One writer comments that in Genesis 6:1–4, the reader encounters one of the most challenging passages in all of Scripture to interpret. In this article Coco seeks to challenge that thesis by pleading that a plain reading of the text is all that is required.

There are several articles available on the internet explaining who the sons of God are of whom Moses makes mention in Genesis 6. Two of these may be found here:

https://equip.sbts.edu/article/who-are-the-sons-of-god-daughters-of-man-and-nephilim
Who Are the Sons of God, Daughters of Man, and Nephilim? By Mitchell L. Chase

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/who-are-sons-of-god-genesis-6
Who Are the Sons of God in Genesis 6? William F. Cook

The two are very excellent articles; one in particular look as at all of the evidence and draws its conclusions from that. Both of them fall into the angelic camp setting their reasons out in full. Coco wishes to examine their position and express an alternative understanding. Coco had thought that this would be a short article, but the depth of the arguments presented requires a more robust response.

In short sons of God may only be identified as men or angels. Which identification is correct?

A priori assumptions

Before we begin we must set out some a priori considerations upon which all sides agree that

• there is a book written by Enoch which has been passed down to us and which was available to and known by the writers of the New Testament.
• there are quotations from and references to that book which have been included in the New Testament
• that Moses had a copy of that book when he compiled his first book, known to us as Genesis.

You may wonder why, when we are considering the interpretation of a Biblical text, we need to take into account the existence or otherwise of another book. Let us remind ourselves that contemporary literature helps us to understand the society in which the Bible was written, the language used in its writing and other theological and philosophical thought of the day.

Expansion of assumptions

Now, Coco has suggested that all sides agree on all three points. The first two are clearly understood from the writings of both sides. The third however may not be, though Coco would wonder why it should not be so agreed. For further consideration of the third point we need to look elsewhere. Biblical Theology by Geerhardus Vos (ISBN 0-85151-458-8) published by the Banner of Truth Trust is a good place to start. The principle underlying the writing of the Word of God, which is often used in support of the New Testament, is that the historical passages were written by eye-witnesses to the events recorded. That does not necessarily mean that the writer after whom the book was named was the eye-witness but that the material used was from an eye-witness or several. A clear example of this is the narrative of the search for Moses’s body which is included in the fifth book of Moses. The thesis proposed by Vos is that first book of Moses was compiled by Moses from earlier written accounts that had come down to him, having been preserved by Noah on the Ark and the line of his descendants though Abraham. He finds clear support for this understanding in the text which we shall not set out here. We commend a reading of the book of Vos to you, dear Reader.

Concerning the first two points further comments are required.

That there is a book of Enoch is indisputable. Jude in the New Testament quotes some of Enoch’s words which we must take to have come from a literary source. Those same words are found in a document which we know as the Book of Enoch. There are other New Testament references which agree in whole of part with the text and ideas presented in that same Book of Enoch. This allows us, on Biblical grounds, to reach the conclusion that the Book of Enoch contains at least some of the words of Enoch, but it does not permit us to reach two further conclusions that

• the book contains all the inspired words of Enoch
  We know from elsewhere in Scripture that not all of the words of the prophets were written down and included in Scripture. Noah is described as preacher of righteousness, but we do not have his words in our Bible, though Robert Henry Charles,¹ in his translation of the Book of Enoch includes a fragment of the Book of Noah.
• the book only contains the inspired words of Enoch
  A reading of the Book of Enoch will quickly suggest to the reader that there have been additions to the book over the many centuries of its transmission. Chapter X which begins the account of Noah could not have been written by Enoch (unless prophetically, but we must discount that on the basis of Moses’s testimony) but by a later writer. On a personal note, reading the book seemed to Coco as if at least some of the words had been written because it was thought they were the right things to say rather than an actual record of events or words that had been said. Further as Coco shall mention later², the text of the book which was contemporary to the Apostles appears to have been influenced by extra-Biblical Babylonian material.

There is also historical and archæological evidence of the existence of the book, that is outside the Bible, that it existed at least in the intertestamental period and in the first century.

That there are quotations in the New Testament is also indisputable, even if there is only one on which all agree which is found in Jude:

Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Jude

There are other partial references where the writers of the New Testament may have picked up ideas and thoughts from the book, which was likely well known to their readers in the first century, and turned them to their own purpose in much the same way that other ancient writers were quoted, eg Paul to Titus: One of [the Cretans] a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.³” Such quotations are clearly set out in the articles mentioned above and do not need to be repeated here. We acknowledge their existence and do not dispute them.

Of course where there are such references in the New Testament, we must be careful how we interpret them. Do we interpret them in the context they hold in the Book of Enoch, or do we interpret them in the context in which they are used in the New Testament? The principles of scriptural interpretation require us to understand them in their context in Scripture and if the meaning is unclear in the immediate context we must consider other Scriptures which speak to the same matter. The words may be exactly the words that the New Testament writer wanted, but the meaning and force of those words must be understood by what the New Testament writer was saying not the writer of the Book of Enoch. We must be especially careful if the context in the Book of Enoch is questionable, a matter we shall consider later in this discourse. The references in 2 Peter and Jude fall into this category.

So, to conclude this point, whilst we may find words quoted in the Scriptures, and in particular the New Testament, the quotation of those words does not give approval to the whole of the text in which those words are found. Indeed, the similarity of the words may be a co-incidence. So to interpreters of apparent similarities we say: You must take care⁴, which is not a quotation of words uttered by a late German propogandist.

Proposal – no inspiration in the Book of Enoch

Jude’s testimony

It is not an unreasonable inference that when Jude quotes Enoch, that he obtained the words from the Book of Enoch. In verse 9 of chapter I of the Book of Enoch we read:

And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of ⌈His⌉ holy ones
To execute judgement upon all,
And to destroy ⌈all⌉ the ungodly:
And to convict all flesh
Of all the works ⌈of their ungodliness⌉ which they have ungodly committed,
⌈And of all the hard things which⌉ ungodly sinners ⌈have spoken⌉ against Him.

There is little difference in our English translations between these words and those found in Jude. Coco has not compared the original texts but relies upon those who have better eyes to see and ears to understand than he. There is much more in this first chapter that Jude could have quoted, or perhaps even Paul when he wrote to the Thessalonians, but neither of these writers did so. Verse 1 places the text into the context that it is written for those who will be living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked ⌈⌈and godless⌉⌉ are to be removed, when (verses 3 and 4) 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⌉. We must, or perhaps should, ask why did the Apostles not make reference to this? especially if we wish to rely upon the context in the Book of Enoch of the words which Jude quotes.

For Jude’s quotation however, we do not need to rely upon the context in the Book of Enoch. Jude has provided his own context for his use of the words. For the Book of Enoch, the context is a period of tribulation which appears to be a period of tribulation immediately before the end. The Lord speaks of such a great tribulation, and though the language used by Enoch and the Lord may be similar, we do not, as Jude does not, use the context of the Book of Enoch to understand the words. The immediate context of the use of the words in Jude’s letter is clear enough. For Jude the tribulation, if we may call it that, is within the church. There are troublers causing trouble (tribulation) in the church. Jude wants the elect, the believers, to understand that this shall be the case and continue to be the case until the very end. If the world leaves the church at peace, then the enemies of the church shall be found within the church. Jude also wants the elect to know, and believe, that the Lord is not ignorant of what his enemies are doing and shall in due course bring them to judgement.

Jude’s use then of words from the first chapter of the Book of Enoch do not then require us, or give us a warrant, to accept the rest of that chapter in the Book of Enoch as if it were similarly the Word of God, nor does his use of these words confirm that the rest of the chapter are words spoken by Enoch. Though we may have other reasons for thinking that they are Enoch’s words, Jude’s use is not sufficient to prove it.

Secondly, just as Paul’s use of the words of a Cretan poet was inspired, does not allow us to conclude that the Cretan poet was inspired when he wrote those same words, all that we can say is that Jude’s use of the words of Enoch was driven, inspired, by the Holy Spirit, but we cannot conclude that the inclusion of those same words in the Book of Enoch was inspired.

The testimony of men and history

Secondly, the Book of Enoch has never been recognised as an inspired book either by the Jews or the Western, Eastern and Coptic churches, though the Ethiopian groups of both churches and Jews do. The Jewish group is regarded as an heretical sect by other Jews. The Ethiopian church differs from the Catholic-Orthodox churches over the meaning(s) of hypostatic union, dyophysite, monophysite and miaphysite. Other than monophysite, the differences may be hidden in the depths of linguistic characteristics rather than the reality of the nature(s) of Jesus Christ. Languages, unlike jigsaws, do not neatly fit together.

If Coco were writing in an Ethiopian context then, he would have to apply more words to this section, but as his intended audience is within the Catholic tradition no more shall be said (and at the present time could be said by Coco), at which you, dear reader, may sigh well with relief.

The testimony of Moses

Coco considers Moses to be a much more reliable witness to the Book of Enoch than any later witnesses. We have already considered that there have been additions to the Book of Enoch. If so, what did exist in Moses’s day some 2000 years before the New Testament was written? Moses was on hand then to help us. We must still remember that even in Moses’s day the document would already have been 1700 (MT) or 2700 (LXX) years old.

We have assumed so far the the Book of Enoch has always existed, though not necessarily in the form we have today. We have seen that at the very least the words quoted by Jude in the New Testament came from the mouth of Enoch. When we look into Moses we may begin to see something of what he knew of the Book, how he used it, and ask whether it matters that there may have been additions to it since, or even before, his day.

His fifth book

We read in the fifth book of Moses (Deuteronomy 33:2): The Lord came from Sinai, and dawned on them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints; from his right hand came a fiery law for them⁵. There is a potential parallel here with the Book of Enoch.

Given the similarity of ten thousands of his saints with the Book of Enoch and Jude’s quotation, we have to ask, did Moses pick these words up from the Book of Enoch? There are some who suggest that it is in fact the other way around. They suggest that chapter I of the Book of Enoch takes these words from Moses and expands them into what we have today in the Book of Enoch. Such an expansion would have occurred much later than Moses, possibly after the Exile and return to Jerusalem. This suggestion however must be considered to contradict Jude’s use of the word he found in that chapter. If the words quoted by Jude and attributed by him to Enoch were not penned until much the Exile, though it would not contradict the inspiration of the words at Jude’s pen, it would invalidate the fact given by Jude that they are Enoch’s words, they would be part of the words that were added after Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

We must therefore dismiss the suggestion that chapter I of the Book of Enoch is derived from Moses. We may conclude that Moses was familiar with chapter I of the Book of Enoch as we have it today, but we do not have to go further and conclude that when he mentioned the ten thousand in his fifth book he was quoting the Book.

Eye-witnesses

There is another passage in Moses which also appears to quote from the Book of Enoch. In his first book and the first part of his second Moses is writing about events to which he was not an eye-witness.

The second book

In his second book we may understand that the eye-witnesses to those events that took place before Moses’s birth and shortly afterwards would have been both his natural and adopting parents, and that it was at least in part their testimony that he records for us.

The first book

In the first book we have to consider who the eye-witnesses were for this is a book which covers a period of several thousand years.

Coco has already referred you to Geerhardus Vos, and without adducing any supporting evidence, which you shall find in his work, shall assert that the eye-witnesses to the events recorded in Genesis were the men who are referenced in the genealogies, where it is stated: this is the genealogy of. The only part of the first book for which there is no human eye-witness is the record of creation which necessarily took place before the creation of Adam. This section had to be provided as direct revelation by God either to Adam (more likely for Adam and his family needed to know their own origin) or to Moses (less so). These eye-witness accounts were preserved by the literate pre-flood society and brought through the flood with Noah to end up in the hands of Moses. We must remember that Moses was a well-taught man. He was brought up in all of the knowledge of the Egyptians, which surely must also have included much also from the other great societies of the ancient world. Trade and travel between those societies existed then as it has done since. He was therefore aware of the traditions, myths, legends and science of many nations as well as of Egypt and was also in possession of the accurate reliable records preserved by the Hebrews. It is from these Hebraic records that he prepared his edition of the history of the world and the Hebrew nation, his first book.

Moses then having received the records would have edited them to retain what was appropriate, and to reject, or not include, what was not. Given that we cannot be sure today what of the Book of Enoch was available to Moses apart from the words that Jude quotes, we can only look at what Moses actually did use.

Genesis 6

The particular passage in Moses that interests us in this discussion is Genesis 6.

The Book of Enoch provides much more detail about the events recorded here than Moses provides. Are we warranted or encouraged to rely upon the additional information provided by the Book? Should we reject that additional information because it was not included by Moses? Are there any other reasons to reject the additional material? Was this additional material in the copy of the Book that Moses had?

There can only be two positions here, the book either:

• contained the additional material and Moses rejected it, or
• the additional material is a later addition.

If the additional material is a later addition, then we too should reject it as it is then self-evidently inauthentic. It was not part of the eye-witness account. We cannot however prove this position as the only copies we have of the Book of Enoch contain material which is not in the account given by Moses, so it is unsafe to rely upon the additional material being added later argument; though we cannot reject that possibility altogether.

If the additional material were present when Moses prepared Genesis 6, we should ask: What difference does it make? Why did he not include it? Does it matter?

Let us compare the record in the Book of Enoch with that of Moses:

CHAPTER VI.
And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.’ And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: ‘I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.’ And they all answered him and said: ‘Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.’ Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended ⌈in the days⌉ of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Samîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. These are their chiefs of tens.
CHAPTER VII.
And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another’s flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

The Book of Enoch

Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the 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.

Genesis 6:1-4

The differences between the two accounts are not trivial. If the current text of the Book were what Moses had, then Moses left a great deal out. It should be noted that whilst Moses moves immediately into the record of the flood, we have almost fifty further chapters in the Book of Enoch, which Moses appears to ignore, before we reach that record:

CHAPTER LIV (part)
And in those days shall punishment come from the Lord of Spirits, and he will open all the chambers of waters which are above the heavens, and of the fountains which are beneath the earth. And all the waters shall be joined with the waters: that which is above the heavens is the masculine, and the water which is beneath the earth is the feminine. And they shall destroy all who dwell on the earth and those who dwell under the ends of the heaven. And when they have recognized their unrighteousness which they have wrought on the earth, then by these shall they perish.’
CHAPTER LV
And after that the Head of Days repented and said: ‘In vain have I destroyed all who dwell on the earth.’ And he sware by his great name: ‘Henceforth I will not do so to all who dwell on the earth, and I will set a sign in the heaven: and this shall be a pledge of good faith between me and them for ever, so long as heaven is above the earth. And this is in accordance with my command.

Perhaps you noticed a difference in this flood record than that which Moses provides. Moses tells us that the Lord regretted/repented/was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved his heart. The Book of Enoch suggests that he was sorry that he had destroyed all who dwell on the earth. That is a significant difference which may colour our understanding of the Book of Enoch, but it is not for further discussion here.

Returning to the opening verses of Genesis 6, what are the significant differences in the account of the mixed marriages? Coco sees two:

• Moses speaks of the sons of God. Enoch speaks of the angels, the children of heaven.
• Moses tells us that there were giants on the earth in those days. Enoch tells us that the wives of the angels became pregnant and bare great giants.

Note that not naming the angels or providing their number is not a significant difference. There are other differences, but so far as Coco can tell they spring from these two.

Firstly, if the sons of God were angels, why did not Moses not say so plainly? He refers later in the first book to angels. Why did not do so in plain language here? Enoch also provided a second name for the angels, which Moses could have used, children of heaven, to describe the ones whom Moses describes as the sons of God, but again, Moses chose not to do so. Moses uses neither of the two terms that the Book of Enoch uses. Why not? Does it not suggest that Moses knew that the mixed marriages were not between angels and women, but between men and women of different tribes? The identities of those two tribes we shall consider later.

Moses may have known to use this name, sons of God, from other sources that were available to him at that time, or because the copy of the Book of Enoch he had did not contain the later added gloss which identified for whatever reason the men as angels, but merely the appellation which he, Moses, actually used sons of God. Whilst we cannot be sure how he knew, we do know that he was driven on by the Spirit of God to record in his first book only what was true and what we need to know. The words that Moses used are reliable and avoid all suggestions (in the absence of external writings) that the sons of God are angels.

Secondly, Moses tells us that there were giants on the earth in those days but does not say, as Enoch does, that they were the children of the marriages to which he has just referred. Why did not Moses tell us that the Nephilim were the children of the marriages between the sons of God and the daughters of men? Why did he not follow Enoch on this point?

We have two options, either

• What Moses did not say was not in the text of the Book of Enoch that he had, or
• It was in the text but Moses knew that it was inauthentic.

You might want to suggest that it was in the text, it was authentic but Moses simply did not want to use it. It sounds like a plausible option, but it is not. If it were in the text of the Book of Enoch and authentic, by leaving it out Moses obscures the identity of the Nephilim. If the Nephilim are not fully human giants then do we not, and would not the people of his own day, need to know it? Such beings contradict the account we have already been given by Moses in the earlier pages of the first book. That contradiction requires an explanation.

The Lord had said each creature he had made would reproduce after its kind. There would be no crossing of the kinds to produce a new kind. Each kind was distinct. This is not to be confused with what we know as speciation, which is variation within a kind. Within the kinds are many species which may or may not interbreed. That they do not interbreed is not to say that they cannot, as long as they stay within the kind.

This principle applies also to the man kind, for Adam and Eve produced children after the likeness of Adam. It is not possible for mankind to produce a different kind. Moses has written his account in such a way that we may understand that the Nephilim, the giants, are ordinary men though of great stature. This view is supported by the later post flood reference to Nephilim, such as Goliath in the time of David.

If there is a violation of this principle of reproduction after its kind, as suggested by the text as we have it in the Book of Enoch, then we do need to know. But Moses does not tell us that. The conclusion can only be, as above, that either this cross-breeding, was not in the text that Moses knew, or that Moses knew that it was inauthentic.

Again, whilst we cannot now know how Moses knew this, we do know that he was driven by the Spirit of God to record what he did record. The only plain reading of Moses’s text is that the Nephilim are men, large men, but still men not hybrids.

Tentative conclusion

We have seen that the record which we have in Genesis 6 is also found in the Book of Enoch. We have also seen that the text in the Book of Enoch differs significantly from that in Genesis. We have considered the differences and concluded that the differences derive from a gloss over the original text of the Book of Enoch, which was added either before or after the time of Moses. Moses, guided by the Spirit of God, recorded accurately in his first book what was originally recorded in the Book of Enoch, rejecting the later gloss, and that original text is now lost to us.

Counter-arguments

In order to further support the angelic interpretation some will point to other possible references to the Book of Enoch in the New Testament. We shall consider two of these.

Peter’s and Jude’s other possible references to the Book of Enoch

Whilst there is no clear reference to Enoch or to the Book of Enoch in Peter’s and Jude’s description of the fallen angels there is a similarity in the language and description provided. The most natural understanding of the words of Peter and Jude, in the absence of the witness of the Book of Enoch, which as we have discussed above was either dismissed by Moses or not in his copy of that book when he compiled his own first book, is that the angels who sinned are those who joined in the rebellion of Satan as recorded by Isaiah and Ezekiel and later by John where he indicates that Satan in his rebellion took one third of the angels with him. It is admitted that Peter and Jude would have been unlikely to have known John’s revelation, but it is unnecessary for them to have known what John would say later to understand the meaning of the earlier prophets.

Some who hold this angelic view, though perhaps not all, suggest that there was more than one rebellion in heaven. This event recorded in Genesis would have been a second and distinct event than the one which preceded the fall of Adam. This event recorded by Peter and Jude then, which is the cause of the chaining of the angels, is that which we see in the Book of Enoch which is associated with the Genesis 6 events.

We have already said it in some detail so hardly need to repeat it now, but without the [false] testimony of what we know today as the Book of Enoch there is no Biblical justification to import the idea that the sons of God of Genesis 6 are angels. If we do not have angels in Genesis 6, then the angels of Jude and Peter are not the same group of beings as the sons of God of Genesis 6, and we must look elsewhere for the identification of these angels.

Those who wish us to reach that conclusion speak in this way that the Book of Enoch tells us of angels who intermarried with humans, who were later imprisoned by Jahweh because they had not behaved as angels should behave. These angels appealed and appointed Enoch as their advocate. Enoch was sent back to tell them that their condemnation was irrevocable. It is very clear that this is what the Book of Enoch says.

They then ask what passages in the Bible agree with this story, and they find (at least) two. They require that Genesis 6 be interpreted in the light of the Book of Enoch, and the references in Jude and Peter to the angels that sinned being held in darkness be interpreted in the light of what is said in the Book of Enoch. The conclusion is that both Peter and Jude speak of this same particular group of angels that they see in Genesis 6.

There is no doubt that Genesis 6 and Peter and Jude speak of similar things to those we find in the Book of Enoch, but as we have already seen for Genesis 6, we now see for Peter and Jude, that the Scripture itself does not require us to know anything about the Book of Enoch in order to understand these texts. If we apply the Book of Enoch to them, then we introduce into the Biblical passages elements that are not present but which could easily have been added by the writers of the Bible to show a clear link to the Book of Enoch. That Jude, who actually did quote openly from the Book of Enoch, made no reference in his passage where he says: the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day to the Book of Enoch suggests that, though this statement is true, and the Book of Enoch contains a similar statement, Jude does not rely upon the Book of Enoch for its authenticity. It is not until Jude concludes his account of apostasy that he refers his readers to any of the words of Enoch. It is clear therefore that Jude expects his readers to understand his earlier words without requiring any reference to the Book of Enoch.

To sum up, careful examination of the discourses of the angelists will demonstrate the circularity of their arguments. Their interpretations of the texts in Peter and Jude depends upon the prior acceptance of the understanding that the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6 as set out in the book of Enoch is correct, but they then use the supposed references in Peter and Jude to the Book of Enoch to support the imposition of the angelic position on Genesis 6.

If the Book of Enoch were correct, one must ask the question why Moses when he edited it to produce the text in Genesis 6 left out the clear references to angels and to the origins of the Nephilim. In Moses’ account the intermarriage of the sons of God and the daughters of men whilst being co-existent with the Nephilim were not causative of the Nephilim.

Contextualisation

This link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_YQgTEL1CA is to a discussion on the content of the book Reversing Hermon: Enoch, The Watchers & The Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ by Dr. Michael S. Heiser. Heiser is a scholar, and should therefore know his stuff. Heiser works hard to support his view that the text of the Book of Enoch we have today is the text that Moses would have had and underlies the text in Genesis 6. That is not his main purpose though, he wants us to rethink our understanding of the work of Jesus Christ and whilst not, openly at least, contradicting the church’s long understanding would add something to it. It is not our purpose to consider that aspect of his Heiser’s work but rather the way he supports his view of what was available to Moses.

Coco will repeat a little of what has already been said in the following comments.

The proposal that Heiser makes is quite interesting. It is worth listening to the conversation yourself dear Reader. We think you shall reach the same conclusion. Whilst Coco cannot but agree that it is interesting, he cannot agree with his arguments.

There are two principal objections: Heiser talks about contextualisation of the evidence, and that it is only now that we have gathered all ‘this’ material which existed in the ancient world but has long been hidden in the sands of the Middle East together. Having obtained all of this evidence of what the ancient world thought and knew we now have a much better understanding of it, and are therefore able to reach better conclusions than previous generations.

Whilst there is some truth in this, for we have forgotten much of what had gone before, are there not still written records which we are unable to read? Doubtless there are yet more records to be discovered under the sands and in the forests left behind by our ancestors. Do we not also need these to illuminate our minds to ensure that we reach the correct conclusions? If we do not [re]discover these ancient and missing document, perhaps we shall never understand may be the conclusion towards which we are drawn. Scripture’s own doctrine of Scripture tells us however that Scripture is sufficient in itself. Whatever the answer to the question, do we have sufficient today from the sands of the Middle East?, let us assume that the text of the Book of Enoch that we have today, is the same text that was available to Moses.

For Moses contextualisation is not an issue. He learned it, as Augustine said, at his mother’s knee. Here we have a man who, having been educated in all of the wisdom of the Egyptians, and Coco infers therefore having no little familiarity with Babylonian texts, rejected when he compiled his first book the idea that the Nephilim were the children of the sons of God and the daughters of men, alongside many of the other ideas contained within the pages of the Book of Enoch. This man Moses was in a much better place to do the necessary contextualisation than any scholar alive today. He also had the no mean benefit of being driven along by the Spirit as he edited the texts available to him.

Secondly, only one part of the Book of Enoch has New Testament authority that it came from Enoch, the seventh from Adam. The rest of the Book existed in the first century, and before, and was well-known, but if it did not come from Enoch, then we should understand that the passage that reflects Genesis 6 contains a gloss on Genesis 6, which reflects one particular understanding of Genesis which was common in the intertestamental period and may have been promoted by those who wished to introduce pagan ideas from Babylonian and other texts into the Book of Enoch. Those ideas are to do with angelology and demonology. This gloss is suggested by Heiser’s references to the need for contextualisation. What this means is that we are then writing something into the text of Genesis 6 rather than reading out of the text of Genesis 6 what Moses put into it. This angelological view is not necessarily a correct understanding of Moses.

If the current text of the Book of Enoch is a gloss then the original text from Enoch, if it existed, was the text that Moses saw and which he included in Genesis 6. The additions about the Nephilim being children of the marriages is a later fabrication.

Contextualisation conclusion

The contextualisation proposals set out by Heiser in support of the angelic view fail. A twenty first century scholar cannot have a better understanding of the culture of the ancient world than one who was contemporary to it. Moses either reached different conclusions about the text of the Book of Enoch or he had a different text than we have today.

Comment

These matters should not be at all relevant but they do cloud the rose-tinted spectacles with which we often view new and novel ideas. It did not help that the interviewer, who wants to sell the book, tried to tell the viewer that he could not properly understand the Scriptures if he were not familiar with the Book of Enoch, or at least had not read Reversing Hermon. Coco also wishes that Heiser had not taken the publisher’s suggestion that he would sell more copies if he used an Я rather than an R in Hermon. Coco may then have taken him more seriously.

Those who hold the angelic view want us to understand the references to angels that sinned in Peter and Jude to be references to these angels of Genesis 6. That is not necessarily a valid conclusion, even if you hold the angelic position. We must understand both Peter and Jude in their own contexts first. If we can do so, it is unwarranted and unnecessary to introduce extra-Biblical ideas, for, as Paul tells us Scripture is itself sufficient (2 Tim 3:16).

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, 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; and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.

2 Peter 2:4-11

But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of [e]dignitaries. Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord 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.

Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Jude 5-15

Jude’s quotation is without doubt for he attributes it to Enoch driven by the same Spirit who guided Moses. There may be other allusions to Enoch but we must be careful that our interpretations of those texts, if they are allusions, are actually supported by the texts and not just imposed in order to corroborate an understanding that we have already imposed on Genesis 6. That is a short answer.

Footnote

One should not be led astray by apparent absurdities for it may later appear that the absurdity belongs to you and not to the text, but to discover that the heights of the giants in the Book of Enoch are 3000 ells or 350 cubits is a little unnerving. David may have needed perhaps more than one of his five stones to subdue such a Titan if Goliath had been one. Ah, did Coco forget that the six cubits of Goliath qualified him as one?

Warning

One must not be led astray by the absurdities of Jewish (and other) myths and fables which have been introduced into extra-Biblical documents, eg The Book of Enoch by the post-exilic Jewish community as may be seen in the work of Heiser commented on below.

The Unseen Realm – documentary film with Dr. Michael S. Heiser
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QM7anD5vSI

There is an interesting hypothesis here, but we must be careful. It is presented by the same man who rested his case for the interpretation of Genesis 6 on the Book of Enoch rather than Moses. The background music (and having to watch an artist mix paints etc) suggests to Coco that this presentation is not an academic examination but rather a propagandist statement. That is not to say that propaganda in itself is wrong – preaching and evangelism is itself propagandist in nature – but it means we have to listen with a different set of ears than we would listen to an academic lecture.

It is evident that Heiser relied upon the false understanding of the pagans found in the Babylonian scrolls, which though it may help us understand the culture of the time does not help us to understand good theology. He quotes Eliphaz from Job, but we know that the three friends’ theology was, shall we merely say, a little short on accuracy even though Eliphaz may have been correct on the specific point Heiser quoted. Having said that the friends are able to argue their case better than Coco is able to do.

Heiser repeated his claim here that the Nephilim of Joshua’s day are descended from the Nephilim of Noah’s, but that cannot be based on a straight reading of the flood text unless somehow the Nephilim managed to sneak past the security guard on the day the Ark was shut up. Which son was on duty that hour? It is too late now for Heiser to provide an answer to that.

It is an interesting suggestion that Satan et al did not know that Jesus had come to die for sin. But did not John announce that truth before he baptised Jesus? Did not the prophets say so – as Heiser said not all in one place, but clearly enough that John had understood. Coco is aware that Peter said these are things that angels long to look into, so clearly their understanding was in some way limited, but Coco is beginning to distrust what he hears here from Heiser.

Perhaps it is trivial to say so, but Jahweh did not always appear with fire and wind. How would Abraham, Jacob and Elijah have replied to such a claim as was made here by Heiser? When Paul, who understood, Coco suggests, far better than Heiser did the culture and theology of his day, spoke about the powers and rulers of darkness he could have made it clear to us that he supported these, to use a Heiseric word, ‘strange’ ideas, but Paul does not. Just as Moses rejected the claims (if they were in it in his day) of the Book of Enoch when he compiled Genesis, Paul, by not affirming the geopolitical understanding of demonology, denies it, instead showing that there is now a new order in which all of those powers have been gathered together in chains in the Lord’s triumph.

[Let Coco affirm that he does not deny the OT accounts of the heavenly council, nor that Satan had access to that council, but everything changed when the Lord cried out It is finished. Before then Satan had every legal right to claim mankind, but at that point the rug was pulled out from under his feet. The grounds of his accusations continued to exist, but the legal penalty had been paid. The mud would no longer stick to mankind. ]

Heiser has much to say that is good, but so does Schofield. It is a pity that the context in which he says the good is a paradigm more informed by Babylonian and pagan thought than Biblical. When Paul wrote to Timothy he told him to devote himself to the public reading of Scripture and to teaching. There is value in itself in understanding ancient texts and what they say, but we must be careful that we do not interpret Scripture in the light of them, but understand them in the light of the God-breathed Word.

Having read many of the comments posted against this presentation, Coco can see that there are many here who might disagree with Coco. If you do, please correct him, explaining reasonably on the basis of Scripture alone where he has erred in my understanding. The Lord be with you all as we seek to know him and serve him.

Final words

I hope, dear Reader, that you shall have discerned that in the absence of the existence of the Book of Enoch the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6 would not have been entertained. If on the basis of the Biblical evidence alone that interpretation cannot be supported, then it must be rejected whatever the external evidence may show⁶.

Overall conclusion

At the commencement of this article Coco set out to challenge the thesis that in Genesis 6:1–4, the reader encounters one of the most challenging passages in all of Scripture to interpret.

Unlike Tigger, who can eat anything, Coco has a narrowly defined set of palatable material. One of the most challenging elements of repast to his palate would be the butter derived from a ground nut. It is a most interesting source of nutrition, but he would wish that when given a glass of the pure bovine milk, that the interpreter of recipes had not introduced the butter even as a slight gloss onto its surface.

In like manner that Coco has shown you that the thesis is only true if a gloss of extra-Biblical material found in the Book of Enoch is applied to the text of Genesis 6. The text, rather than being the pure milk of the Word, becomes a challenge which requires a knowledge of not only the ancient Book of Enoch but other ancient texts only recently recovered from the dust.

If the text is only a challenge when glossed, it is not a challenge without the gloss. Coco concludes that a plain reading of the text is all that is required. Coco believes that the challenge has succeeded.

After thought

When Paul wrote to Timothy he said: remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith⁷. The Book of Enoch is a fabulous book, as are many other ancient writings. Who has not heard of Gilgamesh or the Nibelung? Enoch may come from a different stable, but Paul makes himself a little more clear when he writes to Titus: This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth⁸. Whether the stable is ancient Babylon, the Rhein or the Hebrews, a fable is a fable by whatever name we call it.

Coco now recalls that Solomon said, Wind, wind, everything is wind⁹! and wonders why he even set pen to paper. The Lord be with you, dear Reader.

1. A translation of the book by Robert Henry Charles published by the SPCK may be found in WikiSource here. This is a link to the first chapter. The contents table and links to all other chapters may be found from that page. The contents page indicates that the article is yet incomplete. It will be evident which pages have not yet been included, but the text of the book appears to be complete. ↩︎
2. This is Heiser’s witness to the Bablyonian influence in the Book of Enoch. ↩︎
3. Titus ↩︎
4. Sie müssen Sich hüten ↩︎
5. Deuteronomy 32 ↩︎
6. There are some who would like to suggest other understandings of the Flood of Noah. On the basis of the internal evidence it is a world-wide flood. If we allow external evidence to colour our understanding, even evidence that may have been available to Moses, then we may well start to read Moses as if he were talking about a local, but yet extensive flood. ↩︎
7. 1 Timothy ↩︎
8. Titus 1 ↩︎
9. Ecclesiastes ↩︎