Because of two New Moons may the Sabbath be profaned: [the New Moon] of Nissan and [the New Moon] of Tishri, for on them messengers used to go forth to Syria, and by them the set feasts were determined. And while the Temple still stood the Sabbath might also be profaned because of any of the New Moons, to determine aright the time of the offerings.
m. Rosh Hashanah 1:4
The New Moon of Tishri is, of course, what the Rabbis referred to as Rosh Hashanah, the head of the year,
or what the biblical texts refer to as Yom T’ruah, the day of horn blasts (Num 29:7-11), and Zikron T’ruah, a remembrance by horn blasts (Lev 23:24-25). By fixing that day, it also enabled the date of the Festivals of Purgation and Booths to be determined. The New Moon of Nissan was significant because it determined when the Festival of Unleavened Bread and Passover occurred. Because the Sabbath injunction was to not do any work, there were various rules about what constituted work. One of these rules fixed the amount of journeying or walking one could do before they violated the Sabbath. Unfortunately, that distance was often less than had to be done for witnesses to communicate to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem that they had seen the New Moon. However, because there was a biblical command to proclaim the holy convocations in their appointed seasons, Jewish sages and authorities who supported the extra Sabbath regulation believed they had a loophole which allowed those who enabled them to keep this commandment to travel as far as possible to do so:
For it is written, These are the set feasts of the Lord, even holy convocations which ye shall proclaim in their appointed season (Lev 23:4).
m. Rosh Hashanah 1:9
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
While visiting Seattle, I recently attended a service of Calvary Fellowship Mountlake Terrace. It is always enlightening to attend the services of other Christian traditions and denominations to see the particular ways that different bodies of Christ identify and define themselves in distinction with or against others, to get a taste of their unique methods and means of expression, and to learn a little about what and how they think in terms of their faith and the world.
I’ve been to a few Calvarys
now so I kinda knew what was coming. For instance, I expected a strong, if not pivotal and definitive, view of eschatological Futurism. Their desire to see people accept Yeshua as their personal Lord and Savior is invigorated by an anticipation of Christ’s (soon Second) coming, a sort of end or historical resolution that will bring about what their faith proclaims. For Anabaptists, there is a present eschatology that embraces sacrifice and suffering on the part of the church and working to restore creation now more than a future one looking for the coming time when evil will be destroyed, the church redeemed, and things set right. Early Anabaptists definitely had an end times perspective, but it was their own end that they anticipated. Every time they met together, it was a very real possibility that it would be their last time doing so. They accepted the way of the cross (persecution, suffering, and death) as part of the present kingdom of God. Instead of eagerly anticipating and preparing for a future time when the world would be changed, Anabaptists saw themselves as being that change in the present among themselves and those who followed them in the way of Christ.
When worship
time began, it appeared that there would be another loud Calvary rock fest, which destroyed any possibility of participation on my part. But then things suddenly changed. We sang old hymns to a single, simple, acoustic guitar. It was wonderful. Thank you, Calvary Fellowship, for your willingness to diversify for the sake of others among you.
After worship,
there was an extended period of prayer led by a senior pastor of the church. During this, the pastor gave a very short, general prayer that threw me as a Mennonite into sharp distinction from that Christian body. When prayer time was over, I could not say amen when it was asked of all the people.
I can’t remember the specific words of the prayer, but it went something to the effect of asking God to keep the troops safe from harm, which was perfectly acceptable, and then added that God should be with the troops or help them as they fought for the freedoms that we enjoy. I was shocked and stunned by this prayer. While it could have meant quite a number of things, one thing that was not ambiguous about it was the fact that this pastor and congregation in union with him had just prayed that God would bring violence against our perceived or unperceived enemies. As a Mennonite, I was unable to grasp how a Christian could pray any such a thing. I quote here a few short declarations from two other Peace traditions (Brethren and Quaker) that explain the grotesque and unholy contradiction I perceived.
Christ says, Love your enemies.
War says, Hate them.
Christ says, Do them good.
War says, Do them harm.
Christ says, Pray for them.
War says, Slay them.
Christ says, I come not to destroy men’s lives but to save them.
War says, I come to destroy men’s lives, and for this purpose I want the most effectual weapons that can be invented.
Paul says, If thine enemy hunger, feed him.
War says, Starve him.
Paul says, If he thirst, give him drink.
War says, Destroy his wells, cut off his supplies of every kind.
Paul says, We wrestle not against flesh and blood.
War says, We do wrestle against flesh and blood. Crown them to the wall, and into the last ditch; utterly destroy them if they don’t submit.
Christ and War by Daniel Vaniman, 1900, taken from Biblical Pacifism: A Peace Church Perspective by Dale Brown, p. 28
Whoever can reconcile this, Resist not evil,
with Resist evil by force
; again, Give also thy other cheek
with Spoil them, make a prey of them, pursue them with fire and sword
; or Pray for those that persecute you
with Persecute them with fines, imprisonment, and death itself
; whoever can find a means to reconcile these things may be supposed also to have found a way to reconcile God with the Devil, Christ with Anti-Christ, light with darkness, and good with evil.
Robert Barclay, 1676, taken from Biblical Pacifism: A Peace Church Perspective by Dale Brown, p. xi
What was even more inconceivable to me as the service went on was how another pastor explained a core tenet of the church to be to love the world.
I could not comprehend how loving the world meant asking God to shed its blood. This is no definition of love I ever heard, let alone any definition given by scripture. Apparently, loving the world only meant sharing the gospel message with them hoping they would choose to believe it was something true and valuable, not sharing with them the reality of what the gospel is. Calvary Fellowship was adamant in doing good for the poor in material wealth, like feeding the homeless, which was commendable, but when it came to the poor in spirit, like those who would plot evil against us or others, it seemed to feel the best thing to do was support violence and death against them! Is Satan in league with the church of God? As a Mennonite, I have to seriously question the words and intent of anyone who would say in one breath, let us do good and love the world which does not know God
and in the next, let us pray for violence and destruction to come upon those who have turned away from him.
If a man cries out [to God] over what is past, his prayer is vain. Thus if his wife was with child and he said, May it be thy will that my wife shall bear a male,
this prayer is vain. If he was returning from a journey and heard a sound of lamentation in the city and said, May it be thy will that they [which make lamentation] be not of my house,
this prayer is in vain.
m. Berakoth 9:3
This seems to suggest a closed relationship between cause and effect in certain ancient Jewish perspectives. Certainly it was believed God could interfere to bring change, but perhaps some believed any such interference would only take place within the relationship between cause and effect that already existed. Perhaps a pulling and tugging of the strings to bring about a new design without actually destroying one string or creating another. If true, God would be bound to work within and by the rules of his own creation and nothing new could be inserted from outside. It is certainly attractive in a number of ways. It means, for instance, that anything we could know about God would be entirely based on the world in which we exist. No leaps of imagination or non-rational, existentialist propositions required. And yet, if so, it could also have a serious disadvantage in that it might make it difficult for one to comprehend what in the natural order was moved or purposed by God from what in the natural order wasn’t, because in both cases, the evidence one was measuring might be exactly the same. A miracle would cease to be a miracle in any sense other than that its natural order was not discernible.
It reminds me of a question I asked a good friend not too long ago about whether he believed creation was a one-time event after which nothing new was interjected or whether God did or could create something new and creation could be more than a one-time event. He favored the one-time creation, and would therefore probably agree with this quote. What say you, Mit the Destroyer?
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
They tell of R. Hanina b. Dosa that he used to pray over the sick and say, This one will live,
or, This one will die.
They said to him, How knowest thou?
He replied, If my prayer is fluent in my mouth I know that he is accepted; and if it is not I know that he is rejected.
m. Berakoth 5:5
Sounds pretty crazy, doesn’t it? And yet I believe it could be possible. I, myself, have experienced some pretty weird foreknowledge. Just a couple weeks ago, in fact, I dreamed that a friend had broken up with his girlfriend. Somehow I just knew it was true. So I called him up and was about to say, this is going to sound really weird, but I just dreamed you broke up with your girlfriend,
and the first thing he said was, I just broke up with my girlfriend.
See my posts Premonitions and Extra-Sensory Knowledge Part I and Part II for more. Whether this was possible in Hanina b. Dosa’s case, I couldn’t say.
Women or slaves or minors may not be included [to make up the number for the Common Grace].
m. Berakoth 7:2
I can understand slaves and minors not being included in ceremonial obligation…but women? This is offensive to me. Women were second-class citizens—or maybe even third-class citizens—in ancient Israel and most of the ancient world (indeed, even in much of the modern world). But just because that’s the way it was doesn’t mean I have to like it. I have a feeling that reading through the entire division of the Mishnah on women is going to be a bit challenging. The misogynistic perspectives in the biblical texts can be quite taxing as well. The trick is to remember that one is dealing with cultures that are different than our own and thus not to hold those different cultures up to standards we’d expect of ours.
No benediction may be said over a lamp until one can enjoy its light.
m. Berakoth 8:6
There we go, a beautiful saying to make up for an ugly one. The basic idea is one can only call something blessed when they have partaken of its goodness.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
If he that says the Tefillah falls into error it is a bad omen for him; and if he was the agent of the congregation it is a bad omen for them that appointed him, because a man’s agent is like to himself.
m. Berakoth 5:5
Agency is a fascinating concept that shows up throughout the Oral Law and its commentary. The basic saying is a man’s agent is like to himself.
What this means is an agent and the agent’s sender function as if they were the same person. So here we see that an error introduced by the agent is considered the error of the one who sent the agent. Whatever the agent does is considered the doing of the sender, for the agent has taken on the role, function, and identity of the sender. Sometimes the sender is an entire congregation:
Rabban Gamaliel says: The agent of the congregation fulfills the obligation that rests upon the many.
m. Rosh Hashanah 3:9
When an agent of the congregation fulfills an obligation on behalf of the congregation, the congregation is believed to have fulfilled that obligation itself.
I believe that Yeshua spoke often about himself and YHWH in terms of agency and because most people do not understand this ancient Jewish concept, they misunderstand what Yeshua is saying in the gospels either about himself or about his Father. The monumental error of Trinitarianism could have been avoided if ancient Christians understood Jewish agency more than they did NeoPlatonism. Instead of speaking about Yeshua being YHWH in terms of hypostases and other such Greek philosophic nonsense, they would have more easily understood that Yeshua was presenting himself as YHWH’s unique royal agent. I have written more on agency and Yeshua in my Introduction to Categoricalism.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
If he was riding on an ass he should dismount [to say the Tefillah]. If he cannot dismount he should turn his face [toward Jerusalem]; and if he cannot turn his face, he should direct his heart toward the Holy of Holies. If he was journeying on a ship or a raft, he should direct his heart toward the Holy of Holies.
m. Berakoth 4:5-6
You will find as you read through the Oral Law that the object of directing one’s heart comes up fairly often and that this is the ultimate goal of all the practices and traditions set forth—for if one has not directed their heart, even though they have done what they should, they have not fulfilled their lawful obligation.
Though one may have heard [the blowing of the shofar] and another may have heard [the blowing of the shofar], the one may have directed his heart and the other may not have directed his heart.
m. Rosh Hashanah 3:7
The directing of one’s heart is what fulfills holy obligation. In the first quote, the object of dismounting from an ass or from turning one’s face to Jerusalem is in order to direct one’s heart away from where they are going or what they are doing and set it on God. In scripture, we see Daniel setting his face
toward God when he went to pray, which may refer to facing Jerusalem, directing his heart to God, or both:
In the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to the prophet Jeremiah, must be fulfilled for the devastation of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. Then I turned to the Lord God, to seek an answer by prayer and supplication with fasting and sackcloth and ashes.
Daniel 9:2-3, NRSV
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
A bridegroom is exempt from reciting the Shema’ on the first night, or until the close of the [next] Sabbath if he has not consummated the marriage.
m. Berakoth 2:5
Recitation of the Shema’ was a holy and righteous act that had many strict limitations upon it. All these requirements are annulled on the night of a wedding. Why? One word: sex. And if a husband is unable to make love to his wife the first day, he is exempt then from the Shema’ on the second day so he and his new wife may romp and roll. And if not the second, so the third. And so on and so forth up until the Sabbath. Of course, it should be kept in mind that sexual intercourse actually made one unclean, and it took some time to become clean afterwards, which probably factored into the decision to not say the Shema’ when one was defiled by lovemaking. But oh what a glorious and righteous defilement! Nonbelievers think we can’t really celebrate and enjoy defilement. If only they knew. Why we even postpone our religious duties to do it! Of course, in the ancient world, that was a major difference—sexual activity was often a part of religious activities outside Israel. In Israel, such things were separate.
R. Eliezer says: He that makes his prayer a fixed task, his prayer is no supplication.
m. Berakoth 4:4
I know a lot of Protestants who dislike Catholicism (and others) because of the rituals, the formalism, the fixed prayers, and such. In fact, my father (a former Catholic) said he disliked those structured and ordered prayers because it felt like a demand instead of a delight—something he was supposed to do instead of something he wanted to do. I’ve never understood that. Rather than being felt compelled by ritual and fixed, traditional prayers, I’ve found a unique sort of freedom—particularly a freedom to voluntarily join my voice and my heart with many others so that we stand together as one instead of apart as individuals.
This saying that is remembered of or attributed to R. Eliezer exposes another benefit of ritualistic, fixed, formal prayers. As a Protestant, I am all too familiar with the very common way Protestant prayer turns into little more than supplication and self-focus. When you have a fixed task and a traditional prayer, if it means something to you, it more often turns your heart, mind, and will away from yourself and outward to God. I have found that as my prayers become more formal, they become more focused on the person of God.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
From what time in the evening may the Shema’ be recited? From the time when the priests enter [the Temple] to eat of the Heave-offering until the end of the first watch. So R. Eliezer. But the Sages say: Until midnight. . . . Why then have the sages said: Until midnight? To keep a man from transgression.
m. Berakoth 1:1
It is telling that the very first part of the first Tractate of the first Division of the Oral Law speaks of the narrowing of tradition in order to protect people from getting too close to the line or gray zone between obedience and disobedience. This was a fundamental concern of the Rabbis and many of the Pharisees, sages, or pious who came before them. The classic term for this is building a fence (or wall) around Torah
and comes from the beginning of Tractate Aboth. The men of the Great Synagogue headed by Ezra after the return from exile were said to have had three motivations, purposes, or intents:
Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Law.
m. Aboth 1:1
In the beginning of the Oral Law, we see how that fence was taking shape—by teaching disciples to do their evening recitation of the Shema’ before midnight, this was supposed to keep them from falling asleep and then not saying it before they woke up the next day, at which point it would be too late.
It reminds me of a rule that was imposed over me when I was a new Christian. I lived in a house with a bunch of other young Christian men that was part of a university ministry. The rule was no 1 and 1 after 1:00,
meaning there should not be one male and one female alone together at the house after 1:00 A.M. The purpose of this rule was two-fold. First, it meant to guard the house or those in it against an appearance of evil.
Second, it was meant to protect the guy and girl from the temptation to do something they shouldn’t (sexually). Likewise, there were several women who were part of that university ministry who lived in a house together and didn’t allow guys in the house after a certain time. When an attraction sprang up between me and one of the women in the other house, I was always getting in trouble either at my house or her’s for being alone with her past these dogmatic curfews. Eventually, there were planned meetings between me and my male housemates and between me and the women of the other house. It became clear during these sessions that both parties and all those involved in those parties were mainly concerned with me not heeding the rules because they were trying to protect me from doing something I shouldn’t (sexually). And while I freely admit that the temptation existed, I was adamant in my resolve to not commit fornication, which I tried very hard to communicate and convince them of.
The irony of this whole situation is that I alone of the young men was the one who was breaking this rule (in both houses), I alone of the young men stood up for myself (unfortunately, not often with love toward those who took me to task for one or both of those things), and I alone of the young men who didn’t immediately marry their girlfriend or who had a girlfriend to begin with didn’t do what they were so fearful I might. In that whole situation, transgression was created not because of the transgression people wanted us to avoid, but because of the rule meant to protect us from it. For this reason, I can’t help but wonder if maybe—just maybe—the fence around Torah meant to protect people from breaking it, sometimes further destroyed it.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
This post is a little late, but considering how long the English-speaking world has been waiting for a translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, a couple weeks is not that much time. There has been a lot of speculation over the past several years about a translation by the scholar and Samaritan, Benny Tsedaka. I recently received correspondence from the man himself. The contract with a publisher to print the first ever English translation was signed as of 8-8-09. The book will hit shelves in 2010. I did not receive word on the precise publisher, but I imagine we will know by year’s end.
ויתהלך חנוך את־האלהים ואיננו כי־לקח אתו אלהים
Now Enoch walked with God, but ceased to exist. Surely God redeemed him from death.
Gen 5:24
This post concludes the Epitah series, consisting of The Controversy, Death, Redemption, and Out of Sheol, which has sought the best interpretation and understanding of the story of Enoch based on an in-depth analysis of Hebrew and of the text itself.
Narrative Parallelism
Since Enoch and Noah are singularly unique in sharing the particular expression walked around with Elohim,
and since they occupy key numerical positions in the genealogical list (Enoch at 7th and Noah at 10th), if we approach the text of Genesis in a synchronic fashion (looking for patterns of meaning across a text as though the text were assembled so one part was meant be read in union with another), these conspicuous elements may function as a narrative clue prompting us to take notice of a parallel between Enoch and Noah. The following is a short, narratological analysis of the story of Enoch and Noah which adds insight to the interpretation of Gen 5:24 that has been argued.
Because Noah walked around with Elohim
and thus gained God’s favor (6:8), God granted him life above and beyond those around him (along with those on whom he had influence). The particular way God did this was by redeeming Noah from an end that the rest of humanity drank deeply (7:21-22). Noah was translated in an ark (and even brought up to heaven on the waves which covered the earth) so he would not see that death. Although he escaped that death, he nevertheless experienced and was confined by the watery grave for some time until YHWH released him from it by removing the waters (8:1-3), telling him to depart the ark (8:15-16), and perhaps even opening the ark for Noah to disembark since God was the one who shut him in (7:16).
This may serve as a parallel for us to understand what happened to Enoch. Just as Noah walked around with Elohim,
so did Enoch. Just as Noah found favor with God, so Enoch also pleased him (Greek version and perhaps its Vorlage). Because of this, God granted life to Noah beyond that of others by raising him from the earth in a vessel of wood. So also God granted life to Enoch beyond that of others by raising him in the vessel of his flesh from the earth into which he, as dust, had returned (was not there
). Just as Noah died symbolically by passing through the waters of the flood (1 Peter 3:21), so Enoch died literally by passing through the symbolic waters of Sheol. Just as Noah experienced and was confined by a watery grave and yet escaped it by YHWH’s redemption, so Enoch experienced and was confined by an earthen grave and yet escaped it by YHWH’s redemption. Just as Noah was translated from a world of corruption so he would not see that death, so Enoch was translated from corruption and the grave so he would not see death by being raised up out of it and granted life once again.
The Epistle of Hebrews
There is little to no reason from Genesis or even from the use of to take
in the story of Elijah to make us think Enoch didn’t die—and yet even if there were the smallest possibility of the traditional Christian understanding, it makes substantially less sense than its competing interpretations. The reason then that Christians have interpreted Gen 5:24 as speaking of Enoch’s living ascension is due entirely to a particular understanding of Hebrews 11:5, which then becomes the default understanding of Genesis regardless of what Genesis may or may not say. For the purposes of full disclosure, I should say at this point that I am no New Testament scholar and know more Attic than Koine Greek. What I can offer, therefore, on this look at Hebrews, is significantly less than what I have offered on the Hebraic texts.
By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found because God took him up; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God.
Hebrews 11:5, NASB
Just to get it out of the way, the word rendered here as to take up
is μετετεθη, which is the same word (though in a slightly different form) used by the Septuagint version of Gen 5:24 and simply means to transfer
or to translate.
As it should be evident, being transferred or translated from a state of death to a state of life, or from inside the grave to outside the grave, makes just as much sense of the word as being transferred or translated from earth to heaven without dying. This is no issue for my argument of Gen 5:24, so I will move on to the part of this verse that is most problematic.
Many people have read so that he should not see death
as meaning to communicate that Enoch didn’t die. If, therefore, this is what Hebrews is telling us, and if it is an inspired and authoritative interpretation of Genesis, we have our Christian understanding. I won’t bother with the question of authority and inspiration here. Rather, I wish to challenge this understanding of Hebrews 11:5. I think we have many reasons from the text itself to believe something else is being said about Enoch.
First, it should be noted that the reference to Enoch takes place within a list containing Abel, Noah, Abraham, and Sara. After speaking of these individuals and their great faith, Hebrews then makes a summary statement concerning them:
All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, . . .
Hebrews 11:13a
It says right here in Hebrews that all five people previously mentioned, which includes Enoch, died. It is difficult to get any more direct, clear, and literal than that. The phrase so that he should not see death,
is not nearly so. As an interpretative principle, it is almost always better to interpret from the clearest and most direct meaning to the less clear and the more uncertain, not the other way around. To reject the most natural meaning of all these died
and turn it into something entirely other in favor of an interpretation of the less certain phrase, so that he should not see death,
is to merely beg the question. If we have real, positive evidence that Enoch died and no real, positive evidence to say otherwise (see P2: Death, P3: Redemption, and P4: Out of Sheol), it is only the presuppositional bias of an interpreter that would cause them to turn all these died
into all these died—except Enoch.
The best way to understanding Hebrews is to accept that Enoch died as verse 13 tells us, but to add that he didn’t see death
because God redeemed him from the grave. By saying this, not seeing death
is employed to serve a different understanding than simply not experiencing death
or not dying.
This alternate understanding not only makes better sense, but is based on the idea of seeing
and not seeing
that plays a vital part in Hebrews 11 from the very beginning.
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
Hebrews 11:1-3, NASB
Here we find that Hebrews is setting up a relationship between the word of God (what is not seen) and what is or has occurred (what is seen). The relationship is thus: what is seen, or what is or has occurred, has its origins in what is not seen, meaning the word of God. The first example given is that of creation. Creation is the thing that is seen, or the thing that occurred. But before creation occurred and thus became what is seen, there was something which cannot be seen, the word of God, from which it came into being and had its fulfillment. Hebrews then presents us with a list of five people who did not receive the promises and only saw them from afar (v. 13a). The promises
are those things that are not seen, meaning things God said. Each of these five people put their trust in the word of God that came to them, or what is not seen. Unfortunately, however, they never received during the course of their lifetime the fulfillment of the word of God that came to them—they never saw what is not seen
become what is seen.
Despite never seeing the occurrence of that which the word of God spoke to them, these people continued living in anticipation of it unto their very deaths. That is why they are exemplars of faith. And yet it should not be said that they continued in anticipation of the fruition of what God said to them without evidence or reason for doing so. Their faith was not based on that which had not yet occurred, or what is not seen, but on God himself verifying to them that their trust in him was valid. In other words, what is seen, or what has happened (like creation), is reason and evidence to trust in that which is not seen, or which has not happened. This is the other side of the message of Hebrews 11 that is so often missed. As examples, we may take a brief look at some of those mentioned in the list from Hebrews.
In the case of Abel, God testified to Abel that he had done well, and therefore Abel had reason substantiated by the evidence of God’s acceptance of his sacrifice and non-acceptance of Cain’s that if he continued trusting in the fulfillment of God’s word to him, it would come to pass—even if not until after he was dead. Unfortunately, we do not know from Genesis what the word of God to Abel was. In the case of Noah, we also do not know what the word of God was that Noah never saw come to fruition in his lifetime, but we do know how God validated himself to Noah. God said he would bring a flood to cover the earth, but that he would deliver Noah from it, then did so. In the case of Abraham, the text tells us both what the word of God was to him and how God validated to Abraham in time and space why Abraham had reason to trust in that word. The word of God to Abraham was that a certain line of his descendants would be as numerous as the stars in the sky and become a blessing to all nations. The text then gives us many instances of God showing evidences and reasons for Abraham to place trust in that word such as saying he would give Abraham a child in his old age, that this would happen one year later, and it occurred, or saying he would annihilate a region of the earth because of the wickedness of its inhabitants, and Abraham saw it happen with his own eyes.
Turning to Enoch, the principle subject of our discussion, he likewise obtained the witness that he was pleasing to God
(11:5b). What this witness was, we do not know, but it happened long before he was not there
and was taken,
which was reason and evidence to substantiate for him that if he continued trusting in the word of God that had come to him, it would be fulfilled. Like the others in the list, Enoch died without receiving the fulfillment of the word of God that came to him (v. 13a). What was it that God promised him? I suggest that he was promised redemption from death and this was fulfilled when God took
him by raising him from the dead. Thus so that he should not see death
is not meant to communicate to us that Enoch didn’t die, but to verify the faithfulness of the word of God to Enoch (that which is not seen) by saying that when Enoch died, he didn’t stay dead as he should have.
The point of the phrase so that he should not see death
does not tell us something fascinating about Enoch’s life, but something true about the faithfulness of the word of God. Because the word of God to these ancient peoples–what was to them not seen—has now occurred–or is now what is seen—we have reason and evidence to trust that the word of God that has come to us, whatever that might be, will occur. Because Enoch was bestowed with life after he died and because Abraham’s line of descent became as numerous as the stars of the sky and a blessing to all nations, so what God has now spoken to us (what is not seen to us) is trustworthy. The foundation of the faith of those who came before, which looked forward to what hadn’t occurred because of what had, thus becomes a foundation for our own. The acts of God in history to validate his word spread from generation to generation to empower and enliven faith.
In Conclusion
It has been a long journey to arrive at the best understanding of a single verse of scripture, but I believe we have done it—not only in a way that makes the most sense of the text itself, its use of Hebrew, and its surrounding narrative, but which explains the variants of that text and doesn’t conflict with others like the Epistle of Hebrews. Enoch died, but was redeemed from the grave by being reanimated and transferred up out of it to another place. Enoch’s epitaph is thus broken, providing a very early example which serves to substantiate for us and for those who come after us that God is real and his future promises are sure.
