“Like one of the glorious ones”: The transformation of Enoch in 2 Enoch 22

Abstract

The common assertions that Enoch in 2 Enoch is transformed into an angel, if not something more, are shown to lack support from the key bases on which this assertion is made, namely, his standing in the divine presence, the “sounding out” or testing of the angels to his entry into the divine presence, and his change of clothing for priestly service. Moreover, scholarly assertions of Enoch’s “angelic transformation” do not cohere with the clear emphases he later makes to his family of his shared humanity with them. Much of this misreading of the portrayal of Enoch in this book may owe to retrojections of later Hekhalot mysticism back into the book in an effort to discern a “line of development” or trajectory from 1 Enoch to 3 Enoch. Such a trajectory can be warranted only on the basis of a coherent portrayal of Enoch as he is presented in 2 Enoch. There he is clearly depicted as a man who is glorified among the angels but who remains a human being. While Enoch may be “angelomorphic” in having some of the various forms and functions of an angel, even though not explicitly called an “angel” or considered to have the created nature of an angel, this terminology should be used with caution, since it may tend to blur distinctions between the function and ontology of created heavenly and created earthly beings.

Scholars generally assert that Enoch is transformed into an angel in 2 Enoch 22. This is thought to follow in a kind of trajectory from the identification of Enoch with the Son of Man in 1 Enoch 71:14 to his later identification with Metatron and the lesser YHWH in 3 Enoch (3 Enoch 12:5). ¹ Thus, Nickelsburg and VanderKam speak of the surprising identification of Enoch with the Son of Man (1 Enoch 71:14) as “the first step toward the angelification of the seer in 2 Enoch 22 and of his identification with Metatron in 3 Enoch.” ² Andrei Orlov goes even further in saying that in 2 Enoch, “for the first time, the Enochic tradition tries to portray the patriarch, not simply as a human taken to heaven and transformed into an angel, but as a celestial being exalted above the angelic world.” ³ There is, however, a danger of begging the question in assuming such “a discernable line of development” from 1 Enoch through 3 Enoch, since “the Enoch of 2 Enoch . . . is not the Metatron of 3 Enoch,” but rather one who functions primarily “as a revealer of heavenly mysteries through his scribal activity.” ⁴ If the Enoch of 1 Enoch was not originally intended to be the identified as the preexistent Son of Man, but was only so identified in a later interpolation, one must be careful of discerning a “line of development” that makes him in 2 Enoch something other than a human being, particularly since the period in which that interpolation occurred and whether it was even part of the Enoch tradition the writer of 2 Enoch used cannot be definitively determined. ⁵ Within the book of 2 Enoch itself, the question should be reexamined as to how in 2 Enoch 22 Enoch can be viewed as an angel when in 2 Enoch 39 he repeatedly emphasizes the common humanity he shares with his children.

This study will analyze the bases for the attribution of angelification to Enoch in 2 Enoch: his standing in the divine presence, the “sounding out” or testing of the angels to his entry into the divine presence, and his change of clothing for priestly service. Each of these will be shown to cohere better with viewing Enoch as a glorified human being than with his becoming an angel. While Enoch may be “angelomorphic” in “having some of the various forms and functions of an angel, even though . . . not explicitly called an ‘angel’ or considered to have the created nature of an angel,” this terminology should be used with caution, since it may tend to blur distinctions between the function and ontology of created heavenly and created earthly beings. ⁶

Standing in the presence

After beholding the assembly of the heavenly armies in their resplendent glory, the angels in 2 Enoch place Enoch “at the edge of heaven, alone” (21:2). ⁷ The J recension here specifies this to be “the edge of the seventh heaven.” ⁸ This is the highest of the heavens listed in 2 Enoch, reserved for “the fiery armies of the incorporeal ones, archangels, angels,” and similar beings serving and worshiping the One from whom “a great light” emanated, “the Lord, sitting on his throne” at a distance (2 Enoch 20:1–3). ⁹ This is an important consideration since each of the heavens is clearly demarcated as to what types of beings belong there. The first and fourth heavens involve cosmological operations, the first being where certain angels govern the stars and storehouses of snow (2 Enoch 3–5) and the fourth where angels guide the solar and lunar tracks (11–12). The second and fifth heavens are places of angelic imprisonment, the second housing “the condemned angels” who rebelled against the Lord (7:2) and the fifth the “Grigori,” whose “appearance was like the appearance of a human being” and whose “size was larger than that of large giants” (18:1). These are the fallen angels who had defiled themselves with human wives (18:5; cf. Gen. 6:1–4), the Watchers to which 1 Enoch devotes such prominent attention (1 Enoch 6–19, 21). The sixth heaven is a more exclusive domain of seven angels of great brilliance and glory, “leaders of the angels and of celestial speech” who write down “before the face of the Lord” all that occurs (19:1–5). ¹⁰

The third heaven, Paradise, is the only place in the seven heavens where human beings are typically found. It is “the place [that] has been prepared for the righteous” (9:1), though there is also a “northern heaven” of torment for the godless (10:1–6). Hence, when Enoch is “left at the edge of the 7^th heaven,” alone, he has gone where no man has gone before, to a place normally prohibited human entry. Terrified, with a personal experience of the Isaianic theophanic vision (21:1, J; Isa 6:1–3), he falls on his knees in reverence and awe, as is customary for humans in visions of God (Ezek 1:28; Rev 1:17) or of angels (Dan 8:17; Rev 22:8). Then the Lord sends Gabriel, one of his glorious ones, to Enoch, who tells him to be brave: “Stand up, and come with me and stand in front of the face of the Lord forever” (21:3). ¹¹ Enoch cries woe, that his soul has departed from him in fear, that is, that he has experienced something near to death from this vision (cf. Judg 6:22–23, 13:22; Isa 6:4). Helpless, he asks the “two men,” the angels who had brought him to this place, to bring him near to God. When they do, he “saw the Lord,” whose face was “strong and very glorious and terrible” (22:1). The overwhelming grandeur of the Lord renders his being “incomprehensible” (22:2, J), so that Enoch was incapable of speaking. ¹² If the translation, “Who (is) to give an account of the dimensions of the being of the face of the Lord?” (22:2) be accepted, it would suggest incipient ideas of the actual embodiment of God in the Shi`ur Qomah (“the measurement of the [divine] body”) tradition. ¹³ Enoch’s allusion to “his many-eyed ones and many-voiced ones” (22:2) surrounding the “supremely great throne of the Lord” clearly draws on Isaiah 6 and especially Ezekiel 1 and 10.

When Enoch again falls on his face in obeisance to the Lord, “the Lord, with his own mouth, called to me, ‘Be brave, Enoch! Don’t be frightened! Stand up, and stand in front of my face forever’” (22:5). Jarl Fossum is generally thought to have demonstrated on the basis of Samaritan literature and the Pseudo-Clementines that “standing” by God involves “the idea of an apotheosis,” though he references Moses’ angelification as an example. ¹⁴ This may be called into question, however, both on the basis of a confusion of categories and of counterexamples where standing does not entail divinization.

Apotheosis, or divinization, and angelification are not synonymous, though these categories are often blurred in scholarship. ¹⁵ Steinberg thinks “the angelic is sometimes blurred verbally and conceptually with the divine” with

a slippage [that] begins in biblical sources, as with the term “angel of YHVH.”’ Whether or not the biblical Psalms aim to proffer divine-angelic identity to human beings as “b’nei elim” (e.g., in Ps 29:1), the sectarian writings from Qumran certainly evidence such a belief, as in 4Q181 1, II 3–6, where God is said “to bring close some from among the sons of the earth to be considered with him in the community of celestials” (beyḫad ‘elim). ¹⁶

While the relationship between YHWH and the מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה‎ (LXX, ἄγγελος κυρίου) can be difficult to determine because some texts seem both to distinguish and identify the messenger (for example, Gen 16:7–11) and the Lord (cf. Gen 16:13, for example), there is little cause for confusion between the מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה‎ (LXX, ἄγγελος κυρίου) and the rest of the heavenly realm, let alone human recipients. ¹⁷ Since מַלְאָךְ‎ and ἄγγελος have the basic meaning of “messenger,” that may be either a human or heavenly representative, though the identification of the sender and the context generally make the differentiation clear. ¹⁸

The divine council (בְּנֵי אֵלִים‎), common in the ANE, portrays YHWH as “unparalleled or even the only God” presiding over his own court, though “it is clear even here that they [בְּנֵי אֵלִים‎] are characterized as deprived of divine power.” ¹⁹ Margaret Barker also notes a “crucial distinction”: “There are those called sons of El Elyon, sons of El or Elohim, all clearly heavenly beings, and there are those called sons of Yahweh or the Holy One who are human.” ²⁰ Kevin P. Sullivan’s study of the relationship between angels and humans in this period concludes that the ancient mind was able to distinguish between the divine, angelic, and human:

Despite this similarity of appearance and interaction, there does not seem to be any reason to suppose that there was any confusion on the part of ancient authors as to the nature of what was human and divine (i.e. angels were distinct beings from humans). Transformation from the human to the angelic seems to have been a possibility in some instances, but there is no evidence that it was anything but a onetime, unidirectional change that occurred after their mortal life ended. ²¹

Certainly, in the conceptual background of 2 Enoch, the distinction between angels and humans is clear. From the Book of Watchers (3rd C. B.C.E.) to the Book of Parables (1st C. B.C.E. – 1st C. C.E.), angels are the “children of heaven” (1 Enoch 6:2; 13:8; 14:3; 101:1) in contradistinction to humans, “the children of man” (1 Enoch 6:1; 10:7, 21; 11:1; 12:1, 4; 13:2; 15:12; 22:3, 5; 39:1, 5; 40:9; 42:2; 64:2; 69:6, 8, 12, 14). Angels are also spoken of as “the elect” and “holy ones” (1 Enoch 1:9; 9:3; 12:2; 14:23; 15:9; 38:4; 39:1, 5; 45:1; 47:2, 4; 48:1; 57:2; 61:8, 10, 12; 69:13; 81:5 106:19), the “holy angels” (1 Enoch 20:1–7; 21:5, 9; 22:3; 23:4; 27:2; 32:6; 46:1–2; 60:4; 69:4-5; 71:1, 4, 8; 72:1; 74:2; 93:2; 100:5; 103:2; 108:5). God himself is differentiated as the “Holy [and Great] One” (1 Enoch 10:1; 14:1; 24:6; 25:3; 37:2; 61:12; 84:1; 92:2; 91:7; 93:11; 97:6; 98:6; 104:9; 108:3), or “the Righteous One” (1 Enoch 38:2, 53:6), whereas humans can only be characterized as “righteous” and thus “elect” (1:1, 2, 7, 8; 5:6; 10:17, 21; 15:1; 22:9, 13; 25:4, 7; 27:3; 38:1–5; 39:4, 6–7; 41:8; 43:4; 45:6; 47:1–2, 4; 48:1, 4, 7, 9; 50:2; 51:2, 5; 53:2, 7; 56:7; 58:1–4; 60:2, 8; 61:3, 13; 62:3, 12–13, 15; 70:3–4; 71:17; 81:4, 7; 82:4; 92:3–4; 93:6, 10; 91:10, 12; 94:3; 95:3, 7; 96:1, 8; 97:1, 3; 98:12-14, 99:3; 99:16; 100:5, 7, 10; 102:4, 6, 10; 103:1, 9; 104:1, 6, 12–13; 108:13–14). While 2 Enoch does not rehearse all of this terminology, it remains that the “righteous” are human beings (2 Enoch 9:1; 35:1), the Lord is “holy” (18:3; 21:1), and the angels are described in terms of their glorious (8:8; 19:1; 20:1; 21:3; 29:1; 30:11; 42:4) and winged (11:4; 12:2; 16:7) appearance and their particular role in the divine economy of the cosmos.

Steinberg’s distinctions may betray some blurring themselves when he says that angelification has to do with becoming one with the attendants of God who are “paradigmatic creatures of the divine will,” as well as “place-holders in a status that human beings might attain and even exceed,” and “key witnesses to the glorification of human beings,” over against theosis or divinization, which involves “a hope of taking part in God’s own nature and glory.” ²² The fundamental difference between angelification and divinization has to do with the state (that is, nature) of an entity, that is, its ontology, and not simply with the status or rank of that entity. Hence, angelification would have to do with becoming an angel, a created and finite spirit being that is a subordinate member of the divine council, messenger of YHWH and part of the heavenly host, among other things. Divinization or apotheosis, on the other hand, would be “taking part in God’s own nature,” not simply as a participant in that nature (for example, 2 Pet 1:4), but becoming one with God in nature, so that one shares the attributes typically thought unique to God. ²³

The ambiguity in the use of “status” can be illustrated from Gieschen’s Angelomorphic Christology. There he speaks of a “divine position” criterion whereby being “with or near God or his throne” implies divinity. However, this is said to be a position (status), not a divine nature (that is, state). “Divine status is usually accorded to the sole occupant sitting on the divine throne,” whereas “standing around God’s throne is the typical position of angels in Jewish apocalyptic literature” as well as “of the righteous who receive angelic status.” ²⁴ Hence, the difference in divine versus angelic “status” appears to hinge on whether the entity is sitting on the divine throne or standing around it. It appears to have nothing to do with the entity’s actual state or nature, its ontology.

That is not how the book of Ezekiel, so foundational to the Enoch traditions, depicts the difference between the divine, angelic, and human. ²⁵ Rather, the combined passage of Ezek 28:1–19 portrays a human who claimed divinity and a seat among the gods who is cast down because he was “but a mortal, and no god” (28:9) as well as an angel (cherub) who was perfect and blameless from the day of its creation (28:12, 15) that was cast out of the holy mountain because of corruption. In both instances, position (status) depends on nature (state). Loss of status owes to an unequal or corrupted state.

In Ezek 28:1–10, the king of Tyre (probably Ittobaal, who was king during the conclusion of the siege in 573 B.C.E.) is indicted by means of an underlying primal man myth. The king is depicted not in personal terms but typical ones, in ways similar to other rulers and the nations they represented whose hubris is condemned (Isa 14:12–13; Ezek 29:3). ²⁶ The presumption and arrogance of the king and his people are forcefully set forth in the king’s assertion that he is equal to God and is a god (v. 2). Whether אֵל אָנִי‎ is to be taken as an identification with El, the high god of the Canaanites, or a more generic idea of divinity is of less significance than the fundamental assertion of equality with God, with YHWH, known to Ezekiel as the only God and the recognition of whom was the purpose of all such proclamation of judgment (cf. 28:24, וְיָדְעוּ כִּי אֲנִי אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה‎). Hence, “from the point of view of form, the king of Tyre usurps the manner of speech which is appropriate only to the creator.” ²⁷ This usurpation, or inversion of the Creator–creature distinction, demonstrates this passage to be “the closest parallel to Gen. 3 which can be found.” ²⁸

This ruler further asserts divine authority in v. 2 in maintaining he sits in “the seat of the gods” and thus commands the nature of the cosmos. The king’s arrogant assertion is reversed with YHWH’s rejoinder that the king is “no god,” but only “a mortal” (v. 3). His assumed status or rank does not cohere with his state, with his nature. Consequently, he will die a violent death in the heart of the seas (v. 8).

The subsequent passage in Ezek 28:11–19 is a lamentation (קִינָה‎) for the king of Tyre. It appears to be a recasting of the Eden account or a tradition underlying that account. May thinks, for instance, that “the basic underlying pattern of Ezekiel’s Eden myth provides a more adequate background for the creation theme in Pr. 8:22ff. and certain other passages than does Gen. 2–3.” ²⁹ The one who had exalted himself as a god in the previous passage is here lamented for his fall from primal human or angelic perfection. The king is not judged for having made himself who he was not, but for having failed to continue to be what he in fact was, a reflection of the first man or angelic member of the divine council. If in the previous passage the king had assumed the qualities of divinity, in this he is not simply “‘like’ the primal human, he is the primal human.” ³⁰ There are some variations here on an underlying Adam or primal man motif found in Israel.

That the king is portrayed here in terms of the primal human being and not god needs to be emphasized over against suggestions that the change of address from “prince” (נָגִיד‎) in v. 2 to “king” (מֶלֶךְ‎) in v. 12 entails a shift in focus from a human ruler to his divine patron Melkart, respectively. ³¹ Given what has already been said, this suggestion seems more of an inversion of the pericopes, since the previous one has the emphasis on divinity, though it is presumed by one who is clearly human. Additionally, in Ezekiel מֶלֶךְ‎ always refers to an earthly king (17:12, 19:9 of Babylon; 29:2–3 of Egypt; 27:33, 28:17 of the earth; 34:24, 37:25 of a Davidic ruler). The use of elements for an earthly king that may herald back to an earlier version of an Eden account are also found in the use of a “cosmic tree” motif in Ezek 31:3–9, for instance.

The introduction of the cherub in 28:14 draws further on an archetypal Eden account. The Massoretic text clearly identifies the king as the cherub (אַתְּ־כְּרוּב‎). Block asks, “But what has inspired this vision of the king of Tyre as a cherub in Eden?” Seeing no connection with the cherubim Ezekiel had earlier witnessed transporting the glory of God from the temple (Ezekiel 10) or with the cherubim overlooking the ark of the covenant in the temple, he suggests הַסֹּוכֵךְ‎ describes the cherub’s function in the garden, “to cover” or “protect” it. “This interpretation accords,” he says, “with the sense of Gen. 3:24, which has Yahweh strategically stationing sword-wielding cherubim to guard (šāmar) the way to the tree of life.” ³² The discord with this interpretation is not, as Block thinks, that the cherub here is singular while being plural in Gen 3:24 or that the cherub walks in the garden here while in Gen 3:24 being placed at the entrance east of the garden, but rather that the cherubim in Genesis 3 are not human, there is no tree from which the primal man here in Ezek 28:11–19 is prohibited from eating or any deceiving serpent, and wisdom does not seem to be the fulcrum on which the fall in this passage is based.

The primal man tradition underlying the lament for the king of Tyre is spoken of in v. 14 as having been “on the holy mountain of God,” which bears a close resemblance to Isa 14:13 (“the mount of assembly”) and suggests his part in the divine council. Thus, we have further reason to suppose a kind of being beyond mere mortals in mind here. “The allusion to a cherub figure at this point in Ezek. 28:14 is therefore consistent with the ancient concept of the cosmic mountain as the abode of God and His council.” ³³

Verse 15 transitions to a judgment oracle, beginning with the moral heights from which the primal creature has fallen. He was “blameless” or “perfect” (תָּמִים‎), a characterization rarely linked to a particular individual in the Hebrew Bible. In Gen 6:9 Noah is said to be blameless, as was Abram in Gen 17:1 and the righteous sufferer Job in Job 1:1. The fact that the one on whom Ezekiel draws for his parallel to the king of Tyre was created blameless, however, provides a clear link to Israelite creation motifs:

It is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that this man, created by God, given precious stones also created by God for that man, living in Eden, and described as blameless, can be anyone other than the primeval first man. ³⁴

This primal man (or cherub), created perfect, adorned in splendor and ruling over creation in God’s stead, was blameless in conduct “until iniquity (עֶוֶל‎) was found in you” (v. 15). Consequently, God casts the primal man (or cherub) “as a profane thing” (חָלַל‎) from the mountain of God. He is cast down, as in Isaiah 14, but actively here and as something that was previously holy but is now no longer. The primal man or cherub is no longer a participant among the divine council upon the mountain of God, but is now, because of a sin of pride and corrupted wisdom, brought down “to the ground” (אֶרֶץ‎), now to be a man of earth and ashes instead of a man or cherub among the gods. ³⁵

Fossum’s arguments regarding the apotheosis of the “standing one,” while initially convincing, were based on the Samaritan liturgy, which dates no earlier than the fourth century, well beyond the period of 2 Enoch in the mid-first century. It appears from Ezek 28:1–10, however, that a mortal who sits “in the seat of the gods” remains mortal because of his state, regardless of his assumed status. Ezek 28:11–19 shows us that an angel or primal man once among those who stood in the divine council on the holy mountain can be cast out and thus lose standing because of a change of nature. All of this is to say that standing depends on nature, status on state. ³⁶ The Similitudes of Enoch provide further first century support for the use of Dan 7:9–14 that sees “one like a son of man,” or Elect One, standing before the Lord of the Spirits (1 En. 49:2) and sitting after the judgment has occurred (1 En. 51:1–3). ³⁷

Gieschen is among those who think that, “since standing is the typical posture of angels, it is reasonable to conclude that this detail [in 2 Enoch 22:5] is another indication that Enoch is depicted as being transformed into an angelic being.” ³⁸ While this accords with what is often found in 1 Enoch, where the Watchers “stood before” God’s glory blessing his name (39:13; cf. 40:2) and “the Antecedent of Time . . . was sitting upon the throne of his glory” while “all his power in heaven above and his escorts stood before him” (1 Enoch 47:3), the Similitudes also provide further support for the use found in Dan 7:9–14 that sees “one like a son of man,” or Elect One, standing before the Lord of the Spirits (1 Enoch 49:2), though he is not angelic, and sitting after the judgment has occurred (1 Enoch 51:1–3), though he is not clearly divine.

Sounding out

Although God himself had called Enoch to come before him and stand, we may surmise he had been unable to do so, since now Michael the archangel must lift him up and bring him before the face of the Lord. “The Lord sounded out his servants,” and then said, “Let Enoch come up and stand in front of my face forever. Michael E. Stone endeavors to find support in 2 Enoch for the tradition (found in Adam and Eve [Vita] 13:2–16:3) of Satan’s fall for refusing to obey Michael’s command at the Lord’s behest to “worship the image of God” (Adam and Eve 14:1). ³⁹ Satan reasoned that, because Adam was “inferior and subsequent to me,” Satan’s priority in creation meant “he ought to worship me” (Adam and Eve [Vita] 14:3). Other angels who heard this followed Satan in his refusal, prompting Michael to warn Satan that if he did not “worship the image of God,” God would judge him. Satan responds, “If he be wrathful with me, I will set my throne above the stars of heaven and will be like the Most High” (Adam and Eve [Vita] 15:3). This, it might be noted, is another instance of an angel who was presumably near the throne of God (“my glory which I had in the heavens in the midst of angels,” Adam and Eve [Vita] 12:1) who loses his status because of a changed nature.

Similar ideas are found in 2 Enoch 29 (J only). In 2 Enoch 29:3, God “gave orders that each [of the created “ranks of bodiless armies—ten myriad angels”] should stand in his own rank.” “But one from the order of the archangels deviated, together with the division that was under his authority. He thought up the impossible idea, that he might place his throne higher than the clouds which are above the earth, and that he might become equal to my power” (29:4) a clear assertion of divinity, of ontological equality. This God categorically refutes in hurling him out from the height, together with his angels (29:5). The interest of the writer of 2 Enoch in ontology is further evinced in a curious addendum that Satanail “fled from heaven” (31:4), after which we read Satanail became “different from the angels,” though “his nature did not change” (32:5). This apparently means he remained angelic, though no longer obedient and righteous, since “his consciousness of righteous and sinful things changed” (32:5). Parallel to the account of Adam, whose nature did change in being corrupted, Satan’s also changed in being corrupted. His state was altered, and so his status was also altered in terms of sharing the fellowship of the angels and their glory. ⁴⁰

The “sounding out” of his servants in 2 Enoch 22:6 is a testing or “making trial of them,” as Morfill translates it. ⁴¹ Stone thinks the testing is whether the angels will accept Enoch as an angel. Vaillant’s note, which inserts Satan into the scenario, is in Stone’s view “acutely” put: (“les Glorieux ne sont pas, comme Satan, jaloux de l’honneur que le Seigneur fait a un homme” [“the angels are not, as Satan, jealous of the honor which the Lord gives to a man”]). ⁴² Stone surmises from this, “God tests the archangels’ reaction to this decision of his to change Enoch’s role and status from an ordinary human to a heavenly, angelic being.” ⁴³ However, that is neither in keeping with Vaillant’s note (“gives to a man”) nor the Adam and Eve pericope, which is rather the glory of God (shared to some degree by the angels) given to a human being that the disobedient angel (Satan) refused to acknowledge. The testing in 2 Enoch 22:6, then, is of angelic acceptance of the status given to this man to “stand in front of [God’s] face forever,” which is analogous to the earlier Adam and Eve passage of the fall of Satan, who refused to accept the idea that he should “worship the image of God,” which he viewed as “one inferior and subsequent to me” (Adam and Eve 14:1–3). Enoch is here, then, depicted as a man, not an angel.

Change of clothing

If “it is clear that human beings do not participate in the choirs of the heavenly hosts, nor ascend to the heavenly sanctuaries to be close to the angelic choirs,” as Bilhah Nitzan asserts, God’s command of the angels to accept a human being for clothing and anointing into the priesthood of the heavenly sanctuary reserved for the angels can be viewed as a further test of obedience. ⁴⁴ “The glorious ones did obeisance and said, ‘Let him [Enoch] come up!’” (22:7). God then tells Michael to perform a “change of clothing” on Enoch with an anointing: “‘Take Enoch, and extract (him) from the earthly clothing. And anoint him with the delightful oil, and put (him) into the clothes of glory’” (22:8). Michael does as commanded, the anointing effecting “the greatest light,” since “its shining is like the sun” (22:9). The transformation having been accomplished, Enoch marvels: “I gazed at all of myself, and I had become like one of the glorious ones, and there was no observable difference” (22:10).

It is commonly asserted that here “Enoch has become an angel.” ⁴⁵ F. I. Andersen’s extensive notes on this section include the divine proposal, to which the angels concur, as to “whether a human as such should be admitted or whether Enoch should become an angel. The sequel shows it is the latter.” ⁴⁶ His notes, however, do not support an angelic transformation here. The extraction of Enoch’s “earthly clothing,” Andersen observes, is close to terminology found in Dan 7:15, “my spirit was upset inside its sheath” (אֶתְכְּרִיַּת רוּחִי אֲנָה דָנִיֵּאל בְּגֹוא נִדְנֶה‎; cf. also 1QapGen 2:10 ונשמתי לגו נתנהא‎, “my breath in its sheath”). ⁴⁷ If the body is viewed as a sheath for the soul, which coheres with Jewish Hellenistic anthropology, then it is of little consequence that “in 2En there is no explicit talk about soul and body,” as Andersen says. It can be assumed. ⁴⁸ This extracting of Enoch from his “earthly clothing” and Michael’s putting on him “the clothes of glory” agrees with ideas found in the Book of Similitudes, where “the righteous and elect,” that is, human beings, “shall wear the garments of glory. These garments of yours shall become the garments of life from the Lord of the Spirits” and this glory will never end (1 Enoch 63:15–16). ⁴⁹ Additionally, similar ideas are found in 2 Cor 5:1–5, as well as the white robes the saints put on in Revelation (6:11; 7:9, 13, 14; cf. Matt 22:11–12). None of those instances suggests in any way that the departed believer is transformed into an angel or becomes something ontologically other than he was; he is, quite simply, a glorified human being (Phil 3:21; Rom 8:17, συνδοξασθῶμεν; 2 Thess 2:14, εἰς περιποίησιν δόξης τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ).

Andersen observes that at Qumran, the souls of the righteous after death live with God “like angels” (1QS 4:6–8, 11–13; 1QM 12:1–7). Similarly, Jesus said that those in the resurrection “are like angels in heaven” (Matt 22:30). That is just what said here of Enoch. He “had become like one of the glorious ones” (2 Enoch 22:10). He became like the angels in his outward glorification, but he did not become one of them. ⁵⁰ This seems to make the best sense in light of the recurrent declarations Enoch later makes of his humanity when he returns to live on earth for 30 days to impart knowledge to his sons and family (2 Enoch 39). The transformation in 2 Enoch 22 is best understood as Enoch’s glorification into something like an angel, though he remains human. ⁵¹

The Lord summons an archangel Vareveil, “who was wise, who records all the Lord’s deeds,” and told him to read all the books from the storehouses of heaven to Enoch (22:10–11). He is also instructed to give a pen to Enoch, presumably for him to record this information in the 30 days and nights of incessant instruction he receives. God himself calls Enoch and places him to his left closer than Gabriel so that God himself can explain all the secrets of creation to Enoch, things to which angels have not been privy (cf. 1 Pet 1:12). Angels will guard and preserve Enoch’s writings, as well as those of Adam and Seth, so that they will not perish in the impending flood.

The brightness of Enoch’s face and the intimacy Enoch experienced with God (36:3), together with his anointing with oil which appeared “greater than the greatest light” (22:9), suggest two lines of thought that position Enoch over Moses as revelator and as mediator. Philip Alexander has discerned a “powerful subtext” in the Enochic tradition contrasting Enoch and Moses. “The circles which looked to Enoch as their patron were, at least to some extent, challenging Moses’ primacy.” ⁵² There was, he notes, “polemical potential” in Enoch’s having lived long before Moses and the revelation he received on Sinai. Enoch is cited twice in Jubilees as an authority on halakhic matters explicitly covered in the Torah of Moses (the law of first fruits in Jub. 7:38–39 and sacrificial procedure in 21:10). Later, in 3 Enoch, it will be said that Enoch as Metatron is the Prince of the Divine Presence and lesser YHWH who teaches the Torah beneath the throne of glory (3 Enoch 48C:7, 12).

Hence, just as Moses was called of God to “come up to the Lord” and alone came near (24:2) to write down all the words of the Lord (Exod 24:1–3), so Enoch here has done so. Although Moses was said to be on the mountain 40 days and nights (Exod 24:18), Enoch is only in the presence of God for 30 days and nights. ⁵³ Moses “saw the God of Israel” in a way similar to Ezekiel’s vision (Exod 24:10–11; Ezek 1:26–28), just as Enoch has. God spoke with Moses “face to face, as one speaks to a friend” (Exod 33:11), just as God here speaks to Enoch. However, while Moses did not and could not see God’s face and live (Exod 33:20), Enoch has seen God face to face. The radiance of the divine glory that was reflected on Moses’ face (Exod 34:29–35) is also evident on Enoch.

Enoch is also clearly a mediator and priest, as Moses was said to be (only once, explicitly, in Ps 99:6), which necessitates his humanity (cf., for example, Heb 2:17). “Any priest must be one with those whom he represents before God.” ⁵⁴ Each of the divine commands in Exodus 29 for the ordination of priests is in the second person singular, addressed to Moses as the one who initiates the priesthood through anointing Aaron (Exod 29:7). While Moses intercedes for the people and made atonement for them from the time of their idolatry in making the golden calf (Exod 32:30–34), Enoch “the righteous man” has gone beyond Moses in interceding for the Watchers (1 En. 15:1–2). His anointing in 2 Enoch 22:9 by Michael has been characterized as “a heavenly version of priestly investiture.” ⁵⁵ Although Himmelfarb thinks this is part of the process by which Enoch becomes an angel, there is no instance in which angels are so clothed and anointed to become priests. ⁵⁶ Instead, as she says, “the idea that there are special garments for the righteous after death is widespread in this period” (cf., for example, 1 Enoch 62:15; 2 Cor 5:3–4; Rev 3:4, 5, 18; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9, 13, 14; 4 Ezra 2:39, 45; Herm., Sim. 8.2). ⁵⁷ Of particular interest here is Mart. Asc. Isa. 9.9, where among the righteous in the seventh heaven, the author has Isaiah say, “I saw Enoch and all who (were) with him, stripped of (their) robes of the flesh; and I saw them in their robes of above, and they were like the angels who stand there in great glory.” Enoch is here also said to be among the righteous who are like the angels, though distinct from them. ⁵⁸

According to the writer of Jubilees, Enoch “offered the incense which is acceptable before the Lord in the evening (at) the holy place on Mount Qatar,” one of the “four (sacred) places upon the earth” (Jub. 4:25–26). The priestly and revelatory work of Enoch is summarized by the people prior to his final translation to heaven (2 Enoch 67:1–3) when they say, “The Lord has chosen you, [to appoint you to be] the one who reveals, who carries away our sins” (64:5). Angels do not normally have such a priestly atoning function (an exception appears in T. Levi 3:5–6, where the archangels “offer propitiatory sacrifices to the Lord in behalf of all the sins of ignorance of the righteous ones,” “a rational and bloodless oblation”; cf. also 11QShirShabb iv.2–3, “the aroma” “of their offerings” and “of the libations”). ⁵⁹ They are clearly portrayed in 1 Enoch as having an intercessory ministry (for example, 1 Enoch 40:5–7; 47:2; 99:3; 104:1) and in Qumran liturgical texts (4QShirShabb, for example) as offering hymns of praise to God the King. ⁶⁰ God has established “the holy of holies among the eternal holy ones, so that for him they can be priests [who approach the temple of his kingship,] the servants of the Presence in the sanctuary of his glory” (4Q400 [4QShirShabb] I.i.3–4).

Enoch the man

After Enoch is instructed in “all the deeds of the Lord, the earth and the sea, and all the elements and the courses and the life,” along with “everything that is appropriate to learn” (2 Enoch 23:1–2), God places him “to the left of himself closer than Gabriel” (24:1), perhaps another test for the angels. God then explains the unfolding of creation to Enoch, something he has not done “even to my angels” (24:3), which implies a distinction between Enoch and the angels. When Enoch is finished writing all this down, God sends him to his children so that they may read his work and know their Creator. A distinction also seems evident between “my angels” and “your fathers,” Adam and Seth (33:10–12), with “my angels” “appointed on the earth to guard them [his writings] and to command the things of time to preserve the handwritings of your fathers so that they may not perish in the impending flood which I will create in your generation” (33:12). God promises to “leave a righteous man (a member) of your tribe, together with all his house,” who will follow his will, which must consummate in Noah. Although the baby Noah “looks like the children of angels” (1 Enoch 106:5), moving his father Lamech to say, “his dwelling place is among the angels” (1 Enoch 106:7), Lamech follows Methuselah’s advice to go to Enoch “and learn from him the truth” (1 Enoch 106:7). Enoch responds by telling Methuselah to go “and make it known to your son Lamech that this son who has been born is his own son in truth—and not in falsehood” (1 Enoch 107:2), the righteous one to be called Noah (1 Enoch 106:18). ⁶¹ Noah is thus a human being born of normal procreational means and Enoch is his grandfather, not positionally but actually.

Enoch is given 30 days in which to speak to his sons and his house about the Lord, after which God will “send the angels” for Enoch to take him from “your sons” “to me” (2 Enoch 36:2). God calls one of his “senior angels, a terrifying one” (2 Enoch 37:1) to stand with Enoch, who “refreshed” Enoch’s face. “And the Lord said to me, ‘Enoch, if your face had not been chilled here, no human being would be able to look at your face’” (2 Enoch 37:2), a clear parallel to the veiling of Moses’ face necessary on coming down from communion with God on Sinai for the people to be able to come near him (Exod 34:29–35). God then commands the “men who had brought me [Enoch] up at the first” to take him down and wait for him “till the specified day” (2 Enoch 38:1 [only J]). These “men” are obviously angels, but they are clearly distinct from the “human beings” that are next spoken of in 2 Enoch 39.

Most scholars who address 2 Enoch 39 do so with the intention of discerning elements of the Shi`ur Qomah mysticism in Jewish Hekhalot literature. ⁶² Whatever be the significance of bodily aspects of God mentioned here for subsequent Jewish mysticism (which are replete all throughout the Bible, particularly in the poetic literature), the larger question has to do with the central message of this chapter, which is that of Enoch’s mediatorial role. God has previously spoken with Enoch “as a man talks to his neighbor” (36:3). God has “refreshed” Enoch’s face so that his children may be able to look at his face (37:1–2 J). Methusalem eagerly awaits his father’s arrival in 38:2 (J), and 39:1 (J) opens with Enoch speaking mournfully to his sons about what is to come. The context emphasizes Enoch’s relation with his sons, which is why God has sent him to speak words of warning to them. In Chapter 39, Enoch is portrayed as radically different from God, as is to be expected, but this is to accent the mediatorial role Enoch plays. As one who has seen the divine face and heard divine words, Enoch’s words of warning to his children are to be heard as those of God coming from Enoch’s human face. These words are not Enoch’s own, but those of God. “You hear my words, out of my lips, a human being created equal to yourselves; but I, I have heard the words from the fiery lips of the Lord” (39:3). The entire thrust of the chapter is to accentuate the shared humanity of Enoch with his children compared to the Otherness of God. ⁶³ Enoch emphasizes that he is “a human being created equal to yourselves” (39:3 [twice]), “a human being created just like yourselves” (39:4), “a human being identical to (y)ourselves” (39:5). The emphasis here on the continuation of his creational identity as a human being with his children surely carries ontological significance. It is difficult to see how that ontological oneness with humanity could be more strongly stressed. The discomfort this presents for advocates of an angelic transformation is evidenced in Andersen’s note: “Enoch’s protestations that he is merely human accord ill with the transformation described in ch. 22.” ⁶⁴ Perhaps that purported earlier “transformation” has simply been misunderstood. It is better to proceed by the fundamental hermeneutical approach of interpreting the unclear by the clear, and it is clear here that Enoch is a human being. It is also not justifiable to excise 2 Enoch 39 as an interpolation, for which there seems little justification. ⁶⁵ Full recognition must be given to Enoch’s assertion to his family that he is “a human being created just like yourselves” (39:3–5), the extent of whose body is “the same as your own” (39:6).

Conclusion

The common assertions that Enoch in 2 Enoch is transformed into an angel, if not something more, have been shown to lack support from the key bases on which this assertion is made, namely, his standing in the divine presence, the “sounding out” or testing of the angels to his entry into the divine presence, and his change of clothing for priestly service. Moreover, scholarly assertions of Enoch’s “angelic transformation” do not cohere with the clear emphases he later makes to his family of his shared humanity with them. This misreading of the portrayal of Enoch in this book may owe to retrojections of later Hekhalot mysticism back into 2 Enoch in an effort to discern a “line of development” or trajectory from 1 Enoch to 3 Enoch. ⁶⁶ Such retrojections presume upon an identification of Enoch with Metatron as the “lesser YHWH” many centuries beyond the period and provenance of 2 Enoch. ⁶⁷ There is no warrant for reading 2 Enoch in light of accretions of tradition well beyond the first century. The understanding of Enoch must instead be based on the traditions surrounding 1 Enoch, which formed the basis for his portrayal in 2 Enoch. Apart from the uncertainty of the interpolation identifying Enoch with the Son of Man in 1 Enoch 71:14, which is not alluded to in 2 Enoch, he is clearly depicted in 1 Enoch as a man who is granted access to the heavenly realms and writes what he has seen to deliver to humanity. The writer of 2 Enoch has drawn on that tradition to portray Enoch as a righteous man and scribe who is glorified among the angels but who remains a human being. Whatever be the value of angelomorphism for describing Enoch or other biblical figures, caution needs to be exercised in elucidating those forms and functions lest ontological assertions creep in unawares and distinctions between humans and the divine and heavenly realm are confused.