The Book of Enoch

2456

Comments

  • The idea of angles having intercourse is absurd defying logic, and goes against the plan of salvation.

    The Jewish tradition and that of the Church holds that the those sons of God were the sons of Seth.
  • ^I know of an Ethiopian Orthodox poster on another forum who said that the Ethiopian Synaxarium says that the sons of God referred to the sons of Seth, contradicting the book of Enoch. Do you still think it can be read for spiritual edification, regardless?
  • [quote author=Severian link=topic=9472.msg158059#msg158059 date=1343222609]
    ^I agree with that. In fact, I know of an Ethiopian Orthodox poster on another forum who said that the Ethiopian Synaxarium says that the sons of God referred to the sons of Seth, contradicting the book of Enoch. Do you still think it can be read for spiritual edification, regardless?


    Edification? May be, but be weary not of forming any dogmatic beliefs as a result.
  • It is also an interesting document in that chapters 46-48 seem to imply a Triune God. This book is also said to teach intercessions of Saints, and praying for the dead, as well. I do not plan on reading it any time soon, however.
  • Hi,
    I've recently learned by mere coincidence that the Jehova's Witnesses (something Watch Tower) do believe that some angels married with daughters of humans in the old times and these gave birth to 'giants' - seems it's an integral part of their heretic faith.

    Is the above related to the revived topic?

    GBU
  • [quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=9472.msg158090#msg158090 date=1343256074]
    Hi,
    I've recently learned by mere coincidence that the Jehova's Witnesses (something Watch Tower) do believe that some angels married with daughters of humans in the old times and these gave birth to 'giants' - seems it's an integral part of their heretic faith.

    Is the above related to the revived topic?

    GBU


    Again, the idea of angels having intercourse is absurd and goes against the salvation plan.
  • The question should not be asked whether angels had inter courses with women or not, but the question that should be raised is whether the book of enoch is divinely inspired or not? There are very strong arguments for the case of the Book of Enoch than any other Deutro canonical books and the other crucial point is, why would an apostle quotes a prophecy from the book of Enoch verbatim, St. Jude didn't allude to it or implicitly quoted from the book, but he quoted him word to word.
    ( 1 Enoch 1:9), Jude 1:14-5, “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, 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.”
  • [quote author=sordoeht link=topic=9472.msg158121#msg158121 date=1343327299]
    The question should not be asked whether angels had inter courses with women or not, but the question that should be raised is whether the book of enoch is divinely inspired or not? There are very strong arguments for the case of the Book of Enoch than any other Deutro canonical books and the other crucial point is, why would an apostle quotes a prophecy from the book of Enoch verbatim, St. Jude didn't allude to it or implicitly quoted from the book, but he quoted him word to word.
    ( 1 Enoch 1:9), Jude 1:14-5, “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, 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.”


    Thank you.

    It should be also noted that the majority of Church Fathers during the first three centuries interpreted Genesis 6:4 as fallen angels having intercourse with women (without specifying whether they are daughters of Seth or Cain), an the fruit of this relation were the giants. It should not therefore be called a heretical belief, but definitely an orthodox interpretation.

    St. Jude, in his epistles, verses 6 and 7, makes a clear correlation between the fornication of Sodom and the fornication of the fallen angels:

    "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; similarly, 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."

    The other interpretation, that the sons of God refers to the sons of Seth, is an orthodox interpretation, gaining popularity in the 4th century and taught by St. John Chrysosstom. Mar Ephram the Syrian and St. Augustine. It is not the definitive and only Orthodox interpretation though.
  • The Book of Enoch is found in the dead sea scrolls, it is rejected by the jews because of its numerous references to the Messiah, who is obviously Jesus.

    Many people write it off simply because they interpret it, and Gen. 6 as meaning sexual intercourse. But why? This does not say intercourse, but vaguely infers it. We now know, with our own sciences, the mystery of DNA and cloning and have barely scratched the surface with this, and I believe this is exactly what they did. Why?

    Contrary to what an earlier post claimed, this is not against the plan of salvation, the angels were. The prophecy that the seed of the woman will crush the serpents head was the motivation. The idea that the bloodline could be polluted so that Christ could NOT take flesh is very real. This is why it was so detestable to God.

    There are plenty of early Church fathers who support this position, including St. Clement of Alexandria. So do not write it off because YOU only see one way in which something could have happened.
  • ^I can see where you are coming from. But, if I may respectfully ask you- how do you reconcile the belief that angels had relations with humans with the theology of other Fathers (who teach that sons of man refer to the sons of Seth) and modern science? Angels do not have human forms like we do, is it even theologically coherent to say that they have reproductive organs? And if so, are they compatible with human reproductive organs? And even then, would such a carnal union between two completely different beings (IE a human and an angel) be able to bring forth offspring? Once again, I am respectfully asking your opinion on the matter, I do not wish to argue with you.
  • But, if I may respectfully ask you- how do you reconcile the belief that angels had relations with humans with the theology of other Fathers (who teach that sons of man refer to the sons of Seth) and modern science?

    Although I do not see a need to reconcile both interpretations, they could be reconciled easily. Angels had intercourse with women, and the sons of Seth also took wives from the daughters of Cain. They are not mutually exclusive.

    Having said this, the first tradition seems to be the more authentic teaching of the Church, having dominated the view of the Church until the 4th century. The closer the era to the Apostles’ era, the more trusted and more pure the teachings are.

    The teachings of the later Fathers does not represent the consensus of the Fathers or the opinion of the Church. On the contrary, they have to reconcile their teachings with the early Fathers (their Fathers) and explain the deviation.

    But, if I may respectfully ask you- how do you reconcile the belief that angels had relations with humans with the theology of other Fathers (who teach that sons of man refer to the sons of Seth) and modern science?

    I am not aware of any scientific research that proved that the Book of Enoch and the events described in this book to be false. Can you refer me to any?

    On a side note, I actually do not consider scientific theories to be of any relevance to spiritual discussions and practices, including Bible interpretation. Science is changing and dynamic in nature, Faith is static and only dynamic in terms of adapting to different cultures. Science describes and explains the reality, but can never prove or discredit the Truth.

    Angels do not have human forms like we do, is it even theologically coherent to say that they have reproductive organs?

    We do not know the nature of angels, but we know for sure that they can take bodies that are capable of performing human functions such as eating (Genesis 18). If they eat, why can't they engage in intercourse?

    Again, the standard is not what we think, it is what the Fathers tought and what is recorded in the inspired books (the Book of Enoch and the Epistle of Jude).

    And if so, are they compatible with human reproductive organs?

    The physical shape and structure of the organs in the bodies assumed by angels was of no interest to the Fathers (and neither should it be of much importance to us) and did not prevent the vast majority of them to accept the interpretation challenged in this topic.

    And even then, would such a carnal union between two completely different beings (IE a human and an angel) be able to bring forth offspring?

    Apparently it did.

    If you are seeking a scientific explanation, you will find none. There is also no scientific explanation for the Trinity, and for the Incarnation and the Conception of the Lord without the seed of man. There is also no explanation for the talking serpent in Paradise or the talking Donkey in Balaam's story. The miracles cannot be explained by science, they oppose every scientific rule and go beyond human understanding.

    I am respectfully asking your opinion on the matter, I do not wish to argue with you.

    Neither is it my intention to argue with anybody on this topic. Thank you for your post and your questions.
  • Graham Hancock wrote an amazing book called the Finger Prints of the gods that shows the similarity between the different pagan gods and myths across the world. He does not directly refer to the Book of Enoch, but his ideas seem to fit perfectly with history in the Book of Enoch.
  • [quote author=Stavro link=topic=9472.msg158351#msg158351 date=1343772082]

    But, if I may respectfully ask you- how do you reconcile the belief that angels had relations with humans with the theology of other Fathers (who teach that sons of man refer to the sons of Seth) and modern science?

    Although I do not see a need to reconcile both interpretations, they could be reconciled easily. Angels had intercourse with women, and the sons of Seth also took wives from the daughters of Cain. They are not mutually exclusive.

    Having said this, the first tradition seems to be the more authentic teaching of the Church, having dominated the view of the Church until the 4th century. The closer the era to the Apostles’ era, the more trusted and more pure the teachings are.

    The teachings of the later Fathers does not represent the consensus of the Fathers or the opinion of the Church. On the contrary, they have to reconcile their teachings with the early Fathers (their Fathers) and explain the deviation.

    But, if I may respectfully ask you- how do you reconcile the belief that angels had relations with humans with the theology of other Fathers (who teach that sons of man refer to the sons of Seth) and modern science?

    I am not aware of any scientific research that proved that the Book of Enoch and the events described in this book to be false. Can you refer me to any?

    On a side note, I actually do not consider scientific theories to be of any relevance to spiritual discussions and practices, including Bible interpretation. Science is changing and dynamic in nature, Faith is static and only dynamic in terms of adapting to different cultures. Science describes and explains the reality, but can never prove or discredit the Truth.

    Angels do not have human forms like we do, is it even theologically coherent to say that they have reproductive organs?

    We do not know the nature of angels, but we know for sure that they can take bodies that are capable of performing human functions such as eating (Genesis 18). If they eat, why can't they engage in intercourse?

    Again, the standard is not what we think, it is what the Fathers tought and what is recorded in the inspired books (the Book of Enoch and the Epistle of Jude).

    And if so, are they compatible with human reproductive organs?

    The physical shape and structure of the organs in the bodies assumed by angels was of no interest to the Fathers (and neither should it be of much importance to us) and did not prevent the vast majority of them to accept the interpretation challenged in this topic.

    And even then, would such a carnal union between two completely different beings (IE a human and an angel) be able to bring forth offspring?

    Apparently it did.

    If you are seeking a scientific explanation, you will find none. There is also no scientific explanation for the Trinity, and for the Incarnation and the Conception of the Lord without the seed of man. There is also no explanation for the talking serpent in Paradise or the talking Donkey in Balaam's story. The miracles cannot be explained by science, they oppose every scientific rule and go beyond human understanding.

    I am respectfully asking your opinion on the matter, I do not wish to argue with you.

    Neither is it my intention to argue with anybody on this topic. Thank you for your post and your questions.
    Thank you for the answers, brother. These questions were originally directed at Ioannes, but it is always nice to read posts from an Orthodox Traditionalist like yourself. Don't get me wrong, I am not denying this interpretation of Scripture as a possible Orthodox explanation. It does seem to be grounded in early Patristic writings, and I would never dare elevate my opinion above the teachings of the Holy Fathers. I was just curious to see how individuals who hold to this view would answer the above questions.

    Anyway, could someone please refer me to Patristic texts relevant to this passage of Scripture?

    +Pray for me
  • Being that many of the early Fathers taught that it was angels who copulated with women, why did HH Pope Shenouda dogmatically fight against this belief? It is really disturbing how some of our Hierarchs are willing to teach things contrary to the Fathers. Especially, on non-dogmatic issues like this one. I say this with all possible love and respect.

    Also, could y'all please post Patristic quotes relevant to this topic?
  • [quote author=Severian link=topic=9472.msg159677#msg159677 date=1347220755]
    Being that many of the early Fathers taught that it was angels who copulated with women, why did HH Pope Shenouda dogmatically fight against this belief? It is really disturbing how some of our Hierarchs are willing to teach things contrary to the Fathers. Especially, on non-dogmatic issues like this one. I say this with all possible love and respect.

    Also, could y'all please post Patristic quotes relevant to this topic?


    Before we get carried away with who really these sons God were, can someone post patristic teaching?
  • We all, the orthodox, believe that the Holy Scriptures, Old and New, were written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
    I found it highly repulsive that the Holy Spirit would use the phrase “Sons of God” for fallen angles. 
  • [quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=9472.msg159699#msg159699 date=1347315846]
    We all, the orthodox, believe that the Holy Scriptures, Old and New, were written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
    I found it highly repulsive that the Holy Spirit would use the phrase “Sons of God” for fallen angles.
    What you or I think is unimportant. As Orthodox, we must submit ourselves to the teachings of the Fathers. The fact is, several ancient and very important Fathers taught that this verse referred to fallen angels. We should not discard this teaching just because it does not appeal to us.

    EDIT: Plus, Job 1:6 also uses the phrase 'sons of God" to refer to angels.

    "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." -King James Version

    "And it came to pass on a day, that behold, the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came with them." -Brenton's translation of the LXX
  • [quote author=Severian link=topic=9472.msg159701#msg159701 date=1347318688]
    [quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=9472.msg159699#msg159699 date=1347315846]
    We all, the orthodox, believe that the Holy Scriptures, Old and New, were written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
    I found it highly repulsive that the Holy Spirit would use the phrase “Sons of God” for fallen angles.
    What you or I think is unimportant. As Orthodox, we must submit ourselves to the teachings of the Fathers. The fact is, several ancient and very important Fathers taught that this verse referred to fallen angels. We should not discard this teaching just because it does not appeal to us.

    EDIT: Plus, Job 1:6 also uses the phrase 'sons of God" to refer to angels.

    "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." -King James Version

    "And it came to pass on a day, that behold, the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came with them." -Brenton's translation of the LXX


    Can you please post these quotes?
  • I have attached a list of patristic sources about Genesis 6:1-4 and the Book of Enoch with some comments in italics. Here is a summary:

    1. Jewish and Rabbinic philosophy states Genesis 6 speaks of angels of God having intercourse with women.
    2. Apparently, this Jewish thought prevaded early Christian fathers including Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Alexander of Lycopolis and most of all Tertullian.
    3. This Angel hypothesis prevails until Augustine's City of God which promotes the Sethite hypothesis over the angels of God.
    4. After Augustine, there is only one reference in John Cassian that promotes the Sethite hypothesis.
    5. There are alternate theories about the meaning of "Sons of god": (1) Demons that are called divine or "sons of God" had sexual intercourse with women and (2) an allegorical descent of the soul from the heavenly things to earthly things and the punishment that comes with it. (Nothing to do with sexual intercourse).
    6. As far as I can research, no "popular" Orthodox father speaks of Genesis 6:1-4, including St Athanasius, St Cyril of Alexandria, St John Chyrsostom, St Severus, Apophtegmata Patrum (Sayings of the Desert Fathers), St Macarius, St Paul of Tammah, St Shenoute the Archimandrite, St Pachomius' Koinonia, and others.

    From the information above, it seems that we can conclude the Book of Enoch and the angels of God hypothesis was the most popularly accepted philosophy, even though alternate theories existed. After Augustine there is no mention or reference to the Angel of God hypothesis. It seems the Christian world switched over to the Sethite hypothesis and modern theologians are moving back to the pre-Augustinian angel hypothesis.

    (According to recent threads, most modern theologians are heterdox so they must be dismissed. Although I myself can't tell which modern theologian. And since the pre-schism fathers disagree with each other, we must adjudicate one hypothesis is Orthodox and one is not. If I tell you which one, my choice must also be dismissed because I'm freudian, feminist, liberal and heretic. Choose for yourselves.)
  • Thank you very much for your sources Rem.

    I truly hope that no-one will attack your hard work as anything less than a dedicated offering to Orthodox understanding in love of God. If anyone has any disagreements, I am sure they can offer it in love, and understanding that we all want what is best for the church- Orthodox theology.

    Thanks again for the sources, and that excellent summary!

    RO
  • My personal view is that angels do not marry ( Matt 22:30)
  • The response to Matthew 22:30 from proponents of the Book of Enoch and the Angel hypothesis is that Jesus' words in Matthew 22 are very specific: At the resurrection, we will be like the angels in heaven who neither marry or get married. Angels who fell are no longer in heaven. All the angels who had sexual intercourse, according to the Book of Enoch and presumably in Genesis 6, had sinned after their demise on earth.

    I personally believe angels or demons who fall and have sexual relations with humans are no different than Greek mythology where Zeus does the same thing. It is possible that Genesis 6 specifically speaks of angels. we can't dismiss it because we weren't there and their is no concrete evidence against it. However, the Sethite hypothesis and Augustine's view of the Book of Enoch is very convincing. It removes any possibilities of mythology and fables from Genesis 6. And I think the post-Augustinian fathers recognized this.
  • [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=9472.msg159717#msg159717 date=1347365056]
    The response to Matthew 22:30 from proponents of the Book of Enoch and the Angel hypothesis is that Jesus' words in Matthew 22 are very specific: At the resurrection, we will be like the angels in heaven who neither marry or get married. Angels who fell are no longer in heaven. All the angels who had sexual intercourse, according to the Book of Enoch and presumably in Genesis 6, had sinned after their demise on earth.



    So when did these fallen angels stop having intercourse?

    Does this also mean that the righteous angels are having intercourse and they will stop at resurrection?

    So, according to this, some of us are really the product of angels.

    I personally believe angels or demons who fall and have sexual relations with humans are no different than Greek mythology where Zeus does the same thing. It is possible that Genesis 6 specifically speaks of angels. we can't dismiss it because we weren't there and their is no concrete evidence against it. However, the Sethite hypothesis and Augustine's view of the Book of Enoch is very convincing. It removes any possibilities of mythology and fables from Genesis 6. And I think the post-Augustinian fathers recognized this.

    I agree
  • I'm only responding trying to give an unbiased view of the angel hypothesis.
    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=9472.msg159718#msg159718 date=1347365341]
    So when did these fallen angels stop having intercourse?
    I assume fallen angels are not immortal. They must have died since "the wage of sin is death", even for fallen angels.

    Does this also mean that the righteous angels are having intercourse and they will stop at resurrection?

    No righteous angels remain in front of the Pantocrator's throne. They only leave to do the will of God, like the angel who spoke to St John the Beloved in the Revelation vision. No righteous angel leaves God's beauty to run after earthly, carnal, passing beauty.

    So, according to this, some of us are really the product of angels.

    Yes and no. One of the references I gave said God, in his divine wisdom, allowed for angels to fall, have intercourse with women and have "giants born to them" precisely to show that not even giants would escape the deluge (Noah's flood). I believe Moses was trying to show that the wickedness of the world that the Lord saw and provoked him to destroy the earth with the flood was directly related to those giants. From those giants, all men's (except Righteous Noah and his family) "intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen 6:5. In the end, God's righteousness prevailed over the evil of those giants and they were all destroyed in the flood. The only question that remains is were those giants' parents half angels and half human or fully human.
  • So, according to this, some of us are really the product of angels.

    Yes and no. One of the references I gave said God, in his divine wisdom, allowed for angels to fall, have intercourse with women and have "giants born to them" precisely to show that not even giants would escape the deluge (Noah's flood). I believe Moses was trying to show that the wickedness of the world that the Lord saw and provoked him to destroy the earth with the flood was directly related to those giants. From those giants, all men's (except Righteous Noah and his family) "intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen 6:5. In the end, God's righteousness prevailed over the evil of those giants and they were all destroyed in the flood. The only question that remains is were those giants' parents half angels and half human or fully human.

    Were the giants evil because they were the sons of the devil? If so, then God would have unjustly punished them.

    This theory is nonsense. No angels had intercourse with anyone.
  • Whatever the case, whether angels had intercourse or not, this isn't a dogmatic or important enough issue for us that touches essential dogmas of our faith.  What is clearly noticeable is that this was a dominant view for the first 3-4 centuries of Christianity, until it shifted to the now major view that spiritual beings being spiritual are unable to engage in physical intercourse or reproduce in a physical manner.
  • [quote author=minasoliman link=topic=9472.msg159727#msg159727 date=1347381562]
    Whatever the case, whether angels had intercourse or not, this isn't a dogmatic or important enough issue for us that touches essential dogmas of our faith.  What is clearly noticeable is that this was a dominant view for the first 3-4 centuries of Christianity, until it shifted to the now major view that spiritual beings being spiritual are unable to engage in physical intercourse or reproduce in a physical manner.


    I believe this is in the core of the salvation plan. I will explain how I think about it later.
  • The giants were evil because they committed evil acts and all the world followed in their wickedness. They were justly punished by God.

    Angels having intercourse may seem like nonsense now but at many past generations it was not. In fact, multiple manuscripts of the Septuagint have "Angels of God",  not "Sons of God". If we automatically dismiss the angel hypothesis as nonsense, we are now also judging that the Septuagint is nonsense and parts of the Old Testament are not divinely inspired. I think the more rational judgment is to believe Genesis 6 is divinely inspired, the meaning is difficult and we probably we will never know the exact truth. What has been revealed to us in Scripture and the patristic writings suggests both the fallen angels hypothesis and the Sethite hypothesis are plausible. It also rational to believe that either hypothesis has limited effect on my salvation. In the end, will I be expelled from heaven because I believed one theory over the other? I agree with Mina.
Sign In or Register to comment.