Who put the Enoch in Enochian?

Who put the Enoch in Enochian?

“Enoch was son of Jared and fathered Methuselah. The text of the Book of Genesis says Enoch lived 365 years before he was “taken” by God. The text reads that Enoch “walked with God: and he was no more; for God took him” (Gen 5:21–24), which some Christians interpret as Enoch’s entering Heaven alive.” (Wikipedia) This is what I learned about Enoch early on in my “Bible as Literature” class in high school. I was intrigued and the name of Enoch stayed with me ever since. “Walking with god” took on so many different meanings – he was transported to heaven and his physical body never died, or that he died painlessly because of his “righteousness” were two classical interpretations. As I’ve learned, there are other views of who and what Enoch might be. 

In Judeo-Christian circles, he is considered the “scribe of judgement.” He’s considered the author of “The Book of Enoch,” an apocryphal work which was followed by the “Second Book of Enoch.” The Book of Enoch is considered by the Western Christian church as non-canonical, or non-inspired (a.k.a revealed) works. Some Orthodox sects see it as canonical, and most scholars of Judeo-christian literature find it of either historical or theological value. The Book of Enoch is considered to be, technically, five independent pieces of work, written between 300 B.C.E. and 100 C.E. The five independent pieces are seen as (with Wikipedia links): 

EnochThese books talk about first the fall of the angels who were alleged to have fathered the Nephilim, as described in Genesis. The rest of the books are writings about Enoch’s revelations about and travels to heaven, either via visions or dreams. Some of the concepts discussed in these books are interesting and could have been controversial to the first Christian church leaders. The books contain histories of the fallen angels and their interaction with human kind, Enoch’s travels through what might be considered the underworld and heaven, a discussion about the Tree of Life, who the seven archangels were, parables on living, descriptions of heavenly bodies and their movements, and much more.

Fragments of The Book of Enoch can be found in other writings of the old and new testaments, other apocryphal works, and in the Quran. The Second Book of Enoch is also known as “The Secrets of Enoch,” and tells the story of how Enoch was transported to and through heavens, and further relates tales of the war of angels. There is a Third Book of Enoch which exists, and the Book of Giants, which is attributed to the same time period and relating to the same topics. 

So, Enoch has a lot of interesting things going on with him, his life, and his afterlife; so much so that it has inspired many and decidedly different tangents to esoteric teachings. We know that Enoch, or Idris as he’s known in the Quran, was known to have been lifted up to heaven, as noted in the Christian Bible.  The Quran contains two references to Idris; in Surah Al-Anbiya (The Prophets) verse number 85, and in Surah Maryam (Mary) verses 56-57:

  • (The Prophets, 21:85): “And the same blessing was bestowed upon Ismail and Idris and Zul-Kifl, because they all practiced fortitude.”
  • (Mary 19:56–57): “And remember Idris in the Book; he was indeed very truthful, a Prophet. And We lifted him to a lofty station”.

Some Jewish scholars think that Enoch became the head of the angelic host, Metatron. Edgar Caycee, a Christian fundamentalist and traveler to “the realms of the dead,” has a very elaborate reincarnation lineage of Jesus Christ, of which Enoch was one incarnation. To Caycee, Enoch was also Hermes (Thoth), the priest Joshua, and a few other incarnations. While this is interesting, we have not addressed the idea of “Enochian.” What is it?

John DeeEnter John Dee and Edward Kelley (a.k.a. Talbot). Much has been written about John Dee, and much of it dismissive. However, he was an extremely learned man with a fervent desire to heal the rifts between the Catholic Church, The Church of England, and the Protestant sects in mainland Europe. He was a devout man, and while we might understand how this can all work together, he was a scientist, alchemist, and occultist. In his desire to mend the religious wounds of the time, he sought to discover the original language, the language of God and Angels. In doing so, he felt that he could bring about the unification of humanity. Not being a medium or scryer himself, he turned to both his son, Arthur Dee, and eventually to Edward Kelley, a younger alchemist and spirit-medium. For eight tumultuous and energetic years, they worked together with Edward relating the Angelic language to John Dee through a series of seances and spirit conferences. Dee’s writings have been republished and in the web archives and by some publishing houses. Copies also exist in the British Library.

The language that Dee and Kelley uncovered or created (some debate exists, of course), was called by Dee the “Angelic” or “Adamic” language, as it was the supposed language that God used to create the universe, that Adam learned from God, and what Adam used to name all living things. The idea of an antediluvian, singular language was very popular at the time in the Western world, and seeking it was one of Dee’s highest priorities. He was a mathematician, philosopher, astronomer, cartographer, and navigator. Even though he is known more for his “magical” leanings, he was an extremely well educated man. He was also a follower of Neo-platonic ideals.

If one reads some of Dee’s journals or diaries of this work, one can see some of the occult influences that came into Freemasonry at a later time, and are evident in several Masonic rituals, especially in the English rites and Scottish Rite higher degrees. Elias Ashmole, who was the first to document the date of his speculative initiation, followed Kelley and Dee’s work closely. In fact, he reproduced some of Kelley’s documents and created a Biography of John Dee. Ashmole’s notation of his speculative initiation has undergone a fair amount of scrutiny, which will not be replicated here. He seemed to have an influence with many people who were swirling around the Speculative Masonic world. It’s hard to believe that someone of Ashmore’s experience in the sciences and esoteric studies could not have influenced an organization he was a member of for decades. He’s well known for having written “The Institution, Laws, and Ceremonies of the Order of the Garter” in 1672 as well as being a member of the Royal Society. The author in the book noted below that “Ashmole was a joiner,” and joining a society of Freemasons seemed to be the thing to do at this time in England. It’s somewhat apparent that as his time as a Freemason went on, he did exert further influence. An excellent book to read about this time period, and about John Dee, Kelley, and Ashmole is “The Golden Builders,” by Thomas Churton. It is a deeper historical account of these persons than can be given here.

Enochian LanguageI think we may safely say that John Dee and Edward Kelley put the “Enoch” in Enochian, which begs deeper insight into who Enoch was, and why he “went with God.” Another excellent book is “The Book of Enoch,” by Weiser Books, and author R.H. Charles. The most recent publication is 2003. We’ll close with this small excerpt from that book:

103:2 “I know a Mystery | And have read the heavenly tablets, | And have seen the holy books.



The human condition: it is “the characteristics, key events, and situations which compose the essentials of human existence, such as birth, growth, emotional nature, aspiration, conflict, and mortality.” One key element was left off this Wikipedia definition: creation. Humans were born to create. We die hoping we have created enough. Humans were born to build, adjust, renovate, improve, birth, tend, cultivate – to create.

This might be a general assumption of the readers here, but we are all searching for the meaning of life. Why are we here? If you’re Neil Peart, the answer is “because we’re here. Roll the Bones.” If you’re Jung, it’s to “realize a vision.” The Bible (Isaiah 43:7) tells us that the purpose of man’s existence is to “glorify God.” Pain, frustration, weakness, and chaos seem to all stem from a lack of purpose in our lives, or a not having a goal towards which we strive. We come to the World’s Table with expectations, complications, and baggage. By the time we’re ready to create something, we stumble. What are we doing here on Earth, at this time and place? We have way overthought the question. Our purpose is to create. It really is that simple.

All of the examples above can all be distilled to creation. From babies to businesses, from community to chaos to cash reserves – humans cannot help but build something. Even if it’s a stack of beer cans beside the couch while we chill, we’re building. Our minds want to make things better, bigger, faster, higher, more pleasing, more chaotic, different, and new. We build better drugs, faster cars, and higher buildings. Think carefully, when are you *not* creating? Even your body is creating while you sleep.

A recent conversation with some friends involved discussing the attributes of avatars, archetypes, and virtues. This was in conjunction with a question posed to an audience: Do you want to be (a) God? What an audacious question! Do I want to be God or a God? Oh, heck no. Hubris has brought down many a man, and woman, and I have no desire to experience that pain. It did bring me back to the question of “why am I here, then?” Having thought about that often, I find it’s difficult to distill a lifetime of thought into so simple of a question. Am I here to be a god, or THE God? That’s a firm “no” in my mind. The very idea makes me shudder. I’m here to be a human being: the best expression of my own form of human being that I can be. Yes, that’s it. Very firm “no” on the “god” thing.  And then the niggling, wormy, repetitive thoughts of legacy5humanness and godhood would not leave me alone.

What is a “god?” To Webster, it is: “ a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically :  one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality — Greek gods of love and war.” Interestingly enough, if it is capitalized, it means, “ the supreme or ultimate reality.” Whoa. Wait. NOT a person? So, someone who is a “god” controls part of the reality, but God controls all of reality. Gods and gods create realities. They create.

If our desire is to create, our very need for existence is to create, and God is commonly known as “the creator, the controller of reality” well… yes, let’ say it – Are we trying to be like God? Are we trying to BE Gods? It seems we humans do nothing but try to create and live in our own realities. In Genesis 1:26 though 28, the Bible talks about God making mankind in “their” image, and “he made them man and woman.” We’ll set the plurality of that aside for right now but divinization has been around for 2000 years as a Christian concept. In the second century, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (c. 130–202), said that God “became what we are in order to make us what he is himself.” Irenaeus also wrote, “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods.”

Maybe we have no choice. Our destiny as a species is to become gods, or God-like. Or even God. We’re inevitably going there, through our experience of creating, whatever it might be. As much mental gymnastics that we do via theology, psychology, astronomy or astrology, it all ends up in the same destination: we live, we create, and we die to forward the human species to return to their God home. We are creating our realities. We control our reality. People attach such reverence, deference, fear, and glory to the term God; I think, however, that it is the same way with ice cream and puppies, money and fame: it’s a human lens viewing and interpreting but it simply falls short. There is a rose-colored lens coating our idea of God, via religion or not, and that rose-color makes everything pretty. What if It just is, and we’re part of the “It?” We can categorize as Archetypes or manifest as avatars or embody ideals and in the end, we create whatever is our own special aspect of the Divine. The individual voice of God, whatever you legacy2deem that to be, becomes a painting, a piece of music, a child, a poem, a home, an organization, a community, or a new way of thinking.

The aforementioned conversation inevitably turned to “Well, we’re either supposed to be gods or not, so what?” If we’re supposed to become higher expressions of ourselves, then that’s great. But we’re dead. The point is…? Humanity is constantly changing. Maybe we wouldn’t go as far as saying “evolving” but perhaps that is wrong. Perhaps evolution is not a conscious “thing.” That is, we evolve, regardless of whatever we think about it. It’s not about being conscious about evolving; it’s not even about evolving consciousness. The human being species continues to propel itself forward via creation. The evolution will be a reflection of that creation. I think we may have to forget about the what (evolution) and work toward the creations that are within our aspect of the “God whole.” In other words, if my “god-given” gift is speech, then speak. Speak to the best ability and training you can and make an impact. Stir people. Find the Truth of what your little land plot is of “God” and make it prosperous. Forget fame and approbation: do the best you are able, no matter what it is.

In truth, isn’t that the Legacy we’re leaving for our descendants? For the Humans that follow us, we’re leaving what we create, whether it is more humans or more books, fine art, the echoes of music, or beautiful gardens. Maybe it is also a life saved because we cared enough to write the policies for the Red Cross that allowed that to happen or because we ran the sound equipment that recorded Martin Luther King’s speeches. It’s the difference between someone finding a new way forward because you took the time to bring your gifts to an organization, like Freemasonry, or not finding any kind of guiding light at all. Perhaps they would, eventually through some other organization or group; yet, it wouldn’t be the same, would it? It legacy4would be different, and thus cast a different turn on the evolution of Humanity. The best expression of who we are is the creations we give by utilizing our talents, whatever they may be. Like light in a prism, we’re individual colors that come together to make a whole. The idea is that we contribute what god-like qualities we have to weave a whole that helps our descendants move closer to a better expression of the god-like qualities, and so on.

Weird as that may be, maybe that’s what our ancestors were also trying to say when they said that God made humans in their image, and God became “Word” so that we could understand what it was like to be God. In our limited capacity as human beings, in a mortal world, we only see part of the whole. Similar to the workings of a Masonic Lodge, where the many play their parts but only one can see the ALL, we humans are the many. We’re part of the All, but we don’t get to see it yet. We don’t get to play in that playground until its time. When it is time for our individual self? No. When it is time for all. We get to move forward glacially. Progress measured in epochs. When the evolution clock ticks, it won’t seem like evolution at all.