Hebrews 11:13 lists Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Sarah and says "these all died." Eight verses earlier the same chapter, Hebrews 11:5, explicitly says Enoch was translated so that he should not see death — echoing Genesis 5:24 where God simply took him. The same author appears to both deny and affirm Enoch's death within one chapter.
Proposed answers
People have answered this in several ways; GEBible presents them as equal peers.
Yes
These [Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah] all died....
Hebrews 11:13
13These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them and embraced them from afar, and having confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
5By faith, Enoch was taken away, so that he wouldn’t see death, and he was not found, because God translated him. For he has had testimony given to him that before his translation he had been well pleasing to God.
What follows is one scholar’s way of reading this disagreement— a critical-historical view that often concludes the texts genuinely disagree. It draws on the peer-reviewed sources listed below and stands as one position among the answers above, presented for transparency, not as GEBible’s position.
How critical scholarship weighs this: Usually considered reconciled
This summarizes where critical scholarship tends to land on this tension — a report on the field’s center of gravity, not GEBible’s own ruling.
This is one of the few cases where a single author appears to contradict himself within a few verses, but the grammar and the argumentative logic of Hebrews 11 strongly favor resolution. In Hebrews 11:5 the claim about Enoch is unambiguous: *pistei Henōch metetethē tou mē idein thanaton* — "by faith Enoch was taken up so as not to see death." The verb *metetethē* ("was transferred/translated") and the explicit *tou mē idein thanaton* ("so as not to see death") echo the Septuagint of Genesis 5:24, *kai ouch hēurisketo, hoti metethēken auton ho theos* ("and he was not found, because God transferred him"). The author has read the LXX's *metethēken* and built his point on it: Enoch did not die.
The apparent reversal is in 11:13: *kata pistin apethanon houtoi pantes, mē labontes tas epangelias* — "in accordance with faith these all died, not having received the promises." The pivot is the antecedent of *houtoi pantes* ("these all"). The decisive evidence that it does not reach back to Enoch is the relative clause that immediately qualifies it: "not having received the promises, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth" (11:13), which 11:14-16 expands into the search for a homeland and a heavenly city. That description matches precisely the patriarchal cluster of 11:8-12 — Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob — who are characterized throughout as sojourners awaiting a promised land and city (cf. 11:9-10, "living in tents… he looked forward to the city that has foundations"). It does not match Abel (11:4) or Enoch (11:5), neither of whom is framed in terms of awaited land-promises, and one of whom the author has just said did not die at all. William Lane and Harold Attridge therefore read *houtoi pantes* as restrictive to the immediately preceding patriarchal section, not to the whole chapter from verse 4 onward.
This restrictive reading is not a special pleading to rescue the author; it is the default Greek reading of a demonstrative whose qualifying clause specifies its scope. Craig Koester and Luke Timothy Johnson concur, noting both the internal logic and the implausibility that a writer would flatly contradict in 11:13 a point he had made the centerpiece of 11:5. The phrase *kata pistin* ("in accordance with faith") in 11:13, slightly different from the anaphoric *pistei* ("by faith") that opens most exempla, further signals a summarizing comment on the patriarchs who died as resident aliens, not a fresh universal claim about everyone listed.
The residual tension is literary rather than logical. The chapter opens with a rapid sequence — Abel, Enoch, Noah — before settling into the extended Abraham material, so a reader arriving at "these all died" naturally tends to gather the whole roster, including Enoch, into the statement. That reflexive misreading is what the SAB framing exploits. But the moment the qualifying clause about unreceived promises and exile is taken seriously, Enoch (and Abel) fall outside its scope. James VanderKam's survey of the Enoch traditions confirms that the non-death of Enoch was a fixed and well-known datum in Second Temple Judaism (developed extensively in 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and Sirach 44:16), making it all the more unlikely that the author of Hebrews — steeped in those traditions — would casually negate it eight verses after affirming it.
Where the critical reading lands: overstated; the contradiction dissolves once *houtoi pantes* is read with its own qualifying clause as referring to the patriarchs of 11:8-12.
Sources for this reading
Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Fortress, 1989) pp. 316-332on Hebrews 11:5, 13Hebrews 11:5, Hebrews 11:13
Craig R. Koester, Hebrews (AB 36; Doubleday, 2001) pp. 471-492on Hebrews 11:8-16Hebrews 11:8-16
Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (NTL; Westminster John Knox, 2006) pp. 281-295on Hebrews 11:5, 13Hebrews 11:5, Hebrews 11:13
William L. Lane, Hebrews 9-13 (WBC 47B; Word, 1991) pp. 332-353on Hebrews 11:13Hebrews 11:13
Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion (Fortress, 1994) pp. 357-360on Genesis 5:24Genesis 5:24
James C. VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for All Generations (University of South Carolina Press, 1995) pp. 11-33on the Enoch traditions
Examining the tension
What follows is one scholar’s way of reading this disagreement — a critical-historical view that often concludes the texts genuinely disagree. It draws on the peer-reviewed sources listed below and stands as one position among the answers above, presented for transparency, not as GEBible’s position.
How critical scholarship weighs this: Usually considered reconciled
This summarizes where critical scholarship tends to land on this tension — a report on the field’s center of gravity, not GEBible’s own ruling.
This is one of the few cases where a single author appears to contradict himself within a few verses, but the grammar and the argumentative logic of Hebrews 11 strongly favor resolution. In Hebrews 11:5 the claim about Enoch is unambiguous: *pistei Henōch metetethē tou mē idein thanaton* — "by faith Enoch was taken up so as not to see death." The verb *metetethē* ("was transferred/translated") and the explicit *tou mē idein thanaton* ("so as not to see death") echo the Septuagint of Genesis 5:24, *kai ouch hēurisketo, hoti metethēken auton ho theos* ("and he was not found, because God transferred him"). The author has read the LXX's *metethēken* and built his point on it: Enoch did not die.
The apparent reversal is in 11:13: *kata pistin apethanon houtoi pantes, mē labontes tas epangelias* — "in accordance with faith these all died, not having received the promises." The pivot is the antecedent of *houtoi pantes* ("these all"). The decisive evidence that it does not reach back to Enoch is the relative clause that immediately qualifies it: "not having received the promises, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth" (11:13), which 11:14-16 expands into the search for a homeland and a heavenly city. That description matches precisely the patriarchal cluster of 11:8-12 — Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob — who are characterized throughout as sojourners awaiting a promised land and city (cf. 11:9-10, "living in tents… he looked forward to the city that has foundations"). It does not match Abel (11:4) or Enoch (11:5), neither of whom is framed in terms of awaited land-promises, and one of whom the author has just said did not die at all. William Lane and Harold Attridge therefore read *houtoi pantes* as restrictive to the immediately preceding patriarchal section, not to the whole chapter from verse 4 onward.
This restrictive reading is not a special pleading to rescue the author; it is the default Greek reading of a demonstrative whose qualifying clause specifies its scope. Craig Koester and Luke Timothy Johnson concur, noting both the internal logic and the implausibility that a writer would flatly contradict in 11:13 a point he had made the centerpiece of 11:5. The phrase *kata pistin* ("in accordance with faith") in 11:13, slightly different from the anaphoric *pistei* ("by faith") that opens most exempla, further signals a summarizing comment on the patriarchs who died as resident aliens, not a fresh universal claim about everyone listed.
The residual tension is literary rather than logical. The chapter opens with a rapid sequence — Abel, Enoch, Noah — before settling into the extended Abraham material, so a reader arriving at "these all died" naturally tends to gather the whole roster, including Enoch, into the statement. That reflexive misreading is what the SAB framing exploits. But the moment the qualifying clause about unreceived promises and exile is taken seriously, Enoch (and Abel) fall outside its scope. James VanderKam's survey of the Enoch traditions confirms that the non-death of Enoch was a fixed and well-known datum in Second Temple Judaism (developed extensively in 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and Sirach 44:16), making it all the more unlikely that the author of Hebrews — steeped in those traditions — would casually negate it eight verses after affirming it.
Where the critical reading lands: overstated; the contradiction dissolves once *houtoi pantes* is read with its own qualifying clause as referring to the patriarchs of 11:8-12.
Sources for this reading