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.
This post is the continuation and climax of P3: Redemption (see also P1: The Controversy and P2: Death).
The verb לקח, to take, is commonly used in scripture to speak of redemption. It is used, for example, to speak of Israel’s redemption from slavery.
But the LORD has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, from Egypt, to be a people for His own possession, as today.
Deuteronomy 4:20, NASB
Say, therefore, to the sons of Israel, ‘I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage. I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. Then I will take you for My people, and I will be your God; and you shall know that I am the LORD your God, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.’
Exodus 6:6-7, NASB
So also, לקח, to take, described redemption from slavery and exile in Babylon. In Ezekiel, YHWH tells the prophet to take
a stick and unite it with another as a symbolic sign of the fact that YHWH will take
the sons of Israel in his hand, redeem them from their exile, and re-establish them in their land.
Say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his companions; and I will put them with it, with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they will be one in My hand. . . . And say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land.
Ezekiel 37:19, 21, NASB
In the story of the coming of the messenger of YHWH to Manoah and his woman, which we already discussed, after the messenger ascends, Manoah fears for his life, thinking they will die because they saw God (Judges 13:22). Using the verb לקח, to take, Manoah’s woman reassures him that their lives have been redeemed from that consequence.
But his wife said to him, “If the LORD had desired to kill us, He would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering from our hands, . . .
Judges 13:23a, NASB
God’s taking
of the offerings is paralleled with, but contrasted to God’s taking of their lives. Because of the one, so not the other.
One quite possible interpretation of Gen 5:24 in line with this understanding of the verb is that Enoch was in the presence of God and brought the word and ways of God (walked around with Elohim
) to a humanity whose heart was constantly evil (Gen 6:5), but then disappeared from among them (was not there
) because God redeemed him from being killed by those who hated his instructions and/or warnings (Jude 1:14-15) through the process of translating
or bringing him out of their midst to a safer geographic region (Elohim took him
). In this case, the scripture would not be communicating anything to us about Enoch dying or not dying (although he would eventually die by natural causes or the coming of the flood). Rather, it would be communicating the faithfulness of God to redeem those who walk with him. And thus Enoch stands in contrast to those around him not because he didn’t die, but because he truly lived.
Sometimes the verb is used not only in terms of redemption, but also in terms of death. One example is the taking
of animals for immolation. The death of the animal serves to redeem the people from their sin, guilt, profanity, or uncleanliness:
Now this is what you shall do to them to consecrate them to minister as priests to Me: take one young bull and two rams without blemish.
Exodus 29:1, NASB
In Isaiah, the taking,
or death, of the righteous is said to redeem others from their transgressions.
By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living, For the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due?
Isaiah 53:8, NASB
Perhaps the most striking use of לקח, to take, in the scriptures, is the one which has a meaning of redemption from Sheol or death. Two passages of scripture are vivid in this regard, Psalm 18 and 49.
Psalm 18 (along with its almost identical companion piece in 2 Samuel 22), is a military victory hymn. A scribal gloss attributes the psalm to King David (v. 1). It begins with an introduction (vv. 2-3) giving praise to YHWH and introducing us to the reason for this praise: God’s deliverance from the destruction of one’s enemies. In metaphoric and mythological language, it then proceeds to describe a dire situation where all hope seems lost (vv. 4-5), a cry to God for deliverance (v. 6), and the coming of God to overthrow the speaker’s enemies and deliver him/her from certain death (vv. 7-19). The rest of the psalm speaks of the ways of God and how this related to the ways of the speaker (vv. 20-30), elaborates on how God enabled the speaker to conquer his/her enemies in this and many other military victories (vv. 31-45), and concludes with praise (vv. 46-50).
The most relevant portion of this psalm for our discussion is vv. 1-19. Therein, the speaker metaphorically describes their crisis as being pulled down into the depths of Sheol and trapped by death, at which point he/she cried out to God:
The cords of death encompassed me, And the torrents of ungodliness terrified me. The cords of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me. In my distress I called upon the LORD, And cried to my God for help; He heard my voice out of His temple, And my cry for help before Him came into His ears.
Psalm 18:4-7, NASB (see also 2 Samuel 22:5-7)
The speaker then metaphorically describes their redemption from military defeat and death by saying God opened up the depths of the earth from within which the speaker had become mired and took
the speaker out of Sheol (the imagery of water is used here as in other places–like Jonah 2–to describe death in Sheol).
Then the channels of water appeared, And the foundations of the world were laid bare At Thy rebuke, O LORD, At the blast of the breath of Thy nostrils. He sent from on high, He took me; He drew me out of many waters.
Psalm 15-16, NASB (see also 2 Samuel 22:16-17)
The context in which the verb לקח, to take, occurs in this psalm is within the midst of resurrection imagery—being brought back to the land of the living from the land of the dead. Why did God redeem the speaker from Sheol? One reason was because the speaker followed in the ways of God (vv. 20-24), which neatly fits the meaning of our phrase walked around with Elohim.
Another is because God delighted in
him (end of v. 19). The major difference between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Gen 5:24 is that the Septuagint (possibly also its Vorlage) says Enoch was well pleasing to God,
which is echoed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Philo, and Sirach. So we even have parallels to this psalm’s imagery in the additional language from the Greek version and other writings referring to Gen 5:24.
Whereas redemption from death and Sheol in Psalm 18 occurred in metaphoric terms to ultimately express something different, Psalm 49 uses the same poetic language to express what seems to be a very real and literal hope—that YHWH will take
or redeem the speaker from Sheol by raising him/her from the dead.
Psalm 49 is a wisdom psalm concerned with death and what can and can’t deliver one from it. It contains an introduction (vv. 1-4) and three divisions (5-13, 14-15, and 16-20). The psalm’s main point seems to be to speak to the weak, indigent, and/or powerless in order to assure them in the midst of their suffering or oppression that even those with power, wealth, and status—perhaps the very ones bringing that suffering and oppression upon them—are ultimately powerless and without wealth or possessions to help them in the day of destruction. Death comes to all humanity and the most powerful person will not redeem themselves from it any more than the most feeble. The key difference, however, is that those with power and wealth mistakenly put their trust in that to redeem them from death, whereas the speaker puts their hope and trust in YHWH whom, it is assumed, will do so. The second division is the most pertinent for our discussion:
As sheep they are appointed for Sheol; Death shall be their shepherd; And the upright shall rule over them in the morning; And their form shall be for Sheol to consume, So that they have no habitation. But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol; For He will receive me. Selah.
Psalm 49:14-15, NASB
Although the translation does not make this evident, the word used here at the end to describe the thing that God is doing by redeeming someone from the grave is לקח, to take. We are once again in contact with resurrection imagery. The powerful and wealthy who ruled over others will die and descend into Sheol, never to arise again. Unlike them, however, there is a morning at which point the upright will be taken
from Sheol and redeemed from the end that is common to all. They will then rule in the stead of those who perished trusting in their wealth, status, or power.
This is the meaning that I believe makes the best sense of the description of Elohim taking
Enoch. Enoch existed in the presence of God, followed in his way, and probably, in doing so, served as a witness to others about that way (And Enoch walked around with Elohim
). Then Enoch died (and was not there
). But because God was pleased with him (Greek version), God redeemed him from death by giving life back to him and transferring or translating him to another place (Elohim took him.
). Thus, what made Enoch different than the others around him at the end was not that he didn’t die, but that after he died, God rewarded his righteousness with redemption from death, whereas everyone else, due to their wickedness, simply died and that was the end of it. This explains, therefore, the purpose behind concluding each branch of the genealogical list with a notice of death and also why Enoch’s ending differed. Genesis 5:24 can be retranslated in the following way to reflect this conclusion:
And Enoch walked around with Elohim and ceased to exist; surely Elohim took him.
Gen 5:24
A freer translation would look like this:
Now Enoch walked with God, but ceased to exist. Surely God redeemed him.
Gen 5:24
Where did Enoch go when God took him from death? Your guess may be as good as mine. There is an interesting response to this question in a writing from Irenaeus that may be of interest. It was supposedly passed down from the Apostles to their disciples, but the truth of it is hard to ascertain.
Where, then, was the first man placed? In paradise certainly, as the Scripture declares And God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He placed the man whom He had formed.
And then afterwards when [man] proved disobedient, he was cast out thence into this world. Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the apostles tell us that those who were translated were transferred to that place (for paradise has been prepared for righteous men, such as have the Spirit; in which place also Paul the apostle, when he was caught up, heard words which are unspeakable as regards us in our present condition), and that there shall they who have been translated remain until the consummation, as a prelude to immortality.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5:5
This analysis is concluded in P5: Hebrews.
ויתהלך חנוך את־האלהים ואיננו כי־לקח אתו אלהים
And Enoch walked around with Elohim and was not there because Elohim took him.
Gen 5:24
In P1: The Controversy, it became apparent that the ancient Jews who were looking at the same text we are were coming to different conclusions about its meaning. That Enoch was made exempt from the law of death was neither an obvious nor necessary conclusion. We saw some reasons why in P2: Death. And thus far, we have had no reason, textually, to say Enoch didn’t die, whereas there is already reason to say he did. Now we turn to the final piece of the puzzle and its relation to the Epistle of Hebrews.
For Elohim Took Him
What does it mean for the text to say Elohim took him
? The verb translated take
is לקח. The Septuagint renders it translate
or transfer.
Because both the Hebrew and Greek can communicate different things, its use in Gen 5:24 has spawned a variety of viewpoints. Some of them, however, are more likely than others.
One relatively uncommon use of לקח in the scriptures is to speak of someone’s life being taken—in other words, a reference to death. One example is the classic lament that Job cries upon hearing about the death and destruction of just about everyone and everything he loved:
And he said, Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked I shall return there. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD.
Job 1:21, NASB
Not only is the verb to take
used in the sense of ending life, but it is also used in terms of God. The Satan carried out these catastrophes, but he only acted where the hand of God was stretched out to touch (1:11). Like a commander telling one of his troops to go ahead and kill, God gave the Satan the okay to slay those dear to Job. But unlike a soldier who can kill on his own power, the Satan never could harm Job’s family unless God made it possible (1:12). These events were purposed by the will of God to reverse Job’s fortunes and test him. It can rightfully be said, therefore, that it was God who took
or killed them.
There are, of course, some uses of the verb where this meaning is direct and explicit:
Therefore now, O LORD, please take my life from me, for death is better to me than life.
Jonah 4:3, NASB
Another instance of God taking someone comes from Ezekiel. God told Ezekiel that he would take
Ezekiel’s wife—meaning kill her:
Son of man, behold, I am about to take from you the desire of your eyes with a blow; but you shall not mourn, and you shall not weep, and your tears shall not come. . . . So I spoke to the people in the morning, and in the evening my wife died. And in the morning I did as I was commanded.
Ezekiel 24:16, 18, NASB
God took
Ezekiel’s wife (killed her) to serve as a symbolic message that he would strike a deathblow against Israel:
Speak to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God, ‘Behold, I am about to profane My sanctuary, the pride of your power, the desire of your eyes, and the delight of your soul; and your sons and your daughters whom you have left behind will fall by the sword.
Ezekiel 24:21, NASB
This passage in Ezekiel is the one that the Rabbis turned to when they were confronted by those who thought God taking Enoch meant Enoch didn’t die. The Rabbis said if you’re going to decide what happened to Enoch based on the word take,
then you should be aware that most of those who are taken by God in scripture are killed, not otherwise. Even though various haggadic, halakic, and mystic commentary throughout the ages speak about Moses ascending to heaven without dying (to receive Torah) or various Jewish authorities (like Rabbi Akiba), there is no mention of Enoch doing so. That silence is deafening. All my modern Jewish commentaries on Genesis say Enoch died. That Elohim took him
means Enoch died seems to be the normative Jewish interpretation since the first or second century A.D.
While this interpretation makes sense and would seem to clarify the meaning of the particle of negation from merely departing
to actually dying,
it is difficult to comprehend why the scribes who gave us Gen 5 would deviate from their structured pattern of saying and he died
to communicate the same thing anyway. Why not simply continue the pattern by writing and he died
? It might be argued that since Enoch is viewed as having become one of the wicked, he is therefore described in terms that pit his end against the others. The weakness of that argument is that all the others were, supposedly, quite wicked also, which is the reason for God sending the deluge to wipe them out. Why should Enoch be an example of the wrath of God against the wicked if he actually walked around with Elohim,
something that, apparently, couldn’t be said of the others (besides Noah)?
For over a millennium and a half of Christian interpretation, the normative understanding has been that God took Enoch alive to heaven like Jesus—body and all. This understanding has only one basis: the story of Elijah’s ascension. It may be summarized thusly. Elijah knows that his time on earth has come to an end and so he attempts to lose Elisha by going on an extended journey and asking Elisha to remain behind at different points. Elisha, however, knows that Elijah’s end is near and refuses to leave his master’s side. Because this portent appears to be known to all who have the Spirit resting upon them, various children of the prophets
come to Elisha along the way and tell him what he already knows, Elijah is going to be taken.
Then the sons of the prophets who were at Bethel came out to Elisha and said to him, Do you know that the LORD will take away your master from over you today?
And he said, Yes, I know; be still.
2 Kings 2:3, NASB
And the sons of the prophets who were at Jericho approached Elisha and said to him, Do you know that the LORD will take away your master from over you today?
And he answered, Yes, I know; be still.
2 Kings 2:5, NASB
Even the children of the prophets end up following Elijah. At the end of his journey, Elijah crosses the Jordan by splitting its waters, and finally admits to Elisha what everyone already knew, he is going to be taken.
Now it came about when they had crossed over, that Elijah said to Elisha, Ask what I shall do for you before I am taken from you.
And Elisha said, Please, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me.
And he said, You have asked a hard thing. Nevertheless, if you see me when I am taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if not, it shall not be so.
2 Kings 2:9-10, NASB
After this, while Elijah and Elisha are walking along and talking, Elijah ascends alive to heaven upon a whirlwind and among chariots and horses of fire. Because it is believed that לקח, to take, is used to describe Elijah’s living ascension, it is reasoned that Elohim took him
means Enoch ascended without dying as well. This, however, is an extremely weak interpretation that should be questioned for a number of serious reasons.
First, the verb to take,
which also appears in Gen 5:24 to say Elohim took Enoch, is probably not describing Elijah’s living ascension at all. In every place where the event itself is being described, not simply foretold, the verb לקח, to take, is nowhere used. This is the first description of the actual event:
And it came about when the LORD was about to take up Elijah by a whirlwind to heaven, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal.
2 Kings 2:1, NASB
Although it is not apparent looking at the English translation, the Hebrew word rendered here as to take up
is actually a completely different word than that used by Elijah, the children of the prophets, or the one used to speak of Enoch (לקח). It is actually עלה, which means to go up or to ascend. In this particular verse, it is an infinitive construct of the Hiphil form, which means bringing up, leading up, going up, or causing to ascend, not to take.
When the dramatic moment finally arrives, the text says:
Then it came about as they were going along and talking, that behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven.
2 Kings 2:11, NASB
Here also, in the actual description of the event, it is not לקח, to take, that is used to describe what happens to Elijah, but עלה, to bring up, lead up, go up, or ascend. After this incredible event unfolds, the children of the prophets speak to Elisha:
And they said to him, Behold now, there are with your servants fifty strong men, please let them go and search for your master; perhaps the Spirit of the LORD has taken him up and cast him on some mountain or into some valley.
And he said, You shall not send.
2 Kings 2:16, NASB
Again, the translation has failed to convey the Hebrew. In this final description of the event, it is neither לקח, to take, nor עלה, to ascend, which are used, but נשׂא, which means to lift, raise, or carry. This change reflects the bewilderment of the sons of the prophets who had viewed Elijah’s ascension from afar. Thinking Elijah was merely lifted or carried to another place, they seek permission to go looking for him.
As we can see, the narrative does not use לקח, to take, to describe what happened to Elijah, but עלה, to ascend, so we can be certain that to ascend
and not to take
is the appropriate way to describe what happened. More support for this interpretation comes from an occurrence quite similar to Elijah’s ascension as recorded in the scroll of Judges. A messenger of YHWH comes to Manoah and his woman to tell them of the coming of Samson and to instruct them on how to rear and raise the child. After offering sacrifices to God, the messenger of YHWH ascends alive amidst flames of the fire to heaven.
For it came about when the flame went up from the altar toward heaven, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell on their faces to the ground.
Judges 13:20, NASB
In both the story of Elijah’s and the messenger’s living ascension to heaven, ushered by fire, the verb עלה, to ascend, is used to describe the event, not לקח, to take. And so it seems certain that this is the way we are to understanding such occurrences—not as an instance of taking.
Furthermore, every appearance of the verb to take
in 2 Kings 2 in reference to Elijah’s earthly departure occurs prior to the event and only appears in conversations foretelling it. The exact circumstances of this future event were probably unknown. It is more likely that when Elijah and the prophets speak of Elijah being taken,
they are using it in the sense of Elijah dying (see examples above). If to take
was an appropriate and adequate description of the event of Elijah’s ascension to heaven without dying, then it makes no sense for the scribe to suddenly use a completely different word to describe that event when the scribe had previously used to take
to mean the same thing. The change in use signals a change in meaning.
If, therefore, there is little to no reason to say to take
refers to Elijah ascending to heaven and/or not dying, what reason is there to think Elohim took him
means Enoch ascended to heaven and/or didn’t die? Even if we were to momentarily allow to take
to be used in this way in the Elijah narrative, despite the fact that we have many reasons not to, discounting the verse in question (Gen 5:24), to take
is used nowhere else in the entire Hebrew Bible to describe someone not dying or someone ascending to the heavens. The only reason one could allow such an interpretation of to take
in the Elijah narrative is because the narrative gives us reason outside of that verb to interpret it that way. Had the entire account of Elijah’s ascension and escape from death been missing from the text and all we had was mention of Elijah being taken,
we would have had no reason whatsoever to think Elijah ascended to heaven and/or didn’t experience death. A consistent interpretation demands that we look at Enoch according to the same criteria. Unless there is some reason to believe Enoch didn’t die and/or ascended to heaven apart from the phrase Elohim took him,
there is absolutely no reason to think this is what the phrase means.
This is why the Epistle to the Hebrews is so vital to Christian interpretation. Many believe it says Enoch didn’t die. If not for a dependence on this particular understanding of Hebrews, most Christians would never have even contemplated the idea. I will therefore end these posts with a look at Hebrews to see what, in fact, it may actually be saying.
So if Elohim took him
can’t simply mean death and if we have no reason to think it means Enoch didn’t die and/or ascended somewhere, what DOES it mean? While all the meanings of to take
we have looked at are either relatively rare or unique and improbable, there is one meaning that is quite common and much more likely to be the proper interpretation: redemption.
This analysis is continued in P4: Out Of Sheol.
ויתהלך חנוך את־האלהים ואיננו כי־לקח אתו אלהים
And Enoch walked around with Elohim and was not there because Elohim took him.
Gen 5:24
In P1: The Controversy, we saw that there were conflicting ancient Jewish viewpoints on the question of what happened to Enoch. Now it will be the Hebrew of the ancient text itself instead of its ancient commentators, which we will examine. Through this analysis, it will be suggested that the better interpretation is the one which says Enoch died. Finally, because the Epistle to the Hebrews is a personal fascination and favorite of mine among the writings of the NT, as well as to assuage the concerns of those who are more inclined to interpret Gen 5:24 based on what Hebrews has to say about it (perhaps in line with the popular Christian proverb, the NT is the OT revealed,
or simply out of devotion to a text considered inspired and authoritative), we will conclude with a look at Hebrews to see how and why it may not contradict the understanding that Enoch died, but rather support it.
One thing is immediately clear when we read Gen 5, there is something different about Enoch. Like Noah (Gen 6:9), he is said to walk around with Elohim.
But the most striking difference is the fact that all around Enoch, in very structured order, the various figureheads of civilization are noted as having died, whereas something entirely different is said about Enoch. While it seems like a trivial and unnecessary detail to note the death of each person, it is not. All other genealogical lists from the ancient near east say nothing about their ancestors dying and the age at which this occurred. That this is present in Genesis’ genealogical lists is, therefore, significant and purposed. When Genesis veers away from such a purposed intent in the case of Enoch, it is all the more significant. Many have explained this significance as Enoch ascending to heaven without dying. While that argument would certainly qualify as significant, I think it is selling both Enoch and scripture short. Instead, I suggest that its significance is not about dying or not dying at all, but about a special position Enoch held which later resulted in his redemption.
And He Was Not There
This English phrase is actually a single word in Hebrew: ואיננו. It is a particle (with a prefix and suffix) used to express absence or negation. While it can carry many different meanings, two normal ways it is used in scripture is to speak of non-existence or death. It occurs, for instance, in Gen 2:5 when it talks about the time before there were shrubs and herbs when YHWH Elohim had not sent rain and man did not exist
to work the ground. In Gen 11:30, it appears when it says that Sarai was barren and there was not to her a child,
meaning no offspring existed. It occurs in Gen 19:31 when the daughters of Lot believe no person exists on the earth
outside of their cave from which they might procreate and enable the human race to continue. Psalm 39 is a lament about the nearness or inevitability of death if YHWH doesn’t deliver, restore, and spare the speaker from coming to that end. The lament concludes with a prayer in which the speaker asks YHWH to stop the affliction before I go [away] and am no more.
There, the particle of negation is both literally and figuratively paralleled with death. In the scroll of Job, it is written:
The eye of him who sees me will behold me no more; Thine eyes will be on me, but I will not be.
Job 7:8, NASB
Why then dost Thou not pardon my transgression And take away my iniquity? For now I will lie down in the dust; And Thou wilt seek me, but I will not be.
Job 7:21, NASB
In both these instances, it is clear that the particle of negation carries the meaning of death. In Genesis 42, vv. 13 and 32, the male offspring of Jacob use the particle to tell Joseph that he (their brother Joseph) no longer exists, meaning he died. We can be certain this is the intended meaning because they later explain what they said to their father by linking the particle of negation with death:
And we said to my lord, ‘We have an old father and a little child of his old age. Now his brother is dead, so he alone is left of his mother, and his father loves him.’
Genesis 44:20, NASB
Jeremiah 49:10 uses the particle to speak of the destruction and death of the Idumaeans along with their neighbors. Ezekiel 28:19 uses the particle to speak of the annihilation of Tyre and the death of its monarch. More examples could be drawn to show that this word often means death and/or lack of existence.
We are, therefore, on solid interpretational ground to say and he was not there
means Enoch died or ceased to exit (which are essentially the same thing to a pre-Hellenistic, Israelite mind). One would not, however, be on solid ground if they believed and he was not there
is reason to say Enoch didn’t die. If one were to go with an alternate interpretation such as he disappeared
or he departed,
which is certainly possible, in order to avoid ascribing death to Enoch, this would tell us nothing about how his departure or disappearance occurred. So whereas we already have reason to believe he died, we have none yet to think he didn’t.
Walked Around With Elohim
One of the Rabbinic arguments that we saw in Genesis Rabba is that the particle of negation signals a reversal of what was previously described—to say Enoch no longer walked with God. First, it is obvious from the structure of the Hebrew that ואיננו begins a new clause—a verbless one. This distances it from the previous verb. Furthermore, the first clause is a verbal clause and אינ does not appear in verbal clauses. אינ can appear with participles, but there are no participles in this sentence. The particle should therefore be interpreted on its own. The only way to say this particle could signal a reversal of the first part of the sentence is to interpret And Enoch walked around with Elohim
as meaning something like And Enoch existed with God
or And Enoch was there with God.
In that case, the interpretation hinges not on the particle of negation, but on a particular understanding of what it meant for Enoch to walk around with Elohim
–namely that Enoch was in God’s presence. From this perspective, to then say Enoch was not there because Elohim took him would mean Enoch no longer existed in God’s presence—meaning God either killed him or banished him to a place reserved for those who are denied his presence (and thus Enoch was considered one of the wicked). This is, apparently, the way many Rabbis understood it.
The strength of this interpretation is not only that it deals with the particle according to one of those two usual meanings we’ve already discussed (we will also see later how the verb to take
many times carries the meaning of death), but it also deals with the question of Enoch’s significance. Unlike those on every side of him, Enoch actually existed in God’s presence, perhaps like a high priest who served in the Holiest Place or like Moses who entered into the cloud and spoke with YHWH face to face. In Mal 2:6-7, YHWH tells us that the righteous priest הלך אתי or walks with me
and that he is a messenger of YHWH of hosts
in rendering just verdicts and leading people on the path of righteousness. Could walked around with Elohim
mean Enoch was the first messenger and priest of God to the antediluvian people, giving them the word of Elohim and showing them what was pleasing to God? That would explain the rendering in the Greek version. Enoch’s name in the Hebrew looks and sounds similar to the verb to walk,
indicating a play on words. Side by side, they look like this: חנוך (Henok) הלך (halak).
While all this makes sense, the Rabbinic interpretation that ends with Enoch’s fall from grace and death is not entirely satisfying, either textually or narratively, as we will see in the final post. And, of course, walking with God was never something only for Enoch, Noah, or priests. It was for all humanity.
He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?
Micah 6:8, NASB
If Elohim exists in the heavenly realms and walked around with Elohim
means Enoch was there with Elohim, this opens up the door for us to say Enoch ascended to heaven before his death like we find in the scroll of 1 Enoch. The question is whether one should take it that far. If one does, it allows for the possibility that Enoch ascended alive to heaven when he finally left the earth for good (like it was already mentioned, if Enoch can ascend to heaven without dying once, there is little reason to require it at the end of his terrestrial stay). However, this is probably stretching the concept further than it can go because few would say that when it tells us Noah walked around with Elohim,
this means he ascended to heaven also. So we should probably not say it of Enoch either.
Even though we have good reason to say Enoch died and even though we have revealed what made Enoch special and significant, our argument would be weaker than the one that says Enoch escaped death if it didn’t also explain consistently how Elohim took him
fits into that interpretation and how the Greek rendering, God transferred him,
which we also find in Hebrews, makes sense of that. The Epitah series continues with the dramatic, and hopefully eye-opening post, Redemption.
ויתהלך חנוך את־האלהים ואיננו כי־לקח אתו אלהים
And Enoch walked around with Elohim and was not there because Elohim took him.
Gen 5:24
Most of us are all too familiar with this verse. Its traditional interpretation is that Enoch was righteous and that he ascended to YHWH without experiencing death. That may have been the intended meaning. In this series of posts, however, I will challenge this traditional understanding and suggest that we may have better reason, textually, to say that Enoch actually died. Though it may be unconventional to us, such a perspective has existed for a long time. The Targumim are ancient Aramaic translations of the Hebrew texts. As a general principle, it can be said that the later the Targum, the less literal, the more expansive, or the more explicative the translation. Targum Onkelos, which is probably the earliest of our Targumim of the Torah (discounting the questionable 4Q157), renders Gen 5:24 thusly:
And Enoch walked in reverence of the Lord, then he was no more, for the Lord had caused him to die.
Targum Onkelos 5:24
This translation has attempted to smooth out the obscurities of the Hebrew by explaining what it believed was the correct understanding—that walking
had to do with reverence and that Enoch actually died. A later Targum reverses this clarification about Enoch’s death and includes considerable expansion.
And Hanok served in the truth before the Lord; and, behold, he was not with the sojourners of the earth; for he was withdrawn, and he ascended to the firmament by the Word before the Lord, and his name was called Metatron the Great Saphra.
Targum Psuedo-Jonathan 5
The question of Enoch’s death is taken up later in the Genesis Rabba, a Rabbinic commentary on the first scroll of Torah. Although there is a diversity of opinion, it is plain that Enoch’s death is considered orthodox
and that those who argue strongly against it, those who are asking these authorities to explain why he died because they believe otherwise, are viewed as coming from a heretical position.
AND ENOCH WALKED WITH GOD, AND HE WAS NOT; FOR GOD TOOK HIM. R. Kama b. R. Hoshaya said : [AND HE WAS NOT means] that he was not inscribed in the roll of the righteous but in the roll of the wicked. R. Aibu said: Enoch was a hypocrite, acting sometimes as a righteous, sometimes as a wicked man. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘While he is righteous I will remove him.’ R. Aibu also said: He judged [i.e. condemned] him on New Year, when he judges the whole world.
Some sectarians asked R. Abbahu: ‘We do not find that Enoch died?’ ‘How so?’ inquired he. ‘Taking
is employed here, and also in connection with Elijah,’ said they. ‘If you stress the word taking
,’ he answered, ‘then taking
is employed here, while in Ezekiel it is said, Behold, I take away from thee the desire of thine eyes.’ R. Tanhuma observed: He answered them well.
A matron asked R. Jose: ‘We do not find death stated of Enoch? Said he to her: ‘If it said, AND ENOCH WALKED WITH GOD, and no more, I would agree with you. Since, however, it says, AND HE WAS NOT, FOR GOD TOOK HIM, it means that he was no more in the world, [having died,] FOR GOD TOOK HIM.
Genesis Rabba 25:1, Soncino
The Hellensistic Jew, Philo, chimes in from around the time of Christ to agree that Enoch died.
Why, when Enoch died, the sacred historian adds the assertion, “He pleased God?”.
Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis 1:85
Philo’s question about pleasing God
is actually dependent upon the Greek text or its Vorlage (a Hebrew or Aramaic text from which the Greek was based). Many Dead Sea Scrolls preserve readings in Hebrew which do not exist in the Masoretic Text but do exist in the Old Greek translation (unfortunately, this particular verse is not extant in the Dead Sea Scrolls). Since Greek appears to be the usual method of reading and writing for the Hellenistic Philo, it is likely that he was quoting from the Greek itself and not its Vorlage. It should be pointed out, therefore, that he calls the Greek version sacred
. This is important because a common Modern attitude before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was that the Greek text was inferior to the Hebrew represented by the Masoretic because it was a translation and because it was believed the translation expanded on a lot of things that were not in the Hebrew. Now we know, however, that the Greek many times represents older and more ancient readings than the Masoretic so that many readings which were believed to be translational expansions are not. It is also the case that many ancient Jews did not believe that just because the Greek was a translation, that this in any way made it less authoritative, less inspired, or less holy, as Philo himself attests. The Letter of Aristeas actually claims the Greek translation to be more inspired, more authoritative, and more sacred than the Hebrew.
And Henoch was well pleasing to God, and he was not found, because God transferred him.
Septuagint, Gen 5:24, NETS translation
Besides adding that Enoch pleased God, the Greek provides us with the idea that Enoch was not found
in place of the Hebrew’s he was not there
and that he was transferred
or translated,
which gives us more to play with in terms of the question about what happened to Enoch. Sirach, our oldest commentator on the Torah, appears to draw from this version of Gen 5:24 when he says in the Greek translation of his work:
Enoch pleased the Lord, and was translated, being an example of repentance to all generations.
Sirach 44:16, KJV
Elsewhere, Sirach says:
But upon the earth was no man created like Enoch; for he was taken from the earth.
Sirach 49:14, KJV
This is difficult to interpret. Sirach could have meant Enoch was taken from the earth in a sense like being raised from the grave (and thus having died), in a sense like being taken alive from an earthly realm to a non-earthly one, or in a sense like being taken from one earthly realm to another earthly realm–either having died or not.
Philo gives us a Hellenistic interpretation of what it means for Enoch to be translated,
which we can be certain was never intended by the text.
What is the meaning of the expression, “He was not found because God translated him?” . . . it is here suggested, that he was translated from a visible place, perceptible by the outward senses, into an incorporeal idea, appreciable only to the intellect.
Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis 1:86
The Epistle to the Hebrews, which may be translated from an original Hebrew or Aramaic, appears to depend either on the Greek or its Hebrew Vorlage since it refers to Enoch not being found.
By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found because God took him up.
Hebrews 11:5, NASB
Because this says “he should not see death,” many people believe it means Enoch never died. However, as we will see later, this may not be its intended meaning at all.
The idea that Enoch ascended to heaven without tasting death is certainly as ancient as the idea that he died. It is said to happen numerous times through various means (either in spirit, in vision, on a whirlwind, or by the assistance of the Holy Ones) throughout 1 Enoch in order for him to receive instruction and to convey messages to various human and angelic parties. If this could occur to Enoch before he finally left the world for good, it seems unreasonable to say he must die at the end in order for it to happen again. In speaking of this final ascension, the scroll of Parables says:
And after this, while he was still living, his name was raised into the presence of that son of man and into the presence of the Lord of Spirits from among those who dwell on the earth. He was raised on the chariots of the wind, and his name departed. And from that day, I was not reckoned among them.
The scroll of Jubilees, which was influenced by 1 Enoch, speaks of Enoch’s terrestrial end thusly:
And he was taken from amongst the children of men, and we conducted him into the Garden of Eden in majesty and honor, and behold there he writes down the condemnation and judgment of the world, and all the wickedness of the children of men.
Jubilees 4:23
Josephus’ account is ambiguous. He seems to be saying that Enoch’s death was not reported because no one knew what happened to him—he simply departed or disappeared.
And then his son Enoch succeeded him, who was born when his father was one hundred and sixty-two years old. Now he, when he had lived three hundred and sixty-five years, departed and went to God; whence it is that they have not written down his death.
Antiquities 1:3:4
And indeed, as to Elijah, and as to Enoch, who was before the deluge, it is written in the sacred books that they disappeared, but so that nobody knew that they died.
Antiquities 9:2:2
The big question then is whether the text itself gives us any reason to think Enoch died. This issue will explored in P2: Death, P3: Redemption, P4: Out of Sheol, and concluded with P5: Hebrews.
