Enoch - The Son of Man????

by sinis 5 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • sinis

    Is Enoch the Son of Man? It would seem like it as Jesus infers that the Son of Man may not be him, as he addresses him in the third person.

    Jesus seals his with this verse; “Verily I say unto you, There shall be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16:28).

    1Enoch.70:[17]Then that Angel came to me, and with his voice saluted me, saying, You are the Son Of Man, who art born for righteousness, and righteousness has rested upon You. [18]The righteousness of the Ancient of Days shall not forsake You.
  • Philippus79

    Enoch was Michael

    We shall discover that Enoch was non adamic and was temporarily possessed by the angel Michael. We read of Enoch that:

    23 So all the days of Enoch amounted to 365 years.
    24 And Enoch kept walking with the [true] God. Then he was no more, for God took him (Genesis 5).

    So God took him at the end of his life and he was no more. But Paul further informs us:

    5 By faith Enoch was transferred so as not to see death, and he was nowhere to be found because God had transferred him; for before his transference he had the witness that he had pleased God well (Hebrews 11).

    So when God took him, so that his days ended, he was transferred so as not to see death. Well the only other place he could have been, if his days had ended on this earth, was heaven. So Enoch ascended to heaven, without dying.

    Now the question is did God make some kind of exception in the case of Enoch amongst the sons of Adam. Did he decide that he would not apply the death penalty to him because he was such a good chap? Moses answers:

    4 The Rock, perfect is his activity,
    For all his ways are justice.
    A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice;
    Righteous and upright is he (Deuteronomy 32).

    So he did not break his own justice in the case of Enoch. So if Enoch did not die, then Enoch was not under a death sentence. And if Enoch was not under a death sentence then he was not a son of Adam. And if he was not a son of Adam then he was a son of God. Just like Jesus was. Now we turn to the words of Peter:

    21 Then Peter came up and said to him: Lord, how many times is my brother to sin against me and am I to forgive him? Up to 7 times?
    22 Jesus said to him: I say to you, not, Up to 7 times, but, Up to 77 times (Matthew 18 NWT).
    The Greek Interlinear is:

    22 Not I am saying to you until 7 times, but until seventy times seven (Matthew 18 - KI)

    The KJV and the GLT translate this verse as above. But this is dodging the issue of whether it is to be understood as:

    Seventy times seven times, i.e. 490 times or just 77 times

    i.e. or whether a further 'times' is to be understood and a multiplication is to be expected. Nowhere else in the bible in the literal meaning as far as we are aware is there such a multiplication.

    No bible translates this as 490 times. Actually the Greek is:

    ebdomhkontakiV (seventy times) epta (seven), and the Greek for 7 times is eptakiV.

    The Greek for 77 is ebdomhkonta (seventy) epta (seven).

    The Greek for 70 lots of 7 times would be:

    ebdomhkonta (seventy) eptakiV (7 times) which is 70 lots of 7 times we think.

    We can get help from the words of a certain Lamech to his wives:

    23 Hear my voice, you wives of Lamech; Give ear to my saying:
    A man I have killed for wounding me, Yes, a young man for giving me a blow.
    24 If seven times Cain is to be avenged, Then Lamech seventy times and seven (Genesis 4)

    So in this case where 7 times is compared to a larger number of times involving 70 and 7, it is 77 times. Now the LXX translation of this, which is a Greek translation of the old testament made for the Greek speaking world about 300 years before Jesus, has:

    ebdomhkontakiV (seventy times) epta (seven) for the Hebrew which we translate seventy times and seven.

    So that ends that matter and the NWT has got this right. It is 77 times.

    Now the great thing to realise at this point is that Jesus was the 77th in line from God through Adam, Seth etc.

    14 Yes, the 7th one [in line] from Adam, Enoch, prophesied also regarding them, when he said: Look! Jehovah came with his holy myriads,
    15 to execute judgment against all, and to convict all the ungodly concerning all their ungodly deeds that they did in an ungodly way, and concerning all the shocking things that ungodly sinners spoke against him (Jude).

    Position The Good line The Bad line
    1 Adam Adam
    2 Seth Cain
    3 Enosh Enoch
    4 Kenan Irad
    5 Mahalalel Mehujael
    6 Jared Methushael
    7 Enoch Lamech

    Lamech (not Noah's dad but Methushael's son) was the 7th in line from Adam through Cain, the guy who was to be avenged for 7 times. Jude tells us that Enoch was the 7th in line from Adam through Seth. Luke 3 tells us that Jesus was the 77th in line from God through Adam. So Lamech's song is declaring that there seems to be some kind of relationship between the 7th time and the 77th time. But Enoch and Jesus, are related in this way, the one being the 7th time a son in the line is produced and the other being the 77th time. This does not prove that Enoch was Michael but it got us thinking that he might be.

    So a comparison was definitely being made in the scriptures between Enoch being the 7th in line from Adam and Jesus being the 77th in line from God. And whereas the vengeance penalty on Cain ended after 7 times, the greater meaning of the vengeance penalty on Lamech ended after 77 generations with the death of Jesus, which was the forgiveness of Adam's sin, the end of Vengeance from God on the sons of Adam.

    Consider Peter's words about forgiveness, and we see that there was a forgiveness 77 generations after God in the case of Jesus, but there wasn't any forgiveness 7 generations after Adam in the case of Enoch.

    21 Then Peter came up and said to him: Lord, how many times is my brother to sin against me and am I to forgive him? Up to 7 times?
    22 Jesus said to him: I say to you, not, Up to 7 times, but, Up to 77 times (Matthew 18).

    Now why would the bible make such a comparison? Because Michael/Jesus was Enoch.

    57 Therefore the Jews said to him: You are not yet 50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham?
    58 Jesus said to them: Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been (John 8).

    He has been here, that's what the scripture means. He has been here before!!

    Basically mankind had killed one of its patriarchs (although Enoch procreated before Michael entered him)! When Jesus said at his death: Father forgive them for they know not what they do, they were killing their own ancestor. This was really something.

    However John 8 above only proves that Jesus existed prior to Abraham, it does not prove that he existed as a human prior to Abraham's human existence, although such an interpretation is possible from the words. Now we understand this logically contorted scripture:

    13 Moreover, no one has ascended into heaven but the [one] that descended from heaven, the Son of man (John 3).

    This requires a clear thinking head. It is saying that the Son of man (Jesus) has descended, and he is the one who has ascended. It is saying that the Son of man has both ascended and descended. But this statement was made at the beginning of Jesus' ministry. So he had ascended before he died. So he must have descended and then ascended before his earthly ministry. So this was at least his second visit to us.

    Please also realise that the Hebrew word 'Enoch' means 'one trained up' or 'initiated'. So here was Michael's/Jesus training to be the Messiah!


  • Thomas Poole
    Thomas Poole

    The book of Enoch has nothing to do with the Bible. It is not part of the holy canon of writing. For you to give attention and present Enoch as a viable information source is death dealing for you. Your attention to this type of source information makes you available for the plagues coming forth at the end time period soon to come forth.

    Revelations 22 says,

    18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

    You might as well be speaking in tongues, which also adds to the Bible...

  • wobble

    Thomas, I agree with the spirit of your reply,but to use Revelation in this way is a little bit of WT technique,surely those words only apply to adding or taking away from Revelation,after all John's other writings were written after Revelation,and yet are canonical.



  • Leolaia
    The book of Enoch has nothing to do with the Bible.

    Then what the heck is the book of Jude doing in the Bible? Verse 6 clearly alludes to 1 Enoch 10:4-12, 15:3-7 (containing content about the angels who sinned before the Flood not found in the OT), v. 12-13 has a series of metaphors allusive of 1 Enoch 18:14-16, 80:2-6, 101:2-6 (among other passages in the book), v. 14-15 quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 verbatim as an inspired prophecy (again, content about Enoch not found in the OT, and the reference to Enoch as the "seventh from Adam" evokes 1 Enoch 60:8), and v. 16 is allusive of 1 Enoch 5:4, 27:2, and 101:2-3. The author of Jude had a very different concept of canon than you do (cf. also v. 9 which alludes to the Assumption of Moses, relating another episode not found in the OT). 1 Enoch also left its impression in the thought of many other parts of the NT.

    Is Enoch the Son of Man? It would seem like it as Jesus infers that the Son of Man may not be him, as he addresses him in the third person.

    There are a number of issues conflated here. It is clear that the authors of the gospels recognized that "Son of Man" was a self-designation of Jesus, such as in the passion predictions of Mark (8:31-35, 9:31-32, 10:32-34) and in some other logia attributed to Jesus (e.g. Matthew 11:19, 12:40, 16:13, 18:11 and all the Johannine logia, cf. John 1:49-51, 5:25-27, 8:28, 12:34-36), while there is a set of logia in the synoptics in which "Son of Man" is used in its usual OT sense as a term for "human being" (e.g. Matthew 12:8, Mark 2:27-28, Luke 6:5, cf. Numbers 23:19, Job 25:6, Psalm 8:4-6, Isaiah 56:1-2), and commentators disagree on individual passages (such as Matthew 8:20, Luke 9:58, which is ambiguous) and the extent to which the gospel authors contributed to usage. The Enochic parallels are limited to a specific body of apocalyptic "Son of Man" passages in the synoptics (Matthew 10:23, 13:37-41, 16:27-28, 19:28, 24:27-44, 25:31, 26:64, cf. parallels in Mark and Luke) which share a number of distinctive eschatological motifs. It is in the latest portion of 1 Enoch (the Book of Parables, written probably in the early first century AD) that anticipates the Christian apocalyptic "Son of Man" figure and the parallels are close enough to show some degree of dependence. But there is no basis for supposing on account of 1 Enoch 70:17 that the gospel writers considered Jesus to be Enoch; there is nothing other than the use of common motifs and language that would suggest that the authors contemplated such an identification. Many Enochic scholars also consider 70:17 to be a later redaction to the text of the Book of Parables and not necessarily original (it does however anticipate the glorification of Enoch as the angel Metatron and the "lesser YHWH" in later Enochic literature, such as 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch).

    There is a new book (published in 2007) edited by Gabriele Boccaccini titled Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables that presents the current scholarship on the subject and really goes into depth on the issues you touched on here; I think you will find it quite interesting.

  • Leolaia

    OTOH it is interesting to note that the Animal Apocalypse (written in c. 160 BC) originated the expectation found in patristic literature that Enoch and Elijah would return to earth together at the end of the world (1 Enoch 90:31, cf. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 5.5.1, Hippolytus, De Antichristo, 47, and the third-century Apocalypse of Elijah), a "two witnesses" tradition that finds its expression in Revelation 11:3-11 (where the witnesses are described in a manner suggestive of Moses and Elijah, not Enoch and Elijah, cf. the appearance of Moses and Elijah in Mark 9:3; the persecution scenario involving the witnesses in Revelation is closer to the one found in the Oracles of Hystaspes). If John the Baptist was interpreted by contemporary Jews as the return of Elijah (cf. Mark 9:11-13 and especially Luke 1:17, which cites Malachi 4:5-6; compare also the suggestion that Jesus was Elijah in Mark 6:15, 8:28, Luke 9:19), then it is possible that some may have intepreted Jesus as representing the return of Enoch. Such a view however is not pursued in the gospels themselves, which instead interpreted the relationship between Jesus and John as analoguous to that between Elijah and Elisha (cf. Jesus as an Elisha figure in Mark, compare 1:9 with 2 Kings 2:7-8, 1:40-45 with 2 Kings 5, 6:30-44 with 2 Kings 4:42-44, etc.).

Share this