Conflict Between Paul and James

Is there a conflict between the justification by faith found in Paul's writings and the justification by works found in James?

There are potential problems with any solution to this apparent conflict. One problem for the idea that they are really talking about something different is that we see evidence of a conflict between "justification by faith alone" and observing the law of Moses (ie, "works of the law").

Acts 15:1 Now some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 15:2 When Paul and Barnabas had a major argument and debate with them, the church appointed Paul and Barnabas and some others from among them to go up to meet with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this point of disagreement.

The first disagreement was over the specific issue of circumcision of the Gentiles coming to the faith. Paul, of course, said Gentiles didn't have to be circumcised, but other Jewish believes said they did. Secondly, this seems to have rolled over into a broader issue of observing the Law of Moses:

Acts 15:5 But some from the religious party of the Pharisees who had believed stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to order them to observe the law of Moses.”

The ruling administered from James was that the Gentiles had to follow a few rules, but weren't required to circumcise themselves or observe all of the Law of Moses. But, the problem didn't seem to go away quietly. Paul later goes to Jerusalem again; and again he is confronted about his teachings, but this time about teaching fellow JEWS that they didn't need to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses.

Acts 21:18 The next day Paul went in with us to see James, and all the elders were there. ..................21:21 They have been informed about you – that you teach all the Jews now living among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.

James and the elders then come up with a ruling for Paul to take a course of actions to prove that he does live in conformity with the Law of Moses, contrary to the claims of his accusers. But from Paul's own writings, it seems we may know the truth - Paul did in fact teach them they didn't need to be circumcised or observe the Law of Moses.

Gal 2:15 We are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, 2:16 yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

In Galatians for example, Paul opens the letter describing his authority as coming directly from Christ. He emphasized that he didn't even see the apostles for a full 3 years after he was converted (Gal 1:18), after which he only saw Peter. He finally saw James for the first time 15 days after he saw Peter (Gal 1:19). All of this is done to say that he received his authority from Jesus, not Peter, James or any of the other apostles or Jerusalem leadership.

From Acts we know the "other gospel" Paul writes about in Galatians 1. It included stipulations that you had to be circumcised and/or follow the Law of Moses. This is what Paul is writing against. We know from Gal 2 that James is the one who sent people to confront Peter and force him to observe the Law of Moses. It seems we may even know who "slipped in" on Paul with hidden intend to spy on him (Gal 2:4-5) - it seems it may have been Silas and Judas Barsabas (Acts 15:22) since they were with him on his first visit to Galatia (Acts 16:6); and these were the ones sent by James and the Jerusalem leadership to accompany Paul. We see Paul's disdain for the Jerusalem leadership in Gal 2. It's at this point in Gal 2 that Paul says everyone is justified by faith and not works of the Law.

We know the meeting in Jerusalem that Paul refers to in Galatians is the first meeting with James and the apostles since Barnabas was with him (Barnabas separates from Paul after the first Jerusalem council). So we also seem to know that the charges from James in Acts 21 were in fact stemming from what Paul was saying since we have written evidence of it in Galatians.

The conflict between Paul and James appears to have been real, which means the conflict between justification by faith and justification by works was a real conflict that is reflected in the New Testament writings. But the "justification by works" wasn't an abstract moral sort of "works" as in, doing good things, but was in specific works found by observing the Law of Moses and doing the works of the Law. The unconformable conclusion then, if this is true, is that not only does the book of James conflict with Galatians and Romans, but James and Paul were writing to a large degree in opposition to one another!

Of course, it could be the case that Paul and James, though they were writing in opposition to one another, were really misunderstanding one another and talking past each other. It still could be the case that they say the same thing, but mean something more nuanced. Paul's view of justification by faith does, perhaps, seem more nuanced than the credit James was giving him since justification by faith wasn't a license to sin or ignore the purpose of the Law of Moses in the first place. And James' view of works of the Law didn't seem centered on necessity of ritualistic observance, as if you just go through some motions to check a box and meet some requirements, but on intents of the heart, why they were to be done, and their results/outcomes.

Jesus, Taxes, and Government

Here's the question I want to ponder: Did Jesus advocate paying taxes?

The question may seem a little simple at first because we have this very question posed to Jesus during his final week.

Luke 20:20 Then they watched him carefully and sent spies who pretended to be sincere.  They wanted to take advantage of what he might say so that they could deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction of the governor. 20:21 Thus they asked him, “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach correctly, and show no partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. 20:22 Is it right for us to pay the tribute tax to Caesar or not?” 20:23 But Jesus perceived their deceit and said to them, 20:24 “Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?” They said, “Caesar’s.” 20:25 So he said to them, “Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 20:26 Thus they were unable in the presence of the people to trap him with his own words. And stunned by his answer, they fell silent.


At first glance, the passage seem to say that Jesus told them to pay the tribute tax to Caesar.  After all, the answer to Jesus' question seems to be that it was Caesar's coin because it had his image on it - therefore, give it back to Caesar when asked.  So Jesus advocated paying taxes because the money itself belonged to the government.  

But on further inspection this interpretation probably doesn't hold up.   We must understand several things about this passage.

First, the tax in question was a very specific tax - the tribute tax levied by the Romans on their subjects.  The tax itself was a symbol of Roman rule over Judea; a rule which Jews at the time generally detested.

Second, the image on the coin would have been an image of Tiberius Caesar with an inscription about him being "divine."

The question to Jesus was intended as a trap since either way he answered would have resulted in him "losing" the interaction with his opponents.  If he said "yes" and to pay the tribute tax, he likely would have lost the crowds who saw him as the awaited messiah to free them (importantly from Roman rule) and restore the glory of God's kingdom.  He couldn't be the messiah if his promised kingdom was subject to the pagan Romans.  But if Jesus said, "no" and not to pay the tax, then Jesus is defying Rome, and would stand to be arrested as an insurrectionist.  

Jesus' answer involved him asking his opponents to produce a coin with Caesar's image and inscription.  This may have been highly controversial since they showed him an image of a pagan god (Caesar) within the confines of the temple, which may have been considered highly blasphemous for the audience who thought Israel's God had no image, and foreign gods in his temple would have been blasphemous.  

Jesus' next response would have been even more inciting since he tells them to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and God the things that are God's.  Anyone in his audience familiar with the Law of Moses, which would have been most of them, probably couldn't help but think of what the Law said about what belonged to God:

Deut 10:14 The heavens – indeed the highest heavens – belong to the Lord your God, as does the earth and everything in it.

According to the Law of Moses, God owns everything.  If that's so, then what belongs to Caesar?  Rhetorically, nothing.   So what were they to give to Caesar?  Nothing.  

Jesus had shown his opponents to be carrying images of a foreign god in the temple and had basically answered their question telling them to give nothing to Caesar.  Now we know why his opponents were "stunned" by his answer and fell silent.  Jesus had no doubt put the crowd firmly on his side by painting his opponents as idolaters and telling the people not to give anything to Caesar.  

This would have presented a danger if the crowds were sufficiently in his corner.  If Jesus did start an insurrection during Passover, the Romans would have done what the Romans always did to other would be messiahs - crush it and crucify the rebels.  Rather than deal with this potentiality, the leadership would have had to preemptively arrest him before he could start real trouble on Passover, but they would have to do it when he wasn't surrounded by the crowds.  So they hatched a plan to find him at night and arrest him when he wasn't surrounded with supporters.

Even here though, we have a report of trouble.  In Luke 22 Jesus' followers draw swords, and when Jesus is approached for arrest, there is a fight with his supporters.  Could it be that the leadership's fears may have been correct?  Would arresting Jesus in the temple have resulted in a bigger riot?

At his trial, Jesus' opponents circle back to this incident regarding taxes:

Luke 23:2 They began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man subverting our nation, forbidding us to pay the tribute tax to Caesar...

This indicates that we aren't mistaken; Jesus' audience too heard and understood him to advocate against paying the tribute tax to Caesar.


There is another view that I think merits some attention since it seems plausible to me, and that's the view promoted at a popular level by Reza Aslan.  On this view, Jesus the Greek word for "render" is best understood as "give back" or "pay back."  Here, Jesus is saying "pay back" what is Caesar's, namely the coin with his image on it, and "pay back" what belongs to God, namely the land of Israel.  Jesus is being tested by his opponents to see if he will confront Rome as an insurrectionist and zealot.  Jesus' response isn't so much advocating paying or not paying the tribute tax as it's the response of a zealot and an insurrectionist, where Jesus is encouraging a revolt against Roman occupation of the land of Israel.  The Jewish leadership should pay back the Romans all of what the Romans have given them and pay back to God the land of Israel and their hearts and minds.


This leaves us with the difficult question of how to make sense of this and apply it to ourselves and our circumstances today, and what I offer will largely be unsatisfying since I don't think it always answers questions about us, taxes and government.  Jesus uses his response to confront the Jewish and Roman leadership.  He certainly doesn't advocate paying a tribute tax and either directly urges not to pay it or urges his followers to rise up against the Roman occupation.  Jesus answers to specific issues to a specific audience that doesn't always carry over to a one-to-one correspondence to the circumstance we find ourselves.  We don't live in the land of Israel under Roman occupation.

But, Jesus absolutely confronts the rulers of his time for their corruption and failure in the management of God's people and God's land.

Pondering the Theology of a Christmas Hymn

"O Come O Come Emmanuel
And ransom captive Israel
Who mourns in lowly exile here
Until the Son of God appears
Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee O Israel."

Have you ever thought about the theology that underlies this? What does it mean to talk about Israel in exile? What does it mean for these Israelite captives to be waiting for the appearance of Emmanuel?

Dating the Book of Jubilees

One way to determine the earliest date when a writing, especially pseudopigraphical writings like Jubilees, could have been written is to do a little detective work in the writing and look for anachronistic references. This is simply looking for references that reflect events or details that are specific to a certain time and that which earlier references would have been impossible. For example, if a writing was made that made clear reference to the winning of the presidential election by Barak Obama, you would have a "no-earlier-than" date of 2008 since references to his winning the election would be near impossible before that time.

You can apply this technique to the Book of Jubilees to determine a likely range of dates for it's composition. In this first example, Jubilees recounts the events of Genesis 1-3 (with his own modifications of course). When he arrives at Adam and Eve's eating of the fruit and God's ensuing punishment, he retells the story of Adam sewing leaves to cover his and Eve's nakedness and he retells the part about God making a garment for them. At this point, Jubilees offers a new interesting detail:

Jubilees 3.30. And to Adam alone did He give (the wherewithal) to cover his shame, of all the beasts and cattle. 31. On this account, it is prescribed on the heavenly tables as touching all those who know the judgment of the law, that they should cover their shame, and should not uncover themselves as the Gentiles uncover themselves.

The mention here of Gentiles that uncover themselves is one of these anachronistic references. During the Second Temple period, and during the high priesthoods of Jason and Menelaus (very Greek names), Judea underwent a time of "Hellenization" (cf: Jos. Ant. 12.5). One of the things that Menelaus allowed was the building of a gymnasium in Jerusalem. Gymnasiums in the Greek world were not like gyms of today because in the Greek world, the sports were practiced completely naked. Hence, this particular reference in Jubilees seems to reflect the practices of the Greeks, probably specifically the gymnasium in Jerusalem that was built under Hellenized High Priests. The Jerusalem gymnasium was especially difficult for the Jewish population at the time as they were undergoing derision for Jewish particulars, of which circumcision was one. Josephus records how most tried to find ways to hide their circumcision when participating in the gymnasium (Ant. 12.5.1).

There are other details and pieces of data that indicate a much later composition for Jubilees. Consider for example that in the stories of the patriarchs in Jubilees there is no mention of flaws or faults on the part of the patriarchs and there is evidence of trying to smooth over difficult texts. Consider the binding of Isaac in Jubilees:

Jubilees 16.15. And it came to pass in the seventh week, in the first year thereof, in the first month in this jubilee, on the twelfth of this month, there were voices in heaven regarding Abraham, that he was faithful in all that He told him, and that he loved the Lord, and that in every affliction he was faithful. 16. prince Mastêmâ came and said before God, "Behold, Abraham loveth Isaac his son, and he delighteth in him above all things else; bid him offer him as a burnt-offering on the altar, and Thou wilt see if he will do this command, and Thou wilt know if he is faithful in everything wherein Thou dost try him."

Here, unlike Genesis, it's not God's idea to tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, it's Prince Mastema's idea in a manner very reminiscent of satan and God's encounter in the book of Job. It's fairly obvious that (1) someone didn't like the idea of God just commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and (2) this someone was familiar with the book of Job.

Or consider when Jacob obtains the blessing of his father in Jubilees:

Jubilees 26:19. And he said: "Art thou my son Esau?" and he said: "I am thy son and he said, "Bring near to me that I may eat of that which thou hast caught, my son, that my soul may bless thee."

Here, Jacob simply says "I am thy son" whereas in Genesis he says, "I am thy son Esau". In Jubilees, Jacob isn't presented as a trickster that tricks his father into blessing him and so Isaac isn't presented as incompetent. Obviously, the author of Jubilees is a later writer who, being a devout descendant of the patriarchs, doesn't like the flaws of the patriarchs as they are presented in Genesis, so he fixes it.

Inserted into Jubilees 23:9-32 is a series of woe's the seem to distinctly reflect the situation and difficult circumstances surrounding the Maccabean Revolt and we find another anachronistic reference:

23:26. And in those days the children will begin to study the laws,
And to seek the commandments,
And to return to the path of righteousness.

Here, the author seems to be referring to his own sect who were practicing strict sabbath observance and following the proper calendar (a huge theme of the book). In the midst of the Hellenizing of the leadership and the ensuing Maccabean Revolt, the author considers himself and his own sect as those who are enlightened to the truth (an identical theme shows up in the Book of Enoch as well).

Another anachronizing tendency seems to be with the mention of the Book of Enoch (a second temple writing) itself:

Jubilees 4.17. And he was the first among men that are born on earth who learnt writing and knowledge and wisdom and who wrote down the signs of heaven according to the order of their months in a book, that men might know the seasons of the years according to the order of their separate months. 18. And he was the first to write a testimony, and he testified to the sons of men among the generations of the earth, and recounted the weeks of the jubilees, and made known to them the days of the years, and set in order the months and recounted the Sabbaths of the years as we made (them) known to him. 19. And what was and what will be he saw in a vision of his sleep, as it will happen to the children of men throughout their generations until the day of judgment; he saw and understood everything, and wrote his testimony, and placed the testimony on earth for all the children of men and for their generations.

Simply put, if the Book of Enoch is a second temple writing, and Jubilees mentions Enoch, then Jubilees can be no earlier than the Book of Enoch. This probably also indicates that the 364 day solar calendar of Jubilees is derived from the Book of Enoch, which further reflects a later Second Temple dating.

All in all, a useful way of determining the dating of the book of Jubilees is to look at anachronistic tendencies and find references that are tell-tale signs of a specific date.

Dating The Book of Enoch

The consensus among scholarship is that the book of Enoch is Second Temple Jewish sectarian literature. How does someone arrive at such a view though? Here I am going to look at one way of dating the book of Enoch.

In chapters 85-90 we are given a series of dreams that Enoch supposedly has and passes on to his son Methuselah. The dreams that Enoch has here are fairly easy to correlate with historical events. Things are given enough detail to be able to tell from the passage what historical event is being referred to. For instance, 89:1-9 covers the biblical flood. 89:10-27 covers the period from the death of Noah to the Exodus.

89:23. But the wolves began to pursue those sheep till they reached a sea of water. 24. And that sea was divided, and the water stood on this side and on that before their face, and their Lord led them and placed Himself between them and the wolves. 25. And as those wolves did not yet see the sheep, they proceeded into the midst of that sea, and the wolves followed the sheep, and [those wolves] ran after them into that sea. 26. And when they saw the Lord of the sheep, they turned to flee before His face, but that sea gathered itself together, and became as it had been created, and the water swelled and rose till it covered those wolves. 27. And I saw till all the wolves who pursued those sheep perished and were drowned.

89:28-40 covers the period of wilderness wandering and giving of the Law at Sinai.

89:41-50 covers the time from the Judges to the building of the first temple.

89:51:67 covers the period from the splitting of the Davidic kingdom to the destruction of Jerusalem.

At this point, the "sheep" are blinded and they are given over to a series of wicked shepherds. We find reference to to building of the second temple (89:73) and the conquering of the Greek empire under Alexander the Great (89:74-75). In all, 35 [wicked] 'shepherds' lead God's people during this period. Then we are confronted with the period of Seleucid domination where another 23 [wicked] 'shepherds' rule God's people (90:2-5). So far 58 shepherds have ruled God's people since the return from Babylon. This is noteworthy, because Enoch only envisions 70 shepherds total ruling over God's people before the great judgment would occur (90:22).

At this point, the blindness of some of the sheep begins to be lifted (90:6). These sheep try to "wake-up"the other sheep which refuse to listen to their warnings (90:7). Here we are looking at a correlation between the last 12 shepherds and the Maccabean Revolt. At this point, the correlations between the dreams and historical events becomes very vague, esoteric, and frankly non-existent. The reason is due to when the author was writing. He lives around the time of the Maccabean Revolt; a time when he expects the last of the 70 shepherds to be ruling before the great judgment. The visionary experiences of "Enoch" correlate with historical events up the Maccabean Revolt very easily because it's actually prophecy ex eventu (after the fact) as it's very easy to recount events of one's own time of living. Things become vague and esoteric at the point just beyond the Maccabean Revolt in the visions because predicting the future with such accuracy is much more difficult for the author than recalling past events is and it's much more difficult than the familiarity of, and ease of writing about, one's own time. Had he known that the Romans would conquer Israel in 63BC or that the temple would be destroyed again in AD 70, he might have rethought or rewritten the book of Enoch.

Further, the point in the visions where the blindness of the sheep begins to be removed (90:6-7) probably indicates the time to where this Jewish sect traced it's origins. Their particular sect had the blinders removed and they tried to persuade the other 'sheep' of the "truth", but the other sheep were still blind and wouldn't listen. This might correspond to the time of the high priest Onias III who was murdered and replaced by a Hellenistic-influenced high priest (Jason).

This is one of the methods used to date the book of Enoch to the Second Temple period.

The Book of Enoch: A Jewish Sectarian Work

It seems that it has become faddish for some evangelicals to quote the book of Enoch as a sort of authoritative proof text for pet doctrines (usually dealing with speculative eschatology). I think that quoting the book of Enoch in such a manner is very reckless in that taking this view does not take into account that Enoch is 2nd Temple Jewish sectarian literature. The mention of fallen angels, end-of-the-world scenarios, heavenly visions, and such occurs within the context of Second Temple Judaism. The Book of Enoch in particular reflects an Essene outlook on things, in contrast to that of the Pharisees and Sadducees. What "Enoch" means by things like "sinners", "elect", "angels", "righteous", and "judgment" are not what Christianity means by those terms. One cannot look at the Book of Enoch through the lens of Christian belief and practice and expect to accurately interpret it.

Consider for a moment that the Book of Enoch treats the stars in heaven as heavenly beings who have transgressed the divine commands of God by not showing up at their appointed time. This may seem strange, but follow this to the end.

(this is RH Charles' translation)

Enoch 2:1. Observe ye everything that takes place in the heaven, how they do not change their orbits, ⌈and⌉ the luminaries which are in the heaven, how they all rise and set in order each in its season, and transgress not against their appointed order. 2. Behold ye the earth, and give heed to the things which take place upon it from first to last, ⌈how steadfast they are⌉, how ⌈none of the things upon earth⌉ change, ⌈but⌉ all the works of God appear ⌈to you⌉. 3. Behold the summer and the winter, ⌈⌈how the whole earth is filled with water, and clouds and dew and rain lie upon it⌉⌉.

Here "Enoch" mentions how he observes that some of the heavenly luminaries (heavenly lights) don't "transgress" their appointed order and how everything appears to happen at appointed times (see also chapters 3-5). What we will discover from Enoch is that these 'appointed times' are a particular 364 day solar calendar.

In chapter 6 we run into the story about the supposed copulation between the angels and women and we also find the names of the rebellious angels. This story continues on for several chapters

In chapter 12 we see that the watchers are identified with the fallen angels:

1. Before these things Enoch was hidden, and no one of the children of men knew where he was hidden, and where he abode, and what had become of him. 2. And his activities had to do with the Watchers, and his days were with the holy ones. 3. And I, Enoch was blessing the Lord of majesty and the King of the ages, and lo! the Watchers called me--Enoch the scribe--and said to me: 4. 'Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness, go, †declare† to the Watchers of the heaven who have left the high heaven, the holy eternal place,...

Chapters 17-36 involve Enoch's vision/travel through heaven and hell. It's here we find some interesting information about the rebellious angels:

18:13. I saw there seven stars like great burning mountains, and to me, when I inquired regarding them, 14. The angel said: 'This place is the end of heaven and earth: this has become a prison for the stars and the host of heaven. 15. And the stars which roll over the fire are they which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord in the beginning of their rising, because they did not come forth at their appointed times.

Here, the prison at the ends of the earth is for the stars that have transgressed the commandments of God by not appearing at their appointed times, which as we discover if we continue reading Enoch (or Jubilees) means they didn't abide by a 364 day solar calendar.

Chapter 19 mentions the women who copulated with these rebellious angels.

In chapter 20, we meet Raguel, one of the righteous angels whose job is take vengeance on the "heavenly luminaries". Why? As we saw, these heavenly luminaries, the fallen angels, have rebelled against God by transgressing His Holy calendar:

20:4 Raguel, one of the holy angels who †takes vengeance on† the world of the luminaries.

This continues into chapter 21 where Enoch asks about the imprisoned angels:

21:4. Then I said: 'For what sin are they bound, and on what account have they been cast in hither?' 5. Then said Uriel, one of the holy angels, who was with me, and was chief over them, and said: 'Enoch, why dost thou ask, and why art thou eager for the truth? 6. These are of the number of the stars ⌈of heaven⌉, which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and are bound here till ten thousand years, the time entailed by their sins, are consummated.'

This continues in chapter 23 where Enoch sees the rebellious luminaries (lights) of heaven being punished for their transgression:

23:2. And I saw a ⌈⌈burning⌉⌉ fire which ran without resting, and paused not from its course day or night but (ran) regularly. 3. And I asked saying: 'What is this which rests not?' 4. Then Raguel, one of the holy angels who was with me, answered me ⌈⌈and said unto me⌉⌉: 'This course ⌈of fire⌉ ⌈⌈which thou hast seen⌉⌉ is the fire in the west which †persecutes† all the luminaries of heaven.

What slowly becomes clear if you read all of Enoch is that he has a particular idea in mind when he mentions sinners and the elect:

38:3. When the secrets of the righteous shall be revealed and the sinners judged,
And the godless driven from the presence of the righteous and elect,
4. From that time those that possess the earth shall no longer be powerful and exalted:
And they shall not be able to behold the face of the holy,
For the Lord of Spirits has caused His light to appear
On the face of the holy, righteous, and elect.

In chapters 41 we find the first mention of astronomical observations dealing with the calendar. In chapter 43, we find more mention of the stars of heaven who are the equivalent of angels:

1. And I saw other lightnings and the stars of heaven, and I saw how He called them all by their names and they hearkened unto Him. 2. And I saw how they are weighed in a righteous balance according to their proportions of light: (I saw) the width of their spaces and the day of their appearing, and how their revolution produces lightning: and (I saw) their revolution according to the number of the angels, and (how) they keep faith with each other.

Chapters 72-79 go into detail on the 364 day solar calendar. And finally in chapter 80, we find the identification of the ultimate sin of men:

1. And in those days the angel Uriel answered and said to me: 'Behold, I have shown thee everything, Enoch, and I have revealed everything to thee that thou shouldst see this sun and this moon, and the leaders of the stars of the heaven and all those who turn them, their tasks and times and departures.

2. And in the days of the sinners the years shall be shortened,
And their seed shall be tardy on their lands and fields,
And all things on the earth shall alter,
And shall not appear in their time:
And the rain shall be kept back
And the heaven shall withhold (it).
3. And in those times the fruits of the earth shall be backward,
And shall not grow in their time,
And the fruits of the trees shall be withheld in their time.
4. And the moon shall alter her order,
And not appear at her time.
5. [And in those days the sun shall be seen and he shall journey in the evening †on the extremity of the great chariot† in the west]
And shall shine more brightly than accords with the order of light.
6. And many chiefs of the stars shall transgress the order (prescribed).
And these shall alter their orbits and tasks,
And not appear at the seasons prescribed to them.
7. And the whole order of the stars shall be concealed from the sinners,
And the thoughts of those on the earth shall err concerning them,
[And they shall be altered from all their ways],
Yea, they shall err and take them to be gods.
8. And evil shall be multiplied upon them,
And punishment shall come upon them So as to destroy all.'

Here we discover that those who don't follow the just mentioned 364 day solar calendar are SINNERS who have followed the fallen angels who they mistake for gods, which are those stars (angels for Enoch) that don't arrive at their prescribed times. The "elect" for Enoch are those who have been enlightened to the TRUE commandments of God and follow the right calendar.

The problem that the author of Enoch didn't consider was that his 364 day calendar was 1.25 days off of what the real solar calendar is, and so as he observes the stars from year to year he will observe that they show up later and later each year from where he thought they would be. So, since he already thought of the stars as heavenly beings/angels, he concludes that the problem isn't the calendar, but the angels.

Especially driving this conclusion is the fact that Enoch's calendar (the Essene calendar that's also found in the book of Jubilees) is extremely symmetrical and very consistent. Unlike the calendars of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Essene calendar didn't depend on the observation of the moon, so on the Essene calendar feast days occur at the same time every year, on the same days of the week, and don't shift/rove around as they do if you are using a strict lunar calendar. Also interesting is that if you project the Essene calendar back onto the Old Testament, no "work" can be dated to have occured on the Sabbath. This is admittedly a pretty impressive accomplishment. The downside is that in order to make the calendar work out in that desired way, their new year must start on the 4th day of the week contrary to the Pharisee and Sadducee calendars which started on the first day of the week.

For "Enoch", given the nice symmetry of his calendar where feast days occur with high regularity and where no event in the Old Testament occurs on the Sabbath, the curious occurrence of the stars not showing up at appointed times must not be the fault of such a pretty calendar that had obviously been ordained by God. The problem for Enoch was that the stars were angels who transgressed God's command. Sinners were those who followed the wrong calendar (ie, the Pharisees and Sadducees). The elect (ie, the Essenes) were the ones enlightened to the truth of God's commands and so followed the proper calendar.

The book of Enoch is 2nd Temple Jewish sectarian literature, and has no bearing on Christian belief and practice other than looking at the New Testament in it's historical context.

For more see:
"Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian", Beckwith, Roger T.
"The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls", Vanderkam and Flint.

Ritual, Tradition, Worship, and Football

I became curious this morning sitting in church and thinking about a good weekend of college football. I thought about a frequent repulsion on the part of some worshipers when it comes to ritual and tradition. Many people don't like the idea of falling into a pattern of tradition and ritual when it comes to worship. The thought is, I think, that people feel that tradition and worship lead to a lack of heart and soul being poured into the worship experience and they understandably fear being in the position of just going through the motions of worship without the worship itself carrying any meaning. But, after thinking about football (yes, that's right), I'm not sure that sort of reasoning actually carries much weight.

Think about it for a minute from the perspective of an SEC football game. The ritual and tradition that surround a home game begins a day or two before with people arriving for the game in an RV. People park in the same location every Saturday, eat generally the same food, and usually with the same people. The method of wearing clothes becomes somewhat of a superstition as people prefer the shirts and hats that helped the team win the last 2 games straight. In the stadium, the program follows ultimate predictability. The team comes out to warm up following the same warm up pattern they have followed every weekend under the current coach. Videos are shown on the jumbo tron in a certain order and at a specified time. The band marches around the field the same as they have done for the past several decades playing the same songs in the same order as they march around. The teams break from their warm up and go into the locker rooms. The cheerleaders lead the entire crowd in the same cheers and in the same order as they always do. The national anthem is played. The same videos show up on the screen again and the team storms out through the dry ice all to the sound of the school's fight song. All of this is only a fraction of the tradition and ritual that occur on any given Saturday.

College football is the ultimate experience of ritual, tradition, and in many instances downright superstition that would make the ancient pagans blush. But even in the midst of all of this pure tradition and ritual, people still have their emotions running through the clouds. People are still screaming their heads off at full volume as the climactic moment of kick-off rolls around. And people still come back week after week eager and ready to repeat the process yet again.

But when it comes to our worship, many people seem to think that ritual and tradition have no place as it leads to dead worship where people just go through the motions. I disagree with that sort of thinking and say that college football (or many of the other sports where the same things occur) falsifies this sort of rationality. The problem with tradition and ritual worship is not the tradition and ritual itself. I think in many cases the problem lies with the worshiper themselves and with their own heart, desires, and expectations.

Maybe those against tradition and ritual need to "get their heads in the game"?