Kissling And Enoch Comparison

Paul Kissling and Kenneth Mathews have identifies similarities between Gen. 3:7 and 5:22, and claim they represent a comparison between pre-fallen Adam and Enoch. Contra Kissling and Mathews, Philip Alexander reads “angels” in place of “God” in the Enochian texts, diluting if not destroying any such comparison. However, a thorough search of antediluvian Genesis indicates not only are Kissling and Matthews correct, but they have touched on only two points of a much larger comparison that has gone largely unnoticed. This paper investigates the comparison between the three men presented as righteous: pre-fallen Adam, Enoch, and Noah; and their opposites, who show the depths of sinful humanity: Cain, Lamech, and Ham. The following is a synopsis of the work and conclusions.

The author of Genesis identifies pre-fallen Adam, Enoch, and Noah as exemplars of righteousness. This identification is indicated with the phrase “and he walked with God” as it is unique to the relationships between God and Enoch and God and Noah. Yet, this

phrase is an echo of the Garden of Eden where God is said to have come in the “cool of the day” to commune with Adam. The author of Genesis uses these exemplars to throw into sharp relief the depths of sin into which humanity may fall by the presentation of three negative exemplars: Cain, Ham, and Lamech.
Cain and Ham are the sons of the first and last righteous exemplar and the bookends of sinful humanity; the first murdered his brother and the latter sinned against his father.

Yet, these bookmarks also serve to highlight a greater negative exemplar: Lamech, who sits in comparison to Enoch. As such, the author presents in Enoch a man so righteous that God simply took him, and his doppelganger Lamech, a man who trebles the sins of his forefathers. The three ways in which Lamech sinned begins with him further breaking creation through the second recorded murder (equaling him to Enoch). Then, Lamech asserts he would be avenged exponentially more than that asserted by God for Cain, thus acquiring a role of God for himself (just as Adam and Eve acquired the role of deciding between good and evil in the Garden of Eden). Finally, the author records Lamech participating in the first polygamous marriage, which breaks the intended order of man and

wife.
From these comparisons, the following understanding is presented in the paper. First, although many scholars have noted the general downward spiral of sin between Genesis 3 and 11, this comparison acts as a specific reminder that sin occurs in both distant relational lines and within the confines of one’s own family. Following scholars such as John Sailhamer, this text was first directed to Jews in the Second Temple period warning them of snares within their own families and friends. Contextually, this warning comes in light of their focus on dangers posed by people outside of the covenant (as seen in Ezra and Nehemiah, for instance). Second, although Adam, Enoch, and Noah all are righteous, covenants are associated only with Adam and Noah, both of whom committed sin (Adam in the Garden of Eden, Noah by getting drunk). The message here is that God chose to covenant with righteous people despite their continued ability to sin (see also the Sinaitic and Davidic covenants). This message is one of hope for the Second Temple Jew questioning their covenant relationship.
The paper concludes by applying these texts to today’s world. First, the comparison reminds a Christian that sin also occurs in Christian homes and families. If that sin festers, it results serious spiritual, physical, and relational consequences, no matter how righteous the person or family may otherwise be. Second, a hope exists in that God has sought people to establish a relationship with them, regardless of their sinfulness. Therefore, just as Adam and Noah continued in relationship with God after their sins, so each Christian may rest in the knowledge that despite sinful desire and acts, God still wants and upholds his covenant.