Genesis 5:23–24 What Happened to Enoch

Too many people assume that there is no uniform and sure doctrine on the subject of life after death in the Old Testament. Only one reference in the Old Testament is counted as a clear and undisputed reference to the resurrection of the dead by most Old Testament scholars, Daniel 12:2: “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.” Unhappily, however, even those who concede this point incorrectly place Daniel in the second century b.c.
A few scholars are willing to add Isaiah 26:19 to the Daniel 12:2 passage and count it as a second passage supporting the idea of resurrection of the dead in the Old Testament. It reads, “But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You who dwell in the dust, wake up and shout for joy. Your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead.”
Nevertheless, it is amazing to see how many learned men and women will deny even these two texts and argue that the Old Testament teaches virtually nothing about resurrection or life after death.
The truth of the matter is that ancient peoples were more attuned to the subject of life after death than moderns suspect. The peoples of the ancient Near East wrote at length about what life was like after one left this earth. One need only consult such representative pieces as the Gilgamesh Epic, The Descent of Ishtar into the Netherworld, the Book of the Dead and the Pyramid Texts. Indeed, the whole economy of Egypt was geared to the cult of the dead, for all who wished a part in the next life had to be buried around the pyramid of the Pharaoh. What these Egyptians could expect in that afterlife was depicted in the scenes on the walls of their mortuaries: eating, drinking, singing and all the joys of this life. Each joy, of course, would be magnified and still enjoyed through a body.
By the time Abraham arrived in Egypt, such concepts had been emblazoned on their walls in hieroglyphics, murals and models made of clay, to make sure no one missed the point. Life after death was not a modern doctrine developed by an educated society that began to think more abstractly about itself and its times. Instead it was an ancient hunger that existed in the hearts of humanity long before the patriarchs, prophets and kings of the Old Testament began to function. Why should we attribute this idea to the second and third centuries b.c. if already in the third and second millennium b.c. there is strong evidence to support it?
The earliest biblical mention of the possibility of a mortal’s inhabiting the immortal realms of deity can be found in Genesis 5:24. There we are told that a man named Enoch lived 365 years, all the while “walking with God.” Suddenly, “he was no more, because God took him away.”
Enoch, whose name means “beginner,” must have been unusually godly—not that he achieved this distinction by removing himself from the world and contemplating only the presence of God. In fact, he fathered the famous Methuselah (the man who lived the longest that we know about on planet Earth, 969 years!). And he had other sons and daughters. This man was hardly removed from the daily grind and the problems of life. Nevertheless, he was able to walk with God.
Since this quality of “walking with God” is ascribed only to Enoch and Noah (Gen 6:9), it is significant that Malachi 2:6 shows that the concept involved having a most intimate communion with God. What a tribute to a mortal who is also a sinner! On the other hand, since Exodus 33:20 teaches that “no one may see [God] and live,” the possibility of an outward, physical meeting with God is ruled out.

Many think that only since New Testament times have such nearness and inner communion with God become possible. But here was one who found such uninterrupted consciousness of the living God that it appears to match what we in the post-New Testament era experience.
After 365 years of intimacy with the Almighty, suddenly the Lord “took” Enoch. What can it mean that he “took” him?
The Hebrew root for the verb to take is used over a thousand times in the Old Testament. However, in two contexts—this Genesis 5 passage and the account of Elijah’s assumption into heaven in 2 Kings 2:3, 10–11—it refers to a snatching of a person’s body up to heaven.
In light of these two cases of physical assumption, are there other cases where the verb is used in the Old Testament with a similar meaning?
There are two additional contexts in which more is intended than a mere rescue from dying or distress. Psalm 49 presents a stark contrast between the end of the lives of the wicked and the end of the lives of the righteous. The wicked are like “the beasts that perish” (Ps 49:12, 20) without any hope that they “should live on forever” (Ps 49:9). However, the righteous have the triumphant expectation that “God will redeem [them] from the grave [Hebrew Sheol]; he will surely take [them] to himself” (Ps 49:15). The idea is the same as that of Genesis 5:24: God will snatch, take or receive us to himself when we die. If the psalmist had in mind the fact that he would be rescued from death for a few years, though he knows he still must eventually die like the beasts, then the psalm has very little, or no, point.
Psalm 73:23–25 makes a similar contrast between the wicked and the righteous. Once again there is faith that reaches beyond this life, and it centers on this verb to take (Hebrew laµqah\). Says the psalmist, “You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will take me into glory” (Ps 73:24).
Accordingly, it can be argued on very strong linguistic and conceptual grounds that the “taking” of a person from this earth implies that mortals are capable of inhabiting immortal realms. For the believer in Yahweh in Old Testament times, death did not end it all. There was life after death, and that life was to be in the presence of the living God.
While Enoch did not experience “resurrection,” he did experience glorification. He did, along with Elijah, transcend this mortal life and go in his body to be with God. Since Enoch had not died, he could not be resurrected.
Such a view of an immediate access into the presence of God would also close down all speculation on any kind of intermediate state, receptacle or location as unscriptural. To say that Old Testament believers stayed in a separate compartment in Sheol or in a kind of purgatory runs directly counter to the fact that God snatched Enoch and Elijah away “to himself.”
To say that the Old Testament offers the hope of personal fellowship with God beyond the grave with a real body is not outlandish or incorrect. That hope is a teaching of the text itself.
Kaiser, Walter C., et. al., Hard Sayings of the Bible, (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press) 1997.

Genesis 4:17 Where Did Cain Get His Wife?

Up to this point in Genesis we only know about Adam and Eve, and Cain and Abel. But the most obvious answer to this common question must be that Adam and Eve had other children, including daughters. Indeed, Genesis 5:4 plainly says as much, “[Adam] had other sons and daughters.”
Cain must have married his sister. But to admit this is to raise a further difficulty: was he thereby guilty of incest?
At least two things can be said in response to this reproach. First, if the human race was propagated from a single pair, as we believe the evidence indicates, such closely related marriages were unavoidable. The demand for some other way of getting the race started is an unfair expectation.
In the second place, the notion of incest must be probed more closely. At first the sin of incest was connected with sexual relationships between parents and children. Only afterward was the notion of incest extended to sibling relationships.
By Moses’ time there were laws governing all forms of incest (Lev 18:7–17; 20:11–12, 14, 17, 20–21; Deut 22:30; 27:20, 22, 23). These laws clearly state that sexual relations or marriage is forbidden with a mother, father, stepmother, sister, brother, half brother, half sister, granddaughter, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, aunt, uncle or brother’s wife.
The Bible, in the meantime, notes that Abraham married his half sister (Gen 20:12). Therefore, the phenomenon is not unknown in Scripture. Prior to Moses’ time, incest in many of the forms later proscribed were not thought to be wrong. Thus, even Moses’ own father, Amram, married an aunt, his father’s sister, Jochebed (Ex 6:20). In Egypt, the routine marriage of brothers and sisters among the Pharaohs all the way up to the second century made the Mosaic law all the more a radical break with their Egyptian past.
The genetic reasons for forbidding incest were not always an issue. Close inbreeding in ancient times was without serious or any genetic damage. Today, the risk of genetic damage is extremely high. Since the genetic possibilities of Adam and Eve were very good, there were no biological reasons for restricting marriages to the degree that it became necessary to do later.
Kaiser, Walter C., et. al., Hard Sayings of the Bible, (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press) 1997.

Genesis 3:5 Become like God?

Was the serpent more honest with Adam and Eve than God was? The serpent had explained God’s prohibition against eating from the fruit of the tree from the motive of divine envy: “you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” What knowledge did the man and woman attain?
Some have seen parallels in this passage to the Babylonian flood story, called the Gilgamesh Epic, in which the wild man Enkidu, who is finally civilized by spending six days and seven nights with a prostitute, sees the animals flee from him, and the woman congratulates him: “You are wise, Enkidu. You have become as a god.” But the two sentences from Genesis 3:15 and Gilgamesh are totally different, and Enkidu sheds no light on this passage, contrary to undemonstrated assurances from a number of leading scholars.
There are five passages in which the antithetical pair good and evil and the verb to know occur: Deuteronomy 1:39; 2 Samuel 14:17; 19:35; 1 Kings 3:9; and Isaiah 7:15. These passages help to dismiss certain theories that have been proposed. Certainly we cannot say that Adam and Eve attained premature sexual union due to the aphrodisiac qualities of the fruit on these trees. The only argument in favor of this dubious interpretation is the awakening of shame (Gen 3:7) and the punishment on the woman, which was placed in what some construe as the area of her sexuality (Gen 3:16). However, even while the disturbance affected the sexual aspect of personhood, the text makes it clear that the knowledge of good and evil is a divine prerogative (Gen 3:5, 22). The extension of a sexual interpretation to God is obviously grotesque and unwarranted.
This would mean that humankind could become like God either by attaining total knowledge or by having autonomy, particularly moral freedom. Such wisdom “to know good and evil” can be seen in 2 Samuel 19:35, where Barzillai as an eighty-year-old man doubts his ability to exhibit the knowledge between good and evil needed from the king’s counselor. Likewise, the woman from Tekoa likened David to an angel who was able to discern good and evil (2 Sam 14:17). Solomon asked that God would also give him “a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong” (1 Kings 3:9).
The lure of the serpent, then, did not imply that humanity would have infinite knowledge like God’s knowledge or even that there was some aphrodisiac in the fruit that would open up sexual or carnal relations as an option until then unknown. Instead, the lure of the serpent was an invitation to experience that perpetual quest of human autonomy and freedom. Unfortunately for all, that autonomy turned out to be illusory and actually ended up in a sense of alienation, which has been studied so often since Freud introduced the concept to the modern world.


Kaiser, Walter C., et. al., Hard Sayings of the Bible, (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press) 1997.

Genesis 2:20–23 Why from a Rib?

Whereas Adam was formed “from the dust of the ground” (Gen 2:7), the text describes Eve as being formed from “one of the man’s ribs.” Why this difference? Is there any significance to these two separate materials being used by God in the formation of the first human pair? If so, what is it? If not, why the distinction?
It has become customary for many in recent years to point to the Sumerian “Dilmun poem” as being the best way to explain this association of Eve with a rib. The Sumerian name for “rib” is téÆ (pronounced tee). But the Sumerian word ti also means “to make alive.” These two facts are necessary background information to understand the myth that was told in Sumer.
It happened that the Sumerian water-god, Enki, fell sick, with eight of his organs or bodily parts being affected. A fox promised, if properly rewarded, to bring back the great mother-goddess Ninhursag, who had disappeared after an argument with Enki. Upon her reappearance she brought into existence eight corresponding healing deities, and Enki was restored in time. In order to heal Enki’s rib the goddess created Nin-ti, “the lady of the rib,” which may also be translated as “the lady who makes alive.”
Now it is true that Adam called the woman that God had formed from his rib “Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living” (Gen 3:20). Samuel Noah Kramer commented, “It was this, one of the most ancient of literary puns, which was carried over and perpetuated in the biblical paradise story, although here, of course, it loses its validity, since the Hebrew word for ‘rib’ [tseµlaµ>] and that for ‘who makes alive’ [hoveh] have nothing in common.”
The association of Eve with a “rib” and the “living” appear to be the common features in both the Sumerian and the biblical accounts. In that regard, the Sumerian myth may well be a garbled record of the same oral tradition about the inception of the human race. But the explanation in Sumer, of course, is set in an account with numerous deities and with petty quarrels and misadventures.
But no real explanation has been achieved as yet. It is not necessary to assume that the Hebrew wanted to promote the same pun that the Sumerian Dilmun poem did. The point of the Hebrew story actually takes off in another direction. In fact, Genesis 2:19 had just noted the animals had also been formed “out of the ground.” This only emphasized the fact that Adam lacked the kind of companion he needed.
In order to teach the close connection that woman has with man, the text does not say that God also created her from “the ground” or “the dust of the ground”; instead, she came from one of Adam’s ribs. Thus the phrase “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” pointed not only to the woman’s origin, but also to the closeness of her marriage relationship and the partnership she was to share with her mate.
It is not without significance that the Hebrew word for “rib” appears nowhere else with this meaning in the Hebrew Bible; its usual meaning is “side.” Thus, as some of the Reformers put it, woman was not taken from man’s feet, as if she were beneath him, or from his head, as if she were over him, but from his side, as an equal with him.
Some have tried to relate “rib” to the space or cavity of the body of Adam on the strange assumption that man was originally bisexual. The attempt is then made to substitute the word for female sex organs in place of “rib.” But this attempt is foiled from the start, for what will we make of “one of the man’s ribs”?
The point is that man and woman together share a commonality and partnership observed nowhere else in the created order. To emphasize this closeness, God actually took a real part from the side of the man as he brought to life for the first time this new creation called woman.
Kaiser, Walter C., et. al., Hard Sayings of the Bible, (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press) 1997.

Genesis 2:18 A Helper for Man?

Are women inferior to men, merely designed to be their helpers? Is it consistent with the biblical text to view men as the initiators and women as their assistants? Is this what makes women suitable matches for men?
The Creator regarded Adam’s situation as incomplete and deficient while he was living without community or a proper counterpart. The Creator judged Adam’s situation quite negatively: “It is not good.”
Ecclesiastes 4:9–12 expresses this same opinion about aloneness. The wise writer Solomon advised:

Two are better than one. … If one falls down, his friend can help him up. … Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone? Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves.

True, in Jeremiah 16:1–9 the prophet Jeremiah is commanded by God to remain alone, but this is meant to be a sign that God’s judgment on the people is so near that it will not be worthwhile to get married. Nevertheless, the full life is a life that finds its fulfillment in community with another person or group of persons.
In the Genesis story we find that God created a woman after he had created the man. This would end Adam’s loneliness and the state that God judged to be “not good.” She was to be his “helper”—at least that is how most of the translations have interpreted this word. A sample of the translations reads as follows: “I shall make a helper fit for him” (RSV); “I will make a fitting helper for him” (New Jewish Publication Society); “I will make an aid fit for him” (AB); “I will make him a helpmate” (JB); “I will make a suitable partner for him” (NAB); “I will make him a helper comparable to him” (NKJV).
However, the customary translation of the two words >eµzer kƒneg÷doÆ as “helper fitting him” is almost certainly wrong. Recently R. David Freedman has pointed out that the Hebrew word >eµzer is a combination of two roots: >-z-r, meaning “to rescue, to save,” and g-z-r, meaning “to be strong.” The difference between the two is the first letter in Hebrew. Today that letter is silent in Hebrew, but in ancient times it was a guttural sound formed in the back of the throat. The g was a ghayyin, and it came to use the same Hebrew symbol as the other sound, >ayin. But the fact that they were pronounced differently is clear from such place names which preserve the g sound, such as Gaza or Gomorrah. Some Semitic languages distinguished between these two signs and others did not; for example, Ugaritic did make a distinction between the >ayin and the ghayyin; Hebrew did not (R. David Freedman, “Woman, a Power Equal to a Man,” Biblical Archaeology Review 9 [1983]: 56–58).
It would appear that sometime around 1500 b.c. these two signs began to be represented by one sign in Phoenician. Consequently the two phonemes merged into one grapheme and what had been two different roots merged into one, much as in English the one word fast can refer to a person’s speed, abstinence from food, his or her slyness in a “fast deal” or the adamant way in which someone holds “fast” to positions. The noun >eµzer occurs twenty-one times in the Old Testament. In many of the passages it is used in parallelism to words that clearly denote strength or power. Some examples are:

There is none like the God of Jeshurun, The Rider of the Heavens in your strength (>-z-r), and on the clouds in his majesty. (Deut 33:26, my translation)

Blessed are you, O Israel! Who is like you, a people saved by the Lord? He is the shield of your strength (>-z-r) and the sword of your majesty. (Deut 33:29, my translation)
The case that begins to build is that we can be sure that >ezer means “strength” or “power” whenever it is used in parallelism with words for majesty or other words for power such as >oz or >uzzo. In fact, the presence of two names for one king, Azariah and Uzziah (both referring to God’s strength), makes it abundantly clear that the root >eµzer meaning “strength” was known in Hebrew.
Therefore I suggest that we translate Genesis 2:18 as “I will make a power [or strength] corresponding to man.” Freedman even suggests on the basis of later Hebrew that the second word in the Hebrew expression found in this verse should be rendered equal to him. If this is so, then God makes for the man a woman fully his equal and fully his match. In this way, the man’s loneliness will be assuaged.
The same line of reasoning occurs in the apostle Paul. He urged in 1 Corinthians 11:10, “For this reason, a woman must have power [or authority] on her head [that is to say, invested in her].”
This line of reasoning which stresses full equality is continued in Genesis 2:23, where Adam says of Eve, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” The idiomatic sense of this phrase “bone of my bones” is a “very close relative,” “one of us” or in effect “our equal.”
The woman was never meant to be an assistant or “helpmate” to the man. The word mate slipped into English since it was so close to Old English meet, which means “fit to” or “corresponding to” the man. That all comes from the phrase that I have suggested likely means “equal to.”
What God had intended then was to make a “power” or “strength” for the man who would in every way “correspond to him” or even “be his equal.”


Kaiser, Walter C., et. al., Hard Sayings of the Bible, (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press) 1997.

Genesis 2:17 Why Didn’t Adam and Eve Die at Once?

Why did not Adam and Eve drop dead the same day that they disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit? Adam lived to be 930 years old according to Genesis 5:5. Was Satan’s word in Genesis 3:4—“You will not surely die”—a more accurate assessment of the real state of affairs than what God had said in Genesis 2:17—“When you eat of it you will surely die”? Is Satan more scrupulously honest than God himself?
This hard saying calls for an examination of at least three different concepts embraced within the quotation from Genesis 2:17—(1) the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; (2) the meaning of the phrase “when [more literally, in the day] you eat of it”; and (3) the meaning of the phrase “you will surely die.”
First the tree. There are no grounds whatsoever for believing that the tree was a magical symbol or that it contained a secret enzyme which would automatically induce a wide body of knowledge that embraced the whole gamut of good and evil. Instead it is safer to assume that the tree functioned much as the New Testament ordinance or sacrament of the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist does. The tree was a symbol embodied in an actual tree, just as the bread and wine of the Eucharist are symbols embodied in real bread and wine. In a similar way the tree of life was also a real tree, yet it symbolized the fact that life was a special gift given to individuals from God. That is also why participants are warned not to partake of the elements of the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner, for when the elements are eaten and drunk in a flippant manner and when a person has not truly confessed Christ as Savior, the unworthy partaking of these rather ordinary elements (ordinary at least from all outward appearances) will cause illness and, in some cases, death (1 Cor 11:30).
In the same way, the tree was a symbol to test the first human couple’s actions. Would they obey God or would they assert their own wills in opposition to God’s clear command? To argue that the tree had magical power to confer knowledge of good and evil would be to miss the divine point: the tree was a test of the couple’s intention to obey God. That men and women can attain the knowledge of good and evil is not in itself either undesirable or blameworthy; knowledge per se was not what was being forbidden here. The tree only represents the possibility that creatures made in God’s image could refuse to obey him. The tree served as the concrete expression of that rebellion.
It is just as naive to insist that the phrase “in the day” means that on that very day death would occur. A little knowledge of the Hebrew idiom will relieve the tension here as well. For example, in 1 Kings 2:37 King Solomon warned a seditious Shimei, “The day you leave [Jerusalem] and cross the Kidron Valley [which is immediately outside the city walls on the east side of the city], you can be sure you will die.” Neither the 1 Kings nor the Genesis text implies immediacy of action on that very same day; instead they point to the certainty of the predicted consequence that would be set in motion by the act initiated on that day. Alternate wordings include at the time when, at that time, now when and the day [when] (see Gen 5:1; Ex 6:28; 10:28; 32:34).
The final concern is over the definition of death. Scripture refers to three different types of death. Often only the context helps distinguish which is intended. There are physical death, spiritual death (the kind that forces guilty persons to hide from the presence of God, as this couple did when it was time for fellowship in the Garden, Gen 3:8) and the “second death” (to which Rev 20:14 refers, when a person is finally, totally and eternally separated from God without hope of reversal, after a lifetime of rejecting God).
In this case, spiritual death was the immediate outcome of disobedience demonstrated by a deliberate snatching of real fruit from a real tree in a real garden. Death ensued immediately: They became “dead in … transgressions and sins” (Eph 2:1). But such separation and isolation from God eventually resulted in physical death as well. This, however, was more a byproduct than a direct result of their sin. Spiritual death was the real killer!


Kaiser, Walter C., et. al., Hard Sayings of the Bible, (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press) 1997.

Genesis 2:16–17 An Unfair Test?

Why would God test Adam by placing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden and then urging him not to eat of it—especially when, according to his divine foreknowledge, he knew he would do just that? What is the point of this whole exercise? What would it prove in the end?
The Creator saw fit to set a special test of obedience for the man (and eventually the woman) he had formed. Since Adam and Eve were formed perfect from the hand of their Maker, they were bound by the very laws of their natures to love, honor and obey the One who so endowed them. However, this love, honor and obedience were an untested set of gifts. Therefore, it was necessary to make a trial or test of their obedience if they were to be free moral agents.
The test, however, could not be a violation of a moral obligation like those in the Decalogue; it had to be an easy prohibition that would be a suitable test of their fidelity. When free indulgence had been given to them to eat the fruit of all the other trees, the infringement of this injunction would be an act of direct rebellion against a command given by God. The method God chose had to be one of violating what is known as a Positive Law (that is, one that was true merely because God said it was true), or one that appeared to be an arbitrary enactment. The advantage of using a test of such modest means and methods was that, if the mortals had stood some greater test and come out steadfast, they might have expected rewards proportioned to the conflict and have argued that they had earned their own salvation. But the test was simply one of heeding a command from God. It would vindicate God’s subsequent actions as well as demonstrate that mortals from the hand of God did possess a certain freedom, for which they would also be responsible.
As such, there is nothing absurd or derogatory to the Supreme Being in this test. The perfections of God demand the same from his creatures. But when those perfections are provisionally granted by right of creation, this goodness of God must be further tested before it can be said to exist permanently from that point on.
Kaiser, Walter C., et. al., Hard Sayings of the Bible, (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press) 1997.