1st century Jewish sects and Christianity

[Esaias]

I am creating this thread as a sort of repository of information on the subject of first century Jewish sects (especially Essene and Enochite sects) and their relationship to Jesus and early apostolic Christianity. Posts follow.

[Esaias]

Prior to the arrival of both John the Baptist and Jesus, there had developed several streams or sectarian movements within Judaism. The Pharisees and the Sadducees are of course the most well known. However, a movement or collection of related movements is also known to have been around at the same time, the so-called Enochian Judaism movement. This was a movement that opposed both the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and had developed a corpus of literature centering around various "apocryphal" books such as the Book of Jubilees, several Books of Enoch, various Testaments of the Patriarchs, and assorted other visionary and mystical literature.

In this Enochian branch of Judaism, a messianic figure was expected. This messianic figure was believed to arrive and destroy Israel's enemies (including the "apostates" known as Pharisees and Sadducees, as well as any and all foreign rulers). This messianic figure was identified with the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7, but also with the Biblical Enoch. These Enochite Jews believed Enoch never died and was in heaven, serving as a sort of intermediary divine figure.

This supplies some insight into the following verses:

Matthew 16:13-16
(13) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
(14) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
(15) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
(16) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Now, while it is true that Jesus was literally asking "Who do people think I am?" nevertheless His uses of the term "Son of Man" often intentionally invoke references to Daniel 7 (as shown previously). The phrase "Son of Man" although a common idiom in Aramaic referring simply to a human in general or a male in particular, was also a technical, eschatological term for many devout Jews, especially the Enochian sect(s). So Matthew is here pointing out for us that Jesus the Son of Man is NOT Enoch or some "other prophet", but the Messiah Himself. This is in fact an apologetic, a Christian refutation of the then current ideas swarming around Judea and among the Jews, especially the Enochite ideas concerning Enoch as the apocalyptic Son of Man.

Another interesting set of verses in John is clearly an apologetic refutation of Enochite theories regarding Enoch and the Son of Man:

John 3:10-18
(10) Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
(11) Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
(12) If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
(13) And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
(14) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(17) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
(18) He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Here, John's account of the dialogue between Nicodemus and Jesus reveals several important apostolic claims:

1. Jesus is the Son of God.
2. Jesus is the Son of Man (not Enoch).
3. NO MAN has ascended into heaven EXCEPT the Son of Man who came down from heaven and who is now in heaven, that is, Jesus.

This last point bears elaboration. The Enochite sectarians believed that Enoch never died but was taken by God up into heaven. This schismatic Judean belief is common even today among many professing Christians. Yet John's Gospel clearly refutes such a notion. In first century speculative Judaism, two people were believed to have ascended up into heaven - Enoch, and Elijah. Both were central figures in mystical Jewish thought, especially among various Essene groups and also among the Pharisees. Both were seen as messianic heavenly figures. There was speculation among Jews that either one could be the Son of Man seen in Daniel 7.

Yet, for the Christians, the Son of Man in Daniel 7 was Jesus. The same Jesus who is also the Son of God, and who came down from heaven as the divinely sent Saviour and mediator between God and mankind. John not only rules out Enoch as the Son of Man, but Elijah also. He quotes Jesus as saying "NO MAN has ascended to heaven EXCEPT" one, and that one is the Son of Man in heaven (Daniel 7), who came down and gives Himself and upon whom all must believe. Those who do not believe on the name of the Son of God include the Enochite Jews who expect Enoch to return as a messiah.

There is more to this as well. This is not a mere theological difference of opinion between two competing groups of Jews concerning the identity of the prophesied Messiah. The Enochite Jews not only believed Enoch was the heavenly Son of Man and likely the designated coming Saviour, but they also held to a completely schismatic calendar. This seems petty by our modern standards, but considering that the very life of Israel depended on the Feasts and their proper maintenance (in the minds of most pious Jews), and considering the all important Day of Atonement was that which maintained the divine mercy covering over Israel and blotted out their sins, it is clear that calendar issues were a central feature of Judaism.

The Enochians followed a solar calendar (explained in the Book of Jubilees) that differed radically from the calendar followed in Jerusalem by the priests (and by Jesus and the early Christians as well). It seems that Enochian Judaism was essentially a solar-cult originating during the Babylonian captivity and developing over the centuries into its full development in the first century AD. We find that the Enochian cult was a major competitor to apostolic Christianity in the church's early days as a "sect of the Judeans". The Enochites of course rejected the Pharisaic halachah (rules, regulations, commandments, and interpretations of Torah supplied by the rabbins of the Pharisee sect), but this did not mean they had none. They certainly had their own halachah, rules and regulations and commandments and interpretations of the Law. Both Pharisees and Enochites viewed non-conformity to their respective halachah as "sin" and "lawlessness" and "iniquity" and "transgression". The community at Qumran, which appears to have been within the stream of Enochian Judaism of the time, spoke of the Pharisees as "givers of smooth interpretations" (ie they claimed the Pharisees were loosey-goosey liberals).

It is interesting that not only does the New Testament record the struggles of apostolic Christians against Pharisees, but also against what can only be described as a mystical, syncretic Jewish cult that was highly ascetic, messianic, and apparently used a calendar claiming to be the original divine calendar instituted by Moses but which was in reality based on a pagan Babylonian solar calendar that had connections to the Mithra cult common throughout the Roman Empire...

[Esaias]

Enoch in mystical Judaism was identified with Metatron, the "lesser YHVH". Early on this resulted in the infamous " Two Powers" heresy of early post-Second Temple Judaism. It is at the core of kaballah, which is Jewish Gnosticism.

But, Metatron has been linked to Mithra by some scholars. And, Mithraism was prevalent and even dominant in Asia Minor, especially the area where Colossae and Galatia are located. There was in Asia Minor a mingling of Persian Mithraism and Jewish syncretic mysticism/Gnostic mystery religion, giving rise to a very prominent Mystery Cult that after 70AD would be spread by Roman soldiers throughout much of the western Empire. In Asia Minor the family of Herod intermarried with various royal families of Anatolian kingdoms. These Anatolians were big on their Persian ancestry, and favoured Persian religion, aka Zoroastrianism in its "Mithraism" form. The Herodians were also big supporters of the Mithra Mystery cult, and apparently helped facilitate the combining of Jewish speculative occultism and Gnostic mythologies with that of Mithra and Zoroastrianism. There is a connection between Dionysus and Mithra here, and between Mithra-Metatron-"Enoch" as well.

Enoch supposedly was the first Astronomer Priest, but so was Zoroaster. So Enochian Judaism appears to be a Persian Zoriastrian-Mithraic syncretism, likely originating in Babylon during the PERSIAN rule under Darius, Cyrus, Xerxes, etc. The Persian religion of the Magi (Zoroastrianism) appears to have been given a Jewish flavor by some of the returning Exiles...

Also, found out that Mithra = Indra of the Vedic religion, and that Indra = Baal of the western Semitic religions. And, Baal of course was the Sun god of not only the Canaanites, but of the Phoenicians as well, and was even worshipped in Egypt as Amon.

And of course, Baal goes back to Nimrod, who apparently is celebrated in ancient Mesopotamian texts as the Mighty Hunter Who Fought Against the God-Who-Flooded-The-Earth.

Baal was the Storm God who supposedly rode on the storm-clouds of heaven, just like Indra. So the Son of Man in Dan 7 coming with the clouds of heaven appears to be a direct attack on Babylonian storm god BEL (Baal). Interestingly, this connects with Genesis 6 and all that, as the sons of El intermarried with daughters of Ish (man). The Son of Man is the Son of Adam, which would be SETH, the appointed replacement for Abel. The sons of Adam (Sethites) were intermarrying with others (Cainites?) except for the named line in Genesis culminating in Noah. Noah would be the Son of Adam/Man ie heir to the inheritance of Adam. Nimrod, son of Cush son of Ham, was apparently in opposition to the God of Shem. Shem being the heir of Noah and thus Son of Adam, his line (Shem's line) down to Abraham would be in opposition to the Nimrod/Cush dynasty.

In other words, a family squabble between the heir or Son of Adam and the sons or heirs of Nimrod. Nimrod became worshipped as Baal over time, so we see the basis for the ancient conflict between Baal and Jehovah as being between the Son/Heir of Adam and the would be heirs of Nimrod. Jesus is Son of Adam, heir to the inheritance of Adam through Noah and Shem, Abraham, etc.

The Baalism of Enochian Judaism was essentially asserting through occultic symbolism that Baal/Nimrod was the heavenly Son of Man and rightful heir of the world. The Gospel asserts that Jesus is that Son of Man. The destruction of the Temple (which was run by Herod's appointees, a spurious non-Zadokite priesthood) would be a clear signal that Jesus was the victor over Baal/Nimrod/Metatron/Mithra and the Herodian/Edomite dynasty of Baal worshipping false Jews. See Rev 2:9 and 3:9.

[Esaias]

Also, what I am seeing more and more is that in the Ancient World there was really only two religions: the true faith of Jehovah, on the one hand, and the various pagan cults on the other. But these various pagan cults, with all their multiplicities of gods, are all really just one religion. In each culture, in each era, the same religion goes by different names, with slight variation in the rites and beliefs and names of deities. But really it's all the same religion, and more importantly, it was recognized as such by the people of those times. "Amon is worshipped in Palestine as Baal." "Zeus is worshipped in Persia as Mitra." and similar statements abound in the ancient writings. Man doesn't have a variety of religions, it's all really one under different names. And the pagan cults are but veiled, shadowy reflections of the ancient primitive original religion of Adam. They all go back to a Single Origin. The Abrahamic Faith contends that it is the true expression of that Original Religion, but the Baal cults claim THEY are the true carriers of the Original.

This conflict lies behind the entire history of mankind. History is the record of the conflict being discussed here, as a matter of fact.

And, that ancient Baal cult never went away. It just did what it ALWAYS did from country to country and era to era: it continued under new names. It is still around, TODAY. And just like through ALL recorded history, then as now, it is the religion of kings and rulers, wealthy and powerful family dynasties, who coincidentally trace their lineage right back to not only Caesar, but to Herod, Mithridates, Xerxes, Darius, and ultimately back to NIMROD.

[Esaias]

Let me say that I believe Peter and Jude are in fact warning people to avoid the book of Enoch, specifically and directly.

As I pointed out, Peter not only quotes Enoch, but specifically contradicts Enoch a few verses later. Jude does the same thing, in fact.

Walk with me through the context for a moment:

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
2Pe 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

The apostolic doctrine and their faith is not based on myths, but on eyewitness testimony.

2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Superior even to eyewitness testimony of mystical visions of heavenly things, however, is the Word of God (the Scripture).

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So, there is a contrast being established between myths, on the one hand, and the doctrine of the gospel on the other hand. One is 'cunningly devised' and the other is based not only on recent eyewitness testimony of people still current and alive, but also (more importantly) on the Scripture itself. So, clearly, is Scripture is 'a more sure word' than apostolic testimony, it is certainly superior to 'cunningly devised fables/myths'. That is the immediate context of the discussion that follows.

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
2Pe 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

Peter warns about false teachers coming into the church, who will bring in damnable heresies, that lead to their own destruction. Many will follow these false teachers and their teachings. And 'the way of truth' will be maligned because of them. In other words, the false teachers and their 'many' followers will bring reproach on the way of truth because the false teachers misrepresent the truth. Also, these false teachers will make money off their followers. Yet, the false teachers are doomed, and their doom is certain.

So Peter, after contrasting the cunningly devised fables/myths with the more sure Word of the Scripture, now speaks about false teachers and false teachings and heresies (sects), which will cause the truth to be maligned, these teachers of fables (lies) will make merchandise of the gullible, and are subject to damnation because of their lies.

2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Peter is referring to the events described in Enoch 10 in regards to the binding of Azazel, Semjasa, and their cohorts unto the judgment day. Notice, he says 'if', meaning he is introducing an 'if...then...' statement. The 'if' is simply that if God bound the angels that sinned... then 'the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptation to reserve the unjust to punishment'.

What does that have to do with anything? Well, common Jewish 'fables/myths' in the first century included the idea that angels sinned, married women and fathered children in Noah's day (leading to the Flood), and that they and the spirits of the destroyed hybrid offspring are roaming the earth attacking people, tormenting them as 'demons', and so forth.

Remember, the immediate context is false teachers and 'cunningly devised fables' spread by those false teachers, often to 'make merchandise' of people. Exorcism was an actual paid profession in those times (and still is among various people groups today). Exorcists claimed to be able to deliver people from evil spirits by virtue of their superior knowledge of the evil spirits and how they operate, etc. And they did charge money.

Much of these Jewish myths were found expressed in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, and other similar Jewish mystical and religious fiction writings. These beliefs were very common, very popular, and very influential in many quarters, even among early Christians.

Peter is warning about 'fables' and false teachers looking to lead people astray and make some money off them. His argument begins with 'IF' and then cites the book of Enoch (one of the more popular Jewish fables then extant) as evidence that people need not fear evil spirits roaming around doing bad things to them, nor do they need any special teachers or 'specially anointed ministers' to 'deliver' them from the evil spirits, because 'the angels that sinned HAVE BEEN BOUND'. And because of this, the Lord can deliver the godly and punish the unjust. One need not seek after or follow after any teachers bringing 'the deeper things of the spirit world' into your life (for a small nominal fee, or for a love offering, or whatever).

Why does Peter cite Enoch? Because Enoch was one of the favorite texts used by various sects of Judaism and early gnostic Christianity. He thus proves their inconsistency using their own literature, just like one can quote JW literature in order to refute their doctrines, because their own literature often contradicts what they teach. Using the literature of the false teachers to prove their inconsistencies is not an endorsement of the false teachers' literature!

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
2Pe 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
2Pe 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
2Pe 2:8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds; )
2Pe 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

Following the citation from Enoch, he turns to the Scriptures and concludes with verse 9, as the conclusion to the 'if...then...' statement he introduced in verse 4.

He continues his argument:

2Pe 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

This is a description of the ungodly who are being reserved to punishment. Those who 'despise government'. These are not political anarchists, but they despise Divine government. They are presumptuous and self-willed, and are 'not afraid to speak evil of dignities'. Literally, they do not 'tremble to blaspheme glories'. The term 'glories' was a well-known term for the angelic hosts surrounding the court of God serving as a reflection of the divine majesty itself.

Exo 15:11 Who is like to thee among the gods, O Lord? who is like to thee? glorified in holiness, marvellous in glories, doing wonders. (Brenton's English translation of the Greek Old Testament)

Same word, 'glories'. The Testament of Judah (another of the popular 1st century era Jewish fables/myths) says 'the glories blessed Simeon', in a list of blessings on the twelve tribes (Test. Judah 4:29 - http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/fbe280.htm ).

(continued in next post)

[Esaias]

(continued from previous post)

So these false teachers were speaking blasphemous things concerning the angelic and divine government of God. Obviously, Peter is saying these false teachers are teaching error (blasphemies) concerning angels (dominions and glories).

2Pe 2:11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

Peter here cites Enoch chapter 9, yet he contradicts the citation. In Enoch chapter 9 it was angels who accused the 'fallen angels' to God. Yet here, Peter specifically says the angels which were greater in power and might did not accuse them to God. This is a direct contradiction of the text of Enoch. The passage follows:

[Chapter 9]

1 And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel looked down from heaven and saw much blood being 2 shed upon the earth, and all lawlessness being wrought upon the earth. And they said one to another: 'The earth made without inhabitant cries the voice of their cryingst up to the gates of heaven. 3 And now to you, the holy ones of heaven, the souls of men make their suit, saying, "Bring our cause 4 before the Most High."' And they said to the Lord of the ages: 'Lord of lords, God of gods, King of kings, and God of the ages, the throne of Thy glory (standeth) unto all the generations of the 5 ages, and Thy name holy and glorious and blessed unto all the ages! Thou hast made all things, and power over all things hast Thou: and all things are naked and open in Thy sight, and Thou seest all 6 things, and nothing can hide itself from Thee. Thou seest what Azazel hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were (preserved) in heaven, which 7 men were striving to learn: And Semjaza, to whom Thou hast given authority to bear rule over his associates. And they have gone to the daughters of men upon the earth, and have slept with the 9 women, and have defiled themselves, and revealed to them all kinds of sins. And the women have 10 borne giants, and the whole earth has thereby been filled with blood and unrighteousness. And now, behold, the souls of those who have died are crying and making their suit to the gates of heaven, and their lamentations have ascended: and cannot cease because of the lawless deeds which are 11 wrought on the earth. And Thou knowest all things before they come to pass, and Thou seest these things and Thou dost suffer them, and Thou dost not say to us what we are to do to them in regard to these.' http://hiddenbible.com/enoch/online.html/

The four chief angels (archangels) of Jewish mythology accused the fallen angels to God. They accused the fallen angels of sinning, of miscegenation with humans, of fathering hybrid offspring, and of leading mankind into all sorts of evil. That is what the book of Enoch states. That is what the then[current Jewish fables stated. That is what was commonly taught among Jewish mystics and gnostics. But Peter specifically denies this.

2Pe 2:11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

Against whom? The 'glories' and dominion' spoken of previously. Peter is saying the false teachers are blaspheming angelic powers, whereas the angels themselves do no such thing - directly refuting the teaching of Jewish fable-masters who relied upon Enoch and other fables/myths for their authority. Enoch and the others have the archangels accusing the evil fallen angels of the various things the gnostics and fable-tellers likewise accused them of. Yet Peter specifically refutes this and denies it.

2Pe 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

The false teachers spreading fables and myths and making money off the gullible speak evil of things they do not understand (the dominion and glories, ie the heavenly government and the angelic orders). Furthermore, they will totally perish in their corruption. It is a serious matter the blaspheme the government of Almighty God. (What, do we think God alone is himself the whole entirety of his government? No, he has myriads of angelic beings that carry out the Divine will. To blaspheme the angelic beings is to blaspheme the government of God. Just as if railing blasphemies and calumnies against the police, sherriff's, judges, courts, etc is nothing less than a blasphemous assault on the entire national government. Rail against the king's men and spread lies and falsehoods about them, and you slander the king and his entire government!)

2Pe 2:13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
2Pe 2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
2Pe 2:15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
2Pe 2:16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.

These false teachers spreading their myths and fables which appear to center on blasphemy against angelic beings in the divine government of God are doomed, they are spots and blemishes in the church, they are immoral, they are greedy, they are cursed, and they divine for hire like Balaam.

2Pe 2:17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.

This is a series of references by Peter from the book of Enoch, paralleled in Jude, by the way, on the same subject, and making the same point. Peter (and Jude) applies these Enochian epithets to the false teachers teaching lies and fables regarding the 'angels' (namely that 'they sinned', fornicated with humans, produced hybrid offspring, and corrupted all mankind through teaching them forbidden knowledge and seducing them into rebellion, and resulted in the myriads of demons and evil spirits roaming the earth today which afflict mankind, and who can be taken care of by those 'in the know' - for a fee...).

2Pe 2:18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
2Pe 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

These fable-promoters and false teachers are leading people back into bondage, entangling people again in corruption and pollution. They are said to have turned from the 'holy commandment' and are like a dog going back to his vomit. In all these statements, Peter is saying these teachers and those they deceive with their fables and myths about 'angels sinning' etc are returning to something.

Israel came to the truth but often returned to idolatry and superstition. The Jews continued that tradition with their fables and myths, 'exorcism', mysticism etc, concerning Solomon and his command of demons through superior gnosis, the Star of Rempham (the so-called 'star of David' which is actually the hexagram of Solomon and is used for mystical and occultic purposes, usually exorcisms), their kaballah and all the other nonsense they came up with in the second temple period (and later). All that 'fable and myth' was really regurgitated pagan superstition brought from Babylon and Egypt, to which they were returning, with all it;s superstitions about divine beings leading man astray, fornicating with women, producing hybrids (demigods), being chained in Tartarus under the earth, below Hades, producing evil spirits that roam around tormenting people, requiring the services of 'experts in the spiritual deliverance ministry', etc etc etc.

So then Peter is actually refuting the Book of Enoch, and its fables and myths perpetrated by Jewish gnostic Essene and Pharisaic mystics and rabbis.

Which means the whole 'angels that sinned, mated with humans, producing hybrids, corrupting mankind, teaching and leading mankind into evil inventions and immorality, generating possessions etc etc' teaching is nothing more than Jewish fables and myths promoted by false teachers who are marked for destruction because of it.

[Esaias]

Okay, so let's look at Jude for a bit.

First of all, I believe Jude is quoting 2 Peter.

Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

According to Jude, certain men had crept in unawares perverting the grace of God and even denying the Lord Jesus (obviously by contradicting His teachings). Jude says they had crept in.

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Peter, however, says 'there shall be' these false teachers who would even deny the Lord Jesus. Jude says they were already crept in. Thus, what was future for Peter is past and present for Jude. I believe this establishes which came first (2 Peter) and shows that Jude is expounding upon what Peter warned about.

Jud 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

Jude begins a similar process as Peter, using what amounts to the same outline. Firstly, he uses examples to show illustrate that the false teachers would face destruction, just as Peter showed. Secondly, the examples he chooses include examples of apostasy, just as Peter spoke about. The first example is of people being delivered from Egypt but later being destroyed because of their apostasy and backsliding. Thus, the false teachers are REintroducing something from the past, they are going BACK to something, as Peter talked about (dog returning to its vomit, etc).

Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Here Jude references the book of Enoch, as Peter did. According to Enoch, the angels that 'left their own habitation' (the 'angels that sinned' in Peter) have been reserved in everlasting chains to judgment day. I provided the quotation from Enoch for this in an earlier post so I'll not repeat it here.

Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

He then references the example of Sodom and Gomorrha. At this point a careless reading of Jude would seem to imply that the angels not keeping their first estate is paralleled by Sodom and Gomorrha going after strange flesh. But, a closer examination of the context indicates the parallel is of a different sort.

Remember, the context is false doctrines. Jude is referring to the same problem Peter was referring to (as evidenced by his use of 2 Peter's material and argumentation and examples and conclusions). That problem was a problem of false teachers bringing blasphemous accusations against heavenly beings (angels). We saw already that the book of Enoch and other popular Jewish myths did just that, accusing the angels of God of rebelling against God, fornicating with humans, producing hybrid offspring, teaching and leading mankind into sin, etc. In short, all the evil in the world was a result of 'fallen angels', instead of the wickedness of men's own hearts (as the canonical scriptures seem to indicate).

Here in Jude, we see the same false teachers. They are seducing people astray back into superstitious idolatry and demonism (remember Paul said the things the gentiles sacrifice to they sacrifice to demons). The sin of Sodom is set forth as an example of these false teachers. What did the men of Sodom actually do? They attempted to rape two angelic beings. While the men of Sodom may have not known the two men were angels, the fact remains they attempted to rape two angelic beings sent by God. So the men of Sodom were guilty of attempted horrific crimes against God's ministering agents, and were punished with a nuke from heaven for it. This ties into the next verse:

Jud 1:8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

The false teachers are called 'filthy dreamers', meaning their doctrines are really filthy imaginations. They despise dominion and speak evil of dignities'. This is what Peter said about these false teachers. They speak evil of heavenly beings who are in the employ of God and who represent the divine majesterial government of heaven. Their false teachers amount to blasphemous slanderings, in other words. Just as the men of Sodom attempted to do violence to angels, these false teachers 'likewise' attempt to do violence to angels (through false teachings and lies about them).

Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Now, this is fascinating. This event is nowhere described whatsoever in the Bible. But Jude did not pull this out of his yarmulka. This appears, however, to have been a popular Jewish myth. Clarke in his commentary states the following:

There is something very like it in Debarim Rabba, sec. ii., fol. 263, 1: “Samael, that wicked one, the prince of the satans, carefully kept the soul of Moses, saying: When the time comes in which Michael shall lament, I shall have my mouth filled with laughter. Michael said to him: Wretch, I weep, and thou laughest. Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy, because I have fallen; for I shall rise again: when I sit in darkness, the Lord is my light; Mic_7:8. By the words, because I have fallen, we must understand the death of Moses; by the words, I shall rise again, the government of Joshua, etc.”


According to Barnes, Origen in his commentary on this passage says it was taken from a writing called 'The Assumption of Moses' which at least in Origen's day was extant among the Jews, and which includes an account of Satan disputing with Michael the archangel about the body of Moses. Barnes says the original work is no longer extant. There is a 6th century Latin version of the Assumption of Moses, but it does not contain the account of Satan and Michael disputing about Moses' body. The point, however, is that such a belief was apparently in vogue in the days of Jude.

Jude identifies this myth and uses it to point out that 'even Michael did not bring a railing accusation against the devil'. This of course is parallel to Peter saying the angels which are greater in might do not bring accusations against their fellow angels. And apparently Jude is using this apocryphal Jewish fable to refute the practices of those teachers of apocryphal Jewish fables, showing their inconsistency and how their own fables contradict themselves and the ones who teach them. The false teachers bring slander and libel against the angels, making railing accusations against them, whereas even in their blasphemous fables such things do not usually occur. Thus showing the false teachers are caught up in contradictions and inconsistencies.

(to be continued)

[Esaias]

(continued from previous post)

Jud 1:10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

The false teachers speak evil of the angels of God (making claims about them that are not only false but libelous, railing accusations and blasphemies). And so the false teachers, relying on carnal mythologies corrupt themselves with superstitions.

Jud 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

The false teachers have followed Cain's example (who slew someone much more holy than he himself was), Balaam's example (who tried to make merchandise of holy things, being a prophet for hire), and Core/Korah who despised the appointed messengers of God (the Aaronic priesthood and Moses especially) and rebelled against God ordained authority, and brought railing against Moses and the ordained priesthood. Again, the theme is that of false teachers railing against, blaspheming against, and thus doing 'violence to' the angelic government of God by making false accusations about angels. There is some connection also to monetary reward (travelling exorcists?) as well.

Jud 1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
Jud 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Jude uses language from the book of Enoch here. Language that in Enoch was used to refer to the punishments brought on by the sinning angels is used by Jude to refer to the false teachers. In other words, the 'angels that sinned' in Enoch are transposed by Jude into the false teachers teaching lies about the angels of God. Or in yet other words, the false teachers taught blasphemous lies against the angels of God and what they said about the angels actually applies to themselves.

Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jud 1:15 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.

Now, Jude quotes Enoch directly, where Enoch speaks about the impending judgment of the wicked who had blasphemed God. But remember Jude's context! Jude is using these accounts as illustrations of the character and fate of false teachers who lie about the angels. Notice what Jude says, 'And Enoch ... prophesied'. In the Greek, Jude says 'Enoch prophesied to these'. Jude is not saying Enoch successfully prophesied about the coming destruction of the wicked, but specifically prophesied about the false teachers Jude was referring to.

Green's Literal:

Jud 1:14 And "the seventh from Adam," Enoch, also prophesied to these men, saying, Behold, "the Lord came with" myriads "of His saints,"

Young's Literal:

Jud 1:14 And prophesy also to these did the seventh from Adam--Enoch--saying, `Lo, the Lord did come in His saintly myriads,

Geneva:

Jud 1:14 And Enoch also the seuenth from Adam, prophecied of such, saying, Beholde, the Lorde commeth with thousands of his Saints,

In other words, Jude uses a quote from the Book of Enoch, a favorite among the Jewish fable pushers, and applies it to the fable pushers themselves. Thus, Jude is saying that God is coming with all the heavenly host ('saints' being 'holy ones') to execute judgment against the false teachers pushing their blasphemous Jewish myths and fables about angels and who seek to make some money off their scams.

Jud 1:16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

They do not walk after Christ, they do not follow the truth, they follow their own desires. They speak great swelling words and show favoritism (Barnes supposes they admire the rich and flatter them) obviously for personal gain.

So what are they complaining and murmuring about? Those who believed that angels sinned and fell from heaven, and have been running amok causing trouble for everyone, obviously complain about their lot in life. 'The devil is attacking me, woe is me' they say, about practically everything. There is a demon behind every bush, it seems. They refuse to submit to the doctrine of Jesus Christ who 'holds ALL authority in heaven and in earth', and who taught that not one bird drops dead apart from God and that the very hairs of our head are numbered. Instead, they ascribe to satan that which is withint the Divine Providence of God. They essentially promote Dualism, Manichaeanism, Zoroastrianism, the 'good God vs the evil god'. The devil on your shoulder whispering in your ear to sin, 'the devil made me do it', blame the devil for this, that, and the other thing.

Demons everywhere, all your problems are caused by fallen angels. BUT, hey, we can take care of that problem... for a small nominal fee, of course...

In fact, the same thing exists today in much of the so called 'deliverance ministries' so popular among charismatics. They amount to travelling exorcist side shows, not much different than what is popular among Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox over in the Balkans.

The doctrines in fact are the same: Angels of God sinned, fell, became demons, trouble mankind constantly, all your woes are the fallen angels/demons, experts in these matters can take care of the problem, follow and support my ministry, etc.

In doing such, they blaspheme the angels of God. They rely on extrabibical sources for their doctrines, but those extrabiblical sources contradict the Bible, and contradict themselves, and contradict the ones who use them (as all cultic false doctrines do).

The remainder of Jude is a reminder that such things were foretold by the apostles, that false teachers and 'mockers' would come in following their own desires not heeding sound doctrine.

I notice that Jude seems to reference Zechariah chapter 3 when he says 'hating even the garment spotted by the flesh'. Zechariah 3 also contains an account of the Angel of YHVH rebuking satan by saying 'YHVH rebuke thee', in regards to the changing of Joshua's 'filthy garments' to new robes and his installation as priest.

[Esaias]

Galatians 5:3 is important in identifying the type of Jewish Gnostic heresy infiltrating the Galatian church. Paul in that verse testifies to them all that if anyone submits to proselyte circumcision, they are a debtor to do the whole law. This reminder is repeated in Galatians 3:10).

Now, if the heretics were simply trying to promote keeping God's laws, commandments, statutes, etc, then this is entirely the wrong thing to say. Any genuine legalist would simply give a hearty "Amen!" to Paul's testimony.

The truth, though, is these Judaizing heretics were actually antinomians. See Galatians 6:13. They promoted circumcision, and a Jew-centric religious authority, but did not in fact follow the whole law. Paul was pointing out to the Galatians that converting to Judaism obligates one to ALL the law, not just those parts favored by the heretics.

Jewish sectarianism was rife in the first century, with sects varying from extreme legalism to extreme antinomianism, and numerous shades in between, all under the banner of "Judaism". Jewish Gnostic sects are known historically to have combined ascetic practices with abandonment of or even wholesale repudiation of various chunks of the divine law. The Pharisees likewise, though often considered (erroneously) to be strict legalists, were actually known for countless loopholes and legal methods of justifying law breaking. Jesus several times rebuked the Pharisees for making the commandments of God of no effect through their religious traditions. Those religious traditions were often ascetic (tithes required way beyond what Moses said, Sabbath rules that were nowhere stated in the Scripture, size requirements for phylacteries and tassel-lengths, etc) yet overall the religion was an unending scheme of actual commandment breaking.

Pharisaism also included syncretistic pagan astrological and philosophical elements, as did Essene Judaism. The modern iteration of this is hasidism, kabbalah, Chabad, Frankism, Sabbateanism, etc etc.

Paul wasn't debating against people who just believed in obeying God's commandments, but rather Jewish proselytizers involved in asceticism, astrology, pagan philosophy, and practical antinomianism.

[Esaias]

More light on the Galatian/Colossian (and Roman!) heresy

Paul constantly preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In doing so, he was constantly arguing against various heresies and errors. But the largest, most wide spread, and persistent, and potentially dangerous, heresy, in his day at least, was against justification by "the works of the law". Paul did often have to preach and teach against libertinism, licentiousness, blatant lawlessness, and Epicurean style antinomism. But that is a common tendency everywhere at all times (humans innately want to indulge their desires and be fully autonomous, or self-directed, rather than submit to any law or disciplined code of ethics). However, the heresy of "justification by the works of the law" was a bigger threat to early apostolic Christianity than simple hedonism.

So what is meant by "the works of the law"? Modern antinomians (those who are either against, or who seek a substitute or replacement for (anti-) the law (nomos) of God) claim that the works of the law are the specific things commanded by the law of God directing human activity. The works of the law are the things contained in the commandments, statutes, judgments, ordinances, and laws given by God in the Bible (especially as codified in the Pentateuch). The theory goes that Jews wanted to obey the commandments of God, as a means of getting God to declare them righteous or "justified", whereas Paul and the New Testament teach one is declared righteous by simply believing in Jesus. Further, the antinomians acknowledge that some of the law of God is required or obligatory, but some of the law is not. Whenever they encounter a difference of opinion as to which parts belong to which category (obligatory, vs non obligatory), they will accuse the other of being "of the works of the law". Some go so far as to apply "works of the law" to ANY and ALL actions, and thus pontificate that "Lordship Salvation is heresy" or that "thinking baptism is necessary is works-based heretical legalism."

But is this correct? Was Paul talking about the commandments of God, saying not only should nobody seek righteousness by obeying God, but nobody should even try obeying God? Or at least, nobody should desire to keep any commandments our particular group doesn't accept as valid and obligatory? This may come as a shock to some, but in my most recent research these last few days, I have discovered that such is not at all what Paul was saying.

The term "works of the law" in Greek is ergou nomou (ergon nomos), and appears in the Authorised Version as either "works" or "deeds" "of the law". Here are all the places this term appears:

Romans 3:20
Romans 3:28
Romans 9:32
Galatians 2:16
Galatians 3:2
Galatians 3:5
Galatians 3:10

THAT'S IT. These are all occurrences of ergon nomos as a term or phrase in the Bible.

What is interesting, is the term appears in NO RABBINICAL JEWISH LITERATURE of the period. It appears to be a wholly Pauline invention.

But, Paul uses the term expecting his hearers, including Jews and Pharisees, to understand what he referred to. If he was simply referring to the actions commanded by the law of God, we would expect to see the term used as such in wider contemporary Jewish literature. But that is not the case. AND YET, Paul does not give a detailed explanation of what he is referring to, as if he expected folks to understand what he meant.

What is fascinating, is the term "works of the law" DOES occur in ESSENE literature. In fact, Qumran manuscript 4QMMT is titled, in Hebrew, "Some Pertinent Works of the Law".

Here is a link to the document in English translation: http://www.jacksonsnyder.com/arc/Translations/4qmmt.htm

I HIGHLY recommend the readers visit the link and read the document. What will become apparent is that "works of the law" is an Essene phrase referring to specific Essene halachot, or regulations (laws), claimed to be authoritative interpretations and applications of the law of God (whether the written law or some oral tradition of the elders). More importantly, the "works of the law" have to do with separation, cleanness, purity, and righteousness before God. To be pure, clean, righteous before God, a Jew must adhere to the "works of the law", that is, the sectarian interpretation and application of rules of separation from pollution, especially gentile pollution.

The gentiles were being told by Paul's opponents that faith in Jesus, baptism, and the Holy Ghost were not sufficient to become righteous in God's eyes as a member of His Covenant. They must be circumcised (become Jews) and follow sectarian "standards of holiness" (a talmud) legislated by the sectarians. This sectarian talmud or halachah was man made and went beyond the actual law of God, but was taught as "the law of Jehovah".

The Pharisees had the same problem, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men (that is, teaching man made rules as the law of God).

The fact the Galatian heretics were also going back to pagan astrologies is a strong confirmation the heretics were an Essene or Essene-like sect of Jewish Christians attempting to infiltrate the church and promote an Essene style holiness talmud to gentile believers. Galatians 2:12 touches on the idea of separation from Gentiles, a key Essene holiness standard (prevalent, though to a slightly lesser degree, among Pharisees as well). Romans, which also dealt extensively with "works of the law", addresses issues of sectarian religious days and vegetarianism (which were common among some Essene groups and other Jewish groups living outside of Judea, fearful of "gentile contamination").

So, putting it all together, it becomes clearer what Paul was arguing against: an Essene or Essene-like sectarian Jewish heretical movement within the early church, proselytizing gentile Christians into accepting the sectarian halachah ("law") as the only guarantee of salvation and membership in God's community, which was also propagating Jewish Gnostic mystical occultism, complete with unhealthy fascination with and veneration of angelic beings, a substitute religious calendar of non-Divine origin, ascetic religious practices concerning what may and may not be touched, handled, used, etc, other ascetic practices, a purity spiraling into schismatism and separation, substitution of obedience to man made law and traditions for actual obedience to the actual teachings of God's Word, all of which made Christ, conversion, the Holy Spirit, and living by faith superfluous and unnecessary.