Who Were The Nephilim? Part 4 - The Jude-Enoch Connection

St. Jude By El Greco

This is part four of an ongoing series over the Nephilim. If you would like to start at the beginning of the series, click here:Who Were The Nephilim? Part 1

As we continue to examine the question of who were the Nephilim, we cannot avoid the book of Enoch. I have already addressed the question as to whether Enoch should have been included in the Bible, shared some of the book’s history, and discussed one of the major themes of Enoch, the Watchers.  You can find that post here: Why Wasn't Enoch Included In The Bible?

In this post we are going to discuss why Jude might choose to quote from what many would consider a questionable, if not downright suspect book, and how his use of Enoch informs our understanding of the Genesis 6 account.

First off if you haven’t read through the book of Jude with Genesis 6 or the Nephilim in mind, I would encourage you to do so. It is only one chapter with twenty five verses, but packed full of information. And Jude manages to pack so much in because he alludes to several Biblical accounts from the Hebrew Scripture. So how much time you spend in Jude is completely up to you, a few minutes for a quick read through or days if you look up all the events he mentions. (Guess which one I recommend?)

Let’s begin with verse 6:

And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he had kept in chains under gloomy darkness until the judgement of the great day –

So here is where we must ask our first question, when did angels leave their position of authority and proper dwelling? The most common answer would be Satan’s rebellion, but there is a problem with this as we know that Satan is not bound in chains waiting until the judgement of the great day. In fact, the Bible tells us quite the opposite:

Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 1 Peter 5:8 

The Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” Job 1:7

Some have tried to make Satan’s rebellion fit Jude’s words by claiming that the angels in chains are a part of the ones who fell with Satan, and thus avoiding the Enochian connection. However, there is a problem with this as nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures do we have any mention of angels in chains or held captive. The only place we learn of angels held captive are here in Jude, 1 Peter, and Revelation – all New Testament writings. This is important, because if we look at Jude we quickly realize that he is not presenting new revelation. He is drawing on historical events, weaving them together, and presenting a consistent principle demonstrated throughout history in God’s dealings with humanity and the ungodly.

We should also note how he classifies the sin of these angels, on to verse 7:

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. 

The important word here is “likewise”, informing us that the sin of the angels who are bound in chains was sexual in nature. Jude could have gotten that sexual part from Genesis 6, but it still does not answer the question about where he learned about them being kept in chains. Nor does feel the need to explain himself. Read through this section again, notice how he referencing these events in almost the same manner as we might reference a movie or TV show. He expects his audience to know what he is talking about.

Jude himself will answer the question in verse 14:

It was also that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold the Lord comes with ten thousand of his holy ones, to execute judgement on all and to convict the ungodly of their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners has spoken against him.” 

Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures is Enoch called a prophet. We know that he was godly man who walked with God and never knew death because God took him, but aside from that we really have no further information about him…unless we are willing to admit the Book of Enoch into evidence which clearly Jude does. Consider this passage from Enoch:

And behold, he comes with ten thousand holy ones to execute judgement upon them and to destroy the impious, and to contend with all flesh concerning everything which the sinners and the impious have done and wrought against him. 1:9

We are going to come back to this text in a future post because it is significant to our understanding of who the Nephilim were. For now, it is sufficient to establish that Jude is referring to Enoch as a prophet something that is only established in the book of Enoch, from which Jude is lifting this quote.

I would be remiss if I did not note that there are two passages in the Hebrew Bible that also use the phrase “ten thousand holy ones”, and some believe that Jude was quoting from Deuteronomy 33:2 and Psalms 68:17. I believe that as Jude specifically ties his words to Enoch precludes this conclusion, and I believe that these passages actually strengthen the argument that Jude is indeed referring to the Genesis 6 episode. I would also point out the while Jude’s quotation of Enoch is not verbatim, it does more closely align with the Enochian quote than either of the two passages we find in Hebrew Scripture, and the discrepancies can largely be accounted for in translation choices such “impious” instead of “ungodly.”

My conclusion is that Jude accepted the Enochian account of the Watcher, or the Sons of God, as having some bearing on reality. I do not believe that he would have quoted from it if he viewed Enoch as erroneous or misleading. Does this mean that we should view Enoch as having the same value as holy and inspired text? I do not believe it does. If were to have that standing then it would have been canonized, but it was excluded from both the Hebrew and the Christian canons. Instead, it was serves to demonstrate how the Genesis 6 account was understood in antiquity and allows our reading to be informed by this understanding.

Jude is not alone among the New Testament authors in having such a high view of Enoch. In future post we will examine Peter’s use of Enoch in his letters and other instances where Enoch was alluded to in the New Testament text. In my next post, I will be taking a closer look at Enoch 1:9, the ten thousand holy ones, and how this relates back to the Genesis 6 episode.

For part 5 in this series, click here: Part 5 - The Jude and Hebrew Scripture Connection

Reader Question: A Look At the Devil

Question 1: Why is the devil portrayed as an ugly twisted red thing with fangs and horn when he is said to be the most beautiful angel of all Do you have any idea where the (relatively) modern version of him came from?

There is no straight path to the answer, and most of what we think we know is based on probable leaps of logic by those long dead. I think that unless further evidence is found, the best anyone can offer is conjecture. However, having acknowledged that, the conjecture is based on ideas and concepts accepted by most scholars to be historically accurate.

Let’s begin by looking at the role of goats in Judeo-Christian thought.

They have a rather mixed role within both religions. Goats were considered to be “clean” under Levitical law and therefore an accepted part of the Jewish diet and an acceptable sacrifice. It was a ram that Abraham found in the thorn bush when he was released from the command to sacrifice his son, Isaac. (Genesis 22).

Despite all these good things, we also find the goat present in the story of Jacob and Esau where the goat skins become a means of deception. (Genesis 25). Jesus declares there will be a time when the sheep will be separated from the goats in reference to judgement. (Matthew 25:32). But the most damning element is found in Leviticus 16:8-10, in a puzzling ritual sacrifice in which two goats are chosen for sacrifice and then the priests casts lots for which one shall be offered up on the altar and which one shall become a “scapegoat”. The scapegoat is released, symbolically carrying the sins of the people out into the desert to a demon or fallen angel known as Azazel.

The Bible offers no explanation as to who Azazel is, but his story is recorded in an extra-Biblical work called “The Book of Enoch” which tells us that “the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.” (1 Enoch 10:8) Many Biblical scholars believe that Satan, and Azazel are all the same entity as the description of each one is mirrored in the others. Additionally, Satan is not strictly a name, despite how it has been commonly used, and is more accurately a title meaning “accuser.” (This is where I will spare you the long theological debate about on how many satans there are and if or why they may or may not be different.) The point is Azazel predates any concept of Satan, and he has always been closely linked with the goat.

A key aspect of Azazel’s story, as told in the Book of Enoch, is that he was the leader of a group of angels known as the Watchers who came to earth and raped human women, giving birth to what were called the Nephilim. It was for this sin that Azazel and all the angels who followed him were condemned.

And we should also bear in mind that the Levitical law was given directly after the Exodus. In Egyptian culture the goat was also sacred – the point that it was not sacrificed. (Think Hindu cows.) In fact, Moses original request to Pharaoh was to release the people of Israel so that they might sacrifice to God in the desert away from the Egyptians who would be offended by the slaughter of their sacred animal.

In Egypt the Goat of Mendes was linked to fertility and some of the rites performed were even said to be sexual as recorded by Herodotus.  This goat god was later absorbed by the Greeks to become the god Pan. Pan would be known for his love of drinking, food, and women and would be worshipped by excessive consumption of all three just as Banebdjetet was.

Skip ahead a few millennium or so, and we have Christianity on the scene. A new religion with deep roots in Judaism and attempting to make a place for itself among the many religions practiced in the Roman Empire. Believing that all gods, apart from the Hebrew God, were demonic being masquerading as the truly Divine the imagery of the Greek/Roman gods was used to depict any spiritual entity in opposition or perceived competition with the Hebrew God.

Additionally, Pan’s mythology shared in several of aspects associated with Satan/Azazel. Pan was deceptive, a glutton, loved to drink, was a talented musician, and was basically the personification of lust. Combine that with the fact he was goat-man creature and that his image was everywhere, and you have the easiest target in the world. Particularly, if you are have two fold agenda:

1. Convince people that the pagan gods are abhorrent by equating them with pure evil. So the most popular god becomes Satan.

2. Strike fear into the hearts of your followers by portraying your enemy as something disgusting so that they will not be tempted to give into temptation. So Satan becomes ugly in the image of Pan.

Personally, I think as Christians we shot ourselves in the foot with this seemingly brilliant move. For while I do believe that there are demonic forces that masquerade as gods demanding to be worshipped, we have allowed the world to believe something that is counter to the teachings of Scripture. Satan is not ugly - the Bible teaches us this. He is beautiful and seductive in his beauty, but no one is on guard against beauty. We are all waiting for the man in red pajamas to scare us because we think we know that this has to be what evil looks like. We have based our ideas about God and Satan on movies, not Scripture. We have accepted superstition, folk lore, and Hollywood scripts as theology instead digging into our sacred text, and in doing so allowed offered up a lie to the world instead of the truth we were entrusted to share.

Speaking of red, I almost forgot. I could find no ancient sources that gave me any indication of color. So I will offer my speculation. Red has long been associated with passion, lust, and fire. Plus, it looks good on film and producers needed to dress up their characters in ways that immediately conveyed who and what this person was to embody. If I had to guess where the red came from, that would be it, but I am open to correction.

Photo from PhotoPin