This material can be found on http://www.aroodawakening.tv

I am reproducing it on my blog, because I am so glad to have someone teach the simple, beautiful truth about these things. I am sharing it with anyone who will listen. Enjoy!

FAQ BOOK OF ENOCH
Q: I have recently heard about a book called ―The Book of Enoch.‖ I have heard that it gives
details and explains about the fallen angels in Genesis and other passages of the Bible. I have
read that it gives detail about another aspect of the Creator‘s Calendar. What are your thoughts
on this book?
A: Michael Rood and Glenn McWilliams are of the understanding that the Enoch is not
Scripture, nor does it give filler information concerning missing pieces of the Bible. Let us be
clear that we are not prohibiting someone from reading the Book of Enoch. It is a great source
for someone researching Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic views of Second temple period time.
It may have some piece of wisdom that a person can apply to their life. However, that is where it
ends for us. It is not authoritative, it is not Scripture— it is non-canonical, pseudo-garbage. We
may offend some people with that statement, but you do not have to take our view on it.
Prayerfully study the Book of Enoch, and what various scholars say concerning it, and make the
decision for yourself.
There are many different reasons as to why the book of Enoch should not be put into the
Scriptures, or the canon.1
One reason is that there is more than one book being called the Book of Enoch. How do we
know which Book of Enoch is the correct book? What is the proof that one is better than the
other?
Charlesworth comments on the distinct nature of the books of Enoch.
The Book of Enoch is now usually designated 1 Enoch, to distinguish it from the later
Apocalypse, The Secrets of Enoch, known as 2 Enoch. The former is also called the
Ethiopic Enoch, the latter the Slavonic Enoch, after the languages of the earliest versions
extant of each respectively. No manuscript of the original language of either is known to
be in existence.
1 McDonald & Sanders, editors of The Canon Debate, 2002, The Notion and Definition of Canon by Eugene Ulrich,
page 29 defines canon as follows: “…the definitive list of inspired, authoritative books which constitute the
recognized and accepted body of sacred scripture of a major religious group, that definitive list being the result of
inclusive and exclusive decisions after serious deliberation.”; page 34 defines canon of scripture as follows: “…the
definitive, closed list of the books that constitute the authentic contents of scripture.”
McDonald & Sanders, page 32-33: Closed list; page 30: “But it is necessary to keep in mind Bruce Metzger‘s
distinction between “a collection of authoritative books” and “an authoritative collection of books.” ”
According to Canon Charles, the various elements of which our book in its present form
is made up belong to different dates. The following table will show the dates of the
different parts of the book. Canon Charles believes that these are approximately correct,
without committing himself to the certainty of this in each case:
CHAPTERS
xii.-xxxvi.
xclii.
xci. 12-17
“The Apocalypse of Weeks.” The oldest pre-Maccabæan
portions.
vi.-xi.
liv. 7-lv. 2
lx.
lxv.-lxix. 25
cvi., cvii.
Fragments of “The Book of
Noah.”
Pre-Maccabæan at the
latest.
lxxxiii.-xc. “The Dream-Visions,” 165-161 B.C.
lxxii.-lxxxii. “The Book of the Heavenly
Luminaries.”
Before 110 B.C.
xxxvii.-lxxi.
xci. 1-11, 18, 19-civ.
“The Parables,” or “Similitudes.” circa 105-64 B.C.
i.-v. The latest portion, but pre-Christian.
Chapter cv, which consists of only two verses, cannot be dated; while cviii. is in the
nature of an appendix, probably added subsequently, to the whole work.
While these dates may be regarded as approximately correct, it should be pointed out that
differences of opinion exist among scholars on the subject. Schürer holds, for example,
that, with the exception of chapters xxxvii.-lxxi. (the “Parables,” or “Similitudes”), the
entire book belongs to the period 130-100 B.C.; the “Parables” he assigns to a time not
earlier than Herod the Great. Beer thinks that the “Dream-Visions” (chapters lxxxiii.-xc.)
belong to the time of John Hyrcanus (135-105 B.C.), and he includes under the pre-
Maccabæan portions only xci. 12-17, xcii. xciii. 1-14; and holds that the rest of the book
was written before 64 B.C. Dalman maintains that it cannot be proved that the important
section xxxvii.-lxxi. (the “Similitudes”) is “the product of the pre-Christian period,”
though he fully recognizes its Jewish character. Burkitt regards the writer as “almost
contemporary” with the philosopher Posidonius (135-51 B.C.). There is thus some
diversity of opinion as to the date of the book among leading authorities. That it is, as a
whole, pre-Christian, may be regarded as definitely established. More difficult is the
question whether any portions of it are pre-Maccabæan; Charles gives various reasons for
his belief that considerable parts are pre-Maccabæan; we are inclined to agree with him,
though it may be questioned whether the last word on the subject has been spoken.2
The Apocalyptic Literature, as distinct from the Apocalyptic Movement owing to which
it took its rise, began to come into existence about the period 200-150 B.C.; at any rate,
the earliest extant example of this Literature–the earliest portions of the Book of Enoch–
belongs to this period. Works of an Apocalyptic character, continued to be written for
about three centuries; the Second (Fourth) Book of Esdras, one of the most remarkable
Apocalypses, belongs to the end of the first Christian century, approximately. There are
Apocalypses of later date, some of subordinate interest are of much later date; but the real
period of the Apocalyptic Literature is from about 200 B.C. to about A.D. 100; its
beginnings date, therefore, from a time prior to that great landmark in Jewish history, the
Maccabæan Era.3
As the various parts of the book4 clearly belong to different dates, diversity of authorship
is what one is naturally led to expect; and of this there can, indeed, be no shadow of
doubt. The author of the earliest portions was a Jew who lived, as Burkitt has shown, in
northern Palestine, in the land of Dan, south-west of the Hermon range, near the
headwaters of the Jordan. This is important, as it tends to show that the book, or books, is
really Palestinian, and one which, therefore, circulated among Jews in Palestine. “If,
moreover, the author came from the north, that helps to explain the influence the book
had upon the Religion that was cradled in Galilee.”5 Of the authors of the other three
books of which “Enoch” is made up (viz. “The Dream-Visions,” “The Book of the
Heavenly Luminaries,” and “The Similitudes”) we know nothing save what can be
gathered from their writings as to their religious standpoint.
2 Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume 1, James H. Charlesworth, Doubleday p.p. xiii- xv
3 Ibid, p. xiii
4 Ibid. p. xv Burkitt rightly insists that we should speak of the collection as the books, not the book, of Enoch. From
Jewish and Christian Apocalypses: The Schweich Lectures 1913 (Paperback) by F.C. Burkitt
5 Burkitt, op. cit., 28-30.
Both Jewish and Christian scholars, and others, date the book(s) just before the 1st century.
While claiming to be authored by the Enoch listed in the genealogy of Seth, this book was not
written until somewhere between the second century BCE and the first century CE. There are
several versions of the book of Enoch, but the Ethiopic 1 Enoch is by far the oldest and most
complete version. We may note that there was a copy of this book found among the Dead Sea
manuscripts. James Charlesworth speaks of the historical significance of the manuscript in this
fashion:
1 Enoch reflects the historical events immediately preceding and following the
Maccabean revolt. More important, however, is the light it throws upon early Essene
theology and upon earliest Christianity.6 It was used by the authors of Jubilees, the
Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Assumption of Moses, 2 Baruch, and 4 Ezra.
Some New Testament authors seem to have been acquainted with the work, and were
influenced by it, including Jude, who quotes it explicitly (1:14f).7
It should be evident from what has been said above that 1 Enoch is as dependant upon the
Old Testament as it is influential upon the New Testament and later extracanonical
literature. During the exilic and post-exilic periods, apocalyptic became a major trend in
Jewish thought. It was inherited by Christianity and remains an element in it to the
present.8 9
How is it known that the Book of Enoch does not predate 300 BCE? Based upon linguistics,
writing style and language, parchments, idioms, and phrases that are used in the various
manuscripts, scholars are able to accurately date a piece of ancient literature.
The Book of Enoch exists only in the Ethiopic Version; this was translated from the
Greek Version, of which only a few portions are extant.10 The Latin Version, which was
also made from the Greek, is not extant, with the exception of i. 9, and cvi. 1-18; the
fragment containing these two passages was discovered by the Rev. Al. R. James, of
King’s College, Cambridge, in the British Museum. The book was originally written
6 Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume 1, James H. Charlesworth, Doubleday, Pg. 8
7 Ibid.
8Ibid.
9 See Glenn McWilliams‘ Torah portion commentary week 4, for more details:
http://www.aroodawakening.tv/us/messianic-hebrew-roots-teachings/torah-study/169
10 Chaps. i.-xxxii. 6. and xix. 3-xxi. 9 in a duplicate form were discovered at Akhmîm in 1886-1887; vi.-x. 14. xv.
8-xvi. x, and viii. 4-ix. 4 in a duplicate form, have been preserved in Syncellus; lxxxix. 42-49 occurs in a Greek
Vatican MS. (No. 1809); there are also a few quotations in early Greek ecclesiastical writings; and i. 9, v. 4. xxvii. 2
are quoted in the Epistle of St. Jude 14, 15.
either in Hebrew or Aramaic; Charles thinks that chapters vi.-xxxvi., lxxxiii.-xc. were
Aramaic, the rest Hebrew. It is, however, very difficult to say for certain which of these
two languages was really the original, because, as Burkitt says, “most of the most
convincing proofs that the Greek text of Enoch is a translation from a Semitic language
fit equally well with a Hebrew or an Aramaic original”; his opinion is that Aramaic was
the original language, “but that a few passages do seem to suggest a Hebrew origin, yet
not decisively.”11
There were many writings written between the intertestamental period of the Tanach and the
Apostolic Writings most of which are considered Pseudepigraphal.12
Most of the intertestamental writings are Apocalyptic in nature and are found in various different
scrolls of the dessert communities and the Dead Sea Scrolls. With the above information, it
would be safe to say that the Book or actually Books of Enoch were at a liberal estimate written
over a period of 200 years. We also know that the average lifespan of mankind diminished
exponentially to around 70–80 years (though it fluctuated), but never did any man live past 150
years from the time of Abraham on. This is especially true in the case of the Second Temple
period in Israel. Therefore this could not have been written by Enoch found in Genesis 5:18–23.
The Second reason against the book of Enoch is the internal (content) evidence of the book itself.
First, there is the erroneous belief that angels (being the ―sons of God‖) had sex with women (the
daughters of men) and created this race of giants called nephillim. This particular issue on the
nature of ―angels‖ is larger than the scope of this article. There are some various thoughts and
debates as to who and what ―angels‖ are.13
The first time the title ―sons of Elohim‖ is used outside of our portion is in the book of Job:
Job 1:6–7 Now there was a day when the sons of Elohim came to present themselves
before YHWH, and Satan came also among them. 7And YHWH said unto Satan, Whence
comest thou? Then Satan answered YHWH, and said, From going to and fro in the earth,
and from walking up and down in it.
Job 2:1–2 Again there was a day when the sons of Elohim came to present themselves
before YHWH, and Satan came also among them to present himself before YHWH. 2And
11 Op. cit., p. 27.
12 ―Pseudepigraphical‖ describes a body of texts written between 200 B.C. and A.D. 200, and spuriously ascribed to
various prophets and kings of Hebrew Scriptures.
13 Please visit http://www.michaelroodministries.com/torah/PDF/Y1_P15_The_Three_Visitors_EDITED.pdf, Start
at page 8 for the context.
YHWH said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered YHWH, and
said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of Elohim shouted for
joy?
Three times we see reference to the title ―sons of Elohim‖ used in these passages. These passages
have also been twisted to say that this scene takes place somewhere in heaven where all the
angels gathered; as well as the chief of the fallen angels, Satan himself. But I would suggest that
there is nothing in these texts that teaches this. We know from the Torah that there were three
pilgrim feasts where all the men of the children of Israel were to go up to Jerusalem and appear
before their Creator, Deliverer, and Redeemer, bringing their first fruits, tithes, and offerings.
Exodus 23:14–17 Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto Me in the year. 15Thou shalt
keep the feast of unleavened bread: (thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days, as I
commanded thee, in the time appointed of the month Abib; for in it thou camest out from
Egypt: and none shall appear before Me empty:) 16and the feast of harvest, the firstfruits
of thy labours, which thou hast sown in the field: and the feast of ingathering, which is in
the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field. 17Three times
in the year all thy males shall appear before YHWH ELOHIM.
Deuteronomy 16:16 Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before YHWH thy
Elohim in the place which He shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the
feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before YHWH
empty.
We should note that these three feasts are connected to the agricultural life of the children of
Israel. Thus in the story of Job, I would suggest that what we are witnessing is not some
heavenly pow-wow, but the very earthly, cultic practice of keeping the three pilgrim feasts. If
this is so, then the ―sons of Elohim‖ are simply the righteous men who obediently keep the
feasts.14
Never do the Tanach or the Apostolic writings denote that ―angels‖ are the sons of God (bnei
haElohim, the descendants/sons/children of God). The term is always used in the Scriptures for
those who are faithful to the ways and words of the YHVH. In this case it is about the righteous
and godly line of Seth who became unequally yoked with the heathen woman, and ―mixing
seed‖; for example, giving one‘s seed to Molech by sleeping with the temple prostitutes. For
more insight on this subject and the nephillim please visit the following link.15
14 See Glenn McWilliams‘ Torah portion commentary week 4, for more details:
http://www.aroodawakening.tv/us/messianic-hebrew-roots-teachings/torah-study/169
15 http://www.michaelroodministries.com/torah/PDF/Y1_P4_6008_Adam_to_Noah_EDITED.pdf; start at page 9
Here are several verses to consider on the subject of who the sons/children of Elohim are.
KJV Exodus 4:22–23 22And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith YHWH, Israel is my
son, even my firstborn: 23And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and
if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.
KJV Deuteronomy 14:1 Ye are the children of YHWH your Elohim: ye shall not cut
yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.
KJV John 1:12–13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the
sons of Elohim, even to them that believe on his name: {power: or, the right, or,
privilege} 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of
man, but of Elohim.
KJV Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of Elohim, they are the sons of
Elohim.
KJV Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the
manifestation of the sons of Elohim.
KJV Philippians 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of Elohim,
without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as
lights in the world;
KJV 1 John 3:1–2 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that
we should be called the sons of Elohim: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it
knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of Elohim, and it doth not yet appear what
we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall
see him as he is.
KJV Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of
Elohim.
KJV John 11:52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in
one the children of Elohim that were scattered abroad.
KJV Romans 8:16, 21 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the
children of Elohim…21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the
bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of Elohim.
KJV Romans 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the
children of Elohim: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
KJV Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of Elohim by faith in Christ Jesus.
KJV 1 John 3:10 In this the children of Elohim are manifest, and the children of the devil:
whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of Elohim, neither he that loveth not his
brother.
KJV 1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of Elohim, when we love
Elohim, and keep his commandments.
Concerning the idea of angels having sex with women, it goes against what Yeshua said about
those who are a part of the resurrection. Yeshua said:
Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but
are as the angels of God in heaven.
Mark 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in
marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
For those of us that take part in the resurrection, we will be like the angels or angelic beings. We
are not going to be involved in imitate relationships with other people or beings, so how is it then
that this idea of the angels having intimate relations with women is even possible?
One of the main purposes of marriage is to bring forth children. If the ―angels‖ do not have sex
then how is it possible for them to have intercourse with women? A key to interpreting is that no
Scriptural interpretation should ever abandons its P‘shat- Plain Sense or the basic meaning of a
text. This means that no matter what other interpretive methods are applied to the text, the text
always retains its plain sense and has to be reckoned with in that method.
Thus, it is better to interpret the text in light of the historical, grammatical, and cultural context.
The Babylonian exile had a marked effect on Jewish angelology. We read in the Talmud: Shemot
HaMal‘akhim ‗Alu Lahem MiBavel which means “The names of the angels arose from
Babylonia.” 16
We know that in the Scriptures post-Babylonian exile of the Southern Kingdom of Judah there is
a shift into the realm ‗angelology‘ and ‗demonology‘ where there is a hierarchy of the angels and
demons, as well as names given to them. Prior to the Babylonian exile there is no such mention
or understanding.
Thirdly, from what we understand concerning the calendars used in the book(s) of Enoch, they
are at odds with the reckoning of time that YHVH uses in the scriptures. In the Scriptures, the
sun is to tell us when the days are; the moon determines the month; the stars determine what part
of the year we are in; and the Sabbath tells us what a week is.
In the book(s) of Enoch in Chapter 72:37, it says:
16 Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashanah, 1:2
37. As he (the sun) rises, so he sets and decreases not, and rests not, but runs day and
night, and his light is sevenfold brighter than that of the moon; but as regards size they
are both equal.
Is the Sun 7 times brighter than the moon? Are the Sun and Moon the same size?17
In Chapter 73:2
2. And her circumference is like the circumference of the heaven, and her chariot in
which she rides is driven by the wind…18
Is the Moon driven by the wind?
Fourthly, the book of Enoch was not considered to be part of the canon19 by the Hebrews and
Jews in Old Testament times, or by the Jewish disciples of the New Testament writers. Some
would argue that the book must be biblical since it is quoted in the New Testament. But this is a
logical fallacy. When a biblical writer quotes a non-biblical source, that quotation does
automatically elevate the source to the level of divine scripture or authority. There are similar
quotations by Yeshua, compared to a few quotations in the Talmud (or visa-versa). However,
that does not mean that we automatically believe everything that is written in the Talmud.
The biblical book of Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch in verses 14–15, ―Enoch, the seventh
from Adam, prophesied about these men: ‗See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon
thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly
acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken
against him.‘‖ But this does not mean the Book of Enoch is inspired by YHWH and should be in
the Bible. To raise the question again, which Book of Enoch is the correct one that Jude is
quoting from? Jude‘s quote is not the only quote in the Bible from a non-biblical source. One
example is Titus 1:12,20 where Paul quotes a line from Epimenides (6th–5th century B.C.) who
was held in honor on Crete as a poet, prophet, and religious reformer. The Apostle Paul‘s
quotation of Epimenides in Titus 1:12 does not mean we should give any additional authority to
Epimenides‘ writings. The same is true with Jude, verse 14. Jude quoting from Enoch 1:9 does
not indicate the entire book is inspired, or even true.
17 http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/moon_worldbook.html, http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/sun_worldbook.html,
http://home.earthlink.net/~kitathome/LunarLight/moonlight_gallery/technique/moonbright.htm
http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/the-sun/the-sun-and-the-moon/, http://www.nineplanets.org/sol.html,
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Display=Facts&Object=Moon
18 http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_3.HTM
19 McDonald & Sanders, Op. cit., footnote 1
20 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.i.xiv.html, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02101.htm
One other example that we read about this is in Acts 17:28. Shaul takes the quote, ―For in him
we live and move and have our being,‖ from Aratus‘s Phaenomena 5. He quotes this to make a
point to his Athenian audience.
The Tanach21 refers to documents that are not part of scripture but were useful for the compiler
of books like Kings, Chronicles, and Samuel. Jude 14 refers to a quotation made by antidiluvian
(before the flood) patriarch Enoch. We do not have the Book of Enoch in any existing translation
around the first century when Jude was written. Most commentators believe that the quote in
Jude comes from oral tradition.
Another logical fallacy for the Book of Enoch (and other books) is that some contend the book
was ―left out‖ of the canon. This is actually a common argument for those who would put the
2nd and 3rd Century Gnostic gospels in the canon. The idea that a book was ―left out‖ assumes it
was in there in the first place. This is circular reasoning. It assumes what needs to be proven. It‘s
like wondering why the Harley-Davidson on the street was left out of my garage. It was never
mine in the first place, but belonged to my neighbor. There are many issues concerning the
Book of Enoch and its placement in the canon Scripture. There are some who argue that
Yeshua’s own half-brother Y’hudah quotes from the Book of Enoch, therefore it is authoritative
as Scripture. First off, this argument assumes that Yehudah22 considered it to be Scripture. It may
be that Yehudah considered it authoritative, but to what degree of authority, we do not know. As
mentioned, there are similarities between the statements of Yeshua and the Talmud, but in His
own teachings He told us not to submit to the authority of manmade religion. Secondly, just
because someone quotes from an outside source in the Bible does not automatically give it the
status of Scripture or that even the person quoting it considers the book from whence it came as
authoritative.
There are some who point to the calendar who used the Book of Enoch. The ideas about the
Enochian Calendar are nothing new to Michael, or to Glenn McWilliams. They are aware that
the Enochian Calendar is a solar calendar, as well as much of the content. The book of Enoch is
not extra revelations given on Mt. Sinai to Moses, or even to Enoch.
From Charlesworth we read,
That it is not a merely scientific interest which impels the writer to give expression to his
astronomical theories may be seen from the words at the conclusion of the section:
‘Blessed are all the righteous, blessed are all those who walk in the way of righteousness,
and sin not as the sinners in the reckoning of all their days, in which the sun traverseth
the heaven, entering into and departing from the portals for thirty days . . .’ (lxxxii. 4-7).
21 Tanach is an acronym for Torah, Neviim, Ketuvim meaning Instructions, Prophets and Writings, also commonly
known as the ―Old Testament‖
22 Jude
Herein one can discern quite clearly the tendency of the writer. He desires the adoption of
the solar year, while his contemporaries wrongly followed a different reckoning, and
therefore celebrated the feasts at the wrong time.23
Where do we read in the Torah that the year begins with the sun? We do not read that. It is an
assumption that this is the case. We discuss in detail the issues of the calendar in other materials
and FAQs.
Let me reiterate that we are not prohibiting someone from reading the Book of Enoch. If you
want to that is your decision. However, for this particular ministry it is not authoritative—it is
not Scripture. Again, we may have offended some people with these statements, but you do have
to decide for yourself where you stand on this issue. If you choose to study the Book of Enoch,
please do so prayerfully and read what various scholars say concerning it. Make the decision for
yourself.
Before you finish, here is some information from some of Glenn McWilliams‘ Torah portion
commentary24 on subject of the Book of Enoch.
Torah Portion week 87
I would be remiss in my duty if I did not address the great controversy surrounding this ritual.
At the heart of the controversy is the Hebrew word azazel (ayin, zayin, aleph, zayin, lammed),
translated in many English versions of the Scriptures as ―scapegoat.‖ This Hebrew word appears
in the Scriptures only four times, all of which are in this chapter (verse 8, twice in verse 10, and
in verse 26). The literal Hebrew of the passage says that Aaron is to give one lot to YHWH and
one lot to azazel. There are basically three different views as to who or what azazel is and how
the word is to be translated. Samuel E. Balentine presents a clear view of the controversy.
First, the Septuagint and the Vulgate appear to understand the Hebrew term, aza’zel as a
combination of two words, ez, ―goat,‖ and , azal, ―to go away.‖ This rendering has been
highly influential in English translations, which frequently adopt the term scape-goat
(e.g. KJV, NAB), coined by William Tyndale in the sixteenth century to describe the
function of the animal that is sent away bearing the blame of others.
Second, the rabbis interpret, aza’zel as a geographical term that designates the place—
―a rocky precipice‖ (Rashi; cf. Targum Pseudo Jonathan)—to which the goat is sent
23 Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume 1, James H. Charlesworth, Doubleday, p. xvii
24 Awakening in the Word Subscription
http://www.aroodawakening.tv/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=ARA&Product_Code=G113&Cat
egory_Code=GMA
away. There is some support for this interpretation in Leviticus 16, which states that the
goat for Azazel is sent away into the ―wilderness‖ (v. 10) and to a ―barren region‖ (v.
22).
Third, there is strong evidence in support of understanding, aza’zel as the personal name
of a divine being. D.P. Wright has called attention to Hittite banishment rites in which
leaders of the army seek relief from a plague by decorating rams with colored wools and
then driving them into the open country as offerings of appeasement to whatever god has
caused the plague (Wright, Disposal of Impurity, pp. 50–55). By analogy, we may
understand the goat offered to ―Azazel‖ as the counterpart of the goat offered to the
―Lord‖; as at some point traditional rituals may have understood both recipients of the
offering to have been supernatural beings. Despite a number of congruencies between
such Near Eastern rites and Leviticus 16, Wright notes that in Israelite thinking Azazel is
portrayed as neither personal nor demonic. Milgrom makes the same point when he
observes that although other cultures may have regarded Azazel as a demonic figure,
Israel’s priestly legislators have effectively ―eviscerated‖ this name of any demonic
powers (Leviticus 1–16 P. 1021). It is apparent, nonetheless, that some post biblical
Jewish texts reflect the connection between Azazel and demonic figures…To cite but two
of the exemplars, both 1 Enoch 6–16 and Apocalypse of Abraham 13–14 develop a
trajectory of interpretation that links Azazel with demonic leaders who foment rebellion
against God and are punished by being banished (cf. Isa.14:12–15). Moreover, the New
Testament also likely reflects this tradition, albeit rather obliquely, by associating the one
who opposes God with the figure of Satan, who, like Azazel, will be bound and cast into
the abyss in the final judgment that ushers in the eschatological kingdom of Christ (cf.
Rev 20:1–6, 10).However, much as the New Testament may draw upon this Jewish
tradition of interpretation, it also shapes it in accordance with distinctive Christian
affirmations. In the principal New Testament discussion of the Day of Atonement,
Hebrew 6–9, the role of the ―scapegoat‖ is transformed by the work of Christ, whose
own blood, shed on a cross outside the city, bears for all eternity the sin of the people.25
Jacob Milgrom clearly sees azazel as a proper name of a previously believed-in demonic entity.
The most plausible explanation is that Azazel is the name of a demon who has been
eviscerated of his erstwhile demonic powers by the Priestly legislators. First, the goat
sent to him is not an offering; it is not treated as a sacrifice, requiring slaughter, blood
manipulation, and the like, nor does it have the effect of a sacrifice, namely, propitiation,
expiation, and so on. Moreover, an animal laden with impurities would not be acceptable
as an offering either to God or a demon(cf. v. 26). Hence, the Israelites could not have
been worshipping Azazel. Second, the goat is not the vicarious substitute for Israel
25 Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, Leviticus, Samuel E. Balentine, John Knox
Press,Pp. 130-132
because there is no indication that it was punished (e.g. put to death) or demonically
attacked in Israel‘s place.
Instead of being an offering of a substitute, the goat is simply the vehicle to dispatch
Israel‘s impurities and sins to the wilderness/netherworld (v 21). The banishment of evil
to an inaccessible place is a form of elimination amply attested in the ancient Near East.
Azazel himself is deprived of any active role: he neither receives the goat nor attacks it.
Regardless of his origins—in pre-Israelite practice he was surely a true demon, perhaps
a satyr, who ruled in the wilderness—in the Priestly ritual he is no longer a personality
but just a name, designating the place to which impurities and sins are banished. As for
the survival of the name Azazel, ―demons often survive as figures of speech (e.g.,
„gremlins‘) long after they have ceased to be figures of belief. Accordingly, the mention
of a demon‘s name in a scriptural text is no automatic testimony to living belief in him.‖
Azazel suffers the fate of all angels and spirits in Scripture. They can represent the
powers of the physical world (Ps104:4; 148:8), but they are not deified (Deut 4:19; 17:3;
Job 5:1), and their worship is prohibited (Exod 20:4-5; 22:19 [Eng 20]; Deut 5:7-8).26
C.F. Keil seems to concur with Milgrom that Azazel must be a demon of the wilderness.
Azazel, which only occurs in this chapter, signifies neither ―a remote solitude‖ nor any
locality in the desert whatever (as Jonathan, Rashi, etc. suppose); nor the ―hegoat‖(from
,az, goat, and ,azal, to turn off, ―goat departing or sent away,‖ as Symn. Theodot., the
Vulgate, Luther, and others render it); nor ―complete removal‖(Bahr, Winer, Tholuck,
etc). The words, one lot for Jehovah and one for Azazel, require unconditionally that
Azazel should be regarded as a personal being, in opposition to Jehovah. The word is a
more intense form of „azal, removit, dimovit ,and comes from „azalzel by absorbing the
liquid; like Babel from balbel (Gen 11:9),and Golgatha from gulgalta…The Septuagint
rendering is correct, o apopompaios; although in v. 10 the rendering apopompa is also
adopted, i.e., ―averruncus, a fiend or demon, whom one drives away‖ (Ewald). We have
not to think, however, of any demon whatever who seduces men to wickedness in the form
of an evil spirit as the fallen angel Azazel is represented as doing in the Jewish
writings(Book of Enoch 8:1; 10:10; 13:1ff), like the terrible field Shibe, whom the Arabs
of the peninsula of Sinai so much dread (Seetzen, i. pp. 273-4), but of the devil himself,
the head of the fallen angels, who was afterwards called Satan; for no subordinate evil
spirit could have been placed in antithesis to Jehovah as Azazel is here, but only the ruler
or head of the kingdom of demons. The desert and desolate places are mentioned
26 Leviticus: A Continental Commentary, Jacob Milgrom, Augsburg Fortress, Pp. 168-169
elsewhere as the abode of evil spirits (Isa. 13:21;34:14; Matt. 12:43; Luke 11:24; Rev.
18:2). The desert, regarded as an image ofdeath and desolation, corresponds to the
nature of evil spirits, who fell away from the primary source of life, and in their hostility
to God devastated the world, which was created good, and brought death and destruction
in their train.27
Gordon J. Wenham likewise points out the three basic positions, with heavy emphasis being
given to the idea that azazel is a goat-demon of the wilderness.
This goat is said to be for Azazel (vv. 8, 10, 26). What is meant by the term is uncertain.
Different etymologies are suggested to fit in with different interpretations. The most
popular explanation among commentators is that Azazel is the name of a demon that
lived in the wilderness. Three arguments are adduced in favor of this view. First, Azazel
is in direct contrast with the Lord (v.8). Would ―the Lord‖ (Heb. YHWH), God‘s
personal name, be contrasted with something impersonal? Second, in later Jewish
literature Azazel (Enoch 8:1; 9:6) is the name of a demon. Third, the OT looks on the
wilderness as the haunt of demons and similar creatures (Lev. 17:7; Isa 13:21; 34:14; cf.
Matt. 12:34, etc).Those who adopt this interpretation insist that the goat was not viewed
as a sacrifice or gift to Azazel. The sins of Israel were simply being sent back to their
author, Azazel, who lived in the desert. Despite this disclaimer, it is not difficult to see the
rite being misinterpreted as a gift to the demon, if Azazel is a demon‘s name. There is,
therefore, force in Hertz‘s objection to this view. ―The offering of sacrifices to ‗satyrs‘ is
spoken of as a heinous crime in the very next chapter (17:7); homage to a demon of the
wilderness cannot, therefore, be associated with the holiest of the Temple rites in the
chapter immediately preceding.‖
Hoffmann and Hertz prefer another interpretation, namely, that Azazel is a rare Hebrew
noun meaning ―complete destruction.‖
A third possibility is that Azazel means ―rocky precipice.‖ This was Rashi‘s
explanation.28
Finally, Baruch A. Levine joins the parade, seeking to interpret the word to mean ―a demon.‖
As noted in the comment to verse 8, Azazel is most likely the name of a wilderness demon,
a goat-demon, similar to the se’irim, ―goat-demons‖ mentioned in 17:7 and once
worshipped by Israelites. The identification of Azazel as the demonic ruler of the
wilderness enjoyed some currency in late antiquity. In the apocryphal book of 1 Enoch 6-
27 Keil & Delitzsch: Commentary on the Old Testament, The Pentateuch, Vol. 1, Hendrickson Publishers, Pg. 585-
586
28 The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, The Book of Leviticus, Gordon J. Wenham, William
B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, Pp. 233-234
13, Azazel (also written Azaz‘el) was one of the deposed angels who had cohabited with
human women (as recounted in Genesis 6:1-4), the archangel who was given jurisdiction
over sorcery, acts of war, and harlotry—all exemplifications of evil. Cast into the
wilderness by the archangel Raphael, Azazel was confined under jagged rocks to live
there in darkness until judgment day. In this manner he came to rule the wilderness.
Although this myth is a transparent attempt to identify Azazel by utilizing an angelology
foreign to the original, priestly conception, it nevertheless points to the image of the
wilderness as a place of sinfulness and evil, itself a very ancient belief.29
The precise meaning of Hebrew, azaz‘el, found nowhere else in the Bible, has been
disputed since antiquity and remains uncertain even to the present time. Over the
centuries, exegesis of this name has followed three lines of interpretation. According to
the first, Azazel is the name of the place in the wilderness to which the scapegoat was
dispatched; the term is taken as synonymous with, erets gezerah, ―inaccessible region‖
in verse 22. Verse 10 may also suggest this interpretation. When translated literally, it
reads: ―and send it [the he-goat] off to Azazel, to the wilderness.‖ Yoma 67b understands
azaz‘el as ―a fierce, difficult land,‖ taking the first part of the word to mean , azz,
―strong, fierce.‖ According to the second line of interpretation, Azazel describes the
goat. The word , azaz‘el is a contraction (notarikon) comprised of, ez, ―goat,‖ and, azal,
―to go away,‖ hence ―the goat that goes away.‖ This interpretation occurs in both the
Septuagint and the Vulgate and underlies the rabbinic characterization sa‘ir hamishtalleach,
―the goat that is dispatched,‖ in Mishnah Yoma 6:2. This is, in fact, the
interpretation that led to the English rendering ―scapegoat‖ (from ―escape-goat‖),
which first appeared in Tyndale’s English translation of the Bible in 1530.
Both of the above interpretations are contrived. The third line of interpretation is
preferable. Azazel in later myth was the name given to the demonic ruler of the
wilderness. The derivation of the word is uncertain, but the thematic relationship of
Azazel to the se’irim, ―goat-demons‖ of 17:7 suggests that the word ez, ―goat‖ is
represented in it. The form azaz‘el may have developed through reduplication of the
letter zayin: ez-el, ―mighty goat,‖ was pronounced ezez’el and, finally, azaz‘el.30
With all of these scholarly explanations given, let me now give a rebuttal to the idea that azazel
is a demon. First, we need to recognize the subtle argument being given by these scholars that
the Torah originated with man and developed over time, being edited by various groups
throughout the ages. In other words, these scholars are suggesting that Azazel was a demon
worshipped by the children of Israel in a pre-monotheistic time. Now, however, the priestly
29 The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus, Baruch A. Levine, Jewish Publication Society, Pg. 251
30 The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus, Baruch A. Levine, Jewish Publication Society, Pg. 102
writers of Leviticus incorporate this ancient name, although devoid of its old meaning, into the
current Temple-cleansing ceremony. All of this points to the idea that the Torah was written by
men over a period of time. This concept defies the very first words of our portion.
And YHWH spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they
offered before YHWH, and died. (Leviticus 16:1 KJV)
To suggest that azazel is the name of a once-worshipped demon that lost its meaning once the
children of Israel realized that there were no such things as demons is to deny that YHWH is the
author of the Torah. Keil bases his understanding on the idea of a balance. If one goat is for
YHWH, the other must likewise be for some divine being in order to balance the scale. He
objects to the idea that azazel may simply be some inferior goat-demon but insists it must be
Satan himself.
We have not to think, however, of any demon whatever who seduces men to wickedness in
the form of an evil spirit as the fallen angel Azazel is represented as doing in the Jewish
writings (Book of Enoch 8:1; 10:10; 13:1ff), like the terrible field Shibe, whom the Arabs
of the peninsula of Sinai so much dread (Seetzen, i.pp. 273-4), but of the devil himself, the
head of the fallen angels, who was afterwards called Satan; for no subordinate evil spirit
could have been placed in antithesis to Jehovah as Azazel is here, but only the ruler or
head of the kingdom of demons.31
This idea is completely preposterous! There is clearly no created being that can balance the scale
of YHWH! He ALONE is Elohim; He has no equal. The entire universe could not balance the
scale against YHWH. To even suggest that YHWH Himself would command that a goat be
sacrificed to Himself and that a living goat be given to a demon of any caliber is unthinkable.
These men are clearly biased in their beliefs. Modern scholarship likewise has its biases. What
none of these commentators and scholars have considered is what is right before their eyes – that
YHWH is the author of the Torah; that the word does indeed mean ―scapegoat,‖ which is quite
evident by the context; and that there is no mention of any demons in the Torah.
These scholars also completely miss the Messianic revelation being proclaimed in this ritual. Not
one of these commentators draws the connection between the death and resurrection of Yeshua
the Messiah from this powerful ritual.
Most of this talk of Azazel being a demon comes from the fourth century (B.C.E) Book of
Enoch, which is an apocalyptic pseudepigraphical32 writing. The Book of Enoch is NOT
31 Keil & Delitzsch: Commentary on the Old Testament, The Pentateuch, Vol. 1, Hendrickson Publishers, Pg. 586
32 The term Pseudepigrapha (Greek, “falsely attributed”) was given to a body of texts written between 200 B.C.
andA.D. 200 and spuriously ascribed to various prophets and kings of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Pseudepigrapha
resemble the Apocrypha in general character, yet were not included in the Bible, Apocrypha, or rabbinic literature.
Scripture. The Book of Enoch is the same source of the corrupted interpretation of Genesis 6.
The idea that the angels in heaven rebelled and married the daughters of men and raised giants is
based solely upon this fictional writing.
In those days, when the children of man had multiplied, it happened that there were born
unto them handsome and beautiful daughters. And the angels, the children of heaven, saw
them and desired them; and they said to one another, ―Come, let us choose wives for
ourselves from among the daughters of man and beget us children.‖ And Semyaz, being
their leader, said unto them, ―I fear that perhaps you will not consent that this deed
should be done, and I alone will become (responsible) for this great sin. But they all
responded to him, ―Let us all swear an oath and bind everyone among us by a curse not
to abandon this suggestion but to do the deed.‖33
Azazel is declared to be the fallen angel who teaches people how to make swords, knives, and
other corrupting things.
Azazel taught the people to make swords and armor and shields and breastplates, lessons
of angels, and he showed them the metals and their working, and arm bands and
decorations and also eye-painting of beautiful eyes, and all kinds of chosen stones and
the things fit for dyeing. 2And there was much ungodliness, and they committed sexual
immorality, and they were led astray, and they were ruined in all their ways. (1 Enoch
8:1-2 OPE)
Eventually, he was seen by the angels Michael, Surafel, and Gabriel, and judgment came upon
Azazel.
And you see all things that Azazel has done, who has taught all the unrighteousness upon
the earth; and he revealed the mysteries of the ages, the things in heaven which the
people were pursuing and learning, 7and Semiazas, who was given authority to rule over
those together with him. 8And they have gone to the people of the earth‘s daughters and
slept with them and defiled themselves, and revealed to them all sins. 9And the women
gave birth to titans, from which all the earth was filled with blood and unrighteousness.
(1 Enoch 9:6-9 OPE)
And he said to Raphael: Bind Azazel foot and hand, and cast him into the darkness,
and open the desert that is in the Dadouel, and cast him in. 5And lay down upon him
33 The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, 1 Enoch, Edited by James H.
Charlesworth, Doubleday Books, Pg. 15
rough and jagged rocks and cover him with darkness. And let him dwell there for
eternity, and cover his face so he cannot see light. 6And on the great day of judgment he
will be led into the fire. 7And the earth will be healed, which the angels have destroyed,
and you will declare the healing of the earth, so that all the people‘s children not perish
in the whole mystery, in which the Watchers also commanded their children. 8And all the
earth has been made desolate, having been destroyed in the works of the teaching of
Azazel; and against him write all (his) sins. (1 Enoch 10:4-8 OPE)
It is quite interesting to note that Azazel was bound hand and foot and thrown off a cliff, after
which jagged rocks were thrown down upon him to cover him. The Torah is explicitly clear that
the scapegoat is to be presented alive before YHWH and then released alive.
But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before
YHWH, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the
wilderness. (Leviticus 16:10 KJV)And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities
unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. (Leviticus 16:22
KJV)
It is interesting to note that prior to the writing of the Talmud, the practice of releasing the
scapegoat had changed. The Talmud reports that both goats were killed. The first goat was a sinoffering
sacrifice, its fats placed upon the Altar. The second goat, however, was led out of the
camp to a cliff where it was bound and thrown over the cliff and stoned.13 Because of this
change to the Torah, the proclamation of the death and resurrection of the Messiah has been
distorted or lost to the eyes of those who need it most. We would do well to heed YHWH‘s
warning against adding to or omitting from the Torah.
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought
from it, that ye may keep the commandments of YHWH your Elohim which I command
you. (Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV)
Torah portion week 109
The first report of the spies is good and truthful, but the second report is false and evil. One can
only attribute such lying and deceitful behavior to cowardice, faithlessness, and sin. In the first
report of the spies, they give Moses the factual answers he is searching for. In their first response
the spies report just the facts; however, after Caleb encourages the people to go up and take the
land YHWH has promised to give them, the spies resort to mixing their own opinions and
interpretations with the facts. This second report can be described as the mixed fruit of the Tree
of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The spies discourage the Israelites by exaggeration and fairy
tales. These faithless cowards blatantly lie to their brethren, saying they saw ―giants‖ in the land.
The Hebrew word translated as ―giant‖ is the word nephil (nun, fey, yud, lammed), which is the
same word used in Genesis 6.
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters
were born unto them, 2that the sons of Elohim saw the daughters of men that they were
fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And YHWH said, My Spirit shall
not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and
twenty years. 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the
sons of Elohim came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the
same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:1-4 KJV)
Let me issue a very clear warning NOT to be confounded by translations. The Hebrew word
nephil does not mean ―giant.‖ The English word ―giant‖ conjures up images of Jack and the
Beanstalk and other such fairy tales of giants. The root of the Hebrew word nephil means ―to
fall‖; thus, we may describe these people as ―fallen‖ people. Not fallen from heaven, as Enoch
suggests, but morally fallen. This is how Leviticus chapter 18 describes the inhabitants that
defiled the land. It is the definition of the word nephil as ―fallen‖ that has led people to believe
the fairy tale found in the book of Enoch describing the fall of the angels.
These verses (Genesis 6:1-4) have been the source of a great deal of controversy over the years.
Many people teach and believe that these verses describe part of a great cosmic battle that
includes the fall of angels from heaven and the corruption of human genetics, which brought
forth a race of giants upon the earth. I adamantly disagree with this view and believe it to be a
great corruption of the Scriptures. The teaching that the ―sons of Elohim‖ are angels while the
―daughters of men‖ are human women comes not from the Scriptures but from the
pseudepigraphical34 book of 1 Enoch. While claiming to be authored by the Enoch listed in the
genealogy of Seth, this book was not written until somewhere between the second century BCE
and the first century CE. There are several versions of the book of Enoch, but the Ethiopic 1
Enoch is by far the oldest and most complete version. We should note that there was a copy of
this book found among the Dead Sea manuscripts. James Charlesworth speaks of the historical
significance of the manuscript in this fashion:
1 Enoch reflects the historical events immediately preceding and following the
Maccabean revolt. More important, however, is the light it throws upon early Essene
theology and upon earliest Christianity.35 It was used by the authors of Jubilees, the
Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Assumption of Moses, 2 Baruch, and 4 Ezra.
Some New Testament authors seem to have been acquainted with the work and were
influenced by it, including Jude, who quotes it explicitly (1:14f).36
34 “Pseudepigraphical” describes a body of texts written between 200 B.C. and A.D. 200 and spuriously ascribed
tovarious prophets and kings of the Hebrew Scriptures.
35 The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume 1, James H. Charlesworth, Doubleday, Pg. 8
36 Ibid.
It should be evident from what has been said above that 1 Enoch is as dependent upon
the Old Testament as it is influential upon the New Testament and later extracanonical
literature. During the exilic and post-exilic periods, apocalyptic became a major trend in
Jewish thought. It was inherited by Christianity and remains an element in it to the
present.37
The book of Enoch can be broken down into five major sections.
1. The Book of Watchers Chapters 1–36
2. The Book of the Similitudes Chapters 37–71
3. The Book of Astronomical Writings Chapters 72–82
4. The Book of Dream Visions Chapters 83–90
5. The Book of the Epistle of Enoch Chapters 91–107
It is in the first section, the Book of Watchers, that we encounter this version of the events of
Genesis chapter 6.
And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born
unto them beautiful and comely daughters. 2And the angels, the children of the heaven,
saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‗Come, let us choose us wives from
among the children of men and beget us children.‘ 3And Semjaza, who was their leader,
said unto them: ‗I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to
pay the penalty of a great sin.‘ 4And they all answered him and said: ‗Let us all swear an
oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do
this thing.‘ 5Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations
upon it. 6And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the
summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and
bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. (1 Enoch 6:1-6)
The idea that the ―sons of Elohim‖ are angels is clearly an ―extra-biblical‖ concept. This
―angelic‖ understanding is a foreign concept brought from outside the Scriptures and applied to
the text of Genesis 6. So far, in all that we have studied, there has been absolutely no mention of
angels, nor is there anything in this text that requires such an understanding. As we have already
stated above, this is the story of two seeds or lines. We have already demonstrated that the
righteous line of Seth begins with Elohim and the creation of Adam. This makes Elohim the
father of Adam and his line (I warn against the idea of a biological fathering. Adam was created,
37 Ibid.
not begotten). Metaphorically, however, the line of Seth begins with Elohim as its beginning
point. The genealogy contains all ―sons‖ as its focus. This seems to indicate that the line of Seth
is, in fact, referring to the ―sons of Elohim.‖ Many point to the use of this title elsewhere and
claim it applies to angels. Let us look at the other biblical uses of this title and determine whether
indeed this is the proper understanding.
The first time the title ―sons of Elohim‖ is used outside of Genesis 6 is in the book of Job.
Now there was a day when the sons of Elohim came to present themselves before YHWH,
and Satan came also among them. 7And YHWH said unto Satan, Whence comest thou?
Then Satan answered YHWH, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from
walking up and down in it. (Job 1:6-7 KJV)
Again there was a day when the sons of Elohim came to present themselves before
YHWH, and Satan came also among them to present himself before YHWH. 2And YHWH
said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered YHWH, and said, From
going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. (Job 2:1-2 KJV)
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of Elohim shouted for joy? (Job
38:7 KJV)
Three times in these passages we see reference to the title ―sons of Elohim.‖ These passages
have been twisted to say that this scene takes place somewhere in heaven where all the angels,
including the chief of the fallen angels, Satan himself, gathered. I would suggest, however, that
there is nothing in these texts that teaches this. We know from the Torah that there are three
agricultural pilgrim feasts where all the men of the children of Israel go up to Jerusalem and
appear before their Creator, Deliverer, and Redeemer with their firstfruits, tithes, and offerings.
Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto Me in the year. 15Thou shalt keep the feast of
unleavened bread: (thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded thee, in
the time appointed of the month of the aviv; for in it thou camest out from Egypt: and
none shall appear before Me empty:) 16and the feast of harvest, the firstfruits of thy
labours, which thou hast sown in the field: and the feast of ingathering, which is in the
end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field. 17Three times in
the year all thy males shall appear before Adon YHWH. (Exodus 23:14-17 KJV)
Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before YHWH thy Elohim in the place
which He shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in
the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before YHWH empty. (Deuteronomy
16:16 KJV)
We should note that these three feasts are connected to the agricultural life of the children of
Israel. In the story of Job, therefore, I would suggest that what we are witnessing is not some
heavenly pow-wow but the very earthly, cultic practice of keeping the three pilgrim feasts. If this
is so, then the ―sons of Elohim‖ are simply the righteous men of the children of Israel who
obediently keep the feasts. Satan, on the other hand, is not a name but a description. The Hebrew
word satan (sin, tet, nun) simply means ―adversary‖ and is even applied to the ―angel‖ or
messenger of YHWH.
And Elohim‘s anger was kindled because he went: and the messenger of YHWH stood in
the way for an adversary (satan) against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his
two servants were with him. (Numbers 22:22 KJV)
And the messenger of YHWH said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these
three times? Behold, I went out to withstand (satan) thee, because thy way is perverse
before me. (Numbers 22:32 KJV)
These are the only appearances of the term satan in the Torah. It is interesting that in the book of
Job, when YHWH asks the adversary where he has been, the adversary describes himself as a
vagabond going to and fro throughout the earth. Could this be a spiritual descendant of Abel‘s
adversary, Cain, the vagabond?
Behold, Thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from Thy face
shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to
pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. (Genesis 4:14 KJV)
We should remember that the earth would not produce for Cain or his descendants; therefore,
they were forced to roam. Some would contend that this was the beginning of nomadic life. What
we witness in the book of Job is the contrast between the children of Elohim, who bring of the
produce of their land up to Jerusalem three times a year; and the descendants of Cain, who, in
opposition to the righteous seed, wander about looking for every opportunity to oppose the line
of Seth.
We should also note that the title ―the sons of Elohim‖ is used in the Messianic Scriptures
exclusively for those who have put their faith in Yeshua the Messiah and are led by the Spirit of
Elohim.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of Elohim, even
to them that believe on his name. (John 1:12 KJV) For as many as are led by the Spirit of
Elohim, they are the sons of Elohim. (Romans 8:14 KJV)
For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of
Elohim. (Romans 8:19 KJV)
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of Elohim:
but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (Romans 9:8 KJV)
For ye are all the children of Elohim by faith in Messiah Yeshua. (Galatians 3:26 KJV)
That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of Elohim, without rebuke, in the midst
of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.
(Philippians 2:15 KJV)
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called
thesons of Elohim: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not.
2Beloved, now are we the sons of Elohim, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be:
but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he
is. (1 John 3:1 KJV)
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of Elohim.(Matthew
5:9 KJV)
The title ―sons of Elohim,‖ therefore, does not belong to angels (messengers) but to spiritual
man. This is consistent with all we have studied so far in the Torah. The title ―daughters of men,‖
on the other hand, belongs to the genealogy of Cain. With its six generations, which begin not
with Elohim but with Cain and end with a daughter, there should be no difficulty understanding
that the title ―daughters of men‖ is a clear reference to the line of Cain. What the Torah is
teaching us in this story is the sad reality of the further mixing of the seed. Cain was no longer
considered among the generations of Adam; thus, the line of Seth was a brand new line. The
leaven of murderous and carnal Cain had been purged from the line but not from the world. The
tares and the wheat would grow together in the world, and in this case, even cross-pollinate. The
righteous line failed to keep itself holy and separate. Instead of seeking righteous wives from
among the daughters of the line of Seth, these righteous men became unequally yoked with
sensual women from the line of Cain and vice versa. The point of this story is the righteous line‘s
failure to make distinctions. This failure on the part of the righteous resulted in the corruption of
the line of Seth. Without a pure line, there was little hope for the restoration of the image of
YHWH or His creation. We witness Elohim‘s judgment on such failures elsewhere in the
Scriptures.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for
darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20 KJV)
Her priests have violated My law, and have profaned Mine holy things: they have put no
difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the
unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from My Sabbaths, and I am profaned
among them. (Ezekiel 22:26 KJV)
This failure on the part of the righteous to protect their sanctity would again be their downfall
later in the Torah.
And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the
daughters of Moab. 2And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their elohim: and
the people did eat, and bowed down to their elohim. 3And Israel joined himself unto
Baalpeor: and the anger of YHWH was kindled against Israel. (Numbers 25:1-3 KJV)
As for the giants, we should note that the Torah clearly states that these ―giants‖ were already in
the land in those days. There is absolutely nothing in the text that states that these ―giants‖ were
the result of an unholy coupling of angels and humans. We should also note that the word
―giants‖ is a translation of the Hebrew word nephil (nun, fey, yud, lammed), the plural of which
is nephilim. This word comes from the root word naphal (nun, fey, lammed), which means ―to
fall‖ or ―to fall upon.‖ The concept of the word nephil or nephilim is that of one who falls or
pounces upon another. It is the word used to describe a person who exploits others, such as a
tyrant. These tyrants or morally fallen men are further described as being mighty men of
―renown.‖ The Hebrew states simply that these ―tyrants‖ were men of ―name.‖ Since these men
were tyrants or morally fallen, they can be better understood as being infamous.
Thus, the passage does not describe great heroes but great morally depraved, infamous tyrants.
This translation of the passage is consistent with the text that follows.
There were TYRANTS in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of
Elohim came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same
became mighty men which were of old, men of INFAMY. 5And YHWH saw that the
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of
his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented YHWH that He had made man on
the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart. (Genesis 6:4-6)
We may recall that the world of Noah was corrupt and violent.
And YHWH saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5 KJV)
The earth also was corrupt before Elohim, and the earth was filled with violence.
(Genesis 6:11 KJV)
The description given is not of mythical giants or demigods but of fallen and corrupt men. As
long as there was a distinct and righteous line in the world, there was light in the darkness and
hope of one who would come and deliver all humanity from the bondage that resulted from
Adam and Chava‘s sin. As long as there was a distinct and righteous line in the world, the image
of Elohim, though diminished, was still seen. But when this righteous line was corrupted, the
world sunk into a great and wicked darkness. So corrupt was the wheat that there was little
distinction between it and the tares; therefore, YHWH cast His judgment upon the face of the
earth.
In the report of the spies concerning the nephilim in the land of Canaan, we once again witness
the mixture of fact with fiction. Just as Adam blurred and distorted the image of YHWH by
mixing divine revelation knowledge with his own sensual knowledge, and just as the sons of
Elohim (the righteous line of Seth) distorted the image of YHWH by mixing with the daughters
of men (the unrighteous line of Cain), so too the spies in our portion distort the reputation of the
promised land by mixing the facts that they saw with the fiction generated by their fear and
unbelief. We know that there were men of great stature in biblical times, just as there are men of
great stature today. The descendants of Anak, the Anakim, are described as being a ―great and
tall‖ people.
A people great and tall, the children of the Anakims, whom thou knowest, and of whom
thou hast heard say, Who can stand before the children of Anak! (Deuteronomy 9:2 KJV)
This does not, however, make them out to be giant, semi-divine beings. King Og and Goliath and
his sons are all purported to be very big and powerful men of war.
For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of rephaim (not nephilim);behold,
his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? Nine
cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.
(Deuteronomy 3:11 KJV)
And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of
Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. (1 Samuel 17:4 KJV)
Let us remember, however, that these ―men‖ were simply ―men,‖ not demigods or a mixture of
human beings and angels. Let us also recall that all of these men were defeated in battle by the
children of Israel, and they all died like men.
For those who still desire to hold on to the understanding of the nephilim as hybrids resulting
from a cross between fallen angels and human beings, let me remind you that even if this
Enochian fairy tale were true, every one of the nephilim would have been destroyed in the flood
and, therefore, could not possibly have been in the land of Canaan when the spies entered the
land. Let us also recall the fact that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as the fathers of the
twelve tribes, all lived in the land of Canaan, and not once throughout the whole patriarchal
narrative do we read any such description of the inhabitants in the land of their sojourning. It is
clear that the nephilim, as declared by the book of Enoch, could not possibly have existed in the
land of Canaan at the time of Moses. It is for this reason that the report of the spies is called evil
and false.
Here are some other excellent sources concerning the Scriptures and the Calendar issues:
Torah Portion week 4
http://www.michaelroodministries.com/torah/PDF/Y1_P4_6008_Adam_to_Noah_EDITED.pdf
The Ancient Torah Cycle
http://aroodawakening.tv/messianic-hebrew-roots-teachings/faq#torahcycle
Teachings to consider:
Pure Path of Torah
http://www.michaelroodministries.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=ARA
&Product_Code=G115&Category_Code=GMWT
From the Mountain
http://www.aroodawakening.tv/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=ARA&Produc
t_Code=G111&Category_Code=GMAUDIO
Awakening in the Word Subscription
http://www.aroodawakening.tv/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=ARA&Produc
t_Code=G113&Category_Code=GMA
The Creator‘s Calendar and the Restoration of All Things
http://www.aroodawakening.tv/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=ARA&Produc
t_Code=D020&Category_Code=CAL
The Creator‘s Calendar Controversy ―Coffee Talk‖
http://www.aroodawakening.tv/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=ARA&Produc
t_Code=D200&Category_Code=CAL

Advertisements