Jude quotes the book of Enoch. Is it Scripture?

[Bro. Ruben]

Jude 14 says:

"And about these also Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones" (Jude 14).

Was Jude actually quoting the apocraphal book of Enoch?

 

[Ben W]

Absolutley,

So was Jesus when He called Himself the Son of Man,

Peter does so also in 2Peter 2:4 and other references.

 

[partialrapture]

I love those scriptures about Enoch! Giving a wonderful example of those who will be translated before the Trib.(flood}
I would simple say that Jude was indeed quoting what Enoch really (right before he was translated said. I dont even think he was able to finish his sermon. How Jude had this iformation or if he even did I am not sure, only sure he was inspired by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Helen]

No, the book of Enoch is not Scripture. Paul quotes from other sources, too, you will note, but they are not Scripture, either.

 

[blackbird]

Considering what Jude says about what Enoch said---I find it interesting---that Enoch said it in his day---it was part of Enoch's preaching/prophecy and what he said is just as true as anything else that Jude had to say---and to deny that Enoch said what he said is to deny what Jude says--and to deny what Jude says is to deny what Scripture says!!

Enoch told the people in his day that the Lord was coming with ten thousand of His saints---and what he said then---is still true for us---the Lord is coming with ten thousands of His saints!!

 

[OldRegular]

I didn't know that any books survived the flood, however, what Jude states is Scripture.

 

[Hope of Glory]

The Apocrypha is quoted and cited many times throughout the NT. However, I don't think that elevates them to the level of Scripture, and they should be considered strictly deutero-canonical books.

 

[partialrapture]

I would like to say amen to Blackbird, and thats a neat thought of books not surviving the flood... that would mean God must of told Moses what to write in Genesis, Moses was in touch with the HolyGhost as was Jude, Praise God!

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
The Apocrypha is quoted and cited many times throughout the NT. However, I don't think that elevates them to the level of Scripture, and they should be considered strictly deutero-canonical books.

I did not say that quoting any books elevated them to Scripture. I said that what is recorded in the Bible is Scripture, the Word of God. Are you denying that?

 

[Brother Ian]

Many writers of Scripture cite other sources. That doesn't make the other sources Scripture.

 

[gb93433]

All of the OT and NT is scripture. That does not necessarily make the source of the quotes in the OT and NT scripture. Scripture is more than words. It is the living, active, breathing message of God.

Heb 4:12, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

 

[Archei]

Quoting non-scripture does make the quotes a part of scripture for its own purposes, however it doesn't make the entire work scriptural.

However in response to the last post, I have yet to actually find any reason to believe that "word of God" refers to the scriptures, necesarrily. We've been calling it that for centuries, but is that necesarrily what it means?

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by Bro. Ruben:
Jude 14 says:

"And about these also Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones" (Jude 14).

Was Jude actually quoting the apocraphal book of Enoch?

Should read 'And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his '
saints, '

Please quote as accurately as possible.
Came is a past event.
Cometh is either a present or future event.
Since we are talking of prophesy in the foretelling sense, then 'cometh' is the right word.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by Brother Ian:
Many writers of Scripture cite other sources. That doesn't make the other sources Scripture.

Does that mean 'there goes divine inspiration'?

 

[Hope of Glory]

However in response to the last post, I have yet to actually find any reason to believe that "word of God" refers to the scriptures, necesarrily. We've been calling it that for centuries, but is that necesarrily what it means?

Whenever you see the expression "The Word of God", it is something that is referring to the mysteries of the Kingdom of the Heavens. That's why I always use "Scriptures" or "Bible".

However, prophecy is simply history that hasn't happened yet. Therefore, it's standard practice to translate a word in the past tense for a future event when prophesying. So, saying that "God came with 10 thousand of his holy ones" is the same as saying "God will come with 10 thousand of his holy ones". However, if you're unaware that it's prohecies, it could be confusing.

For what it's worth, here's the quote from the book of Enoch: "Behold he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and to destroy the wicked, and to strive (at law) with all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done and committed against him."

 

[rsr]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
The Apocrypha is quoted and cited many times throughout the NT. However, I don't think that elevates them to the level of Scripture, and they should be considered strictly deutero-canonical books.

I have examined the lists of such citations and am not thoroughly convinced. Some are stretches; the others can be explained in that the first century writers of the New Testament were drawing upon a common source of metaphors that they shared with others of their era.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Many of those common metaphors are contained in the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha should not be considered as Scripture, but they do contain historical information.

For one thing, we know from one of the Maccabbees (sp?) why those who were sent from the Pharisees was asking John if he were Jeremiah.

 

[Ben W]

There are rumoured to be at least two letters of Paul that have not been preserved and are as such lost letters.

What would the church do if they were found and verified to be copies of the originals? Include them or set them aside?

 

[mountainrun]

Originally posted by rsr:
... the others can be explained in that the first century writers of the New Testament were drawing upon a common source of metaphors that they shared with others of their era.

Well put. The book of Enoch simply records the same thing the Bible records. To say it originated in the book of Enoch and that the Bible is quoting it is unprovable.

This "quote" gives the apochrypha no scriptural standing.

MR

 

[Brother Ian]

Originally posted by pinoybaptist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Ian:
Many writers of Scripture cite other sources. That doesn't make the other sources Scripture.

Does that mean 'there goes divine inspiration'? </font>[/QUOTE]Absolutely not. When the Scripture writer quotes from another source it becomes Scripture when he writes it down. It is not Scripture before that. Perhaps the Holy Spirit wanted the portion of the source to become Scripture and not the entire contents.