All ecclesias, and individuals, should have at hand a guide which, if it were read and observed, would go a long way toward solving many ecclesial problems. Unfortunately, A Guide to the Formation and Conduct of Christadelphian Ecclesias is more honored than used. It seems to be standard procedure for human nature to acknowledge the benefit of a principle in theory, but when provoked by circumstance, promptly to forget to implement that very principle which is most relevant. We all tend, under duress, to convince ourselves that rules are made for other people, and that the position in which we may suddenly find ourselves is very different from that which the framers of principles and rules envisioned. In theory, the wisdom of the words of Christ, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Mat 6:21), is unquestionable; but they are so easily set aside when we gaze in fond rapture upon a gleaming new automobile or a fine house or some exquisite new fashions. The standard, “Turn the other cheek”, is wonderfully appropriate if your friend’s cheek is the one smitten, but we can always think of good reasons why we should retaliate.

In just such a way, The Ecclesial Guide supplies those balanced judgments that are most needed when in controversy they are most easily forgotten. Though no one would say the rules are perfect, as the Bible itself is, at the very least they are dispassionate commentaries on the relevant passages dealing with ecclesial conduct. They have the benefit of being sound advice from a bystander not personally involved at all in whatever conflict is immediately at hand. Principles have a way of becoming distorted and either over-stressed or under-stressed when the holders thereof come under intense pressure.

A few brief excerpts from the relevant sections should suffice here:

32. Cases of Sin and Withdrawal: “Withdrawal is a serious step, and ought not be lightly taken against any brother. It erects a barrier and inflicts a stain not easily removed. It ought never to be taken until all the resources of the Scriptural rule of procedure have been exhausted. The rule laid down by Christ for the treatment of personal offences (Mat 18:15-17)         is doubtless applicable to sin in general…”

39. Absence and Separate Meetings Unlawful: “It is… an imperative law that the brethren must be one body, and that they must submit one to another. It is a law of the house that each brother and sister must meet at the table of the Lord on the first day of the week for the breaking of bread. Nothing but denial of the truth in the assembly, or overt disobedience of the Lord’s commandments among them, can justify a brother or sister in absenting himself or herself from the breaking of bread… if the matters of difference… do not affect the question of the truth or the commandments, it is the duty of the lesser to submit to the greater number… If, instead of submitting, they separate themselves, they put themselves in a false position from which worse things than those they objected to will come. Their action means that the greater number ought to submit to the lesser, or that there should never be submission to the wishes of others, and that a disappointed minority should always leave a meeting where their wishes cannot prevail. Such a doctrine is fraught with confusion and ruin, and is inconsistent with the most elementary commandments of Christ.”

40. A Time to Separate, and How to Go about it: “It is a maxim of universal law (divine included)         that no man is to be judged without a hearing. If it is true of one man, it is true of a number of men, and to be applied as scrupulously to an erring ecclesia as to an individual delinquent. Suppose this rule is not acted on, — suppose the aggrieved minority simply depart, without formulating their grievances, and without giving the offending majority an opportunity of either justifying or removing the causes of offence, the situation is afterwards embarrassed for the minority as regards other ecclesias. Other ecclesias are in fellowship with the offending majority; and if there be not a correct mode of procedure, those other ecclesias, will not have it in their power to decide upon the issue.”

41. Involved in Another Ecclesia’s Trouble: This section is too lengthy to be quoted here in full, though it is all very good and very relevant. A point certainly worth stressing: any disfellowshiped brother or ecclesia is deserving of the right of appeal to someone, and there is no weakness implied in a conscientious, even drawn-out, examination of all matters pertaining to a disagreement.

42. Ecclesias in Relation one to Another: “The bond of union is the reception of the one faith, and submission to the commandments of the Lord. It is nothing less than a calamity when rupture on secondary issues sets in, where these other conditions of union exist… There ought to be no interference of one ecclesia with another… An ecclesia has no right to judge except for itself. This is the independence not to be interfered with: but a similar right to judge must be conceded to all, and the exercise of it, if tempered with a respectful and proper procedure, would never offend an enlightened body anywhere. In the majority of cases the withdrawal of one ecclesia is practically the withdrawal of all, since all will respect it till set aside, and since, in most cases, a concurrent investigation would lead to its ratification. But there may be cases where a reasonable doubt exists, and where a second ecclesia will come to a different conclusion from the first. What is to be done then? Are the two ecclesias that are agreed in the basis of fellowship to fall out because they are of a different judgment on a question of fact? This would be a lamentable result — a mistaken course every way. They have each exercised their prerogative of independent judgment: let each abide by its own decision, without interfering with each other. The one can fellowship a certain brother, the other cannot. Are they to aggravate the misery of a perhaps very trumpery and unworthy affair by refusing to recognize each other, because they differ in judgment about one person? What sadder spectacle can there be than to see servants of the Lord Jesus frowning at each other, and denying each other the comfort of mutual friendship and help, because they cannot agree about a given action or speech or perhaps some unworthy person. The course of wisdom in such a case is certainly to agree to differ. An ecclesia acting otherwise — demanding of another ecclesia, as a condition of fellowship, that they shall endorse their decision in a case that has become the business of both — is in reality infringing that principle of ecclesial independence which they desire to have recognized in their own case. It would be to impose what might be an intolerable tyranny upon the brethren.”

Most of the standard Bible dictionaries and commentaries agree in suggesting that the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:8)         was located in the “easternmost third of the Fertile Crescent” (Unger’s Bible Dictionary 285). “Calvin, Huet, Bochart and others believed the river of Paradise to have been the united streams of the Tigris and Euphrates called the Shat-al-Arab, which flows by Bassora. Its four heads… would have been, on the north, the two separate streams of the Tigris and the Euphrates, on the south, Gihon, the eastern, and Pison, the western channels, into which the united stream again branches out below Bassora, before it falls into the sea” (Speaker’s Commentary 1:40).

With this widely-accepted view of the Garden’s location Christadelphian expositors have generally agreed: “I suspect… that it lay somewhere between the Gulf of Persia, and the junction of the Euphrates and the Tigris” (John Thomas, “Elpis Israel” 58). “A river parting into four heads… must have been below where these two rivers (Euphrates and Tigris)         unite, within a hundred miles of the Persian Gulf” (Robert Roberts, “Answers to Correspondents”, The Christadelphian 34:110). “The original site seems to have been in Armenia or Mesopotamia near Babylonia” (HP Mansfield, The Christadelphian Expositor: Genesis p 60). “The cradle of human civilization was the land of Iraq, and especially the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates. This is the area where Eden was” (Alan Hayward, “God’s Truth”).

Gen 2:10 reads: “And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.”

All of the above writers, and others besides, seem to take it for granted that Gen 2:10 should be visualized either as Figure 1, 2 or 3 [see appendix]. And for all such views, of course, a location very near the Persian Gulf is a necessity.

A Different Suggestion

It seems, however, that v 10 means something altogether different. If we were not trying to fit this verse as closely as possible to the modern geography of the Fertile Crescent, would not Figure 4 be a better approximation of the account? The most natural reading of Gen 2:10 is that one river (not two)         flowed into the Garden, and four flowed out.

It is clear that Eden was a large area, of which the garden was a much smaller preserve, set apart and especially prepared by God as the home of Adam.

We know that the garden itself was in the eastern part of the region of Eden. Just where was the territory of Eden? Notice, for one thing, that Genesis does not say that Eden encompassed all of the area watered by the four rivers, but merely that the four rivers originated in Eden.

Other than Genesis 2; 3, the references to Eden and the garden are as follows:

1. Gen 4:16: Cain left the presence of God (ie, the area just east of the garden, where the “faces” (AV, “presence”)         of the Cherubim were — Gen 3:24; 4:14,16″)         and journeyed to Nod (location unknown), which seems to have been further east. There he built cities and founded what is apparently the earliest civilization. By themselves, these facts would indicate that, if we are looking for the Garden of Eden, we must first find the world’s earliest settled region (Iraq?)         and then travel westward some distance. How far westward? Well, let’s look at other passages.

2. Gen 13:10: When Lot was separated from his kinsman Abram, he “beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, as the garden of the Lord.” This verse suggests (to use the mildest term)         that the Jordan River, near what is now the Dead Sea (but which was then certainly “living”), was closely related to the Garden of Eden. [It is admitted that “like” and “as” do not necessarily mean “identical with”, but rather “comparable to”. However, “likeness of”, “like unto”, “as”, and similar phrases are sometimes Biblical idioms expressing not only correspondence but identity. Compare, for examples, Rom 8:3 and Phi 2:7. (See also HA Whittaker, “Revelation: A Biblical Approach” 11.)]

3. Isa 51:3: “For the Lord shall comfort Zion: He will comfort all her waste places; and He will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord.” This foresees a time when the areas immediately surrounding Zion will become like Eden. It is at least a valid inference that, once before, these areas had been like the Garden of Eden — but that they had fallen into a wilderness state reflective of the spiritual barrenness of the people who lived there. (Compare the same area before and after God’s overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah.)

4. Eze 28:13: “Thou (the king of Tyre — v 12)         hast been in Eden the garden of God.” Is not this parallel to v 14: “Thou wast upon the holy mountain of God”? Are the “garden of God” and the “holy mountain of God” the same?

5. Eze 31:9,16,18; Assyria and Egypt, because of their forays into and through the lands of Palestine and Lebanon, are characterized as “trees” in Eden and the garden of the Lord.

6. Eze 36:35: “And they shall say, This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are become fenced, and are inhabited.” Similar to Isa 51:3. Again, the promised land is equated with Eden.

7. Joel 2:3: “Locusts” like a fire devour the “garden of Eden” — ie, Israel! — leaving it a “desolate wilderness”.

All of the above passages connect either Eden or the garden of Eden with the land of Israel. Gen 13:10 and Isa 51:3 most specifically refer to Jerusalem and its immediate environs. Could it be that Eden proper was that same land which God promised to Abraham and his seed, “from the river of Egypt (the Nile!)         unto the great river, the river Euphrates” (Gen 15:18)? [Although giving a wider meaning to “Eden”, John Thomas stresses the necessity of at least including Palestine in the term. This land, he says, has always been, and will be, the scene of conflict between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. (See his comments on Eden in “Elpis Israel” 56,57.)] And, could it be also that the “garden of Eden” corresponds to present-day Jerusalem? [It might be objected that Jerusalem is scarcely in the eastern part of this area (Gen. 2:8). But if “Eden” is confined, say, to the territory controlled by David and Solomon, then Jerusalem might rightly be considered in the eastern portion.]

Now back to Gen 2:10. Is it possible that a river once flowed through Jerusalem and “from thence it was parted and became four heads”? Bearing in mind firstly the great changes wrought in the earth’s surface by the flood, and secondly the enormous eruptions that accompanied the downfall of the “cities of the plain”, it is not to be expected that the precise topography of the original area should any longer exist. [This same suggestion has been made by SL Hale, “Eden”, Xd 98:26. Also, Reg Osmond, “Letters to the Editor”, Ibid pp 125,126. See also David Sutcliffe, “Physical Changes in Israel in Prophecy”, Tes 45:55-61, for an interesting description of the topography of Israel — past, present, and future.]

But perhaps it looked something like Figure 5.

Thus, in the pre-deluge era, the Tigris (Hiddekel — Dan 10:5)         and the Euphrates could have originated much further west, before reaching their current courses. [David Sutcliffe (Ibid)         suggests this will happen again, as a result of future cataclysms at the time of Christ’s return (Zec 14:4,5).] The Pison, perhaps roughly equivalent to the modern Jordan River, could have flowed south from Jerusalem to the Gulf of Aqaba, thereby compassing Havilah or Arabia (Gen 2:11). And the Gihon (which name persists in the spring at Jerusalem — 1Ki 1:33!)         could have flowed southwest toward Cush (Gen 2:13)         — either Ethiopia or the Sinai Peninsula.

The Implications

This identification of the garden of Eden with Jerusalem must be no more than an unproven hypothesis. However, the implications of such a suggestion are far-flung and satisfying. And it is a good rule of Bible exposition that the best conclusion out of several possibilities is the one that sheds light on other passages. Just a few of these passages (others will readily suggest themselves):

1. The first altar and the first cherubim are now connected with the site where God chose to place His name — Jerusalem (Deu 12:5,11; 1Ki 8:29; 9:3; Psa 48:1,2; 87:1-3; 132:13; and others). How fitting Chat Jerusalem was His choice from the beginning, and that He always desired to dwell there!

2. Now there is a satisfying explanation for Melchizedek’s residence at Salem (Gen 14:18), and indeed for the presence of a whole community of true believers there.

3. Also, God’s call of Abram out of Ur and into Palestine was not a completely new beginning with a land randomly chosen, but rather a return to the original place of blessing! We now see, furthermore, a closer linkup between the original “seed” promise (Gen 3:15)         and later ones, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

4. Now, the ineffective fig-leaf coverings of Adam and Eve may be seen to typify the inadequate “fig-tree” covering of Israel — — cursed by Jesus in the same place (Mat 21:19-21).

5. How did “Golgotha” (“the place of the skull”)         get its name? Two reasons are suggested: There is an ancient Jewish tradition that the body of Adam, and hence his skull, was buried there. And, the name may have been derived from “Gol-goliath” — the burial place of Goliath’s head (1Sa 17:54). [Origen, cited in The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, 2:1275. (It is reasonable that, if this were the site of the garden of Eden, Adam never strayed far from the cherubim, where he worshipped.)] So if the above is true, the place of Christ’s crucifixion is identical with the place of burial of the head of the antitypical “serpent” Goliath, “bruised” by David (Gen 3:15). And the scene of the last Adam’s victory over the “serpent” is identical with the scene of the first Adam’s failure. So, the site where “dominion” (Gen 1:28)         was lost will also witness that “dominion” regained (See Psa 8 and all its New Testament allusions)!

6. The first Adam was tried in a garden, and he failed; the “last Adam” was tried in a garden, Gethsemane, and was victorious! The “first Adam” slept in a garden and then received a bride taken out of his side. The “last Adam” slept the sleep of death in a garden tomb (John 19:41), and while he “slept” — out of his pierced side (v 34)         — God fashioned him a “bride”! How exciting to consider that these events all took place in the same local! [Consider also the weight of Christ’s words to the thief on the cross re “paradise” (Luke 23:43)         — a “garden”!]

7. Now the suggestion that Christ’s judgment seat will be located at Jerusalem may be seen to have a greater relevance. (See the article, Location of Judgment seat.)

8. The interrelationship of Gen 3:24 with Eze 1:4-14; 10:18,19,22; 11:22,23; and 43:2-4 is now quite striking.

9. Ezekiel 47 and Revelation 22, with their similar visions of the pure river flowing out from the throne, through a lovely garden, with the tree of life, and from thence parting into streams that heal the waters of the Dead Sea and revitalize surrounding regions, gain so much more force when it is recognized that this is — literally — the garden of Eden restored!

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5

James calls Elijah “a man of like nature with ourselves” (James 5:17, RSV)         and nowhere is this more evident than in Elijah’s confrontation with God on Mount Horeb. This austere prophet of the Lord had just been instrumental in a great victory for the honor of Yahweh over Baal, on Mount Carmel (1Ki 18). But from the heights of spiritual exaltation Elijah was plunged into the depths of despair when he realized that his great accomplishments had not softened the heard of Ahab, and had served only to intensify Jezebel’s hatred of him. Fleeing for his life, and yet in his despondency losing all desire to live, he came into the wilderness, to Horeb (1Ki 19:8). In a pathetic prayer Elijah reveals that he has given up on Israel, and that he sees himself as the only true believer remaining:

“I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant, thrown down Thy altars, and slain Thine prophets with the sword, and I, even I only am left; and they seek my life, to take it away” (v 10).

We have all heard such laments as this, generally for much less reason than Elijah’s. In the circumstances we may understand his pessimism, but God saw fit to dispel the mistaken notions that led to his negative state of mind. A contemplation of this incident might also cure the state of mind of any brother who, more or less self-righteously, isolates himself from “less-worthy” brethren.

God called Elijah forth from his cave, and paraded before his awestruck eyes a tremendous panorama of God’s power — strong winds, earthquake, and fire. But the Lord was not in these; Elijah saw that something was missing. At last came a still small voice, and Elijah, bracing himself up, came out of the cave whence he had fled for fear at the previous manifestations. The soft voice had a soothing effect; now at last the frightened prophet felt the presence of God. Thus was the message driven home to him that God is best known, not in works of judgment, but in the still small voice which calls His people when properly prepared by adversity, to repentance.

And Elijah was to be that voice!

“Go, return on the way” (v 15).

Like Samuel before him, Elijah was carefully taught that wickedness is preeminently an affront against God, not against any individual (1Sa 8:7), and consequently no man (no matter how righteous)         has any prerogative to turn his back on his brethren. Elijah must minister to the remnant that remains in Israel; in the midst of gross apostasy he is not to flee in fear, but rather to stand firm for God and provide a rallying point for the sheep of Israel.

“Yet I have left Me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him” (v 18).

How wrong, how seriously wrong, had been Elijah’s estimation that there were no righteous remaining in Israel. He had let his despair get the better of his judgment and he had forgotten his responsibility. It was one thing to stand strong against entrenched error on Carmel, but he had not been perceptive enough to see his duty afterward, to strengthen those who remained faithful against the evil in the midst of the nation.

This verse is cited by Paul in his epistle to the Romans, with the comment that “God hath not cast away His people” (Rom 11:2). It is a though worth remembering for all time. God knows in every age who His “seven thousand” are. In many Scriptural lessons He directs those who would flee in despair from troubles, to turn around, to “go, return on thy way” to find their brethren and strengthen them. Those who would hold firmly to the Truth in the midst of trials must combine their forces, strengthening and upbuilding one another in God’s service, sharing in good times and bad the fellowship of the saints.

An imaginative expansion on the story of the Sons of God and the daughters of men in Gen 6:1,2.

A group of 200 angels (led by archangels Shemihazah and Azazel)         descend to the earth where they take human wives and father a race of giants, or Titans. For this sin the angels are bound in Tartarus to await judgment for 70 generations. The angels ask Enoch to intercede for them, but Enoch’s requests are refused. The angels’ children cause havoc on the earth, but then are drowned in the flood. But the spirits of the giants survive to torment mankind, becoming a new class of beings — the demons. The giants’ human mothers also survive and become Sirens.

In Christ’s day the Book of Enoch was a “bestseller”, spawning a small library of derivative literature: Jubilees, Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch, etc. (There is a possible reference to this by Christ in Mar 12:25.)

---

The information presented below is drawn from AH Boulton: “The Book of Enoch” (Tes, July 1932); NActs; WSSE; and Bill Davison: “The Devil and Demons — A New Approach”.

Since the discovery of the Greek manuscript at Qumran in 1946 it is no longer possible to claim the book is an Ethiopian forgery. Enoch was obviously well known to both Peter and Jude, and there are anything up to 50 references to Enoch in their epistles to prove it beyond any doubt.

The argument:

A. Peter and Jude were opposing serious heresies (2Pe 2:1), including:

1. myths and fables (contrasted with inspiration);
2. the blaspheming of angels (contrasted with angels who do not even rebuke);

3. denying the coming of the Lord (“all things continue since creation”);

4. denying the intercessor role of Christ (Enoch not Christ goes to heaven to beg for the sheep);

5. financial exploitation (2Pe 2:3);
6. lasciviousness (2Pe 2:7,18; Jud 1:4).

B. Peter and Jude “have the more sure word of prophecy”:

More sure than what? More sure than their “cunningly devised fables”. Note that 2Pe 1:16-19 gives a lengthy description of the Transfiguration, a deliberate contrast of Peter’s real experience as a witness of Christ and hearer of God’s words “on the mountain”, with that of Enoch: “And they took and brought me to a place in which those who were there were like flaming fire, and, when they wished, they appeared as men, and they brought me to the place of darkness, and to a mountain the point of whose summit reached to heaven” (17:1,2). The point of Peter raising this as his first point in the argument is because of the contrast between the first person witness of Peter who WAS with Christ on the mountain and was shown the Kingdom, and the false teachers who were NOT on any mountain with Enoch when Enoch was shown the heavens. Cp 2Pe 3:2; Jud 1:17.

C. The teachers taught “cunningly devised fables” (2Pe 1:16; 2:12; 3:16; Jud 1:10). Both the context of 2:12 and Jude 1:10 are speaking evil of angels. The things they understand not are angels.

D. The false teachers accused angels of sin (2Pe 2:10; Jud 1:8).

E. The Book of Enoch accuses angels of sin (2Pe 2:4,9; Jud 1:5-7).

F. Peter and Jude use the book’s own illogicalities to undermine those who use it (just as Christ used Pharisee’s ideas to expose them in Luke 16):

Jude 1:14: “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, (‘Enoch the seventh from Adam’ is a quote from the Book of Enoch, not from the Bible)         prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Cp the Book of Enoch 1:9. The idea of using Enoch as a source to condemn the Enochites is rejected by many. But why? In Luke 16 the Pharisees’ ideas of Abraham’s Bosom are used to ridicule them. The ridicule of pagan gods and demons goes back at least to Elijah and the prophets of Baal.

Another point: According to the grammar of the Greek Enoch did not prophecy “of these” (AV)         or “about these men” (NIV)         but “to these”; the Greek has PROEFHTEUSEN DE KAI TOUTOIS (dative), wheras if AV and NIV are right it should be PROEFHTEUSEN PERI TOUTWN (genitive). The difference can be illustrated by two exchanges between Christ and the Pharisees: Mat 26:68 has “prophesy to us!” — PROFHTEUSON HMIN (dative)         and Mat 15:7 has “prophesied well concerning you” — KALWS EPROFHTEUSEN PERI UMWN (genitive).

So Enoch prophesied to those who “speak evil of those things which they know not”. How did he do this? Through the pages of their own book. As Boulton wrote concerning Jude and Enoch: “the writers of the NT were ready to use legend and folklore as Jesus was ready to use superstitious beliefs in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus”. The parallel with Luke 16 is quite telling because Christ used the Pharisees’ fantasies about Hades to attack Caiaphas (and his five brother-in-law high priests dressed in purple and linen), Jude uses the Enochites’ fantasies about angels to attack them.

G. Peter and Jude use the book’s own language to reject the teachers (2Pe 1:9; 2:17).

Also, 2Pe 2:17 and Jud 1:12,13: All the imagery and several verbatim phrases regarding the false teachers are quotes referring to the fallen angels Stars and ‘Shepherds’ in Enoch (cf. all of Enoch 96~100).

“I saw the winds on the earth carrying the clouds: I saw the paths of the angels” (Enoch 18:5,6). “I saw from whence they proceed in that place and from whence they saturate the dusty earth. And there I saw closed chambers out of which the winds are divided, the chamber of the hail and winds, the chamber of the mist, and of the clouds, and the cloud thereof hovers over the earth from the beginning of the world” (41:4,5). “And the fourth quarter, named the north, is divided into three parts: the first of them is for the dwelling of men: and the second contains seas of water, and the abysses and forests and rivers, and darkness and clouds; and the third part contains the garden of righteousness” (77:3).

“Observe and see how (in the winter)         all the trees seem as though they had withered and shed all their leaves, except fourteen trees, which do not lose their foliage but retain the old foliage from two to three years till the new comes” (3:1)         “And he said unto me: ‘Enoch, why dost thou ask me regarding the fragrance of the tree, and why dost thou wish to learn the truth?’ Then I answered him saying: ‘I wish to know about everything, but especially about this tree.’ And he answered saying: ‘This high mountain which thou hast seen, whose summit is like the throne of God, is His throne, where the Holy Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when He shall come down to visit the earth with goodness. And as for this fragrant tree no mortal is permitted to touch it till the great judgement, when He shall take vengeance on all and bring (everything)         to its consummation for ever. It shall then be given to the righteous and holy. Its fruit shall be for food to the elect: it shall be transplanted to the holy place, to the temple of the Lord, the Eternal King” (25:1-6). “And in those times the fruits of the earth shall be backward, And shall not grow in their time, And the fruits of the trees shall be withheld in their time” (80:3). “And high trees were rent 5 from their stems, and hurled down and sunk in the abyss” (83:4,5).

“And if He sends His anger upon you because of your deeds, ye cannot petition Him; for ye spake proud and insolent words against His righteousness: therefore ye shall have no peace. And see ye not the sailors of the ships, how their ships are tossed to and fro by the waves, and are shaken by the winds, and are in sore trouble?” (101:3-5).

H. The real heresy is the denial of Christ for Enoch (Jud 1:18,19; 2Pe 3:3,4).

The Enochites denied the second coming of Christ by referring to Jewish cosmology: “From the creation of the world and unto eternity… and through that oath are the depths made fast, and abide and stir not from their place from eternity to eternity” (69:18,19).

Worse, they made Enoch the intercessor calling for judgement (2Pe 2:1): “And this one who wrote the book carried it up, and showed it and read it before the Lord of the sheep, and implored Him on their account, and besought Him on their account as he showed Him all the doings of the shepherds, and gave testimony before Him against all the shepherds” (Enoch 89:76,77).

As one last sober point. If Peter and Jude were so opposed to those who “spoke evil of dignitaries” we also should be careful what we say of angels “who are ALL ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb 1:14 — written by a Jew who must also have heard of the Book of Enoch).

The fact remains is that out of 300+ other references to angels in OT and NT all (meaning ALL including Psa 78:49)         are unanimously describing obedient angels who are ALL ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation.

Conclusion

We have shown that the treatment of the Book of Enoch in 2Pe and Jude shows it to be a “cunningly devised fable” of those who “speak evil about things they know not” and “slander celestial beings”.

We have shown that the language used to describe the Enochites is drawn from the Book of Enoch’s own description of the “angels that sinned”, “wandering stars” and “shepherds”.

We have shown that Enoch did not prophesy to the believers “concerning” these “wandering stars” but prophesied to the false teachers present at the love feasts in the church. The false teachers, not the believers, were those who recognized the book’s authority and to whom Enoch prophesied.

We have shown that the references to the Apostles’ vision on the mountain are the answer to Enoch’s vision on the mountain, and that the Apostles had a “more sure word of prophecy” and were “dreamers” (visionaries)         in fulfillment of Joel at Pentecost, not “[filthy] dreamers” like the Enochites.

We have shown that in Enoch “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” and that not only did the Enochites mock the coming, they also denied the Lord that bought them, having Enoch intercede “for the sheep”.

Most importantly we have Peter’s own testimony about angels which contradicts that of the Enochites:

1Pe 1:10-21: Even angels long to look into the things spoken by the Spirit of Christ in the OT prophets.

1Pe 3:22: Angels (AGGELOI), authorities (EXOUSIAI), and powers (DUNAMOI)         are in submission to Jesus Christ who has gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God.

2Pe 2:11: Angels, even though they are stronger and more powerful than those who slander celestial beings, do not bring slanderous accusations against them (the slanderers)         in the presence of the Lord.

These three mentions show the doctrine taught by Peter and Jude: a doctrine of obedient angels, giving honor to the Spirit of Christ even before he was born, of all classes of angel in submission to Christ now, and not slandering even the worst of mankind.

The contrast with the teachings of the Enochites is only too clear on each point. We now have to make a choice as to whom to believe: the Apostles or the Enochites? We cannot believe both.

(JB).

See also (1)         Lesson, Zec 3 and Enoch, and (2)         Lesson, Enoch and spirits in prison.

The fate of Enoch (Gen 5:24):

Enoch testified against the “ungodly” (Jud 1:14,15), ie Lamech, his counterpart in Cain’s line: a man of violence (Gen 4:23,24). Perhaps Lamech sought to slay Enoch, and God removed him from harm — hidden in Garden of Eden, to walk with God in even closer fellowship, as a “reward” (Heb 11:5,6). (BS 10:152,153).

What happened to Enoch? In both Gen and Heb 11:5 Enoch is treated differently than his contemporaries. Did he die? Prob “Yes!”: 1Co 15:22: “as in Adam all die”; and Rom 5:14: “death reigned from Adam to Moses.” Also, Heb 11:13: “these all died in faith”, and the five people mentioned earlier included Enoch.

If so, then what about the statement: “he was not, for God took him”? This suggests disappearance or removal, as does Heb 11:5 and the word “translated” (= transferred, or changed as to status: ie Heb 7:12). Possibly Enoch was taken away from a potential life-threatening disaster to another place to live out his life. Heb 11:4,5 sets Enoch alongside Abel who died by the hand of an assassin; both experienced God’s overshadowing care, yet one suffered and the other was delivered.