJV).

    The Ancient of Days

    10. The title of Deity, "Ancient of Days" (Aramaic, Atik Yomin; Greek LXX, Palaios Hemeron; Latin Vulgate, Antiquus Dierum) is unique to the Book of Daniel, a book, you will remember, like the Book of Enoch, that is partly in Aramaic and partly in Hebrew. It has become common currency in the Western Church through its popularisation in the inspirational hymn by Walter Chalmers Smith, Immortal, Invisible, God only Wise, where in the last two lines of the first verse we sing:

      Most blessed, most glorious, the Ancient of Days,
      Almighty, victorious, Thy great Name we praise.

    The Eternalness of Elohim

    11. But what is this title of Deity doing in the Book of Enoch? And is it unique to Daniel in the Bible? The title is a descriptive of Elohim's (God's) eternal nature, existing before time began. He is sitting on a flaming throne, which is symbolic of judgment, and this may be why the writer of this portion of Enoch chose the title because his dominant theme is the judgment of the fallen Watcher malakim (angels). A similar concept of His eternalness is found in Isaiah but it is very different from Daniel's wording:

      "Indeed before the day was, I am He; and there is no one who can deliver out of My hand; I work, and who will reverse it?" (Isa.43:13, NKJV).

      "Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Yahweh of hosts: 'I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no Elohim (God)'" (Isa.44:6, NKJV).

    Pseudo-Enoch Borrowed From Daniel

    12. Given the overwhelming evidence assembled in Part 1 that the Book of Enoch is a work originating from the two centuries before Messiah's First Advent, and possibly including parts borrowed from the writings of the first century AD, it is not unreasonable to assume that Pseudo-Enoch borrowed from Daniel. The theme of Enoch is the future realisation of the messianic emet (truth) that Abraham sought for and taught, and the "Ancient of Days" encapsulates the hope of the reign of justice for which all previous generations have prayed, and still pray for today. What you, the reader, have to decide is whether Daniel borrowed from Enoch, or vice versa. The evidence amassed so far tends rather strongly toward the latter as there is no evidence that they shared a common source or that they came up with the title independently of one another.

    The Five Sections of Enoch

    13. Let us return to the 'five sections' of Enoch, one of which purports to have been written by Noah. R.H.Charles believed that the Noah Saga in Enoch was older than Enoch (though Enoch was his ancestor) and that the latter was built upon the dbris of the former.

    Vital Information for the Last Generation?

    14. Obviously we must temper any eagerness we may have for this to be an ancient prophecy since it has already been made clear, and will become clearer, that there is already fraud in this book. Muddy waters are notoriously difficult, if not impossible, to clean up. Was this book written thousands of years ago just for us in the very last of the last days, as its opening verses claim? Was it written with an audience in mind who could only make sense of it after the First Coming of Messiah? Was it really written for the last generation who would go through the Great Tribulation, and if so, how could it possibly help those latter-day believers? Is it supplying us with more than is already needed in the Bible? How is its complex angelology (doctrine of angels) supposed to be useful to us? Whoever wrote this section was aware that after this tribulation, all the wicked and godless would be removed. Of course, every generation with apocalyptic fever coming into contact with the Book of Enoch would naturally wonder if they were that last generation.

    Is There Evidence This is an Antichrist Work?

    15. At the back of our minds must also linger the consideration that the Book of Enoch was crafted by someone not operating under the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) but under the influence of the spirit of Antichrist. If he was - knowingly or unknowingly - promoting the Anti-Messiah (Antichrist) by passing him off as the true Messiah, then we would need take careful note of any evidence supporting this contention. Such evidence would include doctrines that contradict the true messianic ones of the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament), and if the work is a devilish plot done well, we would expect these lies to be well mixed in with much emet (truth) too. It's for this reason we must carefully examine every doctrine in Enoch that is disjunctive with the Bible teachings and try to see what this false spirit might be leading the reader to conclude, even if only to create confusion with no clear false messianic outlook in mind.

    Introducing the Five Divisions

    16. The Book of Enoch is divided into five basic parts, but it is the The Book of Parables (37-71) which gives scholars the most trouble for it is primarily concerned with a figure called "the messiah"; "the righteous one"; "the chosen one" and "the son of man." Let's now take a closer look at these five divisions.

    DIVISION 1 (1-36)
    Are We Supposed to Interceed for Fallen Angels?

    17. As I have already pointed out, chapters 6-11 belonged entirely to an earlier pseudepigraph, the Book of Noah. Chapters 12-16, on the other hand, are a vision or visions of Enoch in which he interceeds on behalf of the fallen Watcher malakim (angels) and their leader, Azazel. Here our first alarm bells ought to be going off for where anywhere in the Bible are we commanded to ever interceed for fallen malakim (angels), let alone the leader, Azazel, whom supposedly is Heylel (Lucifer, Satan)? Would the Ruach (Spirit) ever lead a man of Elohim (God) to do so, knowing that there is no forgiveness promised to these beings or for anyone committing the unpardonable sin?

    A Dangerous Precedent

    18. I am reminded of a sect I came across many years ago in Bergen, Norway, who believed in forgiving and interceeding for demons. The feeling I had around these people was eerie to say the least. It is a doctrine of the Muslims that the jinn (demons) can be converted and turned into good Muslims through preaching the Koran to them. If such a doctrine is false, as is clearly indicated in the Bible, then what would be the affect of believers having such an attitude? It would create ties of sympathy and give demons every oppotunity to deceive and get power over their sympathisers, leading believers away from Messiah and from Yahweh who has made it clear what the fate of these beings is:

      "For...Elohim (God) did not spare the malakim (angels) who sinned (fallen Watchers), but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly..." (2 Peter 2:4-5, NKJV).

    Pseudo-Enoch is Sympathetic to Demons

    19. Would a man of Elohim (God) like the real patriarch Enoch, guided by the Ruach (Spirit) in all emet (truth) and in Yahweh's righteousness, therefore have gone and done something so obviously contrary to the Almightly's will? Impossible! The 'Enoch' of the Book of Enoch comes across as a nice enough sort of fellow but rather weak, sympathetic and undiscerning toward the fallen Watchers, reminding me of the wooly, weak, feeble, effeminite, kind-hearted but doubt-plagued 'Jesus' of the Hollywood movie, The Bible/Jesus starring Jeremy Sisto and Jacqeline Bisset [1]. Though a more 'authentic'-like 'Enoch' does appear in the Book of Enoch in other parts of this cobbled narrative, this rather nave and demon-friendly 'Enoch' also appears, a character we need to be watching out for as we probe Enoch further.

    A Jumble of Textlets

    20. The visions in Division 1 of the book in which 'Enoch' interceeds for the fallen Watchers are preserved in a fragmentary form, and not in their original order - a fact which R.H.Charles noted is most probably due to the editor of the whole work, since the same dislocation of the text recurs in chapters 78-80 and 91-93. The original order of chapters 12-16 was, so far as the present fragmentary text goes: 14:1 (...) 13:1-2, 13:3, 12:3, 13:4-10, 14:2-16:2, 12:4-6 | 16:3-4 with 12:1-2 an editorial introduction. Even the chapters are composites for they are a conflation of two distinct cycles of myths relating respectively to Semjaza and Azazel and this conflation was anterior to the data of the Dream Visions, which presuppose the existence of these chapters in their present form, or at all events of chapter 10.

    Greek Influence and Doublets

    21. Chapters 17-19 stand apart from all the rest exhibiting, as they do, strong traces of Greek influence in their description of the underworld, and yet showing as close affinity to chapters 20-27, since 18:6-9 is a doublet of 14:1-3, 18:11 of 21:7-10, 18:12-16 of 21:1-6 ... 19:2, moreover, reflects the same view as 10:14.

    Only Four Archangels Dealt With

    22. Chapters 20-36 come from one and the same author: the functions ascribed to the archangels in chapter 20 are tolerably borne out in 21-36. But since only four of the archangels mentioned in chapter 20 are dealt with in 21-36, it is likely that a considerable passage was lost early on.

    Enoch Has Borrowed From Numbers

    23. We not return to the first five chapters (1-5) which are connected in phraseology with every section of the book save chapters 72-82. Thus the phrase, "he took up his parable" (1:2) suggests a connection with 37-71, but this may be a mere coincidence, since the writer is here consciously influenced by Numbers 23-24 where the phrase recurs several times - in other words, the writer of Enoch had the Torah open in front of him in the same way that the writer of the Book of Mormon was copying from the King James Bible. These chapters, moreover, appear to be of common origin - chapters 2-5 seems to be a unity.

    Summary of Division 1

    24. To sum up, chapters 1-36 may be broken up into the following independent elements: 1-4, 5-11, 12-16, 17-19 and 20-27. When the Book of Jubilees was written we shall see that chapters 6-36 had already been put together.

    DIVISION 2 (37-71)
    Parable Fragments

    25. All critics are, as far as I know, agreed that the Parables are distinct in origin from the rest of the book. Chapters 37-71 have been handed down to us in a fragmentary condition and so it is difficult to solve the question of their origin. Chapters 36-71 consist in the main of three Parables: 38-44, 45-57 and 58-69. These are introduced by chapter 37 and concluded by 70, which describes Enoch's final translation closely resembling that of Elijah. Chapter 71, which contains two visions in his lifetime, belongs to one of the three Parables. We have already seen that chapters 54:7-55:2,60 and 65-69:25 are interpolated from the ancient Book of Noah.

    Two Sources of the Fragments

    26. Behind the Parables there appear to be two sources. The first, the "Son of Man" source in which the angelic interpreter was "the angel who went with me" (i.e. 40:3-7, 46-48:7, 52:3-4, 61:3-4, 62:2-63, 69:26-29,70-71, and the other "the Elect One" source in which the angelic interpreter was "the angel of peace", i.e. 38:39, 40:1-2,8-10, 41:1-2,9,45, 48:8-10, 50-52:1-2,5-9, 53-54:6, 55:3-57, 61:1-2,5-13 and 62:1.

    DIVISION 3 (72-82)
    An Attempt to Construct a New Calendar

    27. Chapter 72 introduces a scientific treatise in which the author attempts to bring the many utterances in the Tanakh (Old Testament) into one system which in modern times has come to be dubbed the 'Enochian Calendar'. It is not, as we shall see in Part 3, the 'original system' which became 'lost' by the time the Tanakh (Old Testament) was written after the Flood, but an attempt by a 2nd or 1st century BC writer to assemble a new and simpler calendar system than the luni-solar one ordained by the Creator.

    Evidence of a Cobbled Work

    28. The sole aim of this writer's book, now a part of the Book of Enoch, is to state the laws of the heavenly bodies, and this object he pursues undeviatingly to chapter 79:1 where it is said that his treatise is finished. Through all these chapters there is not a single ethical reference and no attempt to link science with spiritual tavnith or pattern. It's as though a different writer with different interests has suddenly burst onto the scene, one that is purely scientific. Like the author of Jubilees in chapter 6:32-36, he upholds the accuracy of the sun and stars as dividers of time (74:12). This order, he insists, is inflexible and will not change until the New Creation (72:1). But in 80:2-8 the interest is ethical and nothing else, and though it recognises an order of nature, this order is more conspicuous in its breach than in its observance. Chapter 80:2-8 appears then to be an addition. Nor, again, can chapter 81 belong to 72-82. Whereas the blessing of 72-79, 82 is for the man who knows the right reackoning of the years, the blessing of 81:4 is for the man "who dies in righteousness". Chapter 81 is of the nature of a mosaic and probably comes from the pen of the final editor or redactor of the complete work we call the 'Book of Enoch'. Finally, chapter 82 stood originally before chapter 79:6 - "Such is the...sketch of every luminary which Uriel...showed unto me". After the long formal examination of the stars in chapter 82, the first words in 79:1 come in most appropriately: "I have shown three everything and the law of all the stars of the heaven is completed". If chapter 82 did not come before, these words could not be justified, thus lending more evidence that this is a cobbled work. For similar dislocations compare chapters 12-16 with chapters 91-93. Thus the original order of Division 3 was: 72-78, 82, 79.

    DIVISION 4 (83-90)
    The Most Complete Section

    29. This is the most complete and self-consistent of all the Divisions, and has suffered least from the hand of the interpolator. For passages that have suffered in the course of transmission, see chapter 90:19 which R.H.Charles has restored before 90:14 - also 89:48. In chapter 90, verses 13-15 are a doublet of verses 16-18.

    Clear Evidence if Two Separate Authors

    30. Though 'complete', Division 4 is not written by the same person as earlier parts of the book. Chapters 83-90 and 6-36 are clearly written by two different people and contradict each other:

    • 1. The Descent of the Watchers in chapter 86:1-3 differs from that in chapter 7;
    • 2. The Throne of Judgment is in Palestine in chapter 90:20-26, but in the north-west in the midst of the 'Seven Mountains' in chapters 18:8 and 25:3;
    • 3. The Scene of the Kingdom in chapters 83-90 is the 'New Jerusalem' set up by Yahweh Himself whereas in chapters 1-36 it is earthly Jerusalem and the earth is unchanged though purified in chapter 10:18.20; and
    • 4. Visions Assigned to Enoch's Earlier and Unwedded Life are only to be found in chapters 83-90 whereas chapters 6-36 are accounts of actual bodily translations and are assigned to his later life.

    32. If these two Divisions were from one and the same author, and that an ascetic, exactly the converse would have been the case.

    One Author Definitely Copied from the Other

    32. That these two Divisions were authored by the same person is therefore quite impossible. But the similarities in phraseology and idea prove that one of the authors had the work of the other in front of him, the latter clearly being chapters 83-90.

    DIVISION 5 (91-104)
    Strange Dislocations

    33. The final Division is, for the most part, complete and self-consistent. But it has suffered at the hands of the editor and redactor of the entire work in the way of direct interpolation and of severe dislocations of the text. We have already seen his handiwork in the case of chapters 12-16 and 78-82. Indeed, these dislocations of the text are a remarkable feature in this Division, and the explanation for them is not at all clear. The editor incorporated an earlier work - the Apocalypse of Weeks - into his text (93:1-10, 91:13-17), the former part dealing with the first form an independent whole. But this isn't all. Since this Division is of different authorship to the other Divisions of the book it is obvious that it began originally with chapter 92:1 - "Written by Enoch the scribe...", etc. One chapter 92 follows chapter 91:1-10,18-19 as a natural sequel, where 'Enoch' summonses his children to receive his parting words. Then comes the Apocalypse of Weeks (93:1-10, 91:12-17). Thus the original order of the book is 92, 91:1-10,18-19, 93:1-10, 91:12-17 and 94.

    Catch 22

    34. At first sight the evidence for the unity of the authorship of Division 5 (91-104) and Division 1 (1/6-26) appears great which is why so many Messianics have been fooled. They do have many phrases in common. In each there are references the Torah (Law), the eating of blood, and to the regularity of nature. There is no hint of a Messiah in either. There are other resemblences but they are only apparent and not real. On the other hand, in chapters 6-26 the Messianic Kingdom is eternal, but in chapters 91:104 it is only temporary if the Apocalypse of Weeks is taken to be a constituent part of chapters 91-104. Herein lies the Catch 22 dilemma for those who insist the Book of Enoch is unitary and inspired because they can't have it both ways. You see, in the former the Final Judgment is held before the establishment of the Kingdom, as is doctrinally correct (10:12, 16:1), but in the latter it is at the close of the temporary kingdom (93:1-10, 91:1-10). Whereas the 'resurrection' in chapters 6-26 is a resuscitation only to a temporary blessedness (10:17, 25:5), in the latter it is not to the temporary kingdom spoken of in chapters 91:13-14, 96:8 but to one of eternal blessedness subsequent to the Final Judgment in 100:4-5. Worse, from the point of view of followers of the Book of Enoch, whereas the 'resurrection' in chapters 6-26 is a resuscitation in a physical body, in chapters 91-104 it is a 'resurrection' in a spiritual body (92:3-4, 104:2,6). And in the former, there is a resurrection of the righteous only - but not so in the former.

    Two Wrong and Contradictory Resurrection Doctrines

    35. This is a most serious matter because we not only have two totally contradictory doctrines but BOTH ARE WRONG about the resurrection, being disjunctive with the Bible doctrine. Therefore someone accepting the authenticity and inspired nature of the Book of Enoch is forced to reject the cardinal New Testament doctrine of the Physical Resurrection of Messiah and must, of necessity, therefore reject the Bible. IF YOU ACCEPT THE BOOK OF ENOCH, YOU MUST REJECT THE BIBLE AND THE MESSAGE OF SALVATION. It's as simple and brutal as that.

    36. That is why I am forced to the conclusion that this is not only not inspired by the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) but that it is concretely ANTICHRIST.

    Confusion About the Final Judgment

    37. Scripture cannot contradict itself if it is making a claim to inspiration. In chapters 91-104 we are asked to believe that the Messianic Kingdom is temporary only in duration but not so in chapters 83-90. In the former, we are asked to believe that the Final Judgment is consummated at the close of the kingdom, but in the latter at its beginning. WHICH IS IT? In chapters 91-104 there is a resurrection of the righteous only whereas in chapters 83-90 there is a resurrection of the righteous and the apostate covenant people of Yahweh. The kingdom to which the righteous rise in chapters 91-104 is not the temporary kingdom on the earth but the new heaven, but in chapters 83-90 it is the messianic Kingdom on the earth.

    Four Major Doctrinal Errors

    38. What you have here is a typical early 'Talmud' with contrary and unresolved early Pharisee views about the resurrection and the Kingdom. It has nothing to so with the patriarch Enoch and the belief system of his own people whatsoever. What you have is a lack of inspiration, a lack of the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit). The original writers of this cobbled pseudepigraph simply don't know the emet (truth) because Yahweh never revealed it to them. They did not understand that:

    • 1. The resurrection is PHYSICAL;
    • 2. The resurrection is for EVERYONE - the righteous and the evil (one to glory and the other to damnation);
    • 3. That the heavenly, spiritual New Jersusalem will INCARNATE on the earth PHYSCALLY; and that
    • 4. The JUDGMENT preceeds the MESSIANIC KINGDOM which is PERMANENT.

    The Foolishness of Canonising the Book of Enoch

    39. To in any way claim this book is reliable, let alone canonise it as some rash messianic ministries have done so, is foolishness in the extreem. Though this evidence is devastating to the claims of the 'Book of Enoch', this is not the end of the matter.

    Final Fragment

    40. Let us conclude Division 5 by pointing out that chapter 105 is an independent fragment. Chapters 106-107 are, as we have already seen, a part of the Book of Noah, with chapter 108 forming a kind of 'Appendix' to the entire work added not by the editor but by a subsequent writer to confirm the righteous in the face of repeated disappointment in their expectations.

    The 'Righteous'

    41. Different people will naturally conclude that they are the "righteous" spoken of in Enoch and it is perhaps no small measure of vanity that attracts some of them to it and to its antichrist spirit - they certainly did so in New Testament times and were condemned by the Saviour for their arrogance (Lk.18:9-14).

    Accurately Dating the Book of Enoch

    42. If we are to believe the pundits, Enoch predated the Tanakh (Old Testament) by many, many centuries. But what does the internal evidence suggest its actual date of writing to be?

    The Book of Noah Marker

    43. The Book of Noah was, as we have already seen, laid under contribution by the author of the Book of Jubilees and by the general editor of Enoch. Part of it is embodied in chapters 6-36, and this part is presupposed as already existing by chapter 83-90. Now, since chapters 83-90 cannot, by any stretch of logic, be later that 161 BC, it follows that we have here what scholars call the terminus ad quem (the goal or finishing point) of this work.

    The Book of Jubilees Connection

    44. Since chapters 6-16 and 23-36 were known to the author of the Book of Jubilees this Division must have been written before the latter half of the second century BC. Since, further, chapters 83-90, written before 161 BC, show a minute acquaintance with chapter 10, the date of chapters 6-11 must be put back to the first third of that century. Many other points in chapters 83-90 point to the acquaintance of the author of chapters 83-90 with chapters 6-36. Again, since chapters 6-36 makes no reference to the persecution of Antiochus, the terminus ad quem is thus fixed at 170 BC. The fact that chapters 6-36 were written in Aramaic is in favour of a pre-Maccabean date - for when once a nation recovers, or is trying to recover, its independence, we know from history it seeks to revive its natural language...in this case, Hebrew.

    Enoch's Lambs and Shepherds Decoded

    45. The fourth and last of the four periods into which chapters 83-90 divide history between the destruction of Jerusalem and the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom began about 200 BC and marks the transition of supremacy over Israel from the Graeco-Egyptians to the Graeco-Syrians, as well as the rise of the Chasids. The Chasids, symbolised by the lambs that are born to the white sheep in chapter 90:6, are already an organised party in the Maccabean revolt. But certain of these lambs became horned, i.e. the Maccabean family, and the great horn is Judas Maccabeus (90:9). As this great horn is still warring at the close of the rule of the shepherds (90:16), this section must have been written before the death of Judas in 161 BC.

    The Apocalypse of Weeks

    46. The Apocalypse of Weeks (chapters 93:1-10, 91:12-17) may have been written before the Maccabean revolt as there is no reference to it in the persecution of Antiochus. But the date of wholly doubtful.

    The Book of Jubilees

    47. Chapters 72-82 are referred to in Jubilees 4:17,21 where the author tells how Enoch wrote a book of the order of the months, the seasons of the years, and the rule of the sun. Hence the terminus as quem is 100 BC or thereabouts.

    The Maccabees, Pharisees, John Hyrcanus and Herodian Princes

    48. In chapters 83-90 the Maccabees were the religious champions of the nation and the friends of the Chasidim. Here they are leagued with the Sadducees and are the foes of the Pharisaic party. This section was written, therefore, after 109 BC when the breach between John Hyrcanus and the Pharisees took place. But a later date must be assumed according to the literal interpretation of chapter 103:14-15, where the rulers are said to uphold the Sadducean oppressors and to share in their murder of the "righteous" [Pharisees]. This charge is not justified before 95 BC. As for the later limit, the Herodian princes cannot be the rulers here mentioned for the Sadducees were irrevocably opposed to these as aliens and usurpers. The date, therefore, may be either 95-79 BC or 70-64 BC, during which periods the Pharisees were oppressed by both rulers and Sadducees.

    The Latter Maccabean Princes

    49. Finally, from a full review of the evidence, it appears that the kings and the mighty men so often denounced in the Parables of Enoch (37-71) are the later Maccabean princes and their Sadducean supporters - the later Maccabean princes, on the one hand, and not the earlier - for the blood of the "righteous" was not shed as the writer complains (47:1-2,4) before 95 BC - the latter Maccabean princes, on the other hand, and not the Herodians. For:

    • 1. The Sadducees were not supporters of the latter; and
    • 2. Rome was not yet known to the writer as one of the great world-powers, a fact which necessitates an earlier date than 64 BC when Rome interposed authoritatively in the affairs of Judea.

    The Similitudes Dated

    50. Thus the date of the Similitudes could not have been earlier than 94 BC or later than 64 BC. But it is possible to define the date more precisely. As the Pharisees enjoyed unbroken power and prosperity under Alexandra (79-70 BC), the Parables must be assigned either to the years 94-79 or 70-64.

    A Pharisee Political Tract

    51. Far from being some apocalyptic revelation pointing to our day, the Book of Enoch turns out to be nothing more than another Political Tract of the Pharisees like the Books of the Maccabees, dressed in the garb of pseudo-Scripture, which seeks authority from an ancient pre-Flood story consisting of unseparated emet (truth) and fiction, and in which the 'heroes' seek to portray themselves, with their arrogant pretensions to superior sanctity, as the "righteous" "lambs" >waging war against darkness of their enemies by means of clearly recongisable apocalyptic imagery peculiar to that time.

    What is So 'Familiar' About Enoch?

    52. So what is the appeal of the Book of Enoch to modern Christians and Messianics? What is it that is leading more and more believers to turn to it as possibly or actually inspired? Why does it seem 'familiar'? For there is no doubt that there are similarities between the Book of Enoch and the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) that has led the liberal and atheistic 'higher critics' to jump to the conclusion that the latter theologically 'borrowed' from the former as part of a 'natural (as in 'naturalistic') theological development'.

    Enoch is a Window into First Century Thought and Language

    53. Where the Book of Enoch is of importance to us in understanding the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) better is in the undoubted fact that this work of semi-fiction was highly read and reflected the religious language of the day. It is a window on how Judeans thought and spoke religiously-speaking between 200 BC and 100 AD! So it should come as no surprise to us to find words, phrases and thought-patterns common to both books, in the same way we should not be surprised to find (as is well-known) similar language between the 1611 King James Version of the Bible and the equally well-known writings of William Shakespeare (1564-1616). Each age expresses itself in both the secular and religious realms through a common medium of constantly evolving and changing language that can usefully be pressed into use by the scholar to date periods texts using it.

    Enoch's Influence

    54. What follows is a linguistic compilation that I think will demonstrate that Enoch had more influence on the vocabularly and phraseology of the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) than any other apocryphal or pseudepigraphical book. And I would like to suggest that one of the reasons we are 'attracted' to Enoch is because we recognise in it a familiar linguistic style and theological elements.

    Two Other Important Considerations

    55. However, also bear in mind two other things as you look at these textual comparisons:

    • 1. That Enoch may have borrowed from the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) since it was compiled within its timeframe (particularly the writer(s) of Divisions 1 & 5); and
    • 2. Parts of Enoch may contain authentic prophecy both from the ancient past as well as from the 200 BC - 100 AD time period.

    Comparison of the New Testament with Enoch

    56. These three elements will help you better make sense of this pseudepigraphical work. What follows is a comparison of phrases from the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) and Enoch. I have colour-coded passages based on New Testament authorship and possible parallels in Enoch.

    Jude | John | Paul | Luke | Matthew

    Jude 6 "the angels which left their own habitation ... reserved ... great day" 12:4 "the watchers ... who have left the high heaven"

    10:4-6,11-12 "Blind ... darkness ... judgement"

    Jude 14 "the seventh from Adam" 60:8 "the seventh from Adam"
    Jude 14-15 1:9 cp. 5:4; 27:2
    1 John 1:7 "walk in the light" 92:4 "walk in eternal light"
    1 John 2:8 "the darkness is past" 63:5 "the darkness is past"
    1 John 2:15 "Love not the world nor the things that are in the world" 108:8 "love ... nor any of the good things which are in the world"
    Rev.2:7 "the tree of life" cp. 22:2,14,19 25:4-6 "The tree of life"
    Rev.3:5 "clothed in white raiment" 24:4-6 "clothed in white"
    Rev.3:10 "Them that dwell upon the earth" 37:5 "those that dwell on the earth"
    Rev.3:17 "I am rich and increased with gooda" 97:8 We have become rich with riches and have possessions"
    Rev.3:20 "I will come in to him and will sup with him and he with me" 62:14 "and with that Son of Man shall they (i.e. The righteous) eat and lie down and rise up"
    Rev.4:6 "round about the throne were four living creatures" 40:2 "On the four sides of the Lord of spirits I saw four presences"
    Rev.4:8 "they rest not ... saying" 39:13 "who sleep not ... and say"
    Rev.6:10 The prayer of the righteous for judgement 47:2 The prayer of the righteous for judgement
    Rev.6:15-16 "Compare the fear of the kings of the earth, and the princes, and the chief captains, and the rich, and the strong, when they see "the face of Him that sitteth on the throne" 62:3 "the kings, and the mighty, and the exalted"

    63:5 "... shall be terrified ... and pain shalls eize them when they see that Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory"

    Rev.7:1 Angels of the winds 69:22 "spirits ... of the winds"
    Rev.7:15 "He that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them" 45:4 "I will cause Mine Elect One to dwell among them"
    Rev.9:1 "I saw a star from heaven fallen to the earth" 86:1 "And I saw ... and behold a star fell from heaven"
    Rev.9:20 "worship demons, and the idols of gold, and of silver, and of brass, and of stone, and of wood" 99:7 "worship stones, and grave images of gold, and silver, and wood, {and stone} and clay, and those who worship impure spirits and demons"
    Rev.13.14 "deceiveth them that dwell on the earth" 54:6 "leading astray those who dwell on the earth"
    Rev.14:9-10 "tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels" 48:9 "burn before the face of the holy ... Sink before the face of thr righreous"
    Rev.14:10 "holyangels" 22:1 & passim "holy angels"
    Rev.14:20 "blood came out ... even to the horses" 100:3 "the horse shall walk up to the breast in the blood of sinners"
    Rev.17:4 "Lord of lords, and King of kings" 9:4 "Lord of lords ... ad King of kings"
    Rev.20:13 "the sea gave up the dead ... and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them" 51:1 "In thise days shall the earth give back that which has been entrusted to it, and Sheol also shall give back ... and hell shall give back ..."
    Rev.20:15 "cast into the lake of fire" 90:26 "cast into this fiery abyss"
    Rev.22:3 "no more curse" cp. 21:4 25:6 "no sorrow or plague or torment or calamity"
    Rom.8:38 "angels ... principalities ... powers" cp. Eph.1:21; Col.1:16 61:10 "angels of power and ... angels of principalities"
    Eph.9:5 "God blessed for ever" cp. 11:31 77:1 "He who is blessed for ever"
    1 Cor.6:11 "justified in the name of the Lord Jesus" 48:7 "in his (the Messiah's) name they are saved"
    2 Cor.4:6 "to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" 38:4 "the Lord of Spirits has caused his light to appear (emended) on the face of the holy, righteous and elect"
    Eph.1:9 "according to His good pleasure" 44:4 "according to his good pleasure"
    Eph.5:8 "children of light" cp. 1 Thes.5:5 108:11 "the generation of light"
    Col.2:3 "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" 46:3 "the Son of Man ... who reveals all the treasures of that which is hidden"
    1 Thes.5:3 "then sudden destruction cometh upon them as travail upon a woman with child" 62:4 "Then shall pain come upon them as on a woman in travail"
    2 Thes.1:7 "the angels of His power" 61:10 "the angels of power"
    1 Tim.1:9 "law is not made for a righteous man but for the lawless", etc. 93:4 "a law shall be made for the sinners"
    1 Tim.1:15 "worthy of all acceptation" cp. 4:9 94:1 "worthy of acceptation"
    1 Tim.5:21 "the elect angels! 39:1 "elect and holy children ... from the high heaven"
    1 Tim.6:15 "King of kings and Lord of lords" 9:4 "Lord of lords ... King of kings"
    Heb.4:13 "there is no creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and laid open before the eyes of Him with whom we have to do" 9:5 "all things are naked and open in Thy sight, and Thou seest all things, and nothing can hide itself from Thee"
    Heb.1:5 "Enoch was translated", etc. 15:1; 70:1-4
    Heb.12:9 "Father of Spirits" 37:2 "Lord of Spirits" (and passim in Parables)
    Acts 3:14 "the Righteous One" (= Messiah) 53:6 "the Righteous and Elect One" (= Messiah)
    Acts 4:12 "none other name ... whereby we must be saved" 48:7 "in His (the Messiah's) name they are saved"
    Acts 10:4 "thy prayers ... are gone up for a memorial before God" 99:3 "raise your prayers as a memorial ... before the Most High"
    Acts 17:31 "He will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom He hath ordained" "He appoints a judge for them all and he judged them all before Him" 
    John 5:22 "He hath committed all judgement unto the Son" 69:27 "the sun of judgement was given unto the Son of Man"
    John 12:26 "sons of light" cp. Luke 16:8 108:11 "the generation of light"
    John 14:2 "mansions" 34:4 "dwelling places of the holy" etc,
    Luke 1:52 "He hath put down princes from their thrones" 46:4 "shall raise up {put down} the kings ... from their thrones"
    Luke 9:35 "This is My Son, the Elect One" 40:5 "the Elect One (the Messiah)" cp. 45:3-5 "Mine Elect One"; 49:2,4
    Luke 18:7 "Shall not God avenge His elect which cry unto Him day and night" cp. 2 Pet.3:9 47:1-2 "the prayer of the righteous ... that judgement may be done unto them" etc.
    Luke 21:28 "your redemption draweth nigh" 51:2 "the day has drawn nigh that they should be saved"
    Luke 23:25 "the Christ of God, the Elect One" 40:5 "the Elect One"
    Matt.19:28 "when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory"

    "ye also shall sit on twelve thrones"

    62:5 "When they see that Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory"

    108:12 "I will seat each on the throne of his honour"

    Matt.19:29 "inherit eternal life" 40:9 "inherit eternal life"
    Matt.25:41 "prepared for the devil and his angels" 54:4-5 "chains ... prepared for the hosts of Azazel"
    Matt.26:24 "It had been good for that man if he had not been born" 38:2 "It had been good for them if they had not been born"

    Jude | John | Paul | Luke | Matthew

    Others Influenced by Enoch

    57. As would be expected, lots of other writers and their literature have been influenced by Enoch too, and in particular the patristic writings such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoros, Minuchius Felix, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Origen, Commodianus, Cyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian, Hippolytus, Zozimus of Panopolis, the Clemintine Recognitions, Lactantis, Cassianus and others of and from the first three centuries AD.

    Which Has Fertilised the Theology of Which?

    58. As I have said, it is not always clear whether Enoch has fertlised the theology of the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) or vice versa since the final redaction of Enoch and the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) were around the same time. Here the reader must make a choice: either for theism or for atheism. My own view, as a theist, is that either:

    • 1. An unprincipled Christian has had a hand in adding material very evidently from the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) to Enoch in order to persuade others to convert (as we know has happened with other writings ... short strategically positioned Christian interpolations may be found in Josephus's writings, for example); or
    • 2. An equally unprincipled non-Christian Judean has hijacked quotations from the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) in order, presumably, to steal some Christian thunder.

    Unwisely and Hastily Canonising Dubious Writings

    59. One thing that is very clear is that a believer - Christian or Messianic - alighting on an English translation of the Book of Enoch today isn't going to have much clue as to its true provenance (origin) without an in-depth study such as this one. Far too many believers - and Messianics in particular - uncritically embrace apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works because they are attracted by their novelty vakue, make wrong assumptions about them being inspired without proper testing. Worse, some Messianic leaders have foolishly gone and 'canonised' them and have staked their reputations on their ability to 'discern', who will find it difficult to retract without threatening their prestige and leadership qualifications. We have all made mistakes in that regard [2] and need grace but we need to be wiser in the future.

    Four Categories of Pharisee Theology and Thinking Compared

    60. One area where the Book of Enoch can be useful to us is in determining the similarities and differences between Pharisee and early Christian/Messianic thought. In many ways the Pharisees of the First Century AD had good doctrine - they understood the resurrection far better than the Sadducees who didn't even believe in resurrection. But in the two centuries before the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) it's clear the Pharisees had multiple beliefs and had not crystalised out the position they held by the time of Yah'shua (Jesus) and the apostles. Indeed in four major areas there was a great deal of accord between believers and first century Pharisees which, I venture to suggest, is why so many Pharisees became converts. These areas were:

    • 1. The nature of the Messianic Kingdom and the future life;
    • 2. The Messiah;
    • 3. Sheol (Hell) and the Resurrection; and
    • 4. Demonology.

    61. We'll take a look at examples from each of these to see where Enoch and the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) were similar or at variance with each other. Then we will conclude this study with some examples from other areas of theology.

    The Sadducee Question About the Law of Levirate

    62. As this is a large subject I will only deal with one incident for illustrative purposes from the three Synoptic Gospels: Matthew 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-29 and Luke 20:27-36. This is the account in which the Sadducees attempted to put Yah'shua (Jesus) on the horns of a dilemma and oblige Him to confess, like themselves, that there was no resurrection of the dead by posing a question about the law of Yibbum, commonly known as Levitate Marriage as set forth in Deuteronomy 25:7-10, and to raise questions about eternnal marriage [3]. Here Yahweh commands of Israel, when resident in the Promised Land with the twelve tribal divisions (which don't exist today, incidentally), that the brother of a man who dies without children is expected to marry (usually polygamously, unless he is single or a widower himself) his brother's widow in order to maintain the family line, land and property, a doctrine the Sadducees correctly maintained. The firstborn son of the new marriage would then count as the dead man's child for inheritance purposes. Should the yavam or brother-in-law refuse to marry the brother's widow, Deuteronomy 25:7-10 provides for a ceremony called chalitzah which both humiliates him and releases the widow from her obligation to marry him. The stories of Onan and Tamar (Gen.38) and of Boaz and Ruth (Ruth 4) are biblical examples of yibbum and chalitzah, respectively. Ironically, rabbinic decrees over the centuries have reversed the Torah's priorities - the Chief Rabbinate of the Israeli Republic requires chalitzah and bans yibbum entirely because of Talmudic Judaism's anti-polygamy stance since 1000 AD! [4]

    A Tricky Question About the Resurrection

    63. Interestingly, Yah'shua (Jesus) cites Exodus 3:6 rather than the more obvious resurrection-affirming Isaiah 26:19, Daniel 12:2 and Job 19:26, and this was because the Sadduccees only accepted the Pentateuch (five books of Moses) as Scripture and rejected all the nevi'im (prophets) and kethuvim (writings) of the Tanakh (Old Testament). Now the Book of Enoch, in line with Pharisee thinking and the teachings of the whole Tanakh (Old Testament), teaches unambiguously in chapters 1-36 that the resurrected qodeshim (saints, set-apart ones) would physically return to earth during the Millennium and each have a thousand children. Since they would be back on earth, physically resurrected, with their wives, this would also mean that many would be practicing polygamy like the ancients before and after the Flood. So the Sadducees posed a crafty question with a view to tripping Yah'shua (Jesus) up:

      "Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her" (Matt 22:24-29, NKJV).

    An Unexpected and Mysterious Answer

    64. His answer caught them off their guard:

      "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of Elohim (God). For in the resurrection they neither marry (full marriage) nor are given in marriage (betrothal), but are like malakim (angels) of Elohim (God) in heaven. But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by Elohim (God), saying, 'I am the Elohim (God) of Abraham, the Elohim (God) of Isaac, and the Elohim (God) of Jacob'? Elohim (God) is not the Elohim (God) of the dead, but of the living' (Ex.3:6)" (Matt.22:29-32, NKJV).

    Parallels in Enoch

    65. That there are parallels with Enoch 91-94 is undeniable, at least as far as the theological debate that was going on in the first century BC and first century AD was concerned. The Pharisees were very interested in this joust with the Sadducees (who were their arch-enemies), whom Yah'shua (Jesus) proceeded to defeat in supporting their doctrine (and no doubt to their eminent satisfaction), and we continue reading in Matthew 22:34ff. of their own questions about the greatest mitzvah (commandment) and who He thought the Messiah was, perhaps hoping to garner further support.

    Two Contradictory Resurrection Doctrines in the Book of Enoch

    66. Now according to the Book of Enoch there is a major doctrinal contradiction. On the one hand it maintained (in chapters 1-36) that there was a physical resurrection at which time men would be reunited with their wives and continue, to procreate, but on the other (in chapters 91-94) that whilst there will be a resurrection, it will not be a physical resurrection, but of the spirit only (as Jehovah's Witnesses and 'Christian' New Agers teach today), with the risen righteous rejoicing "as the angels in heaven" (1 Enoch 104:4), being "companions of the hosts of heaven" (1 Enoch 104:6).

    An Old Pharisee-Sadducee Debate

    67. So what we have is an old theological debate still being fought out between Pharisees and Sadducees, just as it was in the Book of Enoch itself, with Yah'shua (Jesus) being 'tested' to see which side of the debate He would take! His strangely-worded answer can only be properly understood in the context of this Pharisee-Sadducee doctrinal conflict.

    Identifying the Dead

    68. So what did Yah'shua (Jesus) actually say in response to His Sadduccee questioners? We will better understand what Yah'shua (Jesus) is driving at by looking at another incident:

      "Then a certain Torah-teacher (scribe) came and said to Him, 'Teacher, I will follow You wherever You go.' And Yah'shua (Jesus) said to him, 'Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.' Then another of His talmidim (disciples) said to Him, 'Master, let me first go and bury my father.' But Yah'shua (Jesus) said to him, 'Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead'" (Matt.8:19-22, NKJV).

    The Sadducees are the 'Dead'

    69. You see, Yah'shua (Jesus) is not only not answering the Sadducees' question at all in the way they supposed - they thought He was talking about dead husbands and a dead wife in a Levirate situation when who He was talking about was the Sadducees themselves:

      "'Elohim (God) is not the Elohim (God) of the (spiritually) dead (the Sadducees, who do not trust Messiah), but of the living (those talmidim/disciples who trust in Messiah)'" (Matt.23:32, NKJV).

    No New Marriages in Heaven

    70. So what is He saying? Simply, because they are spiritually dead, they will not inherit the resurrection of the spiritually living and will be single - unmarried - the condition of the malakim (angels) today as then. Likewise they would be allegorically 'unmarried' to the Messiah in the resurrection - 'single' and unsaved. Like the woman, who died single, there will be no new marriages or betrothals in heaven, for none are conducted there. By the time of the resurrection, the marriage states of all will have been decided by Yahweh - there will be no hunting for spouses, no betrothal or marriage ceremonies as on the earth today, for this will be a New Resurrection Order and not like the former, mortal one in which we now live. These statements made by Yah'shua (Jesus) are not, therefore, stating that no one will be married in the next life as has been wrongly assumed by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants alike.

    Enoch is Not About Ancient Disagreements

    71. We do not know what the Antediluvian Patriarchs like Enoch believed about such questions but what we can be pretty certain of is that the conflict of resurrection theories in the Book of Enoch reflect not ancient pre-Flood doctrinal uncertainties but the controveries of the Pharisees and the Sadducees in the first century BC which had not been resolved by Yah'shua's (Jesus') day either, which is why they questioned Him most eagerly in the hope that He would take their side and party-line. His answers pleased neither side because He condemned them both as being spirirally dead and without hope unless they repented and embraced Him as Messiah. It is for this reason that they united in common cause to kill Him.

    The White Bulls

    72. The 'Messiah' figure in the Book of Enoch is represented as the head of the Messianic community out of which he proceeds, but he has no special rle to fulfil, and his presence in that description seems due merely to literary reminiscence (90:37-38). What is very clear is that this 'Enochian' Messiah-figure exercised no influence on Messianic Scripture (New Testament) conceptions:

      "And I saw that a white bull was born, with large horns, and all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air feared him and made petition to him all the time. And I saw till all their generations were transformed, and they all became white bulls; and the first among them became a lamb, and that lamb became a great animal and had great black horns on its head; and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced over it and over all the oxen" (90:37-38, RHC).

    Four Enochian Titles of the Messiah

    73. A very different picture emerges in the Parables section of Enoch, though, again reflecting the multiple authorship of the book. Four personal titles which we do indeed find in the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) suddenly appear in the Parables. These are:

    • a. 'The Mashiach' (The Messiah, Christ, or Anointed One);
    • b. 'The Righteous One';
    • c. 'The Elect One'; and
    • d. 'The Son of Man'.

    a. The Messiah or Anointed One

    74. The word 'mashiach' in Hebrew is used in the Tanakh (Old Testament) not only prophetically of the Saviour of the World but generally of all human deliverers and kings. Indeed, in the Tanakh (Old Testament), 'mashiach' or 'anointed one' is a term used to describe not only the Son of Elohim (God) but all the elect of Yahweh. Indeed, the prophet Obadiah prophesied:

      "Deliverers (mashiach - Saviours, KJV/NKJV) will go up on Mount Zion to govern the mountains of Esau. And the kingdom will be Yahweh's" (Obadiah 21, NIV).

    The Non-Divine Enochian Messiah

    75. Thus the Hebrew mashiach, like elohim (god/gods), is used in a variety of rles, human (liberators like the Judges, and ordinary judges in Israel) and divine (the Father and the Son). We must bear this in mind as we look at pseudepigraphical texts like the Book of Enoch which uses mashiach a little differently. Whereas (apart from the veiled prophesies about Yah'shua/Jesus) this title is used in the Tanakh (Old Testament) repeatedly in reference to actual contemporary kings, for the first time in the Book of Enoch (48:10; 52:4) it is applied to the ideal Messianic king that is to come. But unlike the Messianic King of the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament), Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), the title 'mashiach' in the Book of Enoch is not associated with divinity (i.e. he is no 'Elohim' or 'God') but simply a mortal man endowed with divine gifts - he is a man, like us, and nothing more. This same messianic idea is found in the pseudepigraphical work, the Psalms of Solomon (17:36; 18:6,8), showing the Pharisee origin of both works. Thus the 'messiah' in the Book of Enoch is the Pharisee conception of the Messiah, supernaturally-endowed by the Creator but not Divine himself. The Book of Enoch 'messiah' is a fallible, uninspired Pharisaic expectation which is why when the true Messiah, Yah'shua (Jesus), came they neither recognised nor accepted Him. They had been too brainwashed by false apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works like the Book of Enoch.

    b. The Righteous One

    76. This title, which first appears in Acts 3:14, 7:52 and 22:14 (cp. 1 John 2:1), first appears in Enoch as a Messianic designation (38:2; 53:6). Righteousness - right action and fair dealings - is one of the leading characteristics of the 'Enochian' (Pharisaic) Messiah (46:3) in the same way as it is the demand by Yahweh of His people in the Tanakh (Old Testament) and in the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament):

      "Let justice run down like water, and righteousness (tsedaqah) like a mighty stream" (Amos 5:24, NKJV).

    The Righteousness of Elohim in the Tanakh

    77. And the ground for this is that Elohim (God) requires righteousness in men (Mic.6:8; Ps.15:2) and those who judge in Israel (the 'elohim') are particularly required to exercise their office righteously (Lev.19:15). Pre-eminently, of course, Yahweh is the Righteous Judge and, and as we see throughout Scripture, will judge with the strictest justice, every man according to his works. The Tanakh (Old Testament) both teaches that this Divine Righteousness is a source of comfort to the afflicted believer and that our own righteousness is insufficient for Elohim's (God's) standard.

    Righteousness Explained by Paul

    78. The latter is central to Paul's concept of righteousness. He distinguishes between the righteousness of moral effort, which he calls the "righteousness of the Torah (Law)" (Phil.3:9,6; Rom.10:1-6) and the Righteousness of Elohim (God). The latter Righteousness has Yahweh as its source (Phil.3:9) and is received as a gift, "the gift of Righteousness" (Rom.5:17), a gift from Elohim (God) based solely on the work of Messiah (Rom.5:17). This latter concept was as absent in the theology of the Pharisees in the day of Yah'shua (Jesus) and the Apostles as it was, as would be expected if this were a Pharisee document, in the Book of Enoch and in modern Judaism! For the Pharisee 'messiah' of Enoch, righteousness is solely by works. But the Righteouenss of the true Messiah, received as a gift by His talmidim (disciples), is the Righteousness which the Messiah Himself achieved in His perfect, sinless obedience to the Torah and to His Father's will in life and in death, in which He bore the curse of separation from Elohim (God), which our breaches of Torah entail. Salvation is therefore achieved by a judicial exchange between the sinner and the Messiah/Saviour, the latter being made sin (2 Cor.5:21; cp. 1 Cor.1:30; 2 Pet.1:1) where it is said that we share in the Righteousness of Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ). Our own works of Torah-obedience count as the rewards of the already saved in the next life, but to receive these rewards we must receive the Gift of Salvation-Righteousness from Messiah by emunah (trusting, faith)! Herein lies the division and misunderststanding between Evangelicals and Messianics. The gift of Righteousness is made by Yahweh to to all who have emunah (trust, belief, faith - Rom.3:22), and it is the basis of Elohim's (God's) verdict of justification (Rom.5:18). Those clothed with this Righteousness are justly acquitted and accepted as Righteous at Yahweh's Judgment Bar (Rom.3:26). Thereafter we are judged according to our works of obedience and receive the rewards of the saved after being admitted to the Kingdom of Heaven. But without this imputed Righteousness in Messiah there are no rewards for good deeds. This is what Yah'shua (Jesus) meant when He said:

      "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these mitzvot (commandments of Torah), and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt.5:19, NKJV).

    The Book of Enoch Knows of No Imputed Righteousness

    79. This concept of imputed Righteousness is wholly absent from the Book of Enoch which does not even regard the Messiah as divine. Salvation in Enoch is works-based. Like the Pharisees who wrote it, it understands that obedience is important, but it does not understand the central fact of the Besorah (Gospel) that Elohim (God) has provided salvational Righteousness for sinners (Rom.1:17) through the Divine Messiah alone. This constituted the central gulf between the theology of Yah'shua (Jesus) and the Pharisees because this Righteousness is wholly independent of the degree to which be are able to conform to Yahweh's Torah (Rom.3:21), for it is based on Messiah's perfect conformity to the Torah (Law) and to the will of Elohim (God) of which we as mortals are wholly incapable. It is this pride-based system of salvation by works-of-the-Torah that was Satan's in origin and was the central message of his Pharisee apostles as it so remains to this day.

    The Gift of Righteousness in the Tanakh

    80. Let it be said, though, that this gift of Righteousness in Messiah was not a novel doctrine, but was testified to by the Tanakh (Old Testament) (Rom.3:21) and was entirely missed by the Pharisees and in their writings like the Book of Enoch which has a form of righteousness, but one of man (self-righteousness) and not of Elohim (God). Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom.1:17) and speaks at length of Abraham, whose emunah (faith) Elohim (God) took account of (Rom.4:3 cp. 4:6).

      "Behold the proud, his soul is not upright in him; but the just shall live by his emunah (faith)" (Hab.2:4, NKJV).

    Messiah's Fulfillment of Righteousness

    81. Righteousness is always predicated upon conformity to torah (law), especially to the mind and will of Elohim (God) which is the norm of righteousness. Messiah fulfilled this righteousness, both by conformity to the precepts of Yahweh in life, and by conformity to the righteous judgment of Yahweh on sin in His death. His resurrection and exaltation is the vindication and reward of His righteousness (Heb.2:9 cp. Rom.2:7).

    The Place of Deeds of Righteousness

    82. By receiving this free gift of salvation which is the Righteousness of Messiah, this does not, obviously, mean that there is no need for deeds of righteousness: rather they must flow from the Righteousness which is Messiah-in-us. The Righeousness of Messiah enables us to live righteously in obedience to Torah (not in our own strength, but His), not that we might earn salvation in this life or the next (which is only through emunah/faith/trusting in Messiah) but that we might receive the rewards of the righteousness of the saved and that we might not, as Yah'shua (Jesus) taught, be least in the Kingdom of Heaven. This the Pharisees never understood or accepted because they wanted, in their pride, to earn their own place in Heaven apart from any Redeemer-Elohim.

    c. The Elect One

    83. An elect person is one who is chosen. We 'elect' our politicians in democratic 'elections'. The elect of Yahweh are therefore those who are chosen by Him for a purpose. In the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) we find the concept of election of Messiah by Yahweh in Luke 9:35 ("This is my beloved/Elect/chosen Son. Hear Him!") and Luke 23:35 ("And the people stood looking on. But even the rulers with them sneered, saying, 'He saved others; let Him save Himself if He is the Messiah, the Chosen/Elect [One] of Elohim/God"). Notice in the latter that the "rulers" apply the title, "the Elect One". In the Tanakh (Old Testament) we read of the Messiah:

      "Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect [One] in whom My soul delights!" (Isa.42:1, NKJV).

    A Title of a False Messiah

    84. The word 'One' does not appear in the Hebrew even though the NKJV inserts it for clarity. But the specific term, 'The Elect One' is purely of Pharisee origin, and appears in the Book of Enoch many times at 40:5, 45:3-5, 49:2,4, 51:3,5 and in many other references. That the "rulers" hurl this word at Yah'shua (Jesus) on the cross is consistent with their traditional use of it and the fact that Yah'shua (Jesus) ignored them was not only because they were being abusive but because He would not acknowledge a title invented for the false Messiah! He was not, and is not, the Pharisaic 'Elect One' - He was, and is, 'Yahweh's Elect' - "My Elect".

    d. The Son of Man

    85. "The Son of Man", appears over 80 times in the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) and is a title of the Messiah, and is so used multiple times in the Book of Enoch of the personal messiah too, and particularly in the Parables section where he is the judge of the world, the revealer of all things, and the champion and ruler of the righteous. As such, then, he resembles more those messianic prophecies in the Tanakh (Old Testament) that anticipate the second coming, and more the image of the political liberator of the zealots:

      "And this Son of Man whom thou hast seen shall raise up the kings and the mighty from their seats, and the strong from their thrones and shall loosen the reins of the strong, and break the teeth of the sinners. And he shall put down the kings from their thrones and kingdoms because they do not extol and praise Him, not humbly acknowledge whence the kingdom was bestowed upon them" (1 Enoch 46:4-5, RHC).

    The Son of Man in Aramaic Daniel

    86. Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) referred to Himself as the "Son of Man" many times too in passages like Mark 8:38, 13:26, 14:62, Luke 17:24, 21:27, etc. He obviously used this term to describe His character and mission in terms of the vision described in Daniel:

      "I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed" (Dan.7:13-14, NKJV).

    The Son of Man as Truly Man

    87. This was the same Aramaic passage the writer(s) of Enoch borrowed the "Ancient of Days" concept (which we discussed earlier) to dress up his 'Enochian' messiah. In clearly identifying Himself with the "Son of Man" to whom eternal dominion over all nations is given, Yah'shua (Jesus) proclaimed His divine Messiahship and the certainty that, in spite of the seeming victory of His enemies and the seeming helplessness of His followers, He would ultimately triumph. The Son of Man who humbled Himself to be truly man is at the same time the eternal Victor (Mt.24:30).

    The Son of Man as the Victorious Suffering Servant

    88. Yet Yah'shua (Jesus) also clothed the Tanakh (Old Testament) term "Son of Man" with new and enriched meaning. This appears from the fact that he often uses this particular self-designation in close association with the necessity of His suffering and sacrificial death (Mk.8:31; 9:31; 10:33; 14:21,41; Lk.18:31; 19:10; Mt.20:18,28; 26:45) which the Book of Enoch nowhere does of it's 'messiah'. By identifying Himself with guilty humanity, "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45, NKJV; cp. Jn.10:11,15). But He never failed to teach also that this suffering would be followed by His resurrection (Mt.20:18-19; Mk.8:31; 10:33-34; Lk.18:31-33), and that the consummation would see ultimate victory for Himself and His talmidim (disciples) (Lk.21:25-28; 22:29-30; Mk.13:26-27; 14:24-25,62 cp. Jn.13:31-32).

    The Incomplete Enochian Son of Man

    89. Whoever the 'Enochian' "Son of Man" was conceived by those early Pharisees as being, he was substantially incomplete and lacked the fullness of the true Messianic Figure so succinctly described by Daniel. For this 'Enochian messiah' is not the biblical Messiah of the Second Coming who first comes as a paschal Suffering Servant and only later in the supernatural power of Elohim (God) to judge the earth as a conquering lion, but at the head of human armies in the manner beloved of modern Zionism or as the Mahdi, the Islamic redeemer figure. There is no concept of a 'Suffering Servant' at all in Enoch which is why the book appeals equally to militant Zionist Jews, Zionist Christians and militant pro-Israeli Messianics today who have long been clamouring to exterminate the Palestinians and drop thermonuclear bombs on Iran, infected as they are by the spirit of Purim.


    90. Sheol (Gk. Hades) is first mentioned in the Tanakh Old Testament) in Deuteronomy 32:22 and is a general description for the 'place of the dead'. The etymology of the word is uncertain. From about the 8th century BC, and in the absence of any concrete revelation until the days of King David, there was a division of opinion as to whether Sheol was not only a place but a power independent of Yahweh (doubtless under the influence of the Babylonian equivalent of aralu which was ruled by its 'gods'). It is not until the Psalms (Ps.138:8; Amos 9:2 cp. Ps.88:5; Is.38:18) that the Ruach (Spirit) reveals that Sheol is not only a place but that it is ruled by Yahweh - so it is clearly more than just the 'grave' as soul-sleepers like Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Armstrongites, Christadelphians and far too Messianics wrongly teach. In this revelation we are told that the occupants of Sheol not only do not experience Yahweh's workings on earth, but they are cut off from the covenant institutions. Descending to Sheol is the punishment for wickedness (Ps.55:15; Prov.9:18) and a special form of judgment. Contrary to the claims to the opposite, there is no clear formulation in the Tanakh (Old Testament) as to the nature of the punishment.

    Sheol Divided in Two

    91. It is only in later Jewish literature that we meet with the idea that Sheol contains a division for the wicked and righteous dead, respectively, in which each type of occupants receives a foretaste of his final destiny. Specifically, we learn of this in none other than the Book of Enoch (22:1-14)!

    Multiple Views of the Enochian Afterlife

    92. Bearing in mind there are, as we have established, multiple authors of Enoch, we should not be surprised to find more than one view of the afterlife in it either, just as we have already found two different views of resurrection. This confusion is simply a reflection of the divisions of theological opinion that existed in the Pharisee era. Chapter 10:6,13 refers to "an abyss of fire" prepared for Semjaya and his angels:

      "And of the day of the great judgment he (Semjaza, leader of the fallen Enochian angels) shall be cast into the fire...in those days they (Semjaza and his angels) shall be led off to the abyss of fire and to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever" (1 Enoch 10:6,13, RHC).

    Enoch and New Testament Views of Sheol Contrasted

    93. This is clearly a more developed conceptualisation of Sheol than is found in the Tanakh (Old Testament), and given the already overwheming evidence that the Book of Enoch was written sometime between 200 BC and 100 AD, it should not surprise us to find this more developed theology present. It is certainly closer to the ideas expressed in the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament):

      "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his malakim (angels)" (Matt.25:41, NKJV).

      "The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire" (Rev.20:13-15, NKJV).

    Sirach vs. Enoch!

    94. Not only that, but the author of chapters 91-104 delivers himself of a sustained polemic in 102:4-104:9 against the Tanakh (Old Testament) doctrine of Sheol. What is the target of his attack? The apocryphal Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), which was produced around the same time as Enoch and which supported the Tanakh (Old Testament) view of Sheol! How do we know? Because he borrows it in 91:4!

      "The parables of knowledge are in the treasures of wisdom: but godliness is an abomination to a sinner" (Ecclus.1:25, KJV).

    The Gates of Hades

    95. Hades is the equivalent of Sheol in the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) and represents the underworld or the realm of the dead in the Greek classics. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Tanakh (Old Testament) nearly always renders Sheol as Hades, and the Aramaic Peshitta translation renders it as Sheyul. It is used in connection with the death of Messiah in Acts 2:27,31 which quotes Psalm 16:10. In Matthew 16:18 Yah'shua (Jesus) says that the gates of Hades (cp. Is.38:10; Ps.9:13; 107:18) shall not prevail against the Messianic Community (Church). As the gates of a city are essential to its power, the meaning here is probably the power of death. The phrase "brought down to Hades" (Mt.11:23) is best understood metaphorically of the depths of shame.

    Gehenna and the Apocrypha

    96. Finally, we have the word Gehenna which is derived from the Hebrew ge'hinnom which some believe comes from an Aramic root word meaning 'wailing' but most authorities now think this is unlikely. Hinnom was almost certainly the name of a person. It is only in later Jewish writings that Gehenna came to have the sense of the place of punishment for sinners as we find in the pseudepigraphical writing, the Assumption of Moses (10:10) and in the apocryphal book, 2 Esdras (7:36), again works coming from the proto-Pharisee period (200 BC - 100 AD).

    Pharisee Views of the Length of Punishment, Suffering and Annihilation

    97. Interestingly, it is from about this period that the concept of an 'eternal' or 'everlasting' hell [5] evolved in Pharisee circles though there were multiple views, the rabbinic literature containing multiple opinions. Some believed the the suffering of some would be terminated by annihilation (a belief co-opted by the modern Jehovah's Witnesses), and others that the fires were purgatorial. But all of those who held these doctrines also believed in eternal punishment for certain classes of sinners. As would be expected, both this literature and the apocryphal books affirm an eternal retribution (e.g. Judith 16:17; Psalms of Solomon 3:13). This belief has carried over into orthodox Christian exegesis through which it views the hell of the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) [6] and is the ultimate origin of all the 'hellfire-and-damnation' preaching we hear in Protestant pulpits.


    98. Fianlly, the Greek word Tartaros (Lat. Tartarus), used alone as a verb in 2 Peter 2:4, is used in classical pagan religious literature of 'eternal' punishment for fallen malakim (angels), the 'Watchers' so extensively discoursed on in the Book of Enoch. Whether this is a separate abode to Sheol is not clear - I suspect they are one and the same, and that the distinction is Greek (Hades and Tartaros) rather than Hebrew, since demons and fallen malakim (angels) - whether of the 'watcher' class of any other - are presumably identical. The difficult question that is raised (which we will look at in more detail presently) concerns the disembodied giants or nephilim - the progeny of the fallen Watcher Malakim (Angels) and human women: are they human spirits, incarnated demons or a third category? We don't know.


    99. This doctrine, which is first taught beyond possibility of doubt in Daniel 12 (though with intimations in earlier books of the Tanakh/Old Testament), was made commonplace in Jewish theology by the time of the Book of Enoch:

      "And in those days shall the earth also give back that which has been entrusted to it, and Sheol also shall give back what which it has received, and hell shall give back what it owes" (51:1, RHC).

    Who Gets Resurrected? The Second Century BC Answers

    100. Aside from the question as to the nature of the resurrection - spiritual vs. mortal physical (as against the immortal-physical of the Bible) there was debate in the last two centries BC as to whether the resurrection was for:

    • 1. All Israelites (e.g. Enoch 1-36 [but excepting 22:13], 37-70, 83-90; 2 Macc.7:9, etc.; 2 Baruch 50-51:6);
    • 2. Only righteous Israelites (Enoch 91-104; Pss.Solomon 3:16, 13:9, 14:5; 15:15; 2 Baruch 30; Josehpus Antiquities 18.1.3; Wars of the Jews 2:8,14) which would become the received Talmudic view; or
    • 3. All mankind (4 Ezra 7:32,37; Test. 12 Patriarchs Benj.10:6-8)

    Spiritual Resurrection, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

    101. Some Jews believed that the spirit was immortal but that the body would not rise (Wisd. Solomon 3:1, etc., 4:7, 5:16, 8:20 (compared with 9:15, 15:8); Jubilees 23:30).

    Enoch Advances Spiritual Resurrection Doctrine

    102. The spiritual resurrection thesis of the Book of Enoch, chapters 91-104, is false doctrine like that of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Not only do we have the testimony of the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) and others that the resurrection was physical but we are also told that all are resurrected, Israelites, good and bad, as well as non-Israelites, good and bad. Clearly resurrection doctrine in the first two centuries BC was a pot pourri of all kinds of beliefs, representing the confusion in general, the error of what would become the Talmudic sect which today rules Judaism, and the twin errors of those Pharisees who wrote Enoch.

    The Two Book of Enoch Types

    103. There are two types of demonic entity spoken of in the Book of Enoch:

    • 1. The malakim (angels) who kept not their first estate (Jude 6; 2 Pet.2:4), corresponding to the angelic Watchers who fell from lusting after the daughters of men, and whose fall and punishment are recounted in Enoch 6-17 - all the leaders are named in Enoch but in no other book that I know of except in the works of the early and later occultic kabbalists who invented 72 [] of them: "Samazz, their leader, Arkba, Rml, Kkabl, Tml, Rml, Dnl, zql, Barqjl, Asl, Armrs, Batrl, Annl, Zaql, Samspl, Satarl, Trl, Jmjl, Saril";
    • 2. According to 16:1, the spirits who which went forth from the souls of the giants nephilim who were the children of the fallen angels and the daughters of men. According to Enoch, these demons were to work moral ruin on the earth without hindrance until the Final Judgment as disembodied spirits.

    Biblical Angels

    104. A biblical malakh (angel) is etymologically and conceptually a Messenger of Elohim (God), familiar with Him face to face, and therefore of an order of being higher than that of man until after the resurrection. Though mortal humans are also called 'malakim' ('angels') or messengers, we will here restrict ourselves to the supernatural variety. Malakim (angels) are creatures (created beings) but are qadosh (holy, uncorrupted, set-apart) ruach (spirit) in original essence, capable of physical manifestation, yet endowed with free will and therefore are not impervious to temptation and sin. There are several indications of an angelic fall under the leadership of Heylel (Lucifer, Satan) (Job.4:18; Mt.25:41; 2 Pet.2:4; Rev.12:9) but its effects belong strictly to the realm of demonology.


    105. In the Tanakh (Old Testament) there are references to devils or demons under the names sa'ir (Lev.27:7; 2 Chr.11:15) and sed (Dt.32:17; Ps.106:37). The former means 'hairy one' and points to the demon as a satyr (from which we get the word 'Saturn' and 'Saturday' = satyr's day or devil's day which has become the unholy Roman-Gregorian sabbath of the "Synagogue of Satan" - Rev.2:9; 3:9). There is little in the way of demonology in the Tanakh (Old Testament), most of our knowledge coming from the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) where they are essentially spiritual beings hostile to Yahweh.

    Beelzebub vs. Yah'shua

    106. Beelzebub (or Beezeboul) is their prince (Mk.2:22), demons being his agents, the sting behind the accustion made against Yah'shua (Jesus) (Jn.7:20; 10:20). Those who opposed His ministry tried to liken Him with the very forces of evil, instead of recognising His divine origin. And since the Enochian 'messiah' is not divine, but simply a gifted human, it follows that those who might have been using the Book of Enoch as scripture would not have recognised the true Messiah, Yah'shua (Jesus), and would have stigmatised Him in the same way. For greater detail on this subject, please see our Deliverance website.

    Yah'shua Casts Out Demons

    107. The Gospels picture Yah'shua (Jesus) in a continual conflict with evil spirits. To cast out such beings from men was not at all easy. His opponents recognised both that He did this, and also that it required a power greater than human. Therefore they attributed His success to the indwelling of Satan (Lk.11:15), exposing themselves to the counter that this would spell ruin in the kingdom of the evil one (Lk.11:17ff.). Yah'shua's (Jesus') power was that of the Ruach Elohim (Spirit of God - Mt.12:28), or as Luke expresses it:

      "But if I cast out demons with the finger of Elohim (God), surely the kingdom of Elohim (God) has come upon you" (Luke 11:20, NKJV).

    Authority to Cast Out Demons Given to Disciples

    108. The victory that Yah'shua (Jesus) won over demons He shared with His talmidim (disciples). When He sent out the Twelve He "gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases" (Luke 9:1, NKJV). Thus the Seventy would report, when they returned from their mission, "Master, even the demons are subject to us in Your Name" (Luke 10:17, NKJV).

    The Angelic Orders

    109. Before we look at the 'angels' mentioned in the Book of Enoch we need to look at the different angelic orders in the heavens. These consist, as far as we know, of:

    • 1. Rav-Malakim or Archangels are first order malakim (angels), being first in rank and power. The Bible only mentions Gabriel and Michael (1 Thes.4:16; Jude 1:9). A 'Raphael' is mention in the apocryphal Tobit who is described as one of the seven who stood before Yahweh, and a 'Uriel' appears in the apocryphal 2 Esdras (4 Esdras in the Latin Vulgate) where he unveils seven prophecies to the prophet Ezra - he also appears in Enoch as we shall see later. The seven Rav-Malakim are, according to tradition, the protectors of nations and countries, with Michael, the presiding Archangel (having replaced Heylel/Lucifer/Satan - Rev.12:4), the protector of Israel, both pre-Messianic and Messianic;

    • 2. Seraphim (Is.6:1-7) are the second order malakim (angels) and serve before the throne of Yahweh and have 6 symbolic 'wings' (Is.6:2);

    • 3. Cherubim (Gen.3:24; Ex.25:1722; 2 Chr.3:714; Ezek.10:1214, 28:1416; 1 Ki.6:2328; Rev.4:68) are third order malakim (angels) and have four faces: one of each a man, an ox, a lion, and an eagle. They have four conjoined symbolic 'wings' covered with eyes, a lion's body figure, and ox's feet. They guard the way to the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden (Gen.3:24) and the throne of Elohim (God - Ezek.28:1416);

    • 4. Ophanim ('Wheels'), Erelim or 'Thrones' (Gk. thronoi) (Col.1:16; Rev.11:16; Dan.7:9) are fourth order malakim (angels) and are living symbols of Yahweh's justice and toqef (authority), and have as one of their symbols the throne. They appear as a beryl-coloured wheel-within-a-wheel, their rims covered with hundreds of eyes. They are closely connected with the Cherubim: "When the cherubim stood still, the wheels (ophanim) stood still, and when one was lifted up, the other lifted itself up, for the ruach (spirit) of the living creature (cherub) was in them" (Ezek.10:17, NKJV);

    • 5. Second and Third Sphere Malakim (Angels), about whom little is known, and mostly just inferred from the Scriptures. As this is an involved and largely speculative area we shall not go into that here.

    The 'Iyrim, Watchers or Guardian Angels

    110. The only other class of malakim (angels) that we know about are the Aramaic 'Iyrim (Dan.4:7,13,23), the Hebrew Natzarim (Jer.4:16), Watcher or Guardian malakim. They are only twice referred to in the Tanakh (Old Testament) and not at all in the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament). Moreover, it isn't clear whether these "watchers" (natsarim) in Jeremiah aren't actually human whereas those in Daniel do appear to be supernatural malakim (angels). In the only two references in the Bible to these 'watchers' they are portrayed as being on Yahweh's side:

      "I saw in the visions of my head while on my bed, and there was a watcher, a qadosh (set-apart, holy one), coming down from heaven ... This decision is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the davar (word) of the qodeshim (holy, set-apart ones) in order that the living may know that Elyon (the Most High) rules in the kingdom of men, gives it to whomever He will, and sets over it the lowest of men ... And inasmuch as the king saw a watcher, a qodesh (holy, set-apart one), coming down from heaven..." (Dan.4:13,17,23, NKJV).

    The Angelic Fall, Genesis 6 and the B'nei Elohim

    111. Inasmuch as Lucifer drew away a third of the angelic hosts to follow him, it is not unreasonable to assume that he made converts from among all the angelic realms, including the Watchers, but this is only conjecture and we only have the word of a 2nd or 1st century BC pseudepigraphical text that some of these fell and became rebel malakim (angels) or demons. They are not called 'watchers' in Genesis but b'nei Elohim:

      "Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the b'nei Elohim (sons of God) saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And Yahweh said, 'My Ruach (Spirit) shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.' There were nephilim (giants) on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the b'nei Elohim (sons of God) came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown" (Gen.6:1-4, NKJV).

    Were the B'nei Elohim Fallen Humans or Angels?

    112. Given the liberal use of the Book of Daniel by the writers of the Book of Enoch, as we have already seen, we have to wonder whether they borrowed the concept of the 'Iyrim (watcher) like so much else from there. What we have to bridge - assuming it is bridgeable - is the gap between b'nei Elohim and 'Iyrim. Critics of the doctrine of 'fallen angels' mating with human women are quick to point this out. They believe the "sons of God" were natural human beings, originally faithful talmidim (disciples) of Yahweh, who lusted after unbelievers (the 'daughters of men') but are unable to explain why giants were the result of these unions. If we accept their conclusions we must reasonably ask why such unions throughout history have not also resulted in huge offspring, which clearly has not happened. We are forced to conclude, therefore, that these b'nei Elohim (sons of God) were supernatural beings or malakim (angels) as the Book of Enoch claims. And as we shall see in Part 4, the overwhelming evidence is that such non-human/human unions have not only taken place in the remote past but have happened throughout history and are still happening today. So we are forced to agree with the overall thesis of Enoch in this matter. Where we have to differ is in all the details for the many good reasons already given. Just because an event happened in the past doesn't establish every account of it as being necessarily true. That is why we are applying rigorous tests in this study.

    Good and Bad Watcher Angels

    113. Wholesale critics of the Book of Enoch object to the fact that the Watchers 'quaked with fear' since in the Tanakh (Old Testament) the only Watchers we know about are the good guys:

      "And all shall be smitten with fear, and all the Watchers shall quake, and great fear and trembling shall seize them unto the ends of the earth" (Enoch 1:5, RHC).

    Organisation of the Demonic Realm

    114. However, as I have pointed out, this does not mean that good Watchers didn't rebel and become bad ones. Therefore there is not sufficient evidence negating the possibility of fallen Watcher malakim (angels). Indeed, from my own experience in deliverance ministry demons are organised more or less along the same structural lines as the faithful malakim (angels) of Yahweh. Whatever true history the fable of the Book of Enoch was structured around, it had to have been a kernel of emet (truth) from somewhere. That we shall be examining closely in Part 4.


    Sinai, Jerusalem, Olivet and the Book of Enoch

    115. I wish to finish this study by looking at a number of other contradictions in the Book of Enoch which do not necessarily fit into the cetagories above.

      "The Holy Great One will come forth from His dwelling, and the eternal God will tread upon the earth, [even] on Mount Sinai, [and appear from His camp] and appear in the strength of His might from the heaven {of heavens}" (Enoch 1:3b-4, RHC - words in [] and {} are from variant versions).

    116. This is an expanded messianic quotation from the Book of Zechariah written around 520 BC with Jerusalem substituted for "Sinai":

      "And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which faces Jerusalem on the east. And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two, from east to west, making a very large valley; half of the mountain shall move toward the north and half of it toward the south" (Zech.14:4, NKJV).

    A Third Enochian View of the Messiah as Divine?

    117. Although superficially it looks as though the writer of this portion of Enoch is agreeing that the Messiah is Elohim (God), in fact the Enochian messiah figure is never regarded as divine at all throughout the book, and there are two conflicting views of him as we have seen. Clearly the author has the 'future' manifestation of Yahweh on Mount Sinai in mind in the days of Moses and yet is apparently confusing this with a later prophecy concerning the anticipated Messiah. Either that or this is evidence of a third view about the Messiah, namely, that He truly is Elohim (God), in accordance with the Tanakh (Old Testament) teaching and targum evidence [8] and the arcgheological evidence.

    Pre-Messianic Archeological Evidence of Resurrecting Messiah

    118. A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Yah'shua (Jesus) is currently causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a Messiah who will rise from the dead after three days. If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Yah'shua (Jesus), since it suggests that the story of His death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognised Jewish tradition at the time. The tablet, probably found near the Dead Sea in Jordan according to some scholars who have studied it, is a rare example of a stone with ink writings from that era in essence, a Dead Sea Scroll on stone.

    A Pre-Flood Mount Sinai?

    119. There is also the question of Mt.Sinai even having had that name in the pre-Flood era of the real Enoch, or even that it existed. The name itself may not have existed before the Flood. Most believe the name derives from Sn, the moon deity of the Sumerians.

    The Enochian Earth Destroyed in an Apocalypse

    120. At this theophany the Book of Enoch says that the earth will effectively be destroyed. After the Watchers are judged, then:

      "The high mountains shall be shaken, and the high hills shall be made low, and shall melt like wax before the flame. And the earth shall be [wholly] rent in sunder, and all that is upon the earth shall perish, and there shall be judgment upon all [men]. But with the righteous He will make peace and will protect the elect, and mercy shall be upon them" (Enoch 1:6-8)

    The Enochian Earth Split in Two Like Zechariah's Mount of Olives

    121. This cannot depict the the Biblical Messiah because the earth is not destroyed at either of His comings. The earth is going to be split in two, according to Enoch, which sounds a bit like a mixing of Zechariah 14:4 which speaks of the Mount of Olive being 'rent in sunder'. The only remote connection this passage could have is to the end of the Millennium where Peter prophesies:

      "But the day of Yahweh will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of Elohim (God), because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells" (2 Peter 3:10-13, NKJV).

    Catastrophe Confusion

    122. Though catastrophes will preceed the Second Coming, the earth will not be destroyed as completely as Enoch claims ... which is perhaps why one of the writers of Enoch doesn't believe in a physical resurrection, because there won't be anything left. However you try to look at Enoch, is a very confusing morass of ideas.

    Angels as Intermediaries

    123. In the Book of Enoch angels are the intermediaties between man and Elohim (God):

      "And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael and Gabriel looked down from heaven and saw much blood being shed upon the earth, and all lawlessness being wrought upon the earth. And they said one to another: 'The earth made without inhabitant cries the voice of their cryings up to the gates of heaven. And now to you, the holy ones of heaven, the souls of men make their suit, saying, 'Bright our cause before the Most High. And they said to the Lord [of the ages]; 'Lord of lords, God of gods, King of kings, {and God of the ages}, the throne of Thy glory (standeth) unto all the generations of the ages....." (Enoch 9:1-4).

    Enoch's Watchers and Kabbalah's 72 Angels

    124. Ignoring for a moment that Uriel and Raphael are not mentioned in the Bible (a minor point), Genesis 6 tells us that Elohim (God) looked down from heaven, not the malakim (angels). The idea of praying to Yahweh through intermediaries apart from Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), such as the Catholics and others do to the Virgin Mary or through their 'canonised saints', or New Agers through 'Ascended Masters', is totally foreign to true Scripture and neo-pagan. The Book of Enoch sends the message that man cannot have direct access to Elohim (God) save through created beings, susceptible to sin, who are required to intercede for them. But how many angels would we theoretically need to interceed for us anyway? One? Seven? What order of angels? Just Archangels? Watchers? How would we choose which to approach? Kabbalistic Judaism has 72 of them, and they invoke them, calling them the 'names of God'! The Book of Enoch does not tell us, nor could it, I suspect, without trapping itself in some obviously false doctrine and undermining its claim to inspiration. It would indeed, I believe, have to come forth with some Kabbalistic-Talmudic system that we have today, which was in its infancy when it was written. I would even venture to suggest that Enoch is a very early proto-kabbalistic book, influenced by dark spirits and hiding behind post-Flood Bible-like language which it has clearly borrowed.

    Reprimanding and Praying for Angels in the Book of Enoch!

    125. Not only does the Book of Enoch say we are to ask angels to intercede for us but that we are to pray for fallen angels (demons) too ... to interceed for them! (ch.12) Who else but fallen angels would want this? The Enochian Watchers who didn't fall use pseudo-Enoch as an intermediary between them and the fallen ones!! Needless to say the Bible is without any such precedent for intercession by men on behalf of malakim (angels), and especially not demons. We are taught to pray for one another only. Not only that, but the Book of Enoch instructs men to reprimand malakim (angels):

      "And behold a dream came to me, and visions fell down upon me, and I saw visions of chastisement, and a voice came bidding (me) to tell it to the sons of heaven, and reprimand them" (Enoch 13:8, RHC).

      "He created me also and given me the power of reprimanding" (14:3).

    Our Proper Conduct Toward Angels

    126. Humans have no authority to reprimand Yahweh's malakim (angels), and the authority we have been given to rebuke Satan's malakim (demons) is clearly defined by Elohim (God) in Scripture, and granted to those submitted to Him. The lawless, who step out from Yahweh's protective covering and tavnith (pattern), have no authority and will find themselves overpowered, even as the Pharisees who tried to use Yah'shua's (Jesus') Name in delivernace (Acts 19:13-16). The Letter of Jude, which as we have seen quotes a couple of verses that may well be authentic Enoch, a few lines on reminds us of the boundaries when it comes to authority:

      "Yet Michael the Rav-malakh (archangel), in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, 'Yahweh rebuke you!' But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves" (Jude 9-10, NKJV).

    Enoch Bans Satan Access to Heaven

    127. The Book of Enoch not only has authorities and prerogatives mixed up but gets some teachings plainly and incontrovertibly wrong. After the incident of the Watcher Revolt, the leader (who is Satan) is told:

      "And from henceforth you shall not ascend into heaven unto all eternity" (14:5, RHC)

    The Tanakh Gives Satan Access to Heaven

    128. But has Satan's access to Yahweh been cut off? Not at all. The Book of Job, written a 1,000 years after time of Enoch, tells us in no uncertain terms that Satan still has access to heaven:

      "Now there was a day when the b'nei Elohim (sons of God) came to present themselves before Yahweh, and Satan also came among them. And Yahweh said to Satan, 'From where do you come?' So Satan answered Yahweh and said, 'From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it'" (Job 1:6-7, NKJV).

    The New Testament Gives Satan Access to Heaven Until the Very End<

    129. 3,000 years later he's still appearing before Yahweh in heaven in the Book of Revelation:

      "Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, 'Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our Elohim (God), and the power of His Messiah have come, for the accuser (haSatan) of our brethren, who accused ('satanised') them before our Elohim (God) day and night, has been cast down" (Rev.12:10, NKJV).

    The Book of Enoch Has Simply Got It Wrong

    130. So, yes, Satan has access to heaven and to Yahweh up until the very end. The Book of Enoch has quite simply got the timing wrong...by about 5,000 or more years. And

    Enoch Falsely Makes Enoch and Noah Contemporaries

    131. That's not the only historical blunder for the writer of Enoch makes the patriarch a contemporary of Noah, insisting that "the Most High" send Uriel to visit Noah. But were Noah and Enoch actually contemporaries? Enoch's life span was 365 years, he became the father of Methuselah aged 65, and Methuselah became the father of Lamech when he in turn was 187...which would have made Enoch 252. Lamech sired Noah when he was 182 by which time Enoch would have been 434. Unfortunately for the writer of the Book of Enoch, who evidently didn't bother to do his arithmetic, Noah was translated (removed from the earth and taken to heaven) 69 years before Noah was born, so how could he possibly have known Noah? Indeed he wouldn't have known a thing about the Flood. Noah had to wait until he himself was 600 before the Flood came. This means the Deluge did not take places until 669 years after the days of Enoch.

    Some Strange Titles for Yahweh in the Book of Enoch

    132. Finally (and we must cut short our study here in exclusing the many other evidences of the Book of Enoch's fraud, it should be pointed out that throughout the Tanakh (Old Testament) - over 500 times, in fact - the proper Name and title of Deity is "Yahweh-Elohim" (or "LORD God" in nearly all Anglophone translations). Why is it that this title never appears once in Enoch? Instead the god of the 'Book of Enoch' is referred to by such strange titles as "the Holy Great One" (14:2), "the Great Glory" (14:20) and "Lord of Spirits" (70:1) to give but three examples, titles found nowhere in the Bible.


    133. We have looked at the structure of the Book of Enoch and its theology and found it seriously wanting. With so much serious error it cannot possibly lay claim to being 'inspired' in any sense of the word. To claim, as some Messianics groups have done, that it is 'Holy Scripture' on par with the Tanakh (Old Testament) is not only presumption but folly in the extreem. And though, as we shall see in Part 4, it must contain some authentic elements, the book itself, with its multiple authors with their conflicting and contradictory theological positions, is not of ancient provenance and can be no older than 200 BC. To claim that it is authentic history and that its author was Enoch is a gross deception that, with some carful research, is very easy to expose. If you have been deceived and now know it, we invite you to put aside this book as yet another pseudepigraph written by uninspired rabbis using a dead man's name at a time when the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) had been withdrawn because of apostacy, and which would remain withdrawn until the coming of John the Baptist and the true Messiah, Yah'shua (Jesus) of Nazareth.

    134. In Part 3 we shall examine the strange 'Enochian Calendar' and demonstrate that it had nothing to do with 'Enoch' but was an invention of one of the Book of Enoch's authors.

    Continued in Part 3


    [1] Jesus (1999), directed by Roger Young and written by Suzette Couture
    [2] We have ourselves hastily 'canonised' a number of apocrypha and pseudepigrapha in the past (though admittedly only as 'secondary canon') and have had to revise our position on a number of these in the light of more thorough investigations. There's a reason why durable canons take centuries to crystalise out
    [3] See Is There Eternal Marriage in the Resurrection?; A Question of Eternal Marriage: What the Bible Teaches About Marriage in the Next Life; Does Marriage End at Death?
    [4] See David Stern Jewish New Testament Commantary (JNT Publications, Maryland: 1992), p.65, note #24
    [5] See The Early Christian View of the Saviour: Is Hell Eternal?
    [6] See our three-part series, The Fire of Yahweh which examine these questions more closely
    [7] Vehu-iah, Jeli-el, Sita-el, Elem-iah, Mahas-iah, Acha-iah, Kahet-el, Azi-el, Alad-iah, Lauv-iah, Haha-iah, Jezal-el, Mebah-el, Hari-el, Hakam-iah, Lano-iah, Kali-el, Leuv-iah, Pahal-iah, Neleka-el, Jeiai-el, Melah-el, Hahu-iah, Nith-Ha-iah, Haa-iah, Jerath-el, See-iah, Reii-el, Oma-el, Lekab-el, Vasar-iah, Jehu-iah, Lahab-iah, Kevak-iah, Menad-el, Ani-el, Haam-iah, Reha-el, Ieiaz-el, Hahah-el, Mika-el, Veubi-ah, Ielah-iah, Seal-iah, Ari-el, Asal-iah, Miha-el, Vehu-el, Dani-el, Hahas-iah, Imam-iah, Nana-el, Nitha-el, Meba-iah, Poi-El, Nemam-iah, Jeial-el, Harah-el, Mizra-el, Umab-el, Jah-H-el, Anianu-el, Mehi-el, Damab-iah, Manak-el, Eiai-el, Habu-iah, Roch-el, Jabam-iah, Hai-el, Mum-iah
    [8] See, Jonathan Ben Uzziel, Targum Isaiah in English with Parallel Jewish and Christian Texts (Tsiyon.org, College Station, TX: 2012), ed. Eliyahu ben David (Steven Butt) &c. Jonathan Ben Uzziel was a student of Hillel (Suk. 28a; B.B. 134a) and his targum proves conclusively that the early synagogue belived in a Divine Messiah. Tzivi Nassi, who rediscovered the targum in the early 1880's, exclaimed: "If the doctrines of Jonathan Ben Uziel are considered by the Syangogue to be inspired, it follows that the present Jewish faith cannot be the faith of their fathers."

      back to list of contents

      Purchase the WHOLE Website by clicking here

      Return to Main NCCG.ORG Index Page

      This page was created on 23 February 2014
      Last updated on 8 March 2014

      Copyright © 1987-2014 NCCG - All Rights Reserved