An intensive look at Enoch. Part one.

I have been looking at Enoch and attempting to write about him, and his surroundings, for weeks now. It has been nothing less than a struggle as the things I talk about here, are controversial (I know this because I have been around religion for a long time and I have had first-hand experience with this.) And, as I will mention in the post, there seems to be so little known about the man; at least that is the impression we were given growing up in church.
May I interject something here? Growing up in church rarely brings you to an understanding of who God is. Oh sure, you can walk away with a boatload of traditions and opinions, but few of them are correct, accurate, or appropriate. For example: In today's morning study, the leader said, "you will not find a Pharisee in heaven." I do not believe that is a valid statement, nor was it appropriate. For weren't Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimethia Pharisees?

Mark 15:43 CJB  Yosef of Ramatayim, a prominent member of the Sanhedrin who himself was also looking forward to the Kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Yeshua's body.

John 3:1 NASB Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews;

So for someone to make such a brash statement like NO Pharisees will be found in heaven, is blatantly untrue. There is a point to this tirade and that is, that there is a multitude of things being preached and taught that are at worst decrepit lies, and at best, false teachings;  none-the-less, both can send you into a pit of deception. If we have bought into the lies, choosing to not challenge what we hear by reading the Word of God for ourselves. Then how will we know what is true? Jesus, by the way, is the one who said, "no one comes to the Father but through me." Is it possible that: the tearing of the veil in the temple; giving himself as the final sacrifice; pouring out his own blood on the heavenly altar, and giving his life as the payment for the redemption of the world is the thing that restored our way back to the Father?  Seriously, the price has been paid; and all that is required is that WE acknowledge and accept Jesus as that final lamb that slaughtered for us.
But what does religion do? It clouds the issue, creates more rules, and condemns every stupid thing we do as we stumble through this thing called life.

Having said all that, I give you an intensive look at Enoch.

Enoch is a man that few talk about, and yet, Enoch's legacy is found in Genesis, the book of Jude, Hebrews 11 and 2 Peter 2. We also see Enoch's name entwined in the history of Middle East. There is no doubt that Enoch interacted with the Nephilim, and, that he walked with God in such a way that he was able to walk off the earth.

By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. (Heb 11:5, UKJV)

A man like this is worthy of a concentrated look and study.

The first reference we have to the name Enoch is in Genesis 4:17 where the wife of Cain, (the man who killed his brother Abel,) is having a baby. They named that baby Enoch. This child is not the Enoch we are looking for but is the son of Cain and the father of another called Enoch. This son of Cain built a city and named that city after his son, Enoch. However, neither of these play a role in getting us to the Enoch we desire to understand. If I look carefully at the genealogy provided in Genesis chapter five, I find that Cain played NO role in the bloodline that leads us to Noah. We will probe a possible reason why Cain is excluded further on in the thesis.

Do we have other methods of determining which Enoch we want, as there are two so far?
Yes, and one of the answers comes from the book of Jude.

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his saints, (Jude 1:14, UKJV)

Genesis provides an excellent genealogy through Seth, not Cain.

And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he brings forth sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. And Seth lived a hundred and five years, and brings forth Enos: And Seth lived after he brings forth Enos eight hundred and seven years, and brings forth sons and daughters: And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died. And Enos lived ninety years, and brings forth Cainan: And Enos lived after he brings forth Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and brings forth sons and daughters: And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died. And Cainan lived seventy years and brought forth Mahalaleel: And Cainan lived after he brings forth Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and brings forth sons and daughters: And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died. And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and brings forth Jared: And Mahalaleel lived after he brings forth Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and brings forth sons and daughters: And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died. And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he brings forth Enoch: And Jared lived after he brings forth Enoch eight hundred years, and brings forth sons and daughters: And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died. And Enoch lived sixty and five years and brings forth Methuselah: (Gen 5:4-21, UKJV)

Since Jude says that Enoch was the seventh generation from Adam, let's test the claim. Adam; Seth; Enos; Cainan; Mahalaleel; Jared; Enoch. There it is, seven generations.

The name Enoch alone tells us much about the man, as his name means dedicated or disciplined. This dedication must have been a predominant aspect of his life because we have this,

And Enoch walked with God after he brings forth Methuselah three hundred years, and brings forth sons and daughters: And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. (Gen 5:22-24, UKJV)

What do we have that could explain Enoch's understanding of God and how to communicate with God as if that is a big mystery?

If we do the math, we find that Adam was 622 years old when Enoch is born, and Adam lived to be 930 years old. Therefore Adam may have had a substantial impact on Enoch, and Adam is the only logical choice to influence Enoch.

If Adam was able to inform Enoch and demonstrate what this idea of walking with God looked like, Why then didn't Adam merely walk off the earth as Enoch did?
Maybe the answer, as with Cain, has more to do with their cataclysmic errors in judgment.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges explains this walk that Enoch lived as a combination of fellowship and progress.

[walked with God] The phrase here, as in Genesis 5:24, used of Enoch, has passed into common use to express intimacy of communion with God. It denotes more than either standing in His presence, or walking before Him (Genesis 6:9, Genesis 17:1), or following after Him. It combines the ideas of fellowship and progress. It is the picture of one who has God with him in all the various scenes of life.

The word took, is explained in the Cambridge Bible commentary as well.

This expression is used to denote an unaccountable disappearance, cf. Genesis 42:13; Genesis 42:36; 1Kings 20:40. In order to make it quite clear that the words did not imply death, LXX renders οὐχ εὑρίσκετο; Vulg. “ non-apparuit.” The shortness of his life as compared with the other patriarchs might have been regarded as a proof of Divine displeasure if the next sentence had not been added to explain the circumstance. [for God took him] “Took,” or “received,” him, i.e., into His own abode, without death.

The Hebrew word for took is lāqaḥ: A verb meaning to take, to get. Its exact meaning must be discerned from its context. It is used of grasping or seizing a person or an animal. Word Study Dictionary.

You will also find the word lāqaḥ used in Ezekiel 8:3 where Ezekiel describes the spirit, lifting him up by the hair and taking him, by visions, to God.

This word lāqaḥ is very similar to the Greek word Harpazo, which also means to snatch away. Harpazo is the Greek word that we substitute for the word rapture. In either case, it conveys the rapid removal of the church from the earth prior to God's wrath being poured out on the planet – just like Noah and the flood; and, just like Lot before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

In the book of Jude, we have a prophecy attributed to Enoch which cannot be verified in the Old Testament by direct comparison, because it is only found in The Book of Enoch (Enoch 1:9.)

Jude 1:14-15 MKJV And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, also prophesied to these, saying, Behold, the Lord came with myriads of His saints, 15) to do judgment against all, and to rebuke all the ungodly of them concerning all their ungodly works which they ungodly did, and concerning all the hard things ungodly sinners spoke against Him.

Assuming you don't have a copy of the Book of Enoch, is a statement like this so odd?
Hardly, and here are some examples that convey that theme, although they came long after Enoch.

Daniel 7:18 But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.

Zechariah 14:5 MKJV And you shall flee to the valley of My mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. And Jehovah my God shall come, and all the saints with you.

There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus will come as described in Revelation 19:14 with all the armies of heaven, just as Enoch described.

If this was all the Biblical information I had on Enoch, what then do I make of this man.

I think it would be safe to say that:

• Enoch was a good man.
  While the majority of the world was going crazy, Enoch remained sane.
  Genesis 6:5 NASB Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
  The passage implies that the whole world had gone mad. Even if one man had not, then I should not be allowed to say all. It is safe to assume that something close to all is being suggested, however, Enoch cannot be counted among that number.
  While it is safe to assume that Enoch was a good man, all we have is Hebrews 11:5 to validate that claim. There is something certain about Hebrews 11:5, as the writer of Hebrews had no more information about Enoch than we have, unless they had access to a copy of The Book of Enoch, as J.R. Church claims they did. Suddenly it seems the Bible itself is validating this Book of Enoch.
• He was a worshiper of God.
  Enoch seems to have taken worship to the next level; something I wish I could attain. But again, there is nothing in the Old Testament to validate this claim outside of this,
  Genesis 5:24 NASB Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.
  There is, however, this line we find in Hebrews 11:5,
  “ for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God.”
  The words obtained and witness are the same word marturéō which means (according to the Word Study Dictionary) To bear witness, to testify to the truth of what one has seen, heard, or knows. Now, did God bear witness to Enoch, or did Enoch bear witness to God? Since The Book of Enoch was known and read throughout the early church for the first 700 years of its existence; then it is safe to say that Enoch bore witness to: not only the current and future acts of the living God (prophetically,) but also the activities of the fallen angels - as they attempted to prevent God from bringing in the seed (through man) that would crush Satan's head.
• It is safe to say that Enoch walked the earth at the same time as the Titans.
  Dissecting this requires that we use our brains and think outside the religious boxes in which we entrench ourselves. Our principal source of information comes from Genesis 6. What is the problem with that? The problem is that we make immediate and critical assumptions based upon the placement of the information in the, so called, Bible “chronology.”
  Allow me to explain. We know that God created man (male and female,) put a body on them, and placed them in the garden. We assume that garden was a small selective spot and that they never left it, but neither of those ideas is valid. All you have to do is travel a bit, stop at the local museum, and you find that the barren location you are now standing on was once a vibrant, tropical garden.
  What we do know is this,
  Genesis 3:1-3 NASB Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" 2) The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3) but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"
  In this expansive place called a garden was a plot of ground considered to be the center. Here is where the fall of man took place.
  Another assumption we make is that there were no children born to Adam and Eve until the fall. If that was the case, then why would God have to make this declaration to Eve?
  Genesis 3:16 NASB To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain, you will bring forth children;
  This comment by God would make no sense to Eve unless she was producing children without all the pain and discomfort normally associated with childbirth. Add to this piece of logic a question recently thrown at me, once again; “where did Cain get his wife?” The answer lies in setting aside tradition, assumption, and faulty teaching. Since we legitimately do not know how long Adam and Eve walked this earth prior to the fall. It is only natural to think that two naked humans would have had intercourse, only without the self-serving motives sin brings. And, this, is the only reasonable explanation for Cain to obtain a wife. The alternative, of Cain, waiting for his parents to produce a female child is ridiculous. Besides that, we relish the idea of clinging to twisted chronological logic, which cannot explain why Cain would say, people, will kill me, especially when we want to believe that there were no other people. And do we have any reason that logically explains why Cain was able to go to a city? Mind you, at this time in civilizations history; a city could have been several thatch huts and a fire pit. It still implies others living there and the probability of families of their own.
  If this idea of children before the fall is valid, then what kind of mentality would they have had? They were just like their parents, godlike. 

There are obviously those that make it through the tribulation

I have something I need to talk about. Hopefully, I can keep it short. This has more to do with a question I have been asked repeatedly. I try to answer the question, but, because of tradition, bad teaching, or a lack of desire to pursue the answers, the question keeps coming up.

The question goes something like this,

"There are obviously those that make it through the tribulation. Are they saved?"

I thought about it for a second and then I responded with, what does it mean to be saved? He answered back with,

“You know, saved!”

No, I don't know. However, if you are trying to say that these survivors, based merely on the merit of making it through to the end of the “tribulation”, are comparable to finding salvation in Christ, then the answer is NO. If you think of salvation in terms of pulling someone out of a fire, then, YES, I think they are. How do I equate making it through the hell of the tribulation years to getting pulled out of a fire? It's easy, they will both kill you.

So the essential question that needs definition is, what does salvation mean? But that is not what you are asking me is it. You already have this crazy notion of what things look like and want me to validate it. Well, that is not going to happen. I am going to try to get you to look at the truth, which I deem to be the word of God.

Sadly, even using the Word of God as the source of truth creates a problem. The problem is that the answers to your question are not neatly packaged in one place, so this forces both of us to do our homework, and, we have to have open minds about the answers we find. Lacking that, you are no better off than a rock.

Often, when I try to respond with an answer, most remove logic from the equation and dismiss scripture as the foundation of truth. Having attempted an answer I referred the person asking to Matthew 25. I did this because he opted to change biblical history by putting the great white throne judgment immediately before the 1000 year reign. He quickly opened the bible program on his cell phone and read Matthew's account back to me.

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats”.

An interesting representation of the throne.

"So there it is. He gathers the nations before him and judges them."

Yep, it says that. However, it does not tell you when that takes place. It does not explain that this throne is the same throne that we see in Revelation 20, and, there is nothing to indicate that these are souls that have died from at least Christ's resurrection forward; Neither does it make any clarification as to who they are or how they got there; Besides all that, and contrary to popular belief, not all are sent to an eternal punishment.

I want you to understand what I perceive the original question to be:

“ those that make it through the tribulation, are they saved?”

Because I told this person to look at Matthew 25, I want you to look there also.  Before you jump into Matthew 25 you need to understand that there is a context to what Jesus said.

1. What we see in Matthew 25 is a continuation of a response that started in Matthew 24:1.
2. The things that motivated the disciples question really began in Matthew 21 as they placed him upon the colt. Ask yourself why that would be significant.
3. So what happened between them placing him on the colt, leading him into town in Matthew 21, and the end of Matthew 23 that would prompt them to say, when will these things happen and what will be the sign of your coming as the Messiah we anticipated (My version.)

In Matthew 21, at his direction, the disciples went and took the donkey and it's colt. This was finally it. Jesus was going to step up as the Messiah they anticipated for every king triumphantly rode into town like this, but that did not happen. After all the fanfare and adulation Jesus sees the money changers in the outer court of the temple (this was a weekly occurrence, but today it pushes him over the edge), so he makes a whip of cords and drives them out. This, of course, brought the wrath of the Chief priests and elders upon him, and he battled with them verbally for two days. We seem to forget that the disciples were right there; they had no place else to go (we assume).

Jesus finally says to the disciples, let's go to the mount. It was his favorite place to rest and recover when he was in Jerusalem, and it is only a short distance away from the temple.

The disciples, discouraged, disillusioned, fatigued by the intercourse are now grateful to get out of harms way. Trudging along behind him they try to lighten the mood by pointing out how great the temple was, and at this point, they were making comments about it's massive stones. Sadly, Jesus, the true temple, was standing right there and they did not yet realize it. I happen to think this understanding plays a role in how Jesus responds. Thus begins a rather long discourse and the answers to some very Jewish questions.

Matthew 25:31-46 is an aspect of Jesus response, and is to be taken in context. In the context timing is everything and the timing has everything to do with, when will you come back as the Messiah we were hoping for?

Matthew 25:31-46 ESV "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

While I did not quote the verse in rebuttal, there is no doubt that it says, “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations,”. If all you ever read was this, you could build a variety of themes around it, and be rather convincing.

Here is one of the aspects of this verse that give people trouble: “Before him will be gathered all the nations,” 

Do you understand that there are only three people groups (as far as God is concerned) in the bible narrative? They are:

• The Jews – Israel
• The nations – Also called the gentiles. This is literally anyone outside of Christ – those who refuse to follow him.
• And, the church. The church is the followers of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. He is not a gentile god, He is God and he is Jewish. Those of us who have accepted that he paid a price for us have been adopted in; we Gentile believers were at that point grafted into the root stock – Israel. Paul explained that having accepted him, he accepted us and made us be in Him.

So, God calls all those outside of a relationship with Jesus the nations.

Note: in the Revelation all that happens there is a revealing of Jesus, and therefore, substantiates that Jesus is God.

I told the person asking me the question, that Revelation 20 is the same story as we see in Matthew 25. There will be some obvious differences, but I will attempt to explain.

Revelation 20:1-3 ESV Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. (2) And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, (3) and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

When does this take place? After the tribulations of the seven years (it may not be a precise seven-year period.) Read Revelation 19: 17-21. There you will see Jesus coming back with a mighty army and all those who choose to fight against God will be slain. In Ezekiel, we find that the new Jerusalem comes down out of heaven and the martyred reign with Christ during the thousand years. Are they holding judgment over the nations as we see in Matthew's account? No. With Satan bound for a thousand years, any evil done is purely the creation of man's desire, and that will continue to happen. I believe that they will keep rein over that kind of nonsense. Keep in mind, all oppression shall cease.

Revelation 20:4 ESV Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also, I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Since we already saw these in heaven (Revelation 6:9) why are they identified here as having come back to life? The assumption, and I think it is a pretty good one, is that the souls are reunited with the body. Consider that after his death Jesus cooked some fish for the boys and ate with them. So that same body that can eat fish and apparently enjoy it can still walk through walls.

So let's address the major point of contention. The argument started with the idea that at the beginning of the millennial reign is where Jesus sets up the great white throne, judges all survivors, and sends them all off to hell.

Is that what we see here in Revelation 20:4? No, instead of one throne there are many, and instead of one person, as in Jesus, all the martyred take part in the judgment.

• Instead of one throne, there are many.
• Instead of Jesus doing the judging, the martyred take part.

You will not see the multiple thrones or the martyred judging with Jesus in Matthew's account, and, if you only look for the final judgment, you will not find these extra thrones or the martyred in Revelation 20:11-15 either. You have to piece the puzzle together in it's context.

“Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” (Revelation 20:11-15 ESV)

Here are a few more points to consider as you contrast and attempt to grasp the context of the final judgment and where it is placed in time.

• In Matthew, we find a glorious throne (a place of dignity and glory) instead of the great one (indicating it's size or prominence) we see in Revelation 20. 
• Matthew 25:32 "Before him will be gathered all the nations." Now look at how John describes those standing before him in Revelation 20, "and I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and the books were opened". In both instances, no one is left out.
• In Revelation 20 the crowd is separated according to their deeds found in the books. Matthew 25 shows the Son of Man separating them into sheep and goats. We must assume that the sheep are those whose names are found in the books.

This recurrent event is very intentional and meant to register quickly in the mind of the Jewish reader/hearer. Why? Because repetition is the accepted pattern for prophecy to the Jews, and this book we call the bible is a very Jewish book.

In Revelation 20:12 we see books opened, and the book of life.

Revelation 20:12 ESV And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.

Catch the distinction here. In Revelation 20, the dead are judged out the books based upon what was written in them, according to what they had done. However, in Matthew's account, there is no mention of any books. Question: Does a difference in the stories make them invalid when we try to use them to corroborate these events? Not at all. Revelation always seems to be read from the viewpoint of an angry God, while Matthew is portrayed as the gentle shepherd.

Is there a comparable result? Yes.

Revelation 20:15 ESV And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

While in Matthew's account we find:

Matthew 25:41 ESV  "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Jesus, the shepherd, explains to them how they did no good works and what that looked like. What amazes me is the simplicity involved in these works. It all boils down to this, step outside of your selfishness and show some kindness. 

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
(Matthew 25:35-36 ESV)

Perhaps all of this will be easier to understand if we can see it in a timeline format. Note: This is only attempting to show a short window of time from the moment Jesus physically returns to the earth, and the beginning of the 1000 year reign.

Timeline as we enter the 1000 year reign.

Related articles

• Jesus in Disguise
• Be on the Lookout
• Sink or Swim
• 12-15-2015 Whose Church Is It?