Enoch is a snare

I've heard proponents of the heretical  book of Enoch try to justify adding the false book by saying that Jude mentions a prophecy not found in scripture. 

1 Enoch 1:9 - And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of <His> holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy <all> the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works <of their ungodliness> which they have ungodly committed, <And of all the hard things which> ungodly sinners <have spoken against Him.  

Aside from not being a direct word for word quote which they also claim, isnt this really speaking of the prophecy of Psalms 149 which IS actual scripture and not counterfeit 

6The high praises of God shall be in their mouths,
And a two-edged sword in their hands,
7To execute vengeance on the nations,
And punishment on the peoples,
8To bind their kings with chains,
And their dignitaries with shackles of iron,
9To execute against them the judgment written.
This is an honor for all His godly ones.
Praise the LORD!

People want to say that "Jude quotes enoch".  The reality is that the fake book that is enoch, quotes Jude in an attempt to legitimize itself. Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary  puts Enochs authorship between the 2nd and the 10 century A.D.!!!
It goes so far to say that its nothing more that a home - grown-product of slavic religious culture. It wasn't written by Enoch in the Bible any more than I could change the name of Wilber to Moses and say that Exodus quotes Charlotts web.  Setting that aside and just for a second, lets entertain the notion that Enoch FRAGMENTS, did I forget to mention that the dead sea scrolls only found fragments, not an actual book of enoch.... but lest say that the scraps of text we have WERE in Enoch... so what. That doesn't make Enoch scripture. 

Lets look at this verse in Isaiah 

 Isaiah 49:7
“Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.”

Now, we have to decide  on if we're going to make the book of mormon scripture because this verse:

 1 Nephi 21:7 
7 Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nations abhorreth, to servant of rulers: Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the Lord that is faithful.

Its the same scripture.  We don't say that Isaiah quoted the book of mormon. We don't use the book of Isaiah to legitimize another heretical book that is not part of the cannon that leads people astray in how they rationalize and filter the ACTUAL Word of God. 

What about this in Matt 4

5 Then the devil *took Him along into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and he *said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written:‘He will give His angels orders concerning You’;  and  ‘On their hands they will lift You up, So that You do not strike Your foot against a stone.’”

Do we then say HMMM this Devil guy is quoting scripture therefore EVERYTHING He says should be the authoritative word of God? 

NO.



I go over the sons of God extensively in a separate post found here --> X <-- Click here

Some try to argue that Yeshua "quoted Enoch"

They say that Enoch 48:1

 In that place I beheld a fountain of righteousness, which never failed, encircled by many springs of wisdom. Of these all the thirsty drank, and were filled with wisdom, having their habitation with the righteous, the elect, and the holy.

is quoted in 

 John 4:14
14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never be thirsty; but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life.”

but John 4:14 is citing any number of passages already in the scripture 

• Is 12:3  Therefore you will joyously draw water From the springs of salvation.
  
  
• Is 55:1 “You there! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters;  And you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk  Without money and without cost.

• Is 58:11 And the Lord will continually guide you,  And satisfy your desire in scorched places,  And give strength to your bones;  And you will be like a watered garden, And like a spring of water whose waters do not fail.

• Jer 2:13 “For My people have committed two evils: They have abandoned Me, The fountain of living waters, To carve out for themselves cisterns, Broken cisterns That do not hold water.

• Psalms 36:8-9 They drink their fill of the abundance of Your house; And You allow them to drink from the river of Your delights.  9 For the fountain of life is with You; In Your light we see light.

Yeshua didn't consider Enoch scripture. The Tanak of the old testament cannon was in place at Yeshua's time. 

Paul quotes from two Greek poets–Epimenides and Aratus in Acts 17:27-28

that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’

Does this mean that Greek poems about zeus are now scripture? We SHOULD be able to immediately see what horrible logic that is. One justification and now we have a pantheon of false gods. 



The book of Enoch contains clear use of biblical passages from Isaiah, Zecheriah, and Ezekiel which were clearly written long after Enoch died.
Mt Sinai was mentioned in Enoch, which he wouldn't have known by name. . 

What about the argument " But the Ethiopian church had it in their Bibles" 
The Ethiopian church was judged as heretical in 451 A.D. and considered the secular historian Josephus as scripture. 

Daniel Kipton Musson  from Back2Center Ministries shared this regarding the Canon.

First, the Jews themselves never accepted the Deuterocanonical books that Orthodox and Catholic Christians accept.
-We actually see the concept of a closed canon of the OT within the Intertestamental period between Malachi and Matthew.
-The introduction to Sirach/Ecclesiasticus by the author introduces the Law, Prophets, Minor prophets as the Canon.
-And we see in 2 Macc. 2:13-14 where the Scriptures themselves are inside of the temple.
-And Josephus in his work to Apion lists the 22 Books (Jews counted differently their books, they never separated it into 1 & 2, 3, 4 etc.).
-Philo of Alexandria does the same as well. The council of Jamnia in 90 AD which was on the canon never did as well.
-Now going on to the Christians. Both the earliest list of canons by Melito of Sardis and Origen are recorded in Eusebius "Ecclesiastical History" and mentions the same canon as the Jews.
-Eusebius himself gives list of the books which are canonical, spurious, not listed, etc. And mentions the same amount of both OT and NT books.
-Cyril of Jerusalem in his catechetical lectures in 350 AD list the same as well.
-Hilary of Poitiers list OT books. Never mentions them. Circa 360 AD.
-The Synod of Laodicea in 363 AD had to do with the Canon of Scripture, never mentions them.
-Athanasius in his 39th Festal epistle mentions the entire canon, not a single one of them.
-In the 380's, you had Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, Amphilocius of Iconium, and Epiphanius of Salamis give their canons and not one of those books are mentioned.
-Jerome, the editor and creator of the Latin Vulgate, was very learnt into Hebrew and never accepted those books as canonical.
-Augustine, at first did believe those books to be Scriptural/canonical, and as a result both the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) were influenced by him to accept them.
-But later on, came to view them as historical rather than prophetical. See "City of God: Book 18, Chapter 36"
-Rufinus never accepted them. Neither did Leontius of Byzantium, Catalogue of the Sixty Books, Stichometery of Nicephorus, John of Damascus etc.

 

Compiled here from several references are refutations of the heretical books of Enoch, I collaborated with Joseph Schauer This part is his comparisons. 

☠️Enoch 6:1-6

1 And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. 2 And the Angels, the children of heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another, "Come, let us choose us men from among he children of men and beget us children." 3 And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them "I fear ye will not agree indeed to do this deed, and I alone will have to pay the penalty for this great sin." 4 And they all answered him and said "Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing." 5 Then swear they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. 6 And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it.

Enoch is referring to the same time frame in Genesis 6:1. We know this because Genesis 6:1 says pretty much the same statement that Enoch 6:1 makes. Genesis 6:1 tells us that the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them daughters just like in Enoch 6:1. Now in Chapter 8, we see a contradictory statement. Let's have a look.

☠️Enoch 8:1

And Azâzêl taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures.

📖Genesis 4:20-22

20 Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. 22 Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the FORGER OF ALL INSTRUMENTS BRONZE AND IRON. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

In Enoch 8:1 we are told that Azâzêl taught men how to work metals. Yet Genesis 4:20-22, before men multiplied on the earth like in Enoch 6:1 and Genesis 6:1, we are told that Tubal-Cain was a forger of all instruments bronze and iron. That is a contradiction to the Book of Enoch that leaves us in a position to choose either Torah or Enoch. I think it is safe to say that Torah doesn't contradict itself, Enoch does.

This Book is loaded with passages which contradict Scripture .

Contradiction #2

☠️Enoch 10:1

1 Then said The Most High, the Holy and Great One spake, and sent Uriel to the son of alameda, and said to him: 2 "Go to Noah and tell him in my name Hide thyself!" And reveal to him the end that is approaching: that the whole earth will be destroyed, and a deluge is about to come upon the whole earth, and will destroy all who is on it.

Ok, here in Enoch we are told that The Most High is about to destroy the earth.

☠️Enoch 10:8

8 And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azâzêl: to ascribe him all sin.

Here we are told that Azâzêl is responsible for all sin. But this is not what scripture teaches. Genesis 3 tells us Adam was responsible for all sin. And the Book of Romans confirms this as well.

📖Romans 5:12

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

The contradictions don’t stop there.

Contradiction #3

📖Genesis 6:13-16
13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth. 14 Make yourself an ark of gopher wood. Make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. 15 This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits. 16 Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above, and set the door of the ark in its side. Make it with lower, second, and third decks.

Here we are told that God commanded Noah to build the ark. But what does Enoch say?

☠️Enoch 67:1-2
1 And in those days the word of God came unto me, and he said unto me: "Noah, thy lot has come up before me, a lot without blame, a lot of love and uprightness. 2 And now the Angels are making a wooden building, and when they have completed that task

There is a false teaching going around that originates from the Book of Enoch which postulates that reading and writing are part of the dark arts.

☠️Enoch 68:9-16The name of the fourth is Penemue: he discovered to the children of men bitterness and sweetness; And pointed out to them every secret of their wisdom. He taught men to understand writing, and [the use of] ink and paper. Therefore numerous have been those who have gone astray from every period of the world, even to this day. For men were not born for this, thus with pen and with ink to confirm their faith; Since they were not created, except that, like the angels, they might remain righteous and pure. Nor would death, which destroys everything, have effected them; But by this their knowledge they perish, and by this also [its] power consumes [them].

Here we are told that the Angel Penemue taught men how to understand writing. And that because of reading and writing, many have gone astray because writing was never meant to be for men and that writing makes men unrighteous and impure. It even appears to have stated that death itself would have never affected us if we never learned how to read and write. Let me make something crystal clear. Writing and reading does not make anyone unrighteous or impure in even the slightest sense. Writing is not part of the Dark Arts that fallen Angels taught men like this absurd passage teaches. We do not die because we know how to read and write either, we die because of our fallen sin nature which still curses and consumes us. Nowhere in Gods Law was writing ever forbidden, declared sin, nor are we told it could even make somebody ceremonially unclean. That is not a teaching from the Bible, that is a teaching from men. None of the patriarchs or prophets ever warned about the dangers of reading or writing. And as a matter of fact, The Most High God Himself wrote the 10 commandments on stone before he handed them to Moses. God would never do anything unrighteous or impure. This is one of the most blasphemous teachings that I have ever heard. To say that the men who gave us the written word of God, which was written by the Prophets, Apostles, Holy men of God and even God Himself by the power and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, were unrighteous, impure and were engaging in one of the Dark Arts given to us via fallen angels is blasphemous and heretical in every sense. This is one of the many false teachings of the Book of Enoch that adds to Scripture. Let’s look and see what the Bible has to say about adding words to Scripture.

📖Deuteronomy 4:2

You shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

📖Deuteronomy 12:32

What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

📖Revelation 22:18-19

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

Will a Holy and Elect race from Heaven mix their seed with the children of men after the judgment?

I guess according to the Book of Enoch, a Holy and Elect race from the upper heavens will one day mix their seed with the children of men.

☠️Enoch 39:1

In those days shall the elect and holy race descend from the upper heavens, and their seed shall then be with the children of men. Enoch received books of indignation and wrath, and books of hurry and agitation.

Interesting considering the fact that proponents of the Book of Enoch claim that the entire book was written because Angels had sex with women and that act was a great sin and act of rebellion against God. Then, in Enoch 39:1 we are told that a Holy and Elect race will descend from Heaven (even though HUMANS are in SHEOL and Matthew 22 says the ANGELS IN HEAVEN DONT MARRY WOMEN) and mix their seed (a rebellious sin) in women. The contradictions in the Book of Enoch are as endless as they are silly.

-

Daniel 7:13 I kept looking in the night visions,  And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a son of man was coming,  And He came up to the Ancient of Days  And was presented before Him.

 Enoch 48, says this figure is a light to the nations, and all who dwell on the earth will worship him and the righteous will have salvation in his name. Who does Enoch say the son of man, chosen one is in Chapter 71?

Enoch.

Not Yeshua. Enoch.

Enoch teaches that Enoch is the messiah.  Its a book LITERALLY teaching falsehood. 

PostMil and Z14

From Raymond Hoeffs


Some inconsistencies between 70CE and Zechariah 14. —Z14 Yahweh gathers all the nations against Jerusalem 70CE Yahweh Gathered Rome led by Titus and Vespasian. They had soldier from other nations in their auxiliary camp, sure, but that was Rome being rallied. Parthia, for example, a nation inside the Roman sphere of influence, did not come against Jerusalem.
—Z14 The city shall be taken, The houses rifled, And the women ravished


70CE matches this general description of all ancient warfare —Z14 Half of the city shall go into captivity, 70CE most of the city’s inhabitants were killed. Only a tithe was sent into captivity.

 —Z14 But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city.


70CE the Jews in Jerusalem were completely cut off from Jerusalem. Rome occupied the city with the 10th Legion. Only 60 years later do we see the Bar Kochba rebels gather to Jerusalem to try and stop the Romans from building a temple to Jupiter in Jerusalem.

Z14 Then the Lord will go forth And fight against those nations, As He fights in the day of battle.

 

—❌70CE Yahweh did not go forth and fight the “all the nations” which he gathered to fight against Jerusalem. There are two accounts of heavenly armies fighting. One from Josephus and another from Tacitus, but these heavenly armies did not oppose and fight against the armies of Rome.

 

Z14 And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, Which faces Jerusalem on the east. And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two, From east to west, Making a very large valley; Half of the mountain shall move toward the north And half of it toward the south.

 

—❌70 CE the mount of Olives was mot split in any way. Not literally and not symbolically by Rome. The Mount of Olives was not even attacked by Rome. The Mount of Olives is not analogous to the Nile river prophetically “going dry” as when Isaiah 19 and Ezekiel 30 prophecy Nebuchadnezzar will destroy Egypt. The Mount of Olives isn’t something that remotely compares. If it said Jerusalem will be split in half, then sure, that would work better, but it doesn’t.

 

Z14 Then you shall flee through My mountain valley, For the mountain valley shall reach to Azal. Yes, you shall flee As you fled from the earthquake In the days of Uzziah king of Judah.

 

—❌70 CE, The language to this point in Zechariah 14 is about an actual city being conquered by an actual armies. It’s already been shown that the Mount of Olives prophesied about here =\= a Nile River kind of prophetic image, and this goes even further. Zechariah compares this event to an actual time in history when people literally fled the city on foot during an earth quake. It says people will actually flee between the cleft of the split mountains. It’s impossible to get around this being literal. I’ve been on the Mount of Olives. It ain’t split.

 

Z14 Thus YAHWEH my God will come, And all the saints with You.

 

—❌70CE Yahweh did not come with all His saints against Jerusalem. Yahweh came in power and “in the clouds” but not with “all His Saints.” Paul quotes this passage in 2 Thessalonians in regard to the 2nd coming of Messiah. If you take a preterist view of 2 Thessalonians 2, then the logical conclusion is full preterism.

 

Consider all of these event have not been fulfilled, and Paul quote this passage about the return of Christ, It makes the most sense to see Z14 as about the second coming.

 

Z14 It shall come to pass in that day That there will be no light; The lights will diminish. 7 It shall be one day Which is known to the Lord-- Neither day nor night. But at evening time it shall happen That it will be light.

 

—✅70CE, again, and you’ve shown this well, there is general conquest imagery in Z14 which can be attributed to any time Yahweh came in the clouds. This imagery lines up with 70CE, but a couple pieces lining up with an event isn’t the same as it prophesying the event.

 

 Z14 And in that day it shall be That living waters shall flow from Jerusalem, Half of them toward the eastern sea And half of them toward the western sea; In both summer and winter it shall occur.

 

—❌70CE, the Partial Preterist and Postmillenial view point is forced to see Jerusalem literal in part of the passage and figurative here with no clear reason why. The language about Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, people taken captive, etc has been literal all through the text. The things which can be proven to have not historically actually happened the PPandPostmil perspective spiritualizes. It’s really bad interpretation. This hasn’t happened yet.

 

—Z14 8 in that day… 9 And Yahweh shall be King over all the earth. In that day it shall be-- "The Lord is one," And His name one.

 

—❌70CE Yahweh has not come with all His saints and Yahweh is not reigning over all the earth after having come to earth.

 

Z14 All the land shall be turned into a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem. Jerusalem shall be raised up and inhabited in her place from Benjamin's Gate to the place of the First Gate and the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananeel to the king's winepresses

 

—❌70CE again, the consistent interpretation see Jerusalem and Judea as the actual places. This has clearly not happened yet. This goes into such specific detail about the region which is made level. Giba to Remmon has not be made a plain. Jersualem was not inhabited when Yahweh “came in the clouds” against Jerusalem in 70CE.

 

Z14 The people shall dwell in it; And no longer shall there be utter destruction, But Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

 

❌70 CE did not see Jerusalem safely inhabited in any way shape or form. There is also still utter destruction. The Bar Kochba revolution is a perfect example.

 

Z14 And this shall be the plague with which the Lord will strike all the people who fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh shall dissolve while they stand on their feet, Their eyes shall dissolve in their sockets, And their tongues shall dissolve in their mouths.

 

❌70CE, this did not happen in the literal or the symbolic.

 

Expanded S.O.G.

 The theories of Genesis 6 are as follow 

1. Angels mated with human women & Nephilim are offspring of Angels and human women creating giants 
2. Sons of God refers to obedient men in contrast to Daughters of men which would be secular women and Nephilim are men


Job:

Some say that Job is reference to Angels where it says in Job 1

6Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

and chapter 2

Again, there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord.

The fact that "sons of God" appeared before the Lord does not automatically mean that the sons of God are angels and there is nothing in the text to support that. What is more harmonious to the totality of scripture, in my opinion, is that the sons of God are the righteous and obedient men.

If we look at Exodus 23 we see the command for the Righteous men of God to appear before God

14 “Three times a year you shall celebrate a feast to Me. 15 You shall keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread; for seven days you are to eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in that month you came out of Egypt. And no one is to appear before Me empty-handed. 16 Also you shall keep the Feast of the Harvest of the first fruits of your labors from what you sow in the field; also the Feast of the Ingathering at the end of the year when you gather in the fruit of your labors from the field. 17 Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord God.

Echoed in Ex 34

“The firstborn from every womb belongs to Me, and all your male livestock, the firstborn from cattle and sheep. 20 You shall redeem with a lamb the firstborn from a donkey; and if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck. You shall redeem all the firstborn of your sons. None are to appear before Me empty-handed.

21 “You shall work six days, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during plowing time and harvest you shall rest. 22 And you shall celebrate the Feast of Weeks, that is, the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year. 23 Three times a year all your males are to appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel. 24 For I will drive out nations from you and enlarge your borders, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times a year to appear before the Lord your God.

Look at what verse 24 says about that hedge of protection for these men that appear before God - Is this not the very thing that Satan says is applying to Job in Job 1 

 Have You not made a fence around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 


What does Job 1:1 say about Job?

There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil

What did that man do? 
 

Job 2:1Again, there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord.

 Job 2:3The Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds firm to his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause

That Sons of God are a classification of people that do righteousness, and those that don't are not sons of God, is affirmed in scripture time and again. 

1 John 3:10
No one who has been born of God practices sin, because His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin continually, because he has been born of God. 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother and sister.

Ergo, the men of righteousness appearing before the Lord at the appointed times would be in line with Men, and not angels , being the sons of God.

The comparison to Job 38 can be made in several points but Job 38:7 being used to say that sons of God means angels is still an injection of that interpretation to the text when the text doesn't suppose it. .

7 When the morning stars sang together 
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 “Or who enclosed the sea with doors
When it went out from the womb, bursting forth;
9 When I made a cloud its garment,
And thick darkness its swaddling bands,
10 And I placed boundaries on it
And set a bolt and doors,

In this passage we see creative imagery and not literal things. The sea is not enclosed with doors, and it didn't come from the womb, clouds aren't clothes- morning stars and sons of God shouting for joy doesn't mean that sons of God are angels.

 Lets also take a look at the contrast found in Psalms 148 where it appears that Angels are a separate classification from both the sun and moon that give praise, as well as these  Humans that praise Him 

Psalm 148 

 Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens;  Praise Him in the heights!
2 Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His heavenly armies!
3 Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all stars of light!
4 Praise Him, highest heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens!
5 They are to praise the name of the Lord, For He commanded and they were created.
6 He has also established them forever and ever; He has made a decree, and it will not pass away.
7 Praise the Lord from the earth, Sea monsters, and all the ocean depths;
8 Fire and hail, snow and clouds; Stormy wind, fulfilling His word;
9 Mountains and all hills; Fruit trees and all cedars;
10 Animals and all cattle; Crawling things and winged fowl;
11 Kings of the earth and all peoples; Rulers and all judges of the earth;
12 Both young men and virgins; Old men and children.
13They are to praise the name of the Lord, For His name alone is exalted;
His majesty is above earth and heaven.
14 And He has lifted up a horn for His people, Praise for all His godly ones,
For the sons of Israel, a people near to Him. Praise the Lord!

When Job 38:7 is read and stars singing next to sons of God shouting as some choose to say that because these are side by side and in the same event they MUST both be the same, we are obligated to reason the same manner to Psalm 148 and disregard all context and say that everything is angels.  Sun, moon, angels, Israel, the sea, fire, hail, clouds, all of it is now angels. 

A critique of this explanation is that it must be grounded as a metaphor. Morning stars and sons of God at creation are speaking to a "thing" and are not metaphoric in of themselves. 
This is a fair criticism. 

If it is not metaphor, is there text that places sons of God as men there rather than the injection of angels?  For this let us look back  at Genesis. 

 Gen 1 Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

During creation, Mankind was made.
Look at it in Chapter 5 

This is the book of the generations of Adam. On the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them “mankind” on the day when they were created. 

Chapter 5 is stating on that day of Creation, When God created man, He created THEM, Male and Female, Mankind- made in the image of God.
Mankind- plural
Them- plural
During creation to some degree- Adam, the son of God (contained within him a plurality)  and he likely shouted for joy as was a reason man was created. 

When Adam has a son, it says he made his son in the likeness of Adam, this is the same language that is used for God making Adam for Adam making his son. Does Scripture say anywhere that angels were created in the image of God, that they may be called sons?

Scripture doesn't even mention Angels in Genesis chapter 1 or 2 creation accounts. Adam is mentioned. Eve is mentioned. Mankind is mentioned. Angels are not. So, to take Job and put angels there doesn't fit. Luke 3:38 states that Adam was a son of God the same way Genesis 5 does through genealogy 

38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Adam in a pre-sin perfect state would be in perfect obedience to God and fit BOTH qualifications of definition of sons of God 

Furthermore, Since Job 38 must have a grounding for its spring boarding, then lets take a look at the importance of Hebrews 1 

5For to which of the angels did He ever say,
“You are My Son,
Today I have fathered You”?
And again,
“I will be a Father to Him
And He will be a Son to Me”?

Granted this about the Messiahship of the Savior, but if this implicates that God never said to angels you are My Son or Sons, they are not sons of God... but People are.  If such could be said about angels, then the answer to the question posed here would be "Steve the angel son of God" or "Todd the angel, God's son" But since it is not the case, we have to ask "Can we find a single example in scripture where an angel is called a son? We do have examples of God calling men sons of God.  

“You are sons of the Lord your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave a bald spot above your forehead for the dead. For you are a holy people to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for His personal possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.- Deut 14:1-2

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.- Matthew 5:9

For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons and daughters of God.- Romans 8:14

For the eagerly awaiting creation waits for the revealing of the sons and daughters of God.- Romans 8:19

 “I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people,’

And her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’”26 “And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘you are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.”27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the sons of Israel may be like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved; - Romans 9:25-27

For you are all sons and daughters of God through faith in Christ Jesus.- Galatians 3:26

Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba! Father!” - Galatians 4:6

 

Nephilim:

It is said that the Nephilim were the offspring of the Sons of God and the daughters of men, but verse 4 seems to show that in the days prior and after the Sons of God married the daughters of mankind - these Nephilim already existed:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of mankind, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown

- and it states that these Nephilim were men.

We see in Genesis 4 that Cain is now disowned and hidden from God's face on account of the violence that he enacted on his brother. 

Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and I will be hidden from Your face, and I will be a wanderer and a drifter on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

Cain has no claim to be a son of God and should now go by a different designation, this is one group. It continues on in Chapter 4 

To Seth also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then people began to call upon the name of the Lord.

This is now another designation separate from that of Cain and his murderous son who have been marked so that the world would know that they're murderers. This group of believers would be another designation, leaving another designation of secular people that are neither murderers/ people of violence nor are they believers 

Side note, Genesis 5 mirrors the genealogy of the Messiah in Luke 3:37-38 which states that Adam was son of God

37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God

If we were to go from Gen 4, to Gen 5, to Gen 6 with these groups  it might look like this:

Gen 4- Cain and his sons are murderers/ Nephilim ( fellers of men, Men of renown seeing as God put a mark on Cain) 
Gen 5 - sons of God genealogy of the Messiah containing generations of believers who began to call on God as stated in chapter 4 (along with others) 
Gen 6 -  Daughters of mankind- secular women , perhaps offspring of Cain and his camps 

Lets look at gen 6 in this context 

Now it came about, when mankind  began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God  [Men who had been calling on God ] saw that the daughters of mankind  [secular women, off spring of the murderers camps] were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not remain with man forever, because he is also flesh; nevertheless his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim [ First murderers, fellers of men, killers] were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God [Believing group that to this point had been righteous] came in to the daughters of mankind, [Secular unbelieving women] and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of mankind was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. 6 So the Lord was sorry that He had made mankind on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 Then the Lord said, “I will wipe out mankind whom I have created from the face of the land; mankind, and animals as well, and crawling things, and the birds of the sky. For I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Now we have to ask critically, if the flood was to destroy this race of half angels half men that spawned giants as some theorize , Then why do we see a re-emergence of giants after the flood that was to wipe them out? There is no record of these "fallen angels" coming back to take human wives a second time after the flood and thus create again a race of giants. We must account for that absence. 

Though I do NOT hold the Septuagint to be reliable, take a look at this from Genesis 10: 

Now Cush fathered Nimrod; he became a mighty one on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord.” 

8 And Chus begot Nebrod: he began to be a giant upon the earth. He was a giant hunter before the Lord God; therefore they say, As Nebrod the giant hunter before the Lord. 

This is explained in Gen 6:5 

  Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of mankind was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.

The case presented from Jude and Peter 

What does 2 Peter 2 say that the subject is :

But false prophets also appeared among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves

The topic is a group among the faith group, presenting ideas and heresy that leads to destruction. 

And angels who did not keep their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling place, these He has kept in eternal restraints under darkness for the judgment of the great day, 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in sexual perversion and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.- 2 Peter

The way that proponents of  "angels are sons" of God read verse 7 is to tie it to Genesis 6, suggesting that angels entered into sexual perversion like Sodom and Gomorrah. It understandable how one might take that view but I believe that its a mistake. A counter perspective is that Jude is talking about groups that were once thought secure and then became destroyed.  

1:5 Now I want to remind you, though you know everything once and for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.

Believers, saved from Egypt -destroyed
Angels , removed from heaven- to place of destruction
Sodom and Gomorrah - place of destruction. like surrounding cities, going to place of destruction. 

The emphasis being not to compromise from obedience to following after lusts- not just sexual lusts, sin. There is no reason to be hyperfocal on sexual sin when the passage is about not succumbing to any of the fleshly lusts. That can include eating things that are not food according to God. That can include harboring malice. The word for desire or "lusts of the flesh" are Strong's G1939, The same word used here:

Luke 22:15 And He said to them, “I have eagerly G1939 desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer

This isn't some sexual perversion in wanting to keep the Passover. That is not a freaky sex thing that Paul is suggesting. It would be wrong to promote such a view. 

Lets look at the Jude passage as it reads from 2 Peter 2 

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, held for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example of what is coming for the ungodly; 7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the perverted conduct of unscrupulous people 8 (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from a trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, 

Note that Jude and Peter are practically the same, the emphasis is about not losing a place of security for a place of destruction. Also again, important to highlight is verse 4

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, held for judgment 

Hell, Darkness, Held for Judgement... none of that is taking human wives. 


Looking further, certain places God refers to humans as judges, and the word is "Elohim" but instead of being rendered as judge, its rendered as god. 

 "The Lord answered Moses: See! I have made you a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother will be your prophet." Ex  7

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is a questionable text and subject of criticism as some render it this way:

 When the Most High allotted each nation its heritage,

    when he separated out human beings,

He set up the boundaries of the peoples

    after the number of the divine beings;

9 But the Lord’s portion was his people;

    his allotted share was Jacob.

"AHa "they say, "this is clearly about angels". But the text in other translations say:

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,

When He separated the sons of mankind,

He set the boundaries of the peoples

According to the number of the sons of Israel.

9 For the Lord’s portion is His people;

Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance.

An argument I have heard is that this has to refer to angels because Israel didn't exist when God separated the borders. This is a strange objection because we know that He set the boundaries for Israel with Israel in mind, telling Abraham all the land that He would give to Israel his descendants. An entire covenant was made over it. 
Some say that this text originally read "sons of God" but was altered because it may cause confusion and people might believe it to be angels.  



For the next part I respond to objections that were left on Facebook. 

"First, Son of God being a term for righteous human men is said to be the mystery unveiled to Paul in Ephesians 1, in which Paul states that mankind being adopted as sons of God is part of “the mystery of God’s will having been made known to us” “at the fullness of the dispensation of time.” A mystery is something that was once hidden or not easily or plainly seen. The context in the B’rit is very different than the context in the Tanakh. One is a mystery. The other is not."

Second, every Tanakh passage involving SOG refers to something other other than humans:

This is demonstratably false unless you were to suggest that God is commanding Angels to maintain their beards as set apart from among the nations:

“You are sons of the Lord your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave a bald spot above your forehead for the dead. For you are a holy people to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for His personal possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.- Deut 14:1-2

I said, “You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. -Psalm 82 :6

Yet the number of the sons of Israel
Will be like the sand of the sea,
Which cannot be measured or counted;
And in the place
Where it is said to them,
“You are not My people,”
It will be said to them,

“You are the sons of the living God.”- Hosea 1:10

1) The being in the fire with Hannaniah, Azariah, and Mishael.

25 He responded, “Look! I see four men untied and walking about in the middle of the fire unharmed, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!

2) Job 1, for there were no pilgrimage and feastly gatherings of the entire Body of Yah before the sinai covenant and,

The Torah has been from the beginning, it was only ratified at Sinai. I believe that a form of Torah told Cain and Able to sacrifice even though Cain offered the wrong sacrifice. I believe that Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals because of this Torah that existed, and was likely taught to Adam as he walked with God in the cool of the day. As one other commented, Job is already aware of offering sacrifices on behalf of his children because he didn't know if they had sinned in their hearts- this speaks to a system already in place. 



Job 38, for these SOG sang God’s praises during the creation event before man was created. Even if we believe the sethite theorists, adam and eve were not redeemed or saved or made incorruptibly righteous by Yeshua’s blood (the B’rit’s definition for SOG), therefore the “righteous SOG” definition for men cannot apply to adam and eve.

Adam and Eve need only be in a righteous state to be SOG. This indisputably applies to the pre-fall state of being , especially in a metaphoric passage where sarcasm and grandiose illustration are being used on behalf of God to convey significance to Job. 

3) Specifically, genesis 6 uses Sons of God in contrast to _mankind_ multiplying over the face of the earth. Then there is second more specific distinction made between sons of God and daughters of men. The specific context of genesis 6 strongly points toward SOG being something other than “mankind.” The Mesopotamian context of Genesis is filled with examples of heavenly beings coming down to interact in various ways with humans. Genesis unveils the truth of that interaction and that it wasn’t a blessing from above but a cursed interaction.

Unless you're interpreting it incorrectly and Sons of God isn't to contrast mankind, but contrasts Daughters of Men and contrast Nephilim.  The context of Genesis 6 points to an only human affair that involves 3 parties of humans. Believers, Secular, and Violent murderers. I do my best to use scripture to define scripture, not mix it with Mesopotamian theology or theology of surrounding cultures.  

Gen 4- Cain and sons murder take multiple wives 
Gen 5 starting in the end of chapter 4, Men and women began calling on God at this time- List of men and women that began calling on God, as listed in Luke in the genealogy of the Messiah 
Gen 6 - intermixing of Believers being swayed by hot secular women which has been an issue for the church forever.  If you wanted to discuss the un-natural sexual component of Jude/ Lusts, maybe start with believers being swayed by multiple wives like Cain's sons. This still fits in the human context. 

Further, regarding “daughters of men” it is assumed that these are of the line of cain, but the text doesn’t say that in the slightest. One cannot just assume the conclusion. It must be demonstrated that sons of God equal descendants of seth and daughters of men equal women of the line of cain.

Its possible that they were the daughters of Cain's camp, or could be non-believing women that left the group of believing men. Regardless they're secular. 

Additionally, the sethite theory can not be shown to exist prior to the greco-roman philosophizing so called “church fathers.” It first appears in the writings of Julius Africanus (180CE-250CE). Not only does the angelic theory best harmonize with the mesopotamian context of Genesis, it clearly pre-exists the sethite theory by centuries and is the universal view of the 2nd temple period as evidenced by the B’rit’s epistles of Jude, 2 Peter, and non-cannonical “1 Enoch.”

Should we view scripture in light of Egyptian theology? Shall we say that sons of God are dog headed people that run the ferry to the underworld? How many lies should we carry because others have carried them first?  People like to slap label's on things in order to make them easier to pigeonhole rather than do the work in the scriptures independently to seek a matter out. Those who object to humans being Sons of God as the scriptures show, often try to box my position as Sethite, a banner of which I had not studied nor rallied under. Let the fullness of scripture bear witness and the word of God define itself. Should we adopt the Pharisees view of the Messiah and therefore disqualify the Truth of the Savior simply because its what the culture understood at the time? 

I’ll go on to rebut a few of your main points:

First, your point from Hebrews 1. Which of the angels has God said “you are my son?” (In which, the author is quoting Psalm 2 and the Baptism accounts). This is not proof that angels are not “SOG.” This is proof that the only begotten Son of God is not an angel which inherits the kingdoms of the earth. He in whom we have our inheritance is not a mere angel, but is greater than the angels. The only begotten Son and “sons of God” are distinct terms even in the tanak. For, sons of god and angels are ministering spirits sent to aid humans. The Son is to sit at the right hand of the power and be Lord (mark 12 and psalm 110). The main point of Hebrews 1 is to define the person and origin of Christ and distinguish the Son from angels. It’s purpose is not to say sons of God aren’t angels. This passage is being taken out of context.

I agree that the entire point is to show Christ and His Messiahship ...yet, if Angels are called sons of God then then entire point is lost.  Can a single verse that says the word angel and sons of God be found together where angels are the ones being called sons of God? Several can be found for humans. 

Second, your point about angels not marrying. Jude says the angels left their heavenly estate.
 ... and as cast down in fallen state, why should they be called sons of God? They left heaven and were cast into hell into darkness awaiting judgment. 

... Matthew and Luke say “angels do not marry in heaven.”

Genesis 6 says that they took women on the earth and took wives.

Genesis 6 says that sons of God, of which no scripture says are angels but several say refers to humans, took wives.  I have cited numerous verses that state that HUMANS are sons of God in the same verse. There has been zero verses provided that state Angels are sons of God- only innuendo and potential shoehorning angels into an ambiguous text. The word Angel appears nowhere in Genesis 6. Circular reasoning is being applied to this text to say Angels is what is here, therefore Angels is elsewhere. 


 Angels/SOG taking wives on earth does not contradict what Yeshua says in Matthew 22 about angels not being given to marry in heaven. ( I separated a portion because I wanted to address them separately below)

In the context of Peter and Jude that state over and over and over again that those that choose rebellion against God do not stay in the state of right standing and are therefore cast down, cast out, and destroyed, placed in chains waiting judgement, in the pit...  there is ZERO reason to believe that these would be referred to as sons of God. 

Lastly, in regard to “angels do not have genitals.” Angels do not naturally have carnal forms. They’re spiritual beings. When they manifest in creation, they manifest in the appearance of men. In the narrative with Sodom and Gomorrah: They ate with Abram. They grab Lot with hands. It’s not a stretch to say that when they take physical form in the appearance of men that they appear as biological men in every way, including their genitals.)

There is a growing list of things we have to make allowances for in order for that to work
1. Angels cannot give into marriage in HEAVEN so in order to give into marriage, they have to leave heaven. 
2. Scripture state that once they left heaven they were cast into the pit awaiting judgement- not taking wives, but if we set that aside for the time we still have to make allow for a second that God let this happen - cast them out of heaven but let them take wives
3. after being cast out of heaven and they chose to take wives, by what claim would they be called sons of God? IF we see that Yeshua has distinction that those that do the will of God will be called sons of God but OTHERS of disobedience are of the devil- how then do we get the designation that these devils are called sons of God? 
4. Ignoring that and say that these fallen angels were allowed to take wives, and that before this happened Nephilim existed- and also after this happened Nephilim existed per the scripture- These "angels" had to develop genital's in order to procreate
5. Those fallen angels after the judgement of the flood that cleansed all the earth and creation washing away that race of giants spawned by angels and earth women- would have to have done this a second time in order to produce giants after the flood. 

If they weren't cast into the pit as scripture states, and IF they could take wives as long as they were outside of heaven , and IF they could develop genitals, and IF they could sire a race of Giants and IF  the flood was to wash away those Giants because God was mad at angels taking hot wives-
why is there no account of this happening again after the flood where giants re-appeared 

Its MOST reasonable that instead of this mosaic of hypotheticals that if you look at in the specific way COULD maybe fit, Sons of God are humans which fits perfectly. 

Jude ties these passages together and makes it clear that the angels who left their first estate went after strange flesh. The Holy Spirit inspired Jude to connect angelic sin with sexual sin. Only Genesis 6 matches those details.

Jude only says that if you read that in the text. Have you ever read that sentence that can have 7 different meaning depending on where you put the emphasis

" “I never said she stole my money""

 “I NEVER said she stole my money"
 “I never SAID she stole my money"
 “I never said, SHE stole my money"
 “I never said she STOLE my money"
 “I never said she stole MY money"
 “I never said she stole my MONEY"

This is a way people look at Jude. This commentator tries to say that Jude makes it clear that the subject is a fleshly sex scandal with the Angels, and not the issue that even Angels were in heaven - a place most any of us would think would be safe from falling and we would be able to dwell securely- and were cast out. Just as Sodom and Gomorrah were places that were destroyed and the surrounding places were destroyed- not dwelling securely because they went after strange flesh. The focal point is not a celestial sex scandal, its trusting that you're dwelling securely when you can be removed and destroyed. 

2 Peter is entirely about "groups" that think that they're secure, and then they are not. Angels thinking they're secure in heaven and then falling, JUST LIKE SODOM AND GOMORRAH acting bold thinking they were secure before they were destroyed, JUST like those who are in the church teaching heresies and destructive and perverse doctrines think that they are secure before they are destroyed.


Another point to ponder.  IF the Nephilim were men like Cain that were taking multiple wives and murdering men- would that fit God saying that he destroyed the world because of violence? 
What if that same sort of practice began again after the flood and those murderers- fellers of men were up to the same customs as Cain and his sons? Could that explain why Abraham was so afraid 

 Now there was a famine in the land; so Abram went down to Egypt to live there for a time, because the famine was severe in the land. 11 It came about, when he was approaching Egypt, that he said to his wife Sarai, “See now, I know that you are a beautiful woman; 12 and when the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife’; and they will kill me, but they will let you live. 13 Please say that you are my sister so that it may go well for me because of you, and that I may live on account of you.” 14 Now it came about, when Abram entered Egypt, that the Egyptians saw that the woman was very beautiful. 15 Pharaoh’s officials saw her and praised her to Pharaoh; and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house. - Gen 12 

And GOD 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.
 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for humanity had corrupted its way upon the earth.- Gen 6 

Lamech took two wives for himself: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other, Zillah Lamech said to his wives,

“Adah and Zillah,

Listen to my voice,

You wives of Lamech,

Pay attention to my words,

For I have killed a man for wounding me;

And a boy for striking me!

24 If Cain is avenged seven times,

Then Lamech seventy-seven times!”- Gen 4

In conclusion everywhere it says sons of God, rather than doing 6 or 7 "what if, could be, maybe if" steps, just put humans there because its 1 step and it fits. 

There are NO scriptures that say Angels are the sons of God in the same sentence the way that numerous verses that say humans ARE. 

 Exodus 4:22-23
 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: “Israel is My son, My firstborn. 23 So I said to you, ‘Let My son go so that he may serve Me’; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I am going to kill your son, your firstborn.”’”

Moral

In the beginning God created heaven and earth 

He didn't have to do that. He was under no obligation or duress to cause existence to be. He did it anyway. 

He didn't have to knit me together in my mothers womb, He didn't have to preserve my life the several times it could have been taken from me, But he did anyway.  He could have left me homeless, hopeless, broken, unloved, and forgotten. God could have abandoned me, but He didn't and hasn't, and I have reason to believe that He wont. Why? Because God IS good. 

God is good, but this fact if disputed among Atheists.  The Atheist looks around the world today that is rampant with chaos, war, famine, destruction. They see the death, the decay of decency, the suffering and the pain that is so loudly on display. To see this suffering is to acknowledge the truth of the world as it is, but, to attribute that suffering to God is where the Atheist falls prey to an old mistake. They attribute the blame to God like Adam in the garden when he accused God for giving him a faulty wife. 

Why then did God allow evil to be possible? When God made man, He said:

 ... “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule ... over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” 

Man was made in the image of God and God's likeness. That means that man was created Righteous and Virtuous, Moral. In order for man to be made like God he had to have the capability to reject that which God is not. If God is Righteous, and He is, What does it mean to be Righteous? 

acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin

So in order for man to be Righteous as God is Righteous, Man must act in accordance with Divine Moral Law. God made this test remarkably easy. In all of the garden God gave 1 prohibitive command, don't eat from 1 tree. The only sin is violating this directive. At this point there is no death, no suffering, no cancer or abortion or famine or genocide. Just a couple, and a garden, animals and God. What does it mean to be Moral?

a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL
moral judgments

b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
a moral poem

c: conforming to a standard of right behavior
took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination

d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment
a moral obligation

e: capable of right and wrong action
a moral agent

For man to be made perfect, he MUST have been able to be capable of rejecting God and choose not to. Without the choice or the free will then he would not be a moral being, he would not be a perfect man. He'd be a programmed group of nerves and neurons. 

Man did reject God and open the door to virus and corruption to the perfect system in which God created. When man failed to be moral, God decided that He would still be moral. He would still be faithful. He would still be good. Rather than destroy all life that chose to rebel against Him- which He absolutely would be justified in doing- He chose to instead bear patience and grace, and mercy, leading to redemption. (granted when the world was consumed with violence, He did pour out judgement- but He still saved a group of humans in His grace)

Now, lets look at the cross for a moment, seeing as how we don't look at it enough- it still bears an extra picture here in the context of Morality. God, who doesn't ask us to do anything that HE Himself is willing to do. He clothed Himself in flesh and proved that He is Moral on our behalf and died IN ORDER TO FIX THE MISTAKES OF MAN. 

Jesus- Yeshua- The Messiah, the Christ- An innocent Man lived out an entirely moral life choosing to not sin to show God is Good, and to revoke sin that Adams failures opened the door to. 
God is cleaning up after us, our messes, our sins. He clothes those He has told us to clothe, and feeds those He told us to feed. He shelters those He told us to shelter... because He is Moral. 

Loss

 Do you ever think about how lonely the Messiah was at the cross? 
All of his friends turned and left. Why did they abandon His teaching and turn to the crowds. 
Do you ever think about the Pharisees that accused Him?
The way they dammed and condemned Him- and what crime did He commit? He offended them  
He offended them, and He was silent when they demanded answers from Him. 

The high priest stood up and said to Him, “Do You offer no answer for what these men are testifying against You?” 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I place You under oath by the living God, to tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.”-Matt 26 

 I think about it every day. The loss. 


 Love is patient, love is kind, it is not jealous; love does not brag, it is not arrogant. 5 It does not act disgracefully, it does not seek its own benefit; it is not provoked, does not keep an account of a wrong suffered, 6 it does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 it keeps every confidence, it believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.


The world is full of people that will say that they love. people that say that they are family.  


They'll abandon you if you have bad days... they'll abandon you when others crucifiy you 

Enoch doesn't quote Scripture

Some say that Enoch the Rabbinic text originally written in Hebrew usually dated to the fifth century CE- is quoted in the actual scripture. 

They say that Enoch 48:1
 In that place I beheld a fountain of righteousness, which never failed, encircled by many springs of wisdom. Of these all the thirsty drank, and were filled with wisdom, having their habitation with the righteous, the elect, and the holy.

is quoted in 

 John 4:14
14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never be thirsty; but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life.”

but John 4:14 is citing any number of passages already in the scripture 

• Is 12:3  Therefore you will joyously draw water From the springs of salvation.
  
  
• Is 55:1 “You there! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters;  And you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk  Without money and without cost.

• Is 58:11 And the Lord will continually guide you,  And satisfy your desire in scorched places,  And give strength to your bones;  And you will be like a watered garden, And like a spring of water whose waters do not fail.

• Jer 2:13 “For My people have committed two evils: They have abandoned Me, The fountain of living waters, To carve out for themselves cisterns, Broken cisterns That do not hold water.

• Psalms 36:8-9 They drink their fill of the abundance of Your house; And You allow them to drink from the river of Your delights.  9 For the fountain of life is with You; In Your light we see light.

Daniel 7:13 I kept looking in the night visions,  And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a son of man was coming,  And He came up to the Ancient of Days  And was presented before Him.

The P Words

 If you've been in this Torah walk for any amount of time, you've been called a Pharisee. Coming out of traditions and doctrines that are contrary to the word of God usually gets you slapped with the label faster than my nephew can burp the alphabet. For keeping the Commands of God, and teaching others to do the same, you shouldn't be labeled as a Pharisee, its wrong. However, the subject has been on my mind recently, and just yesterday I was scrolling Facebook where there was a "Torah guy" chastising another guy over a kippa. Over a hat. According to the, we'll call him "Hyper Kodesh Guy", A Kippah is a sun disc and wearing one is as worshipping Babylonian sun worship. "HKG" who ive seen wear a cowboy hat, was literally saying that wearing the hat without a brim was on par with worshipping a false god. I'm not a fan of the Talmud or the rabbis, but even I had to step in an say "ITS A HAT, ITS JUST A HAT!!!". Could it be that maybe, THESE are the things that others look at and say "That guy is claiming that He has a true doctrine and he's losing it over a hat, that is not something that is normal, That guy AND WHAT HE BELIEVES, IS in fact being Pharisee" 

The subject of Phariseeism .. Pharisaism...Pharicsism ....  the subject of being Pharisaic doesn't come up too often in the Torah communities because either we've bristled so much over being called that by not Torah people, or as is the occasion- Some have rehabbed the image of the Pharisees as to being the righteous ones who "Judaism" says that "we should be. "

One of the things we need to remember as believers is that these were rebuked by the Messiah. The Pharisees were the ones constantly ripped by the Messiah for being the overly religious instead of the righteous examples.  So what does it mean, what are some examples of being Pharisaic? Well Lets go over it by the numbers 

Matt 9 
Then it happened that as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and began dining with Jesus and His disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, “Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?” 12 But when Jesus heard this, He said, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick.

1. If you're criticizing someone for building relationships with secular people, then you're criticizing the example of the Messiah. 

Matt 12
13 Then He *said to the man, “Stretch out your hand!” He stretched it out, and it was restored to normal, like the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.

2. If you're talking with your special group about how someone isn't doing things the way your special group thinks they should be done based on your traditions or whatever "Special Wisdom" you may have on a matter not defined in scripture, then you're probably being a Pharisee. 

Matt 12
 Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and unable to speak was brought to Jesus, and He healed him so that the man who was unable to speak talked and could see. 23 And all the crowds were amazed and were saying, “This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.”

3. If you look at something that is good and righteous and it is a blessing and a service to others, and you attribute it to be evil, Then odds are you need a heart check 

Matt 15
 Then the disciples came and *said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?” 13 But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted. 14 Leave them alone; they are blind guides of blind people. And if a person who is blind guides another who is blind, both will fall into a pit.”

4. If you are often offended and find everything offensive and are constantly policing speech against what COULD be offensive, Then you likely could be as the Pharisees. Leading  everyone around on each whim and wound until you get everyone burdened down with all your custom rules and regulations, its a burden. 

Matt 21
45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them. 46 And although they sought to arrest Him, they feared the crowds, since they considered Him to be a prophet.

5. If someone highlights that your made up rules you're trying to place on others aren't found in scripture,  is your reaction to try and "kill the messenger" so to speak? To try and get rid of whomever shows that even if you have in your mind "inspiring holiness above the biblical standard" that adding rules to another's walk is wrong if they didn't invite or ask you too. 

Matt 23
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses. 3 Therefore, whatever they tell you, do and comply with it all, but do not do as they do; for they say things and do not do them. 4 And they tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as their finger.

6. To continue off of that last point. Which is more important, looking holy to others or being Holy unto God? People are to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. People can ask questions in working out that salvation. Others insisting things are done their way on matters that scripture leaves to individual discretion is most often tying burdens on people and doing deeds to be noticed.  Paul notes and warns this style of people in Acts 20: 30 where he says 

 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them.

If anyone knew what it meant to be a Pharisee, it was Paul.  He cautioned against people making disciples unto themselves, with their own doctrines and customs. Messiah was constantly rebuking those that set aside the commands of God for their own traditions. Pushing your fence laws or traditions is as adding to the commands of God.  

Matt 24 continued 5 And they do all their deeds to be noticed by other people; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6 And they love the place of honor at banquets, and the seats of honor in the synagogues, 

7. Modesty is important. God's word says that people are to be clothed and nakedness is an issue. Some people look at the Word of God and they see that people wore robes or tunics and they think that they should wear robes or tunics. THIS IS PERFECTLY FINE. That is, until it gets put into the context that someone is less righteous or spiritual for not wearing a specific garment. If you're going around asserting the opinion that jeans and t-shirt is some how less righteous guess what party you're emulating. 

Luke 18
9 Now He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and began praying this in regard to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, crooked, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to raise his eyes toward heaven, but was beating his chest, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ 

Now one thing that I often notice about people that are dogmatically pushing their customs on others, is that they usually state is as being a "Greater standard of righteousness". What about that one person that is wearing jeans and t-shirt and maybe can't afford the suit or can't afford the extra long linin tunic so that they blend in with everyone else... Should they be hounded with opinions over what they are wearing not being sufficient?   There are doctrines that people disagree over in the Torah. There are things that aren't even doctrines that people disagree over. I never imagined that I would encounter people that were so bothered about a dozen hypothetical "what if "scenarios regarding matchmaking, something as basic as telling two adults in conversation that they might be a good fit. 

Luke 7 
 Now one of the Pharisees was requesting Him to eat with him, and He entered the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. 37 And there was a woman in the city who was a sinner; and when she learned that He was reclining at the table in the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster vial of perfume, 38 and standing behind Him at His feet, weeping, she began to wet His feet with her tears, and she wiped them with the hair of her head, and began kissing His feet and anointing them with the perfume. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner!”

8. Pharisees have a seeming terminal case of "plank eye"

Luke 7 (Continued)

And Jesus responded and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he replied, “Say it, Teacher.” 41 “A moneylender had two debtors: the one owed five hundred denarii, and the other, fifty. 42 When they were unable to repay, he canceled the debts of both. So which of them will love him more?” 43 Simon answered and said, “I assume the one for whom he canceled the greater debt.” And He said to him, “You have judged correctly.” 44 And turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You gave Me no kiss; but she has not stopped kissing My feet since the time I came in. 46 You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume. 47 For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but the one who is forgiven little, loves little.” 48 And He said to her, “Your sins have been forgiven.”

9. Do you have a sense of Spiritual pride? A pride that masquerades as Holiness. Pharisees did. 

Acts 6
 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people. 9 But some men from what was called the Synagogue of the Freedmen, including both Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and some from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and argued with Stephen. 10 But they were unable to cope with his wisdom and the Spirit by whom he was speaking

Acts 7
 Now when they heard this, they were infuriated, and they began gnashing their teeth at him. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; 56 and he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” 57 But they shouted with loud voices, and covered their ears and rushed at him with one mind. 58 When they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him; and the witnesses laid aside their cloaks at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”

 
You don't want to be a Pharisee. You don't want to be one of these guys that has themselves so deluded that they think that they are always righteous. They think that being overbearing is being righteous. They think that they're owed answers and that you're in the wrong for questioning them. They have little patience for people that do not do whatever they see their holy right to be. Do not be these people that are so deserving of condemnation. These people that demand control and often act as if there is no spiritual growth outside of what they cultivate. Ones that seek to be revered as authority but aren't. 

Luke 12
“Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 2 But there is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known. 3 Accordingly, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops.
 

 1 Corinthians 10:12
Therefore let the one who thinks he stands watch out that he does not fall.