It was also amazing to me how John’s newsletter almost follows verbatim the same script that Herbert Armstrong and the Church of God in Christ teachers use to substantiate the very same things that John lays out in his newsletter. Anyone who does an online search of those who believe Enoch and Elijah died will be directed time and time again to teacher after teacher of those who are followers of Herbert Armstrong’s teachings. And he has some very aberrant teachings at that. I can’t imagine for one minute John receiving anything that the Church of God led by Herbert Armstrong teaches, but the resemblances to what he says to prove his point and what they are saying to prove the very same things are almost the same point-for-point! It just makes me wonder if they are not initially responsible for infiltrating the ranks of the full-preterist teachers and influencing them with their teachings, similar to Max King of the Church of Christ and his full-preterist book called: The Cross and Parousia of Christ. And just when you thought they were in good company, the Jehovah’s Witnesses in their Reasoning From the Scriptures, p. 314, also deny the bodily translation of Elijah into heaven, using Jhn. 3:13 no less. What we have here is nothing more than the blind, following the blind, with them all falling into the very same ditch!
Point number one in John Bray’s newsletter is concerning a proper and biblical analysis of John 3:13. As John Bray notes from his statement referred to earlier in this article, “Here Jesus said that NO man had ascended up to heaven. So we must believe at that time no man had ever gone to heaven.” Oh? I have already discussed earlier the nature of what Jesus was saying here, and which in no way conflicts with Enoch and Elijah as having been translated into heaven. Often when Scriptures tend to conflict with one another, one verse is overemphasized to pit one doctrinal pet precedent and teaching against another. This is no less true with James’ faith that works and Paul’s faith that doesn’t work; or with God’s absolute sovereignty over all things (even over the decisions that men make) verses man’s ultimate responsibility for the choices that he himself no less makes. So, I will not say anymore here except to say that when John Bray uses Acts 2:34 that says “David is not ascended into the heavens,” to mean that no one was in heaven besides Christ at the time of Peter saying this, that this is absolutely out of character with what Peter was referring to here. Peter is referring to the same thing mentioned earlier in this article, when we were speaking about this idea and usage of this word “ascended” here as not referring to going into heaven, per se, but referring to an ascension to the throne of power in the heavens. A place reserved only for David’s “Lord” (“my Lord,” v. 34), the Messiah. This entire context is talking about being enthroned (cf. vv. 25, 30, 33, 34, and v. 36b “Lord and Christ”).
From the improper inference that David must not have been in heaven, even after Christ had already resurrected, based upon this verse, John Bray writes, “So if David himself at this time had not yet gone to heaven, can we suppose that these other saints of God had gone into heaven?” By this statement John Bray seems to be saying the same thing John Noe said about Stephen having only “fallen asleep” at this time and not going into heaven to be with the Lord, in order to prove that the ascension of all saints “into” heaven had not occurred until 70 AD. But this is not what these verses are inferring at all, as I have already proven in part one of this article. So let’s not belabor this anymore. Let’s move on to the next point.
Point number two: According to John Bray, the annals of Kings and Chronicles seem to prove chronologically that Elijah must have returned to earth after being caught up in a whirlwind, in order to eventually come back and write his letter to Jehoram king of Judah, and then afterward die. He writes,
In II Kings 2:1 we read that “the Lord would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind.”It should be no surprise to us by now if you have read my notes in part one, to understand what John has mistakenly ascertained here.
In II Kings 3:1 we read that “Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel.” Note that this is a whole chapter after it tells us of Elijah’s experience.
In II Chronicles 21:1 we read again how Jehoram reigned in the stead of Jehoshaphat, his father. We are still thinking in terms of sometime after Elijah’s experience.
Then in II Chronicles 21:12 we read how that after Jehoram forsook the God of his fathers and did wickedly, he received “a writing to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, Thus says the LORD God of David thy father,” etc….Remember that Jehoram did not begin his reign until sometime after Elijah was caught up in the whirlwind. And surely Elijah did not write his letter from heaven (ibid, p. 2).
First of all, have you noticed what John has done with this “Jehoram the son of Ahab” that he initially began his argument with in 2Ki. 3:1? This verse and king sets the precedent for what he is about to say with regards to the rest of the “Jehorams” that are to follow. And clearly, he has confused the Jehoram in 2Ki. 3:1 with the Jehoram in 2Chr. 21:1 and 12. The two are not one and the selfsame kings. You would have thought that John would have caught on to this fact when one is said to be the son of Ahab, while the other the son of Jehoshaphat, but he didn’t. The KJV, unlike the NIV, uses the name “Jehoram” for both the king of Israel and the king of Judah; and I suspect that this is where John Bray garnered this oversight. Here is part of the trouble: John was seeing “double.” This is the first flaw that John makes in trying to prove that Elijah must have returned to the earth.
Secondly, notice how Bray mentions Jehoram of Ahab in 2Ki. 3:1, and then says: “in II Chronicles we read again how Jehoram reigned in the stead of Jehoshaphat, his father,” and then buttresses his remark here with, “we are still thinking in terms of sometime after Elijah’s experience.” This assertion of John's about this king in Chronicles comes on the heels of what John had just said regarding Jehoram of Ahab in 2Ki. 3:1. How can we be so sure of this? Because he says nothing else to prove to us that this Jehoram of Jehoshaphat that he says came “sometime after Elijah’s experience,” is none other than the Jehoram of 2Ki. 3:1 that he uses to support this assertion. Then John continues upon this same line of thought with this same Jehoram of Jehoshaphat in verse 12 of 2Chr. 21 with, “Remember that Jehoram did not begin his reign until sometime after Elijah was caught up in a whirlwind,” still mistaking this king of Judah for the only one that he mentions who began his reign in 2Ki. 3:1 as having occurred sometime after Elijah was caught up in a whirlwind. Clearly, unbeknownst to John here, there were two Jehorams (or Jorams) ruling on opposite sides of the fence at this time. The one in 2Kings is Joram of Israel (Ahab’s son) of the northern tribes, and the one in 2Chronicles is Jehoram of Judah (Jehoshaphat’s son) of the southern tribes.
As one can very well see, Bray is basing all of his arguments on all of these kings as having come “after” Elijah’s translation based upon 2Ki. 3:1. John was acutely unaware of this oversight. And so this is the second flaw in his argument to try and prove Elijah came back to the earth.
As the records have shown to us previously in part one, no one can really pinpoint the time when Elijah was actually taken up into heaven. And we definitely cannot ascertain this by the arguments presented by Bray above, because as one can clearly see, he is getting these kings all mixed up to try and prove a point, when he hasn’t really proven anything at all!
Now this isn’t to deny that these other events in 2Kings 3 and 2Chronicles 12 came “after” Elijah’s ascension, but such chronological events cannot be proven based upon what John Bray has said. I won’t belabor this aspect of John’s second mistake here any longer, for this particular point of John’s has already been explained above to show that one cannot be so dogmatic in claiming Elijah came back to earth to give Jehoram his prophetic letter.
As noted before, one thing is for certain, Elijah was clearly on earth during the co-reign of king Jehoram of Judah with his father. And there is nothing to make us believe necessarily that he was not present during Jehoram’s sole reign over Judah before his father Jehoshaphat had died, and to write his letter to this king in 2Chr. 21:12 before he was actually translated. Unless, of course, he was translated prior to Jehoshaphat inquiring of Elisha in 2Kin. 3:11.
In light of all of this though, as I said earlier, it is my belief that at this point and time to suppose that Elijah had been taken up prior to this event in 2Kin. 3:11, and that the letter to Jehoram of Judah was written prior to Elijah’s translation and then given to the king by the hand of his servant Elisha. Such “written” prophecies concerning future kings were not uncommon for God’s prophets to do. In 1Kin. 13:1-5, a “written” account was made by a man of God who tells about a future king called Josiah who was to come some 400 years later to do what he would do with the altar of Bethel. And in Isaiah 45, we have the “written” letter of the prophet Isaiah proclaiming that a future king by the name of Cyrus would come some 150 years later on the scene to overthrow Babylon and give the command to rebuild the temple and Jerusalem, and set the exiles in Babylon free in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. So “prophetic letters” are not out of the norm for these prophets to do. In fact, many of their prophecies were given in “written” form to be recorded, read and eventually realized and understood as being fulfilled either in the immediate future or many years later. So even if Elijah was not around when such a “letter” was given, one should not assume too much and to go to the other extreme in assuming that Elijah must have come back to earth to deliver such a letter, and then afterward die. The Scriptures clearly tell us that he did not return to the earth only to be “found” later. He was “not found,” because God took him just like Enoch, and just like Elisha had said to the company of prophets.
Point number three: Elijah is said to go up in a whirlwind, and so according to John, since whirlwinds do not go up any further than beyond space, Elijah could not have gone into heaven, but must have dropped back down to earth somewhere afterward. John Bray admits that the word for “heavens” can include beyond the atmosphere into the stars, but because a “whirlwind” cannot go that high Elijah must not have gone that high, but went up only to immediately come back down again in another place.
First of all: Are we hearing the word of Elisha? He told the company of fifty prophets that went looking for him, “NO!” “No,” Elijah did not return. And “No,” that they would not find him anywhere. And we have already shown above that it was very highly likely that Elijah was indeed still around to give the letter to Jehoram of Judah before his ascension. Elisha’s words that Elijah was no longer anywhere to be found affirm to us that Elijah must have gone to heaven. So what are we to now make of this “whirlwind” theory of John’s? My question in response to this is: “What about it?” Does it really matter now after all the evidence that has been presented, that he didn’t come back down to earth? And after all, we should not take this analogy too far to prove something otherwise that the Scriptures just do not substantiate. Elijah was caught up in a whirlwind out of sight never to be found again, whereas in juxtaposition to this statement it is said of Philip who was “caught away” by the Spirit of the Lord in Acts 8:40, that he was “found.”
The fourth point of contention that John makes note of in his newsletter is in Mat. 17:9, which reads,
And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead (ESV).John Bray seems to have “tunnel vision” here. For he sees in this usage of this word here as only something that denotes a non-literal vision or dream. And he even naively writes, “A good dictionary will give the definition of ‘vision.’ Elijah did not come from Heaven in a resurrected body.” What dictionary is he referring to that gives only his definition of what the word “vision” means, as if it only means a vision such as a trance or dream of some kind? I can only guess where he is trying to take us with all of this. There seems to be two underlying motives here in getting us to believe any of this. The first one is that the definition of “vision” used here in Matthew is something that was not literally seen, and, secondly, it is to get us to believe that “Elijah did not come from heaven.” So here again, this idea of Bray's is presented in order to get his readers to deny the bodily translation of Elijah into heaven. Here he calls it a “resurrection,” but it was a translation. Elijah had never died. Only dead people are “resurrected,” Elijah (as was Enoch) was alive when he was “translated.” Of course, John Bray thinks Elijah had died, so maybe this is why he uses the word “resurrection,” I don’t know. Furthermore, in the Old and New Testament, people could be either translated to Abraham’s bosom (in the OT) or on into heaven via death (in the NT), whereas to be “resurrected” only occurs of those who have actually died. We will come back to some of these ideas a little later when we talk about Enoch some more in Heb. 11:5.
Now as far as “a good dictionary” is concerned, a very good one online at Dictionary.com defines “vision” for us as either: 1) an experience in which a personage, thing, or event appears vividly or credibly to the mind, although not actually present, often under the influence of a divine or other agency: a heavenly messenger appearing in a vision; 2) something seen; an object of sight. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language also states with regards to the word “vision:” “1. The act or power of seeing with the eye; sense of sight. 2. something supposedly seen by other than normal sight; something perceived in a dream, trance, etc. or supernaturally revealed, as to a prophet.”[1] So as we can very well see, both of these ideas are behind the meaning of the word “vision.” And in our word used here in Matthew, both of these definitions of this word “vision” are used in the New Testament, not just the one that John would have us believe.
This word in the Greek (to horama), translated “vision” here, is interesting in how it is used. Mark 9:9 uses a different word (ha eidon) that is most often used for actually seeing something, though it can be used figuratively as well, as is the case with the different Greek word that Luke uses in 9:36 (eĊrakan). And though rarely used to denote what is really seen with the naked eye, the word that Matthew uses is no less used as a synonym for just that: “seeing.”
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary notes,
Matthew has to horama…lit., “the vision”….Mark ha eidon, “what they had seen”….But horama does not necessarily mean “vision” as a result of a dream or trance, it can simply refer to what is seen (BAGD, s.v.). Therefore too much should not be made of the difference between the two expressions. [2]William Hendriksen in commenting on the usage of this word in Greek literature, writes,
Jesus said, “Never tell anyone what you have seen.” In the present context this is a much better rendering than “Tell the vision to no man” (A.V. and several others). That translation is very ambiguous: it suggest that the transfiguration may not have been historical; that perhaps it never really happened at all, except in the mind of the three apostles. Even an objective vision, one that is not the product of subjective imagination but of divine revelation, as were the visions which the apostle John was going to receive on the island of Patmos, will not do in the present case. The statement: “He [Jesus] was transfigured” (verse 2) and Peter’s commentary [that they were “eye” witnesses] (II Pet. 1:16, 17) rule out the “vision” idea in any form whatever. What the three men had seen was as real as was the voice which they had heard. Moreover, although it is true that the word used in the original frequently does have the meaning “vision” (Acts 9:10; 10:3, 17, 19; 11:5; 12:9; 16:9, 10; 18:9), that is not always the case….The fact that in the present case to horama means “what has been seen” or “what y o u have seen” is also confirmed by the verbal forms found in the other gospels (see Mark 9:9: “he charged them not to tell anyone what they had seen”; cf. Luke 9:36). Besides, Acts 7:31, using the same noun horama, cannot mean that Moses at the burning bush merely saw a vision. On the contrary, “he wondered at the sight [the spectacle, that which he saw.]” [3]In agreement with Hendriksen above, Vincent notes of this word “vision”: “The spectacle.”
And John Gill also notes with respect to this word, “
By the “vision” is meant, as it is explained in Mark, “what things they had seen”; as Moses and Elias, and the bright cloud that overshadowed them, and Christ transfigured before them, in a surprising, glorious manner.Weymouth’s translates Mat. 17:9 (similar with many other translations), as such,
As they were descending the mountain, Jesus laid a command upon them. “Tell no one,” He said, “of the sight you have seen till the Son of Man has risen from among the dead.”There isn’t anyone with a working knowledge of what this word “vision” means, that understands it to mean here on the Mount of Transfiguration as the non-physical sight of Jesus, Elijah and Moses. Even the voice from heaven was no less audible and real. This was not just a vision of the mind or a dream.
Point number five that John Bray makes is that the “translation” of Enoch in Heb. 11:5, noted twice in this verse with two different Greek words, was a translation through death in order to enter a place of rest, as Bray depicts for us using the apocryphal book of the Wisdom of Solomon, which says,
But though the righteous be prevented with death, yet shall he be in rest….He pleased God, and was beloved of him: so that living among sinners he was translated [Gk. metetethe]. Yea, speedily was he taken away, lest that wickedness should alter his understanding or deceit beguile his soul….He being made perfect in a short time, fulfilled a long time: For his soul pleased the Lord: therefore hasteth he to take him away from among the wicked….Thus the righteous that is dead shall condemn the ungodly which are living…(4:7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16). [4]John seems to think here, by his own estimation, that because this word is “used only in this one place in the New Testament (which, by the way, it isn’t) that we must turn to extra-biblical literature in order to ascertain a correct meaning and usage for this word. Let me just say here that the two Greek words used in Heb. 11:5 are used in a variety of circumstances and ways that do not just denote someone being translated to a place of rest through death. This word cannot be pigeon-holed to refer to just passing “through death” to the netherworld. Context, context, context determines how the word is to be understood and used, not just by how it is used somewhere else, as in the Wisdom of Solomon.
The Greek word for “translation” here in the book of Hebrews and the Wisdom of Solomon denotes a change from one condition or state, to another. And it is a “change” or “translation” that can occur irrespective of whether one is living or is dead, and sometimes it is not even used in either of these cases.
But first of all, before moving on, let me just say right here that for John to say that the Greek verb used here is “used only in this one place in the New Testament,” and that “there are no other verses in the New Testament itself that would give light on this exact word translated ‘translated,’” is just not the case! Wigram’s Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament lists four other places besides this one in Heb. 11:5 where this verb metatithemi is used: Acts 7:16, Gal. 1:6, Heb. 7:12 and Jude 4. The other Greek word in this verse also rendered with the word “translated” is metathesis, and is found in two other places in Heb. 7:12 and 12:27.[5] This is just another serious oversight, in a list of them, by John Bray.
Kenneth Wuest in his Word Studies of the Greek NT, writes,
Enoch was translated. The word is metatithemi. The verb tithemi means “to place,” the prefixed preposition meta signifying a change, the compound word meaning “to transpose” (two things, one of which is put in place of the other….In the case of Enoch, the word speaks of this sudden transference from earth to heaven. It refers to a change of position. It was one thing put in place of another, heaven for Enoch rather than earth.And to be fair with John Bray's example of how one can be translated, via death, to a place of rest before the cross of Christ, Isaiah the prophet even writes,
Now, in the transference of believers from earth to heaven, that operation is effected usually by death. But in the case of Enoch, it was apart from death. He departed this earthly scene without dying. [6]
The righteous perish, and no one ponders it in his heart; devout men are taken away, and no one understands that the righteous are taken away to be spared from evil. Those who walk uprightly enter into peace; they find rest as they lie in death (57:1-2).In reading this you would have thought that whoever wrote the Wisdom of Solomon got what they said right from these writings of Isaiah. But nowhere is the Greek word metatithemi to be found in the Septuagint translation of this verse. But the similarities are striking none the less. And no one doubts for one minute that a translation has occurred here of some sort from this life to the netherworld (at this particular time, to Abraham‘s bosom).
Now Kenneth Wuest also notes here of metatithemi, that “this word is used in Acts 7:16 of the transporting of the remains of Jacob and his sons to Shechem; in Gal. 1:6 of the sudden change of the doctrinal position of the Galatian Christians; and in Heb. 7:12, of the change of the law of the priesthood, a new regulation being instituted in place of the old.”[7] The word is also used in Jude 4, as noted above in Wigram’s, of those who “change” or exchange the grace of God into a license for sinning. And then, of course, it is used in Heb. 11:5 of Enoch being changed from the sphere of the earth to the sphere of heaven without ever seeing death.
Those individuals being described in the Wisdom of Solomon and in the book of Isaiah were translated in spirit only into Abraham’s bosom clearly through death; whereas Enoch on the other hand, was translated both in spirit and in body straight on into heaven not through death. The one went to Abraham’s bosom, the other went straight into heaven. The translation of the one resulted in having seen death, the translation of the other resulted in not seeing death. Both are no less translations, but both were accomplished via different modes and unto different locales. Even as A. T. Robertson notes of the phrase “that he should not see death,
That he should not see death (tou me idein thanaton). Here again tou with the infinitive usually expresses purpose, but in this case result is the idea as in Matt. 21:23; Rom. 1:24; 7:3, etc. (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1002). [8]In other words, Enoch was translated with the result that he should not in any way, shape, manner or form "see death." His translation “resulted” in his “not seeing death,” not that he somehow “died peacefully in sleep” so as to not “see” or feel is own death as John Bray contends, and then to be translated via such a death unto a place of rest, or unto Abraham’s bosom. That Enoch “was not” means that he was nowhere to be found, just as Elijah was not found; in juxtaposition to Philip whom the Bible clearly stresses to us that he was “found,” and that he was taken from one place to another and without ever seeing death.
All these examples are just the opposite of Moses who is said to have died (Deut. 32:50-52; 34:5-6), along with his brother and sister Aaron and Miriam; and along with all of the rest of the saints who normally die physically. In fact, if anyone is to ever wonder where the author of Hebrews got his “inspiration” from in determining how it was that Enoch “did not see death” like all the rest of us, they don’t have to look too far in order to understand what he meant by this statement. All they have to do is read the Genesis account like he did and realize that in the long list of everyone since Adam of whom it is said, “then he died” (5:5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27, 31), of Enoch no such thing is mentioned concerning him. Could anything be anymore clearer for us than this? And so what death was it that all of these people died? There is no escaping the stark reality and cold hard facts that these verses are all talking about everyone who in one way or another “physically” died. Not a spiritual death or any other kind of death, but just a plain good old fashion physical death that we all normally and eventually experience in this life, just short of going to heaven. And so the author of Hebrews fairly and justly concludes from all of this, as we should no less, that Enoch “did not see death.” All these other individuals experienced or “saw” death in that they all physically died, Enoch did not.
And in getting back to Moses for a moment, even though he did see death, it is said of his body that it was “contended” for, in order to most likely to be taken by God through death on into heaven. And this would explain why he appeared with Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration. Otherwise, why else would his body have been contended for? Was he brought before Christ and His apostles only in his spirit as Samuel was brought before the witch of Endor? I don’t think so. And the reason being here is, that in this particular incident of Moses’ death, his body had been contended for. The extant record of a supposed ending from the Assumption of Moses that says this was nothing more than the devil resisting such an honorable burial by God (rather than by man), and that it was even Michael no less who buried Moses’ body somewhere in a valley, is both ludicrous and speculative. And shouldn’t even be considered here, as far as I am concerned, as proof positive that Moses was left buried in the ground by God, and via Michael the archangel no less at that.[9] Keil and Delitzsch are worthy of notice here again with regards to what they think truly went on here with regards to Moses’ body:
There is not a word in the text about God having brought the body of Moses down from the mountain and buried it in the valley. This “romantic idea” is invented by Knobel, for the purpose of throwing suspicion upon the historical truth of a fact which is offensive to him. The fact itself that the Lord buried His servant Moses, and no man knows of his sepulcher, is in perfect keeping with the relation in which Moses stood to the Lord while he was alive. Even if his sin at the water of strife rendered it necessary that he should suffer the punishment of death, as a memorable example of the terrible severity of the holy God against sin, even in the case of His faithful servant; yet after the justice of God had been satisfied by this punishment [of his death], he was to be distinguished [or set apart] in death before all the people, and glorified as the servant who had been found faithful in all the house of God, whom the Lord had known face to face (Deu. 34:10), and to whom He had spoken mouth to mouth (Num. 12:7-8). The burial of Moses by the hand of Jehovah was not intended to conceal his grave, for the purpose of guarding against a superstitious and idolatrous reverence for his grave; for which the opinion held by the Israelites, that corpses and graves defiled, there was but little fear of this; but, as we may infer from the account of the transfiguration of Jesus, the intention was to place him in the same category with Enoch and Elijah. As Kurtz observes, “The purpose of God was to prepare for him a condition, both of body and soul, resembling that of these two men of God. Men bury a corpse that it may pass into corruption. If Jehovah, therefore, would not suffer the body of Moses to be buried by men, it is but natural to seek for the reason in the fact that He did not intend to leave him to corruption, but, when burying it with His own hand, imparted a power to it which preserved it from corruption, and prepared the way for it to pass into the same form of existence to which Enoch and Elijah were taken, without either death or burial.” - There can be no doubt that this truth lies at the foundation of the Jewish theologoumenon mentioned in the Epistle of Jude, concerning the contest between Michael the archangel and the devil for the body of Moses. [10]Which also brings us to the subject of Jesus’ body not seeing “decay.” All this can mean is that His body wasn’t left indefinitely in a grave to decay over time, as was foretold of the coming Messiah in the prophets, and even by David no less himself. This was just one of the many prophecies that were to be fulfilled concerning Christ, and just one of the indications that He was who He said He was. It does not mean that no one else had ever seen decay, for clearly Enoch and Elijah (and possibly even Moses) did not see decay. So too much should not be made about Jesus never seeing decay, to the point that others never saw such decay as well. The Son of Man that was promised to David to one day sit upon David’s throne “forever” was going to be one who had faithfully kept all of the commandments of God, and who would not suffer the temporal deterioration of His body as David and all the other former Israelite kings had suffered. Truly, no one had physically ascended to the right-hand of the throne of God to reign “forever” as promised to David, and upon David's throne no less, as Jesus had done. Everyone else had physically died, never to rise again to such a position of authority as the King of all kings and Lord of all lords. And Jesus’ body not suffering decay was just one of the many “signs” that He was the proffered Messiah to rule on David’s throne, which He is now no less doing.
A. T. Robertson’s words above, that not seeing death was the result of Enoch’s translation, and not the purpose for it, should be the final blow and death-knell for all those who would attempt to reason otherwise. What happen to Enoch here could not be any more definitive for us than this. So, when someone such as John Bray says, “It was not that Enoch did not die,” he is arguing against the Greek authority A. T. Robertson who says that it was indeed the reason for which Enoch was translated—that he should not see death! As Kenneth Wuest said, “in the transference of believers from earth to heaven, that operation is effected usually by death. But in the case of Enoch, it was apart from death.” (Ibid). And it is also important to note here that Robertson also lists some of the other verses that Wuest and Wigram mention above as further usages and instances of this Greek verb being used in the New Testament, and not just in one occurrence as John Bray had understood it.
Additionally with regards to Enoch here, John Bray uses George Lamsa’s Idioms in the Bible Explained to buttress the idea that Enoch actually did see death by giving Lamsa’s explanation of Gen. 5:24 of God taking Enoch away as meaning, “He died painlessly. He had a heart attack.”[11] But is John using Lamsa’s statement about the whirlwind that took up Elijah into heaven as referring to “a glorious departure from this life”?[12] Not on your life! Lamsa doesn’t support John Bray's conclusions that Elijah at that time didn’t make “a glorious departure from this life.” So if Lamsa is a supposed reliable authority for the one case of Enoch having “died painlessly,” shouldn’t he also be for the other case of Elijah who had “a glorious departure from this life? But a quick background check of George Lamsa’s book should lend us all notice to the fact that we shouldn’t really take anything that this man says too seriously. He backs up none of his comments with Scripture, but just unreservedly throws out his own private interpretations and commentary everywhere. A lot of his comments seem biblical, but others? Well, I’ll let you be the judge. On page one he states that the “Garden” in Eden in Gen. 2:8 is “metaphorically—a wife; a family;” in Gen. 2:9, the tree of life is “sex; posterity, progeny;” the tree of good and evil in Gen. 2:17, “metaphorically—sexual relationship;” the seed in Gen. 17:7, “your offspring, you teaching;” the fire of the Lord that came down from heaven in 1Ki. 18:38 and consumed the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil---and then licked up the water in the trench---is according to Lamsa's words: “lightening.”[13] Boy, that must have been one heck of a lightening bolt! And so on and on he goes, and where he ends up at? No one really knows! Most of what he says is conjecture and highly speculative and imaginary conclusions, based not upon any Scriptures, but just speculation and conjecture. So are we to now believe Lamsa because John Bray says he is a “world-renowned Bible translator and commentator and was raised speaking Aramaic. He translated the Old and New Testaments from the Aramaic”? Not on your life! For years I had this book of George Lamsa’s sitting around, never thinking that some day I would be referring to it. And to be quite honest, I never found that much in it to be admirable to use, at least not until now. And it is only now “admirable” in the sense of proving even more so to me how unadmirable this book really is, and that we should buy only the truth—and sell it not! I would never for one minute suggest to any seriously thinking Christian to buy this book. Because as anyone can see, we cannot take it “seriously.”
Now, like I said concerning Elijah a little earlier, if Scripture says Elijah presented a letter to Jehoram of Judah, then he did, unless there is any other strong, hard and conclusive evidence in Scripture that can prove otherwise, and not just one or two verses. And Jhn. 3:13 is just not the clear, strong, hard and conclusive evidence to the contrary. And as we have seen, it can’t mean what Noe and others like him have forced upon this verse to make it mean! Elijah did not return to the earth after his ascension into heaven in order to present this letter and eventually die like all of the rest of us, in order for the full-preterist to have a case to disprove the bodily resurrection. Elisha told the company of prophets that Elijah was nowhere to be found! And if Elisha told the company of prophets that he was to be nowhere found on the earth, then his words on all of this should be the last words for us. The verdict has come in. The case is closed! But like those prophets who at first refused to believe Elisha’s words, we no less today evidently still have some among us who are trying to twist his words, and our minds, to reason and think otherwise. There are still those with us today who are trying to locate Elijah, and even Enoch no less, somewhere here on the earth after they were translated. And they are trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole that just won’t fit! And they are “twisting” texts out of context in order to make a pretext that fits their own pre-suppositional thinking and reasoning. And in an attempt to sound wise, they are on display for all to see that they are all nothing more than charlatans and fools, chasing after wives fables and foolish visions and dreams of their own imaginations.
And all this was to prove that this is not just something reserved for some imaginary “firstfruits group” of just Christ and those who arose from their graves after His resurrection (as Noe supposes), and who went into the city of Jerusalem appearing to many; while the rest of us are just nothing more than the remaining harvest and leftovers that are to be gleaned, as Noe also so adamantly claims. Just listen to him for yourself:
They [those who physically came out of their graves] were the remaining portion of the “firstfruits,” with Christ being the “first of the firstfruits.” In keeping with this Jewish typology, the fist portion of grain cut from a standing harvest was not just one stalk, but many, and all of the same nature. The nature of the “firstfruits” would not, could not be different…To be consistent, then, these resurrection bodies [of these saints who arose out of their graves] would have to be like Jesus’ and would exhibit similar characteristics…In another place, Noe denotes these resurrected ones who came out of their tombs in Mat. 27:52-53 as having a “Christ-like” bodily resurrection as opposed to a “Lazarus-like” one:
…After His resurrection, the “firstfruits” group was not finished. More resurrections were imminent…
…They would not die again, go back to the grave or need to be resurrected a second time…
…They were physically brought into the Temple’s Holy Place [whether the earthly one or the heavenly one, Noe doesn’t say here] and visibly waved in the air as a wave offering. The rest of the harvest [us] never received this special treatment. Likewise, the rest of the dead [in Abraham’s bosom] on their resurrection-harvest day [in 70 A.D.] did not receive the same visual treatment as the firstfruit group. Instead, their resurrection took place in the invisible realm. [14]
Some suggest that these Old Testament saints were raised like Lazarus. But this type of resurrection had happened before. There’s nothing new there. Consequently, a Lazarus-like resurrection could not be considered as attesting to the “better resurrection” manifested by Christ Jesus. Moreover, it would not be in keeping with but actually would violate the applied firstfruits imagery. If this group was raised like Lazarus, it seems more appropriate that they should have appeared before Jesus’ resurrection and enabled us to avoid this confusion. [15]Oh? And like it’s all real clear now? If anyone was ever confused before, they should now be all the more so! And who’s “applied firstfruits imagery” would all this all be in “violation” of if someone were to believe otherwise? John Noe’s, no less! If you ask me, it sounds like we have all been left with the short-end of the stick and “left behind.”
Notice what Noe and others of like-mindedness are saying, and note it well. Except for Christ, the “first of the firstfruits,” this entire group of “firstfruits” and those in Abraham’s bosom were all ultimately resurrected when Christ came back in 70 AD to judge Israel. And as far as the rest of us are concerned since that time, we are all just “changed” as one changes clothing, leaving the old spent casings or shells of our earthly natural bodies subject only to continual decay, while we are clothed with a new and better body in heaven from God. Can you believe all of this? Why, this all sounds no more different than Joseph Smith’s visions and teachings of the angel Maroni; Ellen G. White’s visions and contemplations about the importance of keeping the fourth commandment; and even the Jehovah’s Witnesses saying that the 144.000 in Revelation are an elite group of Jehovah’s Witnesses that get to remain in heaven, as opposed to the rest of the Jehovah’s Witnesses having to remain down here one earth, and who are to never to receive “this special treatment” of this “firstfruits” (cf. Rev. 14:4) group. Such teachings are all utter nonsense—“baloney”—if I may ever so kindly restate the word!
We, the entire church, are all God’s “firstfruits” out of all creation, not just a “special” group (cf. Jam. 1:18). And the entire nation of Israel in type under the old covenant illustrated this for us (cf. Jer. 2:3).
If we do not eradicate this “little” leaven of saying that our own bodies are not physically resurrected at some point and time in the future, then this “little leaven” will ultimately leaven the whole lump as it is now doing, and go so far as to say what these guys are all saying---which is to deny our physical resurrection and to even say that Christ’s Second Coming to do this (among other things) has already occurred. The two, according to 1Cor. 15:23, go hand in hand. Full-preterists realize this, so this is why they have to say that the “coming” described here in 1Corinthians 15 is Christ’s coming in 70 AD, and His “Second” Coming at that. But they are absolutely and unequivocally mistaken!
And as far as us dying and our present bodies never being resurrected, a seed that is sown in the ground and dies is not separate or distinct from the plant that it becomes after having died in the earth; the substance of the seed just becomes transformed. All this talk by Noe and others about the husk or kernel of the seed remaining in the ground, once a plant grows, is utter nonsense, pressing this analogy too far to say what Paul is in no way affirming here by way of his usage of such an analogy in 1Corinthians 15. And it is even Noe who says, “The danger, however, in interpreting and applying an analogy is twofold, either pressing the illustration too far or not pressing it far enough. Conveying bodily resurrection reality by a seed analogy is no exception. With such risks in mind, let’s explore….After all, that’s what an analogy is for.”[16] Are you just as confused as I am? What is considered a “danger” to do, and “risks,” we are to unreservedly “explore,” because, “after all, that’s what an analogy is for.” Remarkable! I hope he is listening to himself, because what he is doing with this analogy is exactly what he accuses others of doing; and that is, “pressing the illustration too far.”
The whole point of Paul’s illustration is missed when one overlooks the fact that it is the body of a dead person that he is comparing to a seed. That body is sown in physical death a natural body, but it is also just that same body which is raised a spiritual body. All this is lost if we, like Noe, press upon the analogy the hidden life-force of the seed which corresponds only to our spirits as being resurrected, and not that of our bodies. For our spirits are not sown in or with our bodies. Paul is not referring to living persons being sown in the ground, but the resurrection of our dead bodies into which our spirits are to one day return to. Full-preterists attempt to press the details of Paul’s seed analogy too far in ways that Paul is obviously not doing; and we must always be careful to limit our understanding of how one is to apply someone else’s usage of such metaphors beyond the purposes for which they intended. For example, the Shulamite woman is not described with the metaphor of a “rose” in Solomon’s Song of Songs in 2:1, in order to emphasize her prickly character or personality; or, that she is tall and slender; or, that she has a certain look about her that is to be determined by the color of the rose. All flowers, as do seeds, exude one or two particular kinds of traits or characteristics. For flowers, it's fragrance and beauty. And for all seeds, “God gives it a body as He has determined, and to each kind of seed He gives its own body” (1Cor. 15:38). Each "body" (of whether animal or plant life, etc.) has a particular "glory" and characteristic that is unique only to it. And that is Paul's point: the "seed" of our body sown in death becomes the same body in the resurrection, but only more glorious---just like Christ's physical body! It is something "unique" to all believers in Christ.
As Keith Mathison notes here with regards to Paul’s resurrection thoughts in 1Cor. 15,
Paul is not attempting to offer rational proof of the resurrection in these verses. In turning these believers’ minds to the familiar experience of planting “a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else” (v. 37), he simply wants them to see (in Berkouwer’s helpful phrase) “the imaginability and thinkability of the resurrection,” so that they will not form “conclusions based solely on human reasoning.” Paul’s argument is picturesque, not scientific. [17]Just as the resurrection of our dead, natural, unregenerate spirits take on a metamorphosis of change to become a living, spiritual, regenerated new creature in Christ Jesus, so too will our natural bodies that have been planted in death, in the ground no less, take on a metamorphosis of change to become resurrected spiritual bodies just like our Lord’s own glorious body. Hallelujah! His hope is our hope; His success will one day be our success; His bodily resurrection will one day be our bodily resurrection; and His change will one day be our change like unto His glorious body (Php. 3:21). It will be one of the greatest exchanges of all time still yet to come. Them who God “justifies,” He “glorifies” (Rom. 8:30). For Enoch and Elijah, this "change" took place regardless of death, for nothing is impossible with God. But the normal sequence of events is that all must physically die first before being changed. Enoch and Elijah were translated and changed to fit them for heaven; whereas we all die in order to experience a resurrection from death to life, just like Christ's body; Christ the firstfruits, and then we afterward at His Second Coming in the future for us.
When full-preterists try to argue that our bodies cannot possibly become like the one depicted of our Lord’s in Revelation, and therefore argue His resurrected body cannot be like our resurrected body, they forget that the images presented there are for the most part symbolic and not to be taken literally. Hair white as snow, eyes like blazing fire, and feet like bronze glowing in a furnace, etc., are all figurative terms to denote His divine attributes and other spiritual qualities and truths about Christ in one way or another, and are not to be understood of how He physically looks today. Even the temple in chapter 11 is not the earthly one before Jerusalem fell in 70 AD, as many full-preterists believe, but the heavenly one. Not one time in the book of Revelation is the temple that is repeatedly referred to over and over again there to be understood as an earthly, physical temple here on earth—not once! This temple and all the worshipers being described therein, is spiritual Israel—who are US! And, in addition, we are no less God’s very temple that He dwells in. Even the stones that make up this temple are also said to be us whom Peter refers to as “living stones” (1Pet. 2:5).
Scripture in no uncertain terms says that our bodies will be gloriously changed just like Christ’s own earthly, physical body was changed. Our natural bodies will be changed into spiritual bodies. The initial “seed” form of our natural bodies will take on an entirely different look someday. But it will no less be our own bodies that will be radically changed. And if not, then neither has Christ’s physical body been resurrected, according to Paul. And our two great witnesses and testaments to this fact, Enoch and Elijah (and even all those who have been raised physically from the dead), prove beyond all doubt that this “corruptible,” “mortal” body will indeed someday put on “incorruption” or “immortality” (cf. 1Cor. 15:53-54). Those resurrections were all just little foretastes and glimpses of a future glory divine. Nothing could be more clear as to what Paul has been referring to. There is nothing “corruptible” or “mortal” about our newly created spirits in Christ Jesus. Paul can only be talking here about our very own physical bodies which will one day become “immortal” and “incorruptible.” And Paul further says that our physical bodies in death are “sown in dishonor,” they are “raised in glory;” they are “sown in weakness,” they are “raised in power;” they are “sown a natural body,” they are “raised a spiritual body” (cf. 1Cor. 15:42-44). And the testament to the fact that many, many bones are still laying in their graves is a vital physical sign and clue for all of us that the resurrection of our physical bodies is still yet to come! Was that not what was proof positive that Christ had indeed been physically resurrected, by the fact that there was no longer any physical remains of His body, which included no less His very bones? And in Lke. 24:39, Jesus said, “Touch me, for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see me have.” Come on brethren, get on board with the Truth! What happened to Christ’s “flesh and bones” will one day happen to our own flesh and bones. It is just one of the guarantees of the purchased possession. Christ's physical resurrection of His body “guarantees” our physical resurrection of our bodies.
Interestingly, full-preterists criticize dispensational premillennialists, putting them down based upon the idea that they are not only unscriptural and unorthodox, but also that they are of a more recent origin since the early 1800’s—and rightly so! Such brethren should be sharply criticized for teaching and adhering to Jewish idealisms that are contrary to sound doctrine and the teachings of Christ and His apostles, and as has been taught throughout church history. But they should listen to themselves when they begin to speak like this, because they too are teaching aberrant doctrine and something even of a more recent origin than dispensationalism. And, ironically, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons are no less to be blamed for what they believe as something of more recent. None of these groups are teaching church orthodoxy—but heresy! And even the fact that one of the full-preterist’s foremost and prevalent teachers, Max King, who has served as a Church of Christ minister for some forty years, and who even teaches baptismal regeneration, should be put on notice to the fact that we should not even for one minute take any of these men seriously.
If upon revealing to you these deceptive waters I have shown you that it is only bitter, and that it will do you more harm than good if you drink it, then I have done my job and have done it well. But even then I suppose there will be those who will not listen and continue to guzzle it all down nevertheless. For such people, such foolish talk is nothing more than sweet waters for them, masking the truth of what is really nothing more than kool-aid laced with cyanide (as in the case with Jim Jones and all of his followers).
When full-preterist, Glen Hill, makes the statement in his book forwarded by Don K. Preston in, Christianity’s Great Dilemma: “Oh the length to which we preachers will go to make the Bible agree with what we believe!”, this couldn’t be more true with regards to what these men are both teaching and writing. Are these men listening to themselves? I sure hope so! And it is in this “hope” that I am writing this article, in the sincere “hope” that some will actually begin to do so; making the humble and painful journey back to a proper biblical perspective.
Paul adamantly warned Timothy,
Put these things before them,
giving them orders in the name of the Lord
to keep themselves from fighting about words,
which is of no profit, only causing error in their hearers.
Let it be your care to get the approval of God,
as a workman who has no cause for shame,
giving the true word in the right way.
But take no part in wrong and foolish talk,
for those who do so will go farther into evil,
and their words will be like poisoned wounds in the flesh:
such are Hymenaeus and Philetus;
Men whose ideas are all false,
who say that the coming back from the dead
[the resurrection]
has even now taken place,
overturning the faith of some.
—2Tim. 2:14-18 (BBE)
Selah!
Footnotes:
[1] p. 1,631.
[2] Vol. 8, Notes, p. 390.
[3] New Testament Commentary, Matthew, pp. 669-670 with footnote #623. The words in brackets [that they were “eye” witnesses] is mine to denote what Peter had actually said.
[4] The Apocrypha, p. 60.
[5] See pp. 487 and 489 for these glaring further examples for us staring at us right in the face.
[6] Hebrews, vol. II, p. 197.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 5, p. 420.
[9] Briefly, the account goes somewhat like this,
God sent the archangel Michael to remove the body of Moses to another place and bury it there, but Sammael, the devil opposed him, disputing Moses’ right to honorable burial…The devil brought against Moses a charge of murder, because he smote the Egyptian and hid his body in the sand. But this accusation was not better than slander against Moses and Michael, not tolerating the slander, said to the devil, “May the Lord rebuke you devil!” At that the devil took flight, and Michael removed the body to the place commanded by God, where he buried it with his own two hands. Thus no one saw the burial of Moses (Opinion cited from Simon Kistemaker’s remarks in William Hendriksen’s New Testament Commentary series that discusses this subject. Peter and Jude, p. 386).
Now if you can believe all this, as opposed to what Keil and Delitzsch have to say presented in my article, then by all means, have at it! I choose to believe that Moses’ body was contended over because God wanted to take it, whereas Satan attempted to argue against such an idea through his accusations and innuendos. But all this is neither here nor there for the purposes of our study and the fact that both Enoch and Elijah were indeed translated on into heaven as a result of having not seen death. Moses, on the other hand, did see death before being translated straight into heaven (if in fact he was).
[10] Commentary on the Old Testament, The Pentateuch; vol. 1, pp. 515-516.
[11] p. 4.
[12] Idioms in the Bible Explained, p. 13.
[13] Ibid, pp. 3, 4, 13.
[14] Shattering the Left Behind Delusion, pp. 66, 64, 67, 74-75 (italics, bold emphasis, and bracketed words mine).
[15] Ibid, footnote #4, p. 85.
[16] Ibid, p. 134.
[17] When Shall These Things Be? pp. 345-346.
No comments:
Post a Comment