Why the Book of Enoch is not in the Bible

In recent years, the Book of Enoch has experienced a surprising revival. Videos, podcasts, and online teachers frequently claim that it was once part of the Bible but was later removed by church authorities. Others go further, arguing that it should be restored to the canon—that its prophecies about fallen angels, heavenly journeys, and the coming judgment are too significant to ignore.

Its influence is undeniable. Many Christians today—even those who have never read it—unknowingly borrow ideas from the Book of Enoch when interpreting passages like Genesis 6, where “the sons of God” take wives from among the daughters of men. As a result, the line between biblical revelation and extra-biblical speculation has become increasingly blurred.

This confusion has led many to ask an important question: Was the Book of Enoch ever meant to be part of Scripture? In this article, we’ll look at the evidence—and I’ll show you how we can know with absolute certainty that it is not, and never was, part of the Bible.

Why this Question Matters

Before we dive in, I want to briefly address the question of why the authority and status of the Book of Enoch even matters. For many readers today, the Book of Enoch is more than just an ancient curiosity. Ideas drawn from it—sometimes knowingly, sometimes unknowingly—have quietly shaped how countless Christians interpret certain passages of Scripture, leading to the proliferation of false interpretations of key biblical passages. To demonstrate, let us briefly discuss how the information contained within this book has colored how many Christians interpret the Genesis 6 narrative.

The Book of Enoch expands upon the story of Genesis 6:1–8, functioning in many ways like an ancient Jewish midrash aggadah on a passage of Torah. According to 1 Enoch, the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 refer to rebellious angels, while the “daughters of men” refer to mortal human women. The book teaches that these fallen angels took human wives and produced a hybrid race of giants known as the Nephilim. This interpretation—though immensely popular in modern prophecy circles and online ministries—comes not from Scripture itself, but from the speculative mythology of 1 Enoch. It constitutes a corruption of the biblical text and has fueled the proliferation of a false interpretation of Genesis 6.¹

In reality, the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 refer to the household of faith who walk with God, which in the context of the Genesis narrative refers to the descendants of Seth (Gen. 4:25-26; Gen. 5:22-24; 5:28-29; 6:9). In contrast, the “daughters of men” refer to the ungodly who walk by the lust of the flesh, which in this context refers to the descendants of Cain (1 John 3:12; Jude 11).² Taken together, what Genesis 6 actually describes is a divinely forbidden intermingling of the covenant line with the ungodly, or an unholy union of the clerical and secular spheres that God had ordained to remain separate after the fall (Gen. 3:15; cf. Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25). He desired that his covenant people remain unspotted from the corruption of the world.

The Book of Enoch’s expansion of this chapter therefore distorts what the text truly means, and its framing continues to be smuggled into the biblical narrative to this day—often by those unaware that the idea originates from 1 Enoch. This has given rise to one of the most popular false teachings in modern Christianity: the notion that fallen angels mated with mortal women. Such an idea is not only unscriptural but physically impossible.³

That is why it is important to settle the question once and for all: Was the Book of Enoch ever part of the inspired Word of God?

What is the Book of Enoch?

Now that we’re clear on why the question of Enoch’s divine inspiration and canonicity is important, let us begin by clarifying what I am talking about when I refer to the book of Enoch. There are three different books attributed to the antediluvian patriarch Enoch: 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, and 3 Enoch. Despite their names, they are not related–all three were written at different times by different writers. When most people speak of the Book of Enoch, they are usually referring to the oldest of these works–known as 1 Enoch, and that is what I am referring to when I use the term.

The book of 1 Enoch is an ancient collection of apocalyptic writings attributed to the antediluvian patriarch Enoch, the seventh patriarch from Adam in the line of Seth (Gen. 5), who “walked with God” and was taken up into heaven (Gen. 5:24; cf. Heb 11:5). The book claims to record visions and revelations given to Enoch concerning the fall of the angels, the coming of divine judgment, and the future destiny of the righteous and the wicked.

Although Enoch is mentioned in Scripture, none of the books that bear his name are part of the biblical canon. The earliest portions of the 1 Enoch—such as the Book of the Watchers (chapters 1–36)—were composed sometime between the third and second centuries BC, making them products of the Second Temple period, not of the pre-Flood world. Fragments of these writings have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, demonstrating that the book was known and read among certain Jewish communities prior to the time of Christ.

The work itself is actually a composite of several distinct writings later compiled into a single book. These include The Book of the Watchers, The Book of Parables (or Similitudes), The Astronomical Book, The Dream Visions, and The Epistle of Enoch. The complete text survives today only in Ethiopic (Geʿez) translation, though fragments in Aramaic and Greek have also been discovered.

Despite its influence on Jewish thought and its popularity in the centuries surrounding the birth of Christ, the Book of Enoch was never recognized by either the Synagogue or the early Church as inspired Scripture. It was a highly regarded piece of Jewish apocalyptic literature during the Second Temple period—especially among the Essenes at Qumran—but was never recognized as part of the canonical Scriptures by mainstream Judaism or the early Church.⁴

Why Enoch was not the author

Knowing the Book of Enoch’s true historical setting helps us clear up one of the most widespread misconceptions about it—the idea that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, was its author.

Many people incorrectly assume that the Book of Enoch was written by the ancient patriarch himself—the “seventh from Adam” who walked with God and was taken up into heaven (Gen. 5:24). But that assumption collapses the moment we examine the timeline.

According to Genesis, Enoch was translated to heaven 69 years before Noah was even born.⁵ For anything Enoch wrote to survive until the days of Jude, a series of increasingly improbable events would have to have taken place. One or more copies of his writings would have had to be:

1. preserved by Noah’s ancestors for several generations before the Flood,
2. taken aboard the Ark and protected through the cataclysm,
3. continually recopied by Noah’s descendants (presumably through the line of Arphaxad, Salah, and Eber),
4. transmitted through the confusion of languages at Babel,
5. translated and recopied in new languages for more than two thousand years—
   and finally,
6. circulated widely among Jewish readers in the intertestamental era.

Yes, with God all things are possible—but let’s be honest: it just didn’t happen.

The book of Genesis itself tells us that almost all of Noah’s descendants turned to idolatry within a few generations. By Abraham’s day, mankind had already lost the true knowledge of God, and Abraham himself was called out of a pagan background. It is therefore inconceivable that Noah’s secular, idol-worshiping descendants would have carefully preserved and transmitted a mystical prophetic text written by their antediluvian ancestor.

All historical and textual evidence points instead to the Book of Enoch having been composed by a Jewish mystic or visionary writer in the third or second century BC—many centuries after the time of Enoch. Its language, style, and worldview are unmistakably those of the Second Temple period, not the pre-Flood world.

That being said, I am not arguing that the book of Enoch is not divinely inspired based on the fact that Enoch didn’t write it. There are several divinely inspired books in the Bible that we have no idea who wrote them (Judges, Job, Hebrews, etc.), and the fact that they were penned by an anonymous hand doesn’t detract from their divine inspiration or canonicity. Rather, my certainty that the book of Enoch is not Scripture and is not intended to be in the Bible is rooted in the irrefutable witness of the Bible itself. As I have demonstrated in previous posts, the Bible is symbolized by the Menorah (Exod. 25:31-40), and like the Menorah–it is a light which bears witness of itself.⁶

How can we be sure that the book of Enoch is not Scripture?

There are many people out there who falsely believe that the book of Enoch should be in the Bible. Based on my what I’ve seen, there appear to be two variations of this argument. One version says that the book of Enoch was originally in the Bible but was removed by the religious establishment responsible for preserving and canonizing the books of the Bible, while others say that it was never in the Bible but is supposed to be. In both cases, the reason they believe that 1 Enoch should be included in the Bible is the same, namely–because Jude quoted it in his epistle.⁷

So this begs the question–how can I be so sure that the book of Enoch is not Scripture, and that it was never intended to be a part of the biblical canon? Simply put, I am absolutely certain that the Book of Enoch is not Scripture because it is not witnessed in the Canonical Column.

What is the Canonical Column?

For those who may be new to this concept, the Canonical Column is the name I have given to an intricate, divinely designed structural framework and prophetic network embedded within the Bible itself. This framework bears witness to the final form of the biblical canon and reveals that the Bible contains exactly sixty-six inspired books—no more and no less—divided into two testaments of thirty-nine books and twenty-seven books. But it goes even further than that. Not only does it reveal the precise number of books of the Bible, it also identifies all sixty-six of those books through an intricate network of witnessing chapters which function as figurative types of those books—each having been divinely embedded with allusions to the content of their corresponding biblical books.

How the Canonical Column works

Within the Canonical Column, every single book of the Bible is identified and affirmed by the testimony of two witnesses, drawn from within the Old Testament itself. Together, these witnesses establish each book’s divine inspiration, canonicity, and ordained position within the sequence of Scripture. Through this divine design, the Canonical Column confirms that the Protestant Bible, with its thirty-nine books in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New, is the precise fulfillment of God’s intended canon—it alone aligns perfectly with the Column’s dual prophetic witness.

Why the Canonical Column proves 1 Enoch is not Scripture

The Book of Enoch does not appear anywhere within this witness. It is absent from the Canonical Column’s divinely coordinated structure and therefore stands outside the inspired boundary of Scripture. This alone settles the matter. The Canonical Column provides objective, internal proof that the Book of Enoch is not—and never was—part of the Holy Bible. For those who would dispute that, I invite you to take a good hard glander at the Canonical Column Look-up table I have supplied here, and see if you can tell me where the book of Enoch fits within its 66-book witness.

“But Jude quoted it!”

Yes, the evidence strongly suggests that Jude quoted directly from the Book of 1 Enoch (compare Jude 14–15 with 1 Enoch 1:9). But this does not mean that the book itself is divinely inspired, nor that it was ever intended to be part of the biblical canon.

How, then, should we understand Jude’s use of this noncanonical text? The answer is actually very simple. Jude was quoting from a well-known and widely read work that circulated among Jews of his day. The Book of Enoch was popular and influential throughout the Second Temple period, and Jude knew that his audience would be familiar with its language and imagery.

By citing a line from it, Jude was not endorsing the entire book as Scripture—he was drawing upon a familiar piece of literature to reinforce a truth his readers already accepted. His method was exactly the same as the Apostle Paul’s. When Paul addressed Gentile audiences, he often quoted pagan Greek poets his listeners respected: “For we are also his offspring” (Acts 17:28, from Aratus) and “Cretans are always liars” (Titus 1:12, from Epimenides). Paul clearly didn’t regard those pagan writings as inspired Scripture; he simply used them as relatable illustrations.

Likewise, Jude never introduces his quotation with the customary biblical formula “It is written,” which New Testament authors consistently use when citing canonical Scripture. Instead, he prefaces it with the words, “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying…” (Jude 14). This wording mirrors how the Book of Enoch itself introduces its speaker: “Enoch, a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One…” (1 Enoch 1:2). In adopting that familiar phrasing, Jude is referencing the well-known apocalyptic text and its central prophetic figure as his readers would have recognized him—not necessarily asserting that the historical patriarch Enoch personally wrote or uttered those words.⁸

In other words, Jude is quoting a prophetic saying preserved in the Book of Enoch—a statement within that ancient work that he regarded as true precisely because it happened to align with the Apostolic understanding of the coming judgment. Everything expressed in that particular verse from 1 Enoch harmonizes with what the apostles themselves taught about the Lord’s return and His execution of justice upon the ungodly. But simply quoting a line that agrees with revealed truth does not mean Jude was placing his stamp of divine endorsement upon the entire book. He was citing one isolated verse from a book that was popular and well-known to his audience, and only did so because that one isolated verse happened to be true.

In short, Jude’s citation recognizes a genuine ancient tradition about divine judgment, but his authority for that statement comes from God—not from a pseudonymous Jewish work composed thousands of years after the patriarch lived.

Conclusion: The Book of Enoch was never in the Bible and was never intended to be.

The Canonical Column proves that the book of Enoch was never part of the Bible, nor was it ever intended to be part of the Bible. While it is true that Jude likely quoted from 1 Enoch in his epistle, this does not mean that the Book of Enoch is divinely inspired—nor does it mean that it was ever intended to be part of the biblical canon. Jude is witnessed in the Canonical Column; the Book of Enoch is not. And that simple fact settles the matter once and for all.

1. The writer of 1 Enoch apparently concluded (or was drawing from a tradition which concluded) that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 referred to angels, likely on the basis that Satan appears “among the sons of God” in the book of Job. From this observation he erroneously inferred that the phrase “sons of God” denotes angelic beings. This is a misinterpretation. In reality, the “sons of God” are those who are justified by faith and led by the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:14; cf. Gal. 4:6; 2 Cor. 6:18; Eph. 1:5; 1 John 3:1; Rev. 21:7). Satan’s presence among them in Job does not indicate that he was one of them, but that he came to accuse them before God (Rev. 12:10; Job 1:8–11; 2:3–5). ↩︎
2. Cain built the first city (Gen. 4:17), implying that from his line came the first statesmen, legislators, and politicians. Seth was Eve’s replacement seed for Abel (Gen. 4:25–26), and it was through his line that Messiah would come. Thus, Seth’s descendants were God’s covenant people—hence the text calls them “the sons of God.” ↩︎
3. The Bible makes it clear that angels do not possess the ability to procreate (Matt. 22:30). And even if they could, it would be impossible for humans to reproduce with them, since angels do not share a human nature (Heb. 2:16). ↩︎
4. The Essenes appear to have had a high regard for the book, as we know that they copied and preserved multiple Aramaic fragments of it among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Yet even among their sect, it still does not appear to have been regarded on par with the canonical Scriptures. The Essenes treated it as valuable and instructive, but not as divinely inspired in the same sense as the Law and the Prophets. Outside Qumran, 1 Enoch had limited traction among mainstream Judaism. It’s absent from the later rabbinic canon (Tanakh), and post-70 AD Jewish literature rarely cites it. The Pharisaic and later rabbinic traditions likely viewed it as too speculative or mystical, especially because of its elaborate angelology and apocalyptic imagery. Among early Christians, Tertullian (late 2nd century) respected the book of Enoch and even argued for its inspiration, but this was not the normative or majority position. Origen and Augustine, for example, rejected it as pseudepigraphal. The book later became highly popular with certain heretical Gnostic groups, who adopted it because its cosmology and hierarchy of heavenly beings dovetailed with their systems. By the 4th century, 1 Enoch had fallen out of favor in orthodox circles, surviving only in the Ethiopic Church, which is the only Church which includes it in its canon. ↩︎
5. According to Genesis 5, Enoch was translated and taken in the year 987 A.M., while Noah was born in 1056 A.M. ↩︎
6. The wicks of the lamps of the Menorah all pointed inward toward the central shaft. Thus the three lamps on the left pointed right, and the three lamps on the right pointed left. Thus the Menorah was, quite literally, a light which bore witness of itself (John 8:12-14). ↩︎
7. In addition, many also assert that Peter alluded to 1 Enoch in his second epistle (2 Pet. 2:4; cf. 1 Enoch 10). ↩︎
8. In other words, we do not know whether he was attributing the saying to the literary character of Enoch as he is presented in the book of Enoch, or if he was also attributing it to the literal historical Enoch. ↩︎

© 2025, Zerubbabel. All rights reserved.