The Book of Enoch has fascinated scholars, theologians, and curious readers for centuries. Mentioned in the New Testament and revered by some early Christians, its absence from our Bibles raises compelling questions. If Jude quoted from it, why don’t we include it in our canon? Let’s explore who Enoch was, what his book contains, and why Reformed theology affirms its exclusion from Scripture.

 

WHO WAS ENOCH?

Enoch occupies a unique place in biblical history (Genesis 5:21-24). This brief account reveals three extraordinary things about Enoch:

1. He “walked with God” – indicating an intimate, faithful relationship
2. He lived 365 years – significantly shorter than other pre-Flood patriarchs
3. He did not die – God “took him,” making him (along with Elijah) one of only two biblical figures to depart without experiencing death

Hebrews 11:5 adds: “By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him.” His faithful walk with God resulted in his supernatural departure from earth.

 

THE ENOCH LITERATURE

What we call “The Book of Enoch” is actually part of a larger body of literature attributed to this mysterious figure:

Enoch 1 (Ethiopian Enoch): This is what most people mean when referring to “The Book of Enoch.” Written primarily in 3rd-2nd century BC, it survives completely only in Ge’ez (ancient Ethiopian). It contains five sections: the Book of Watchers (fallen angels); the Book of Parables (Messianic visions); the Astronomical Book (celestial movements); the Book of Dreams (visions of Israel’s history); the Epistle of Enoch (final judgement)

This is the text Jude quotes in the New Testament.

Enoch 2 (Slavonic Enoch): This is a later text (from 1st century AD) preserved in Old Church Slavonic, containing Enoch’s journey through the seven heavens and his transformation into the angel Metatron.

Enoch 3 (Hebrew Enoch): A much later Jewish mystical text (5th-6th century AD) from Rabbinic tradition.

Only Enoch 1 bears any significant relationship to early Christianity, so our discussion focuses primarily on this text.

 

THE BOOK OF ENOCH 1: AN OVERVIEW

Enoch 1 presents a dramatic cosmic narrative. It elaborates on Genesis 6:1-4, where “sons of God” took human wives, resulting in corruption and violence. In Enoch’s account, these beings were rebellious angels (“Watchers”) who taught humans forbidden knowledge, bringing sin and destruction to the world.

The text includes vivid apocalyptic visions, detailed descriptions of celestial movements, and prophecies of judgement and restoration. Perhaps most intriguingly, it features a divine figure called “the Son of Man” or “the Elect One” who will execute judgement—language that bears striking resemblance to Jesus’ own self-designation.

Ethiopian Orthodox Christians still include 1 Enoch in their Bible, considering it canonical Scripture. Ancient manuscript fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the text’s antiquity and its importance to some Jewish communities before Christ.

 

WHY SOME ARGUE IT SHOULD BE IN THE BIBLE

Several compelling arguments exist for treating Enoch 1 as Scripture:

• New Testament Citation: Jude 14-15 directly quotes from 1 Enoch 1:9: “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: ‘See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone…’”
• Early Christian Usage: Church fathers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria referenced Enoch favourably. Tertullian even argued for its canonicity.
• Theological Alignment: Many of its themes—angels, judgement, resurrection, Messianic expectation—harmonise with biblical theology.
• Historical Influence: Recent scholarship suggests 1 Enoch profoundly influenced early Christian apocalyptic thought and New Testament theology, especially regarding fallen angels and Christology.
• Ancient Authority: Its antiquity and widespread use in some Jewish communities suggest it held significant authority.

Given these factors, why isn’t Enoch 1 in our Bibles today?

 

WHY THE BOOK OF ENOCH WAS ULTIMATELY EXCLUDED

From a Reformed theological perspective, several factors justify Enoch’s exclusion from the canon: Authorship and Dating: Despite its name, Enoch 1 wasn’t written by the biblical Enoch who lived before the Flood. Scholarly consensus dates it to the Second Temple period (3rd-2nd century BC)—thousands of years after Enoch lived. This pseud-epigraphical—the attribution of a book to someone who didn’t actually write it—nature raises serious questions about its authenticity.

• Not Recognised by Jews: The Hebrew canon (our Old Testament) was firmly established by Jesus’ time, and Jews never accepted Enoch 1 as Scripture. Since Reformed theology emphasises covenant continuity, this exclusion from God’s covenant people is significant.
• Apostolic Discernment: While Jude quotes from Enoch, this doesn’t necessarily endorse the entire book as Scripture. Paul similarly quotes pagan poets (Acts 17:28) without conferring canonical status on their works. The apostles could reference truth from non-canonical sources.
• Church Recognition: The early church, guided by the Holy Spirit, ultimately rejected 1 Enoch’s canonicity through a process of careful discernment. By the 4th century, major canonical lists excluded it.
• Theological Issues: Parts of Enoch 1 contain speculative material and potential theological problems that don’t align perfectly with the clear teaching of recognised Scripture.

The Westminster Confession articulates the Reformed position clearly: “The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings” (WCF 1.3).

 

THE VALUE OF READING ENOCH TODAY

Though excluded from Scripture, 1 Enoch remains valuable for biblical studies:

• Historical Context: It illuminates the religious thought world of Second Temple Judaism when Jesus taught and the New Testament was written.
• New Testament Background: Understanding Enoch helps explain certain New Testament passages, especially regarding fallen angels (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6).
• Theological Development: Studying intertestamental literature like 1 Enoch reveals how Jewish theological concepts developed between the Old and New Testaments.
• Apocalyptic Literature: Enoch exemplifies apocalyptic literature, helping us better understand biblical apocalyptic texts like Daniel and Revelation.

Recent scholars Michael Heiser, John Collins, and George Nickelsburg have demonstrated 1 Enoch’s importance in understanding the conceptual world of early Christianity, even while affirming its non-canonical status.

 

CONCLUSION: THE BOOK OF ENOCH

The Book of Enoch’s exclusion from our Bible isn’t an oversight but reflects careful discernment by God’s people over centuries. While its historical significance and connections to biblical texts make it fascinating, Reformed theology affirms Scripture’s canon is closed—established by God’s providence and recognised (not determined) by the church.

We can appreciate Enoch 1 as an important historical document that sheds light on biblical backgrounds while maintaining the unique inspiration and authority of canonical Scripture. This balanced approach honours both scholarly inquiry and theological integrity, allowing us to benefit from Enoch’s insights without elevating them to divine status.

In God’s wisdom, He has given us exactly the canon we need—no more, no less—for faith and godliness.

 

THE BOOK OF ENOCH—RELATED FAQs

Does the Book of Enoch contain any unique doctrines that Christians are missing? No, the canonical Scriptures contain all essential Christian doctrines. While Enoch elaborates on certain themes (like fallen angels), it offers no fundamental teaching absent from our Bible. The Westminster Confession rightly affirms that “the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” The early church fathers demonstrated remarkable discernment in recognizing that Enoch, while interesting, added nothing essential to apostolic teaching.

• If Jude quoted Enoch, doesn’t that make it inspired? Not necessarily. Biblical writers occasionally quoted non-inspired sources when they contained truth (Paul quoted pagan poets in Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12). Jude’s quotation confirms that specific prophecy contained truth, but doesn’t elevate the entire book to canonical status. The church fathers wisely distinguished between occasional true statements and the consistent divine inspiration required for Scripture. Their careful approach shows their commitment to preserving only genuinely apostolic teaching.
• Could Enoch have been lost due to political reasons at church councils? No, historical evidence doesn’t support this theory. Enoch wasn’t excluded through formal council decisions but rather never gained widespread acceptance among early Christian communities. Its absence from early canonical lists wasn’t controversial. Unlike genuinely disputed books that received significant advocacy, Enoch simply wasn’t considered Scripture by most churches from the beginning. This organic consensus across diverse Christian communities demonstrates the Spirit’s guidance rather than political manipulation.

Does the Ethiopian Orthodox Church know something we don’t in including Enoch? While respecting Ethiopian Christians’ tradition, their inclusion of Enoch represents a regional variation rather than superior insight. Ethiopian Christianity developed somewhat isolated from broader church discussions on canonicity. Reformed theology emphasises the universal witness of the church through history, not regional exceptions. The overwhelming consensus of Christians across centuries and continents has excluded Enoch, showing remarkable consistency in discerning Scripture’s boundaries.

• Did excluding Enoch diminish our understanding of angels and demons? No. While Enoch contains elaborate angelology, Scripture provides everything necessary regarding spiritual beings. The Bible clearly teaches angels’ creation, purpose, and involvement in God’s plan, along with Satan’s rebellion and ultimate defeat. Enoch’s speculative elaborations on angelic hierarchies and detailed fallen angel narratives aren’t necessary for sound doctrine. The church fathers demonstrated theological maturity in recogniding which angelic teachings were essential and which were speculative.
• Would including Enoch have helped clarify difficult New Testament passages? While Enoch provides background for some New Testament references, including it wouldn’t resolve major interpretive challenges. The Holy Spirit ensured Scripture contains everything necessary for its own interpretation. The church fathers recognised canonical Scripture is self-sufficient and internally coherent. Their exclusion of supplementary texts shows profound trust in Scripture’s clarity and sufficiency rather than a desire for extra-biblical explanations.

Does modern scholarship suggest we should reconsider Enoch’s canonical status? No. While recent scholarship has enhanced our appreciation of Enoch’s historical significance, it hasn’t uncovered evidence supporting canonical status. Modern discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm what the early church already knew – Enoch was influential but not divinely inspired Scripture. The early fathers’ judgment has been vindicated by centuries of scholarship, demonstrating their remarkable spiritual discernment and commitment to preserving authentic apostolic teaching.

 

THE BOOK OF ENOCH—OUR RELATED POSTS

• The Biblical Canon: The Journey from Scrolls to Scripture
• Archaeology Endorses Scripture: Papyri and Dead Sea Scrolls
• Dead Sea Scrolls: How Ancient Texts Confirm Bible Integrity