Full-Preterism: Full of Baloney! (1 of 2)

Let me just say right off the bat that I am a partial-preterist, similar to the likes of such men as: R. C. Sproul, Jay E. Adams, Milton S. Terry, John Owen, Bishop Thomas Newton, Adam Clarke, John Lightfoot, Kenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar, David Chilton, and Greg Bahnsen to name just a few. This is not to say that I believe in everything that these men write, but I am on equal footing with them when it comes to the Olivet discourse and understanding that it has been already fulfilled in the past, without having to admit that the resurrection of the dead and the physical Second Coming of Christ is also past. And as much as I have tried to believe in full-preterism, I just can’t! All of their arguments are full of holes—full of baloney!

For years those were the words of evangelist John L. Bray whenever someone had said something that was out-of-line with the Scriptures: “baloney” he cried! But sometimes I wonder now if he too has succumb to some of this same “baloney.” In his October, 2005 newsletter, he writes an article entitled: Were Elijah and Enoch Raptured to Heaven? He then states,

In answering the above question, we need first of all to ask whether or not Jesus told the truth when He said, “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven” (John 3:13). Here Jesus said that NO man had ascended up to heaven. So we must believe that at that time no man had ever gone to Heaven; no one had ever been there but Jesus Himself. What then, is the answer in regard to Elijah and Enoch, who are believed by many to have been taken up to Heaven? [1]

We will address these statements by John Bray and the points that he makes, on the heels of such a statement, in support of his thesis in a little bit.

But simply put, if one can prove that both Enoch and Elijah were translated into heaven without ever seeing death, then it overthrows everything that these men are believing in and trying to get others to believe in as well. If Enoch's and Elijah's bodies went into heaven, then it presupposes that ours will as well. And if all this is true (which I believe it is), then it opens the door wide open for the fact that there is a future physical translation of our bodies, indeed a resurrection of our “dead” bodies like unto Christ’s glorious body which was raised also after being dead. And all accompanied no less with a future physical return of our great God and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, as Paul also wrote in 1Corinthians 15:23! The two go hand-in-hand. The full-preterists realize this, so that’s why they have to conclude either that they both occur in the future, or that they have already occurred in the past. I’m convinced, the former is a more excellent way.

I have known of John Bray for quite some time now, and have known that at one point and time that he was a partial-preterist, never thinking for one minute that he had maybe crossed over into full-preterism. And I am still not so sure without having spoken to him personally. But it wasn’t until 2007 that I began to actually receive his newsletters. So when another brother notified me of one his former newsletters referred to above that forms the thesis or backdrop for John Noe’s teachings and what others like Noe are saying, it troubled me greatly. And it wasn’t until I saw John Bray’s name in the back of Noe’s present book that I am critiquing, endorsing another one of Noe's books---and even John's current endorsements of a book in his own January, 2011 newsletter of Biblical Perspectives that speaks on Christ’s Second Coming as having already occurred; and even his endorsement of Brian Martin’s Fulfilled magazine at Brian’s website---that I became concerned as to what John Bray might really now be believing with regards to all of this. And we will see in just a moment why such significant declarations by John, especially with regards to Enoch and Elijah, are so vital to a proper biblical understanding of our own future, physical, bodily resurrection and why we are not to let such thinking to the contrary about Enoch and Elijah (and even about a future Second Coming of Christ) enter into our minds. It opens the floodgates wide open for what will be discussed below that follows on the heels of such unguarded and complacent thinking.

And while I would highly recommend John Bray’s book Matthew 24: Fulfilled, I cannot endorse such writings as this about Enoch and Elijah (and even his comments addressed later about king David’s spirit not having gone into heaven at Christ’s resurrection), or his endorsements of those whose writings deny the bodily resurrection and the Second Coming of Christ in the future.

So, here we are at it all over again faced with nothing more than what is to be considered a bunch of “baloney.” Do you know what “baloney” is? It is processed meat that is not the real deal. Along with lard, it is full of a variety of other things, but it is not pure unadulterated meat. Just read the label on the package sometime. The dictionaries define “baloney” as a euphemism for “foolish talk, or nonsense.” And, believe me, we have a lot of that going on here!

John Noe has left us with a plateful to eat that is nothing more than a bunch of “baloney.” It is not the tried, true and tested meat of the Word of God. Oh, there is some real meat here and there scattered throughout his book, if you can find it, but for the most part like Process Theology, his theology on the non-bodily resurrection of believers and the already past Second Coming of Christ is a “process” of unfounded truth and theology as found in the Bible.

What these men such as John Noe are saying is often very deep and complex, similar to any other aberrant doctrine out there. And sometimes it becomes very difficult to refute such teachings, let alone understand them entirely. And the casual reader will miss entirely what it is they are saying. But in our hearts we know that there is something just not quite right with such men and their teachings.

This doctrine of the resurrection as having already occurred in the past, along with Christ’s coming that accompanies it, is no less different—and sometimes a very tough nut to crack at that! But if we stay focused on the main thing, which is the resurrection of the dead, then all of the rest should just start to fall into place. And instead of getting all caught up in all this talk about which “coming” Christ is talking about, the last days, the last hour, meanings of verbs, or whatever, we need to just focus our attention first and foremost on the main thing: the resurrection of the dead! If it is indeed the resurrection of our “dead” physical bodies someday, then it follows that their must be another future coming of Christ, and just one of many “comings” of His that have already occurred in the past, right up until the final Second Coming of all comings. All of these guys get people so caught up in all the details of these things that they no longer see the forest for all the individual trees. They use a lot of smoke and mirrors to keep everyone from not staying focused on the main thing. And again, that “main thing” is the resurrection of the dead.

Like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and even the Mormons, one can only touch on the salient points and issues that show the fallacies of what these individuals are saying. As far as the rest of the details are concerned, we all have to work through those. And sometimes we never fully do. With some we do, but with many of the details most of us do not really bother with. We don’t need to. When we understand what the “main” thing is with regards to the Deity of Christ (the thing that the JW’s deny); the non-literal observance of the Sabbath (the thing the Adventist’s deny); another gospel from another angel called “Maroni” (Mormonism); and even the truth about the future resurrection of the dead in this present discussion (the thing the Full-preterists deny), then all the rest of their arguments over “words” and everything else that they say will not effect us in the least bit. If we keep our eyes focused on “the main thing,” then we won’t be distracted by the sleight-of-hand with all the rest.

It is interesting to me how John Noe starts out in his book defining for us what “delusion” is. It is “a false belief…maintained in spite of unquestionable evidence to the contrary.”[2] This could not be more true with all of the fallacious statements he makes in his book. And he too “maintains” his position despite the “unquestionable evidence to the contrary.” This is what delusion or deceit does. It causes one to maintain a certain belief about something regardless of all the evidence presented to the contrary. And so such individuals suppress the clear truth about something in exchange for a lie that they have all swallowed, hook, line and sinker. For such individuals, nothing could convince them otherwise—NOTHING! Just look at all those who fell head-over-heels for Jim Jones and his idealisms. Some became acutely aware that something was wrong, but for the most part most of the people had succumb to the lie. Indeed, Paul even says of those who refuse to love the truth that “for this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie” (2Ths. 2:10-11). Do you hear what Paul is saying here? Those who suppress truth, God gives over to even further mistruths about Him as a further judgment for their intrepid folly. The “delusion” that God sends their way via Satan, false apostles, false Pastors and Teachers, or through whatever means, is so “strong” that they believe “a lie” as opposed to what is to be understood as truth! Why are people deceived? As judgment for wandering away from the landmarks that have been set up all around us and for suppressing what is to be accepted as truth! They are people with “itching” ears for some new thing and fanciful theory instead of what has been proven to be both tried and true over the years, and has endured the test of time.

John Noe talks about the “sleight-of-hand” of others in his book; well, John Noe is a master at it here in his book, changing one idea for another so quickly that it goes by the unskilled believer in the Word of righteousness as an argument or pretense for the Truth. And John Bray’s comments in his newsletter that we will soon get to are no less different. Such teachings come all wrapped-up in the garb of sheep’s clothing, but underneath it is an animal of another kind. And I couldn’t help but ponder: Who is he kidding? Well, not me for one! Noe states that in spite of their “inconsistencies,” those favoring the “prevailing traditional view feel that if the resurrection is presented as a disconnect from our old earthly bodies, then that position [Noe’s position] has stepped over into heterodoxy.”[3] To be sure, everyone has some “inconsistencies” when it comes to what they both teach and say, but the full-preterist’s “inconsistencies” border on that which truly is “heterodoxy.” For those of you who do not know what that word means, it is straying away from church orthodoxy. It is wandering off into that which is to be deemed nothing short of being called, “heretical.” Immediately, the full- preterists would counter with though, “See, you have inconsistencies and I have inconsistencies, so where is the problem?” The problem is when such “inconsistencies” step over the line into what is to be deemed borderline, and if not even a full-fledged departure from the Truth as it is presented in our Bibles. This is true of the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or any other aberrant group that has crossed over the line of demarcation of what is to be considered truth or not. At some point we all begin to say, “Enough is enough! Their sense of the Scriptures makes utter nonsense of the Truth.” And we all know better when we hear and see something that is not quite right with their teachings. And even though we may not know how to fully counter what they are saying, we just know better in our hearts to stay well-away from what they are teaching. “Something” just does not “click” with their teaching. And even the simplest of Christian’s knows better to stay away from such people. The doctrine of the physical, bodily resurrection isn’t rocket science here as all of these the full-preterists try to make it all out for us to believe, and who like the JW’s, Mormons, etc., try to make an unwarranted attempt in arguing over “words” that are of no profit to the hearers. The way these people talk one would think that we all needed a degree in theology or linguistics in order to understand our Bibles. But the Bible is written for every child of God who is controlled by the mind of the Spirit and who compares Scripture with Scripture in order to ascertain what God is truly saying. But these individuals will twist and turn the Truth (and even the meaning of words) to say whatever their itching ears want themselves and their listeners to hear, and even suppressing what is clearly the Truth in order to do so. They are the blind leading the blind in which they all fall into a hole of no return for not a few.

All isn’t “fulfilled” in the Bible as the full-preterists would have us believe. We are all still here and evidently still fulfilling prophecy. History (His-story) is still in the making—still fulfilling and being fulfilled right up until the consummation of all things. Clearly, all prophecy has not been completely and utterly “fulfilled” yet!

I came across Noe’s book completely by accident (or I should say, “by providence”), little realizing that God would begin to ignite a fire under me in order to be one small voice for man and, hopefully, be one giant leap for all of Christ’s church and those who are reading this article; and to speak against this false notion and idea that Christ’s Second Coming and the physical, bodily resurrection are both a thing of the past, both having occurred in 70 AD.

Over the years I have read Edward Stevens’ works, Stuart Russell’s Parousia, and much of Max King’s The Cross and Parousia of Christ (before finally tossing it in the trash); and I have even read the current work of Brian L. Martin’s, Behind the Veil of Moses, who is also the editor of Fullfilled magazine out of Oregon which defends full-preterism. And I even read most of those magazines of his online. But try as hard as I may, none of these authors, who often contradict one another, have convinced me that what they are saying is true. This is not to say that everything that these guys are saying is to be considered “false” and to be rejected. In Brian Martin’s book, two-thirds of what he says in the beginning of his book I would almost wholeheartedly agree with, but it is the last third or one hundred pages of his book (Part III, p. 339 and thereon) that really has me deeply troubled and gravely concerned. Pun intended!

But it wasn’t until after reading John Noe’s book (which is in-line with the way the rest of these guys think) that this became the last straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back for me. It is so ridiculous, so ludicrous, so incredulous, so absurd and downright outlandish that, yes, I even found it to be quite, “amusing,” to say the least. I was utterly amused by its nonsensical presentation. The serious thinking Christian just cannot take these guys seriously any longer. Noe’s book not only amused me, being that many of his statements were so ridiculous, but at the same time it extremely frustrated me as to how so many could be so naïve and duped into believing the things that this man and others in his circle of acquaintances with regards to these things have come to believe.

When full-preterists say that they don’t know what all the fuss or problem is about when they say that what they are saying, and that it is to be understood no differently than what all of Christendom is saying, in other words, that we will all end up in the same place someday regardless of whether one believes or not in the future bodily resurrection and the future physical Second Coming of Christ, it is just this that is the problem. The physical Second Coming and the physical bodily resurrection of all believers is the blessed hope of all the Church. And as Paul said,

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? [Sound familiar?] If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But He did not raise Him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men (1Cor. 15:12-20; bracketed words mine).

But this “sleeping” which these authors somehow link with the idea of having to be in Abraham’s bosom up until 70 AD no longer occurs. According to them, we no longer “sleep,” but are instantly changed from our old bodies to our new spiritual body from the Lord, leaving our old natural bodies behind. So falling “asleep” is clearly for them not just our physical bodies dying, but something much more than this. It is something conjured up in their way of thinking that we no longer partake of. It is agreed by them along with all of us no less that it is appointed unto all men once to physically die, but such a death is no longer to be termed as “falling asleep.” We leave these spent casings of our physical bodies in the graves forever, never to return for them again. Christ returned for His body after leaving Sheol before entering into heaven, but we now no longer return for ours. Strange indeed! And may I might be so bold as to say, “unscriptural indeed” according to Paul’s clear and unambiguous language above.

So, “falling asleep,” as understood by them, is much more than our physical bodies just dying. For them it includes their idea of having been in Abraham’s bosom. And since we no longer go there, then we no longer, as such, fall “asleep.” So, to not precede those who have “fallen asleep,” according to Paul’s words, means that when Christ came in 70 AD that all those who were alive after that event, and who then afterwards physically die, no longer fall “asleep,” but are all now instantly given a new spiritual body upon our deaths. Falling “asleep,” as the full-preterists understand it, is a thing of the past. Consider also these words by John Noe concerning Stephen, and you’ll get the just of what they are talking about here,

Especially note that when Stephen was martyred, it’s not said that he went to heaven to be with the Lord, but that “He fell asleep” (Acts 7:60). [4]

Full-preterists have associated the idea of “falling asleep,” which is to be understood only as physical death, to be synonymous with going into or having been in Abraham’s bosom, an association that Scripture quite frankly does not support. Nowhere do the Scriptures associate the “sleeping” of our bodies as being synonymous with being in Abraham’s bosom. “No one” in the Bible teaches such an aberrant doctrine. Now that you can take to the bank! What the full-preterists have done with this word “asleep” is the old bait and switch tactic: Baiting you with the belief or idea that they too believe that being “asleep” refers to the physical body dying, and then switching this idea as referring only to those who were in Abraham’s bosom and, as such, to be “asleep” is no longer an experience for us any longer. We don’t fall “asleep” anymore as they fell asleep. In fact, we now don’t fall “asleep” at all if we are to understand this as they understand it!

As I said before, “this in not rocket-science” here. There is nothing mystical or ambiguous about Paul’s statements above, nor of what happened to Stephen once his body “fell asleep.” According to Paul, Christ rose physically from the dead in the body that He fell asleep or died in, and it guarantees the fact that our own physical bodies will one day also arise from their dead (or “sleeping”) state. These individuals that Paul is referring to above (which includes all of us, both then and now) are not “sleeping” spiritually here (for their spirits were alive as are ours are when we die), but physically when our bodies die and are entombed in the graves. When the people saw Lazarus lying there physically dead with his eyes closed as if he were “sleeping,” it was upon this condition or state of being of Lazarus that Christ said, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him” (Jhn. 11:11); and just a couple of verses later John says what Jesus meant by this: “Jesus had been speaking of his death” (v. 13) or, in other words, his physical death. That saints are not asleep as far as their spirits are concerned when they die is seen in the words of Christ elsewhere concerning Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: “He is not the God of the dead but of the living” (Mat. 22:32). On the other hand though, everyone’s physical bodies are inactive or, “sleeping,” when they physically die.

Arguing over such wording like this to make this word “asleep,” and many other words that the full-preterists wrangle over to say things that these words just don’t mean, borders on the ludicrous and absurd. Our spirits are not dead, our bodies are. And for the full-preterists to say that we receive another spiritual body as opposed to the “resurrection” of our old natural body is no resurrection at all. This idea alone should lend notice to the fact that what these men are saying is just not true. Just listen to what Noe says about all of this:

Paul calls the resurrection body, which God “gives” a believer in heaven, a “spiritual body” (1Cor. 15:38, 44), not a “resurrected (physical) body.” Yet this is a real body and a real “bodily resurrection.” [5]

Is he for real? Has he just redefined for us what the word “resurrection” is suppose to mean? Talk about a “sleight-of-hand!” Brian Martin in his book Behind the Veil of Moses is just as guilty as Noe here. He writes:

First, it is important to distinguish between being “resurrected” and being “raised from the dead.” [6]

Oh? It gets better, just listen to the rest of what he says:

Being raised from the dead is merely a reestablishment of physical life, of being restored to a predeath condition…Resurrection, on the other hand, involves a supernatural change that allows us immediate and intimate access to the presence of God (Ibid).

And as if “being raised from dead” with a changed physical body is not a “supernatural change”?

All of this these guys are saying is nothing more than the “circular reasoning” that I talked about in my article on The Grammar Behind “This” in “This Generation” which is when someone takes the original statement or idea of someone or something, in this case, Paul’s; and then redefines it as Noe does in this example, by stating that the spiritual body that we receive in heaven is “not a resurrected (physical) body;” and then restates the original intent of the author or word with his own re-definition as if Paul were himself saying, “this is a real body and a real ‘bodily resurrection.’” Both Noe and Martin, and all of these full-preterists, have redefined a physical, bodily resurrection as no resurrection at all! Noe says its “not a “resurrected (physical) body,” and Marin says its being “raised from the dead” and to be differentiated or “distinguished” from what is to be understood by him as what is to be deemed a true, biblical and bona fide “resurrection.” And a “supernatural” one at that, I suppose, as opposed to a merely natural one!

But as said before, the word “resurrection,” by the very nature and meaning of the word, means to be raised from a dead state or condition; whether it be our own spirits being regenerated and raised from their dead spiritual state or condition, or our own physical bodies being changed and raised from their dead physical state or condition. Anything other than this is just simply no resurrection at all brethren! But these men, such as Noe, have “bewitched” you into believing otherwise, by redefining terms and arguing over words that do nothing more than “subvert the hearers” of all those who are unlearned and naïve enough to believe that what they are saying is truth. It is worth repeating: The non-resurrection of our earthly, natural bodies is no resurrection at all! Its a misconception (and I might add, a misdirection and a sleight-of-hand) with regards to the meaning of the word “resurrection.” Now none of this is to deny that the term “asleep” can also be used in a spiritual or figurative sense (see Rom. 13:11; 1Cor. 15:34; Eph. 5:14), but that is not how Christ or Paul are using the word here. And it is definitely not used by them of something we no longer partake of since Christ came in judgment upon Israel in 70 AD.

This future physical resurrection of all believers is also the blessed hope of all creation that one day they too “will be liberated from its [physical] bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God” (cf. Rom. 8:21). But even these words the full-preterist, such as Noe, overturn to say something entirely different. Listen to what Noe says: “The ‘creation’ (Rom. 8:18-23) is collectively viewed as being Old Testament saints living under the law. They were awaiting and groaning to be delivered from that bondage and into the new, as adopted sons.”[7] This isn’t a past creation of Old Testament saints that had been waiting up until the time of Paul’s writing, but just the opposite. This “creation” that was subject to decay, even as our own bodies are subject to, was the “decay” that all (plants, animals and mankind) were subjected to by the fall of Adam. And furthermore, Paul says it is the “whole creation,” that has been groaning (v. 22), not just the “Old Testament saints.” But, again, because Noe and others like him have to conclude that according to their own private interpretations that the physical, bodily resurrection is a thing of the past, they must redefine such passages as this, making them twist and fit into their own schema of things. This is just another glaring example of how far someone will go to substantiate their own beliefs as opposed to the biblical and orthodox beliefs of the church and of the Bible.

According to Noe, and others like him, nothing is as it seems anymore. And they want to continually argue over “words” in classic Clintonistic style or fashion who himself, as we all too well know, attempted to redefine even the meaning of the word “is.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses have this down-pat. Noe’s sleight-of-hand with such wording is no different. Just look at what John Noe says about 2Ki. 2:11 that states that Elijah “went up to heaven in a whirlwind”:

The preposition “to” does not exist in the original Hebrew. It’s only implied and is rendered as either “to” or “into.” If its meaning was “to,” that doesn’t necessitate going “into.” If it was “into,” then it may only refer to a temporary experience like the man Paul said he knew who was caught up to the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2-4).” [8]

Give me a break! Is this man serious? If Elijah was said to go “into” but not “to” heaven, then we can only infer that this “may only refer to a temporary experience” in order to prove that Elijah must have returned to the earth and to eventually die like the rest of us? I rest my case. If you believe that then there truly is no hope for you, and words can just mean whatever we want them to mean, and in order to formulate any doctrine that we want to contrive. This is exactly what has occurred with the word “this” in “this generation” in Mat. 24:34, and for those who cannot see it as Christ’s generation, but a future one in support of their own doctrinal precedents and beliefs. Noe is no less guilty of such textual manipulations. See my article posted on that topic.

Again, when full-preterists say that they don’t know what all the fuss is about, Noe couldn’t have stated it any more clearly about our concern in all of this than in his own words: “Indeed, a correct view of this consummated reality truly does matter. The consequences of misunderstanding or saying that this resurrection hasn’t happened yet are devastating.” Is he listening to himself? What happen to, “What’s all the fuss about”? All of a sudden it has now become indeed something to “fuss” about, and that if “this resurrection hasn’t happened” (in the past) that it is devastating to one’s orthodoxy and cardinal beliefs. Indeed, according to Paul’s own words, “He did not raise Him [Christ] if in fact the dead are not raised,” and “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.” According to Paul’s own words it really does matter what one’s epistemology on all of this is. A future physical bodily resurrection will be an attestation to the fact that Christ’s own physical body was indeed raised from its state of “sleep.” Jairus’ daughter, the widow’s daughter, and even Lazarus being raised from the dead “physically” were all attestations (or witnesses) to the reality of a future physical bodily resurrection, giving us all just a glimpse into this future hope that remains to be seen for all of us.

Enoch and Elijah couldn’t be any more two of the greatest witnesses and attestations to this fact. But Noe, and those who think like him, go so far as to deny that these two men went into heaven in their own physical bodies and stayed there (not just “temporary” as Noe states above by replacing “to” with the word “into”), in order to prove their own thesis that there will be no physical resurrection of our own bodies in the future. Remember what “delusion” means? That it is “a false belief…maintained in spite of unquestionable evidence to the contrary.” Let’s examine some of this “unquestionable evidence to the contrary.” If there is such “unquestionable evidence to the contrary,” then it should “unquestionably” and overwhelmingly overthrow what these people are saying as completely and utterly false; and to be avoided like the teachings of dispensationalists, Jim Jones’, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’, and the Mormon’s, etc., like the plague.

On page 57, Noe makes the remarkable statement with regards to Enoch and Elijah that these “two possible exceptions or seemingly contradictory examples are cited.”[9] I emphasize “exceptions” and “contradictory” because as he himself recognizes, these physical translations of both Enoch and Elijah are truly self-evident “exceptions” and “contradictory examples” in and by themselves. In other words, if nothing else were stated to the contrary, these two incidents most assuredly attest to the fact that a physical ascension and transformation of these men’s two bodies on into heaven really occurred. There are no “ifs,” “ands,” or “buts” about it! These two “exceptions” and “contradictory” witnesses in the Scriptures are staring glaringly at Noe right in the face, and yet he and those like him deny these “exceptions” in favor of their hard-lined thinking and approach that suppresses the Truth. It is a suppression of “the Truth” to the point that these two men could not have possibly entered into heaven in their own bodies based upon Jesus’ wording in Jhn. 3:13 that “no one hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven” (AKJV). And so according to Noe’s own words with regards to the translations of both Enoch and Elijah, “We’ll stick with what Jesus said, ‘no one’” (Ibid). This statement, as understood in the strict and hard-lined framework and approach of Noe’s thinking concerning the bodily resurrection, is definitive for Noe. This is Noe’s answer to this dilemma of the seemingly contradictory examples of Enoch and Elijah “glaring” at him right in the face. But is this in fact what Jesus was saying here? How could Jesus be understood this way, as Noe (and even as John Bray) sees it, if indeed the Scriptures say that both Enoch and Elijah had passed on into heaven in their very own physical bodies?

Not one commentator of reliable note, that I am aware, of has given Noe’s interpretation of these words of Jesus—NOT ONE! When anyone sees a doctrine that no one else in the history of the church has ever seen before, he should have an abundance of very clear passages from the Scriptures in support of his position, not just one or two verses. And as far as the voice of the Church is concerned on this issue of our resurrection and the Second Coming of Christ as having already occurred in the past in 70 AD, the silence is deafening!

Look at what Albert Barnes even has to say here with regards to Jhn. 3:13,

No man, therefore, is qualified to speak of heavenly things, John 3:12. To speak of those things requires intimate acquaintance with them—demands that we have seen them; and as no one has ascended into heaven and returned, so no one is qualified to speak of them but He who came down from heaven. This does not mean that no one had Gone to heaven or had been saved, for Enoch and Elijah had been borne [or carried] there (Genesis 5:24; compare Hebrews 11:5; 2 Kings 2:11). (words in brackets mine).

Adam Clarke also writes,

The expression is founded upon this generally received maxim: That to be perfectly acquainted with the concerns of a place, it is necessary for a person to be on the spot. But our Lord probably spoke to correct a false notion among the Jews, viz. that Moses had ascended to heaven, in order to get the law. It is not Moses who is to be heard now, but Jesus: Moses did not ascend to heaven; but the Son of man is come down from heaven to reveal the Divine will.

John Gill notes,

Though Enoch and Elias had, yet not by their own power, nor in the sense our Lord designs; whose meaning is, that no man had, or could go up to heaven, to bring from thence the knowledge of divine and heavenly things; in which sense the phrase is used in Deuteronomy 30:12, and which may be illustrated by John 1:18; wherefore inasmuch as Nicodemus had acknowledged Christ to be a teacher come from God, our Lord, would have him know, that He was the only teacher of heavenly things, as being the only person that had been in heaven, and in the bosom of the Father; and therefore, if he, and the rest of the Jews, did not receive instructions from Him, they must for ever remain ignorant; for there never had been, nor was, nor could be, any mere man that could go up to heaven, and learn the mysteries of God, and of the kingdom of heaven, and return and instruct men in them.

D. A. Carson writes,

Jesus can speak of heavenly things (v. 12), and (kai) no-one [else] has ascended into heaven and remained there [so as to speak authoritatively about heavenly things] but only the one who has come down from heaven [is equipped to do so]….The Judaism of Jesus’ day circulated many stories of bygone saints who had ascended into heaven and received special insight into God’s ways and plans. Many of these stories focused on Moses…Jesus insists that no-one has ascended to heaven in such a way as to return to talk about heavenly things…But Jesus can speak about heavenly things, not because He ascended to heaven from a home on earth and then descended to tell others of His experiences, but because heaven was His home in the first place, and therefore He has ‘inherently the fullness of heavenly knowledge’ (Wescott, 1. 53). [10]

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown further add,

There is something paradoxical in this language–“No one has gone up but He that came down, even He who is at once both up and down.” Doubtless it was intended to startle and constrain His auditor to think that there must be mysterious elements in His Person. The old Socinians, to subvert the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ, seized upon this passage as teaching that the man Jesus was secretly caught up to heaven to receive His instructions, and then “came down from heaven” to deliver them. But the sense manifestly is this: “The perfect knowledge of God is not obtained by any man’s going up from earth to heaven to receive it—no man hath so ascended—but He whose proper habitation, in His essential and eternal nature, is heaven, hath, by taking human flesh, descended as the Son of man to disclose the Father, whom He knows by immediate gaze alike in the flesh as before He assumed it, being essentially and unchangeably “in the bosom of the Father” (Joh 1:18).

All of these commentators have had some good thoughts as to what Jesus was inferring here, but nothing even close to how Noe has twisted and pigeon-holed Christ’s words to say what he wants them to say, in order to justify his own (and those of his peers) private interpretation concerning Enoch and Elijah and our own future bodily resurrections. And though while the above commentators have touched upon just one idea or truth with regards to what Christ was talking about, Arthur Pink hits the nail right on the head when he writes,

It is to be noted that Christ did not say, “no man hath entered heaven,” but, “no man hath ascended up to heaven.” This is an entirely different thing. “Ascended” no man had, or ever will. What is before us now is only one of ten thousand examples of the minute and marvelous accuracy of Scripture, lost, alas, on the great majority who read it so carelessly and hurriedly. Of Enoch it is recorded that he “was translated that he should not see death” (Heb. 11:5). Of Elijah it is said that he “went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11)…Of Christ alone is it said that He “ascended.” This at once marks His uniqueness, and demonstrates that in all things He has “the pre-eminence (Col. 1:18)….But observe further that the Lord said, “even the Son of Man which is in heaven”….This is another evidence of His Deity. It affirmed His Omnipresence. It is remarkable to see that every essential attribute of Deity is predicated of Christ in this Gospel, the special object of which is to unveil His Divine perfections. His eternality is argued in John 1:1. His Divine glory is mentioned in John 1:14. His omniscience is seen in John 1:48 and again in John 2:24, 25. His matchless wisdom is borne witness to in John 7:46. His unchanging love is affirmed in John 13:1. And so we might go on indefinitely. [11]

I believe that what Pink has touched upon is a more excellent way and approach to these words of Christ. And though not in a couple of the more extant manuscripts, the phrase “which is in heaven” is, I believe, no slip or addition of the scribes pen either. Indeed, who could ever imagine writing such words in the first place, if not for their origin being from heaven which most commentators do not doubt for one minute. As D. A. Carson notes, “it is the ‘harder reading’ which, all things being equal, is more likely original.”[12] Only such wording like this can come from God. If it were left up to man he would not even begin to write such things about Christ, let alone imagine them. These words, as from the lips of Christ, have their origin in heaven; for only God in Christ could claim to be in heaven and on earth at the same time. After all, the Scriptures say that Christ is in everyone of us no less, is He not? Indeed, the Scriptures affirm that God is everywhere and in everything. Just wrap your finite mind around that for a moment. This is also why the false doctrine of pantheism came to be embraced, and why man worshiped the creature rather than the Creator.

The Greek word for “ascended” here in Jhn. 3:13 (anabaino), though mostly used for “going up” to one location from another, is also the same word used in Acts 2:34 of David not having ascended to God’s throne as Christ had done, with David even noting, “The Lord said unto my Lord; ‘Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet’” (v. 35). What is interesting about this phrase is that it is used of the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14:13 who said, “I will ascend to heaven [LXX, eis ton ouranon anabaysomai]; [13] I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.” As Joseph A. Alexander notes in his commentary, “It is universally agreed that he [the king of Babylon] is here described as aiming at equality with God himself.”[14] And as Edward Young notes, “Only one can rule in heaven, even God, and when the Babylonian king wanted to place his throne there, even above God’s stars, he was planning to exalt himself against and above God.”[15] The “ascension” here is not talking about entering into heaven, which Enoch and Elijah no less did, but ascending to the throne of power as God, to be as God as it were. “No one”—not man, not angel, nor even Satan—could take that rightful place that belongs only to God and to Christ. And “no one” had direct access to heavenly and spiritual things as did the Son of man. This is seen a little later in this same chapter by John the Baptist’s words, “He who comes from above, is above all men…He who comes from heaven is above all men” (v. 31). To be sure, even angels have “come from above,” and have even been seen “ascending and descending” to and from heaven on Jacob’s ladder (cf. Gen. 28:12), so by these admissions alone we can rule out any idea that what Christ was saying just meant going into heaven or coming down out of heaven. As Rudolf Schnackenburg notes of Christ here in this third chapter of John,

He is the one beloved “Son” of the Father (v. 35, cf. vv. 16f), the Son of Man who has come down from heaven (v. 13). He is “above all” others, that is, all the inhabitants of the earth, who belong to realm “below” (v. 12)….The designation of “Son of Man” at the end is fully deliberate, since this Christological title is used in John in connection with the thought of “ascent” (6:62), “exaltation” (3:14; 12:34) and “glorification” (12:23; 13:31)…This “heavenly man,” who merely ascends to “where He was before” (6:62), is enabled by His ascent to lead to salvation those who have joined themselves to Him in faith, as is made still clearer in the following verse. [16]

William Hendriksen also notes here with regards to verse 13,

Now, in order to have first-hand information about those heavenly things one must have been present in God’s Throne-room when the decisions were made…Was there actually no one present with the Father when the plan was made which centers on the decree to send the Son into the world in order to bear the curse and set man free? Yes, there was One, the One who descended from heaven namely, the Son of man. [17]

Far from Christ saying that “no one” has ever entered into heaven, He was saying that “no one” has ever been in heaven and ever come back again to tell the story of it all to mankind as the Son of Man (Christ) who is in the bosom of the Father could only do, and as only Christ who is Deity at the right-hand of the Father could do. And this theme of Christ’s Deity flows throughout John’s gospel. Jesus spoke to Nicodemus as one who truly had “authority;” not as the scribes and Pharisees, but as the only One who had direct access to the Triune Godhead and as the One who is seated upon the Throne of God, indeed who is God. Such a statement by Christ omits of anyone else as ever having had such a direct access into the heavenly things of God, because Christ is God! As the song goes, “Who is like unto Thee, Oh Lord among gods? No one! “No one” has ever “ascended” into heaven to the right-hand of the Throne of God and has ever come back down to tell the story as Christ (God himself) was telling His own story to all mankind. In Jesus telling Nicodemus that He was the Son of Man, as the Jews understood of this person in Dan. 7:13-14, He was claiming to be this One who came directly from God and who ascended to God in order to be seated with power as King of kings and Lord of lords at the Father’s right-hand.

I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed (Dan. 7:13-14).

And all this agrees with Rev. 12:5b, which declares, “and her Child was snatched up to God and to His throne.” And finally, consider these words also from Christ for one moment, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend [Gk. anabainonta] to where He was before!” (Jhn. 6:62). I rest my case.

John Noe’s admittance to the fact that there could be “two possible exceptions” and seemingly “contradictory examples” of Enoch and Elijah that could overthrow his presuppositions, reminds me of a book I once read by some Arminians who were attempting to overthrow the Calvinistic acronym TULIP in their book The Dark Side of Calvinism, with a forward written by Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa, no less. Similar to Noe, they too admittedly stated that if “election” were true, as the Calvinists (and as I might say, “the Scriptures”) so readily teach it, then it would “contradict” everything that they had been stating in their book and that they would have to recant everything that they were teaching. Remarkable admission indeed! If “election,” as taught in the Bible, were true (which it is), it would overthrow their entire thesis and the Scriptures they have twisted to fit into such a thesis. All of the verses that teach a so-called indiscriminate love for “the entire world” and a desire for “all” to be saved, in an attempt to put forward a fair and equitable atonement according to man’s own standards and reasoning, would all have to be redefined and reinterpreted through the grid of God’s sovereign election and choice of choosing certain individuals according to how He so wishes, and not according the wishes, desires, and whims of man. The doctrine of “election,” as the Calvinists and, as the Bible presents it, is in fact true! But these men in their book, similar to Noe, have redefined “election” to be no more than what God does “after-the-fact,” after someone has made a decision for Christ; rather than “before-the-fact,” even as Romans 9:9-16 so clearly and succinctly declares of a truth,

It is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.” Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by Him who calls—she [Rebekah] was told, “The older will serve the younger”….It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

And just so that we can understand that Paul isn’t just talking about “nations” here, he elsewhere says in Galatians, “Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise” (Gal. 4:28). This “promise” of God to elect Isaac and Jacob indiscriminately not upon anything either of them had done, applies not only to Isaac and Jacob, but to each and every one of us who are no less “children of promise” as these men were. This is also why Paul could say, “But when God, who set me apart from birth and called my by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me…” (Gal. 1:15). And this is why we too are no less said by Paul to be “chosen” (lit., predetermined) in Christ before the foundation of the world (cf. Eph. 1:11). Just like Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Paul and every other saint that is “chosen” by God according to His electing love, it is based upon God’s “promise” to bring forth these “children of promise,” based upon God’s own initiative, not man’s.

This is substantiated even further in Rom. 9:11, mentioned above, by the fact that this “election” (Gk. eklogee) of God of Isaac and Jacob before they were born, is the same “election” of God of Paul in Acts 9:15, whom God said was a vessel chosen (“elected,” Gk. eklogee) by Him and set apart to be used in God’s spiritual temple, now the Church. God’s election of Paul was not based upon foreseeing Paul make a decision for Christ, just the opposite was the case, and which was also true of Isaac and Jacob. And this “election” of Isaac, Jacob and Paul is the same “election” of all of us in 1Pet. 1:2, who are said to be “chosen (“elected,” Gk. ekglogee) according to the foreknowledge of God.” And furthermore, it is this same “foreknowledge” here being described by Peter of us that is also said to be of Christ in v. 20 before the foundation of the world. This “foreknowledge” of Christ, like of us, was not something foreseen by God in the future (prescience or prognostication), but foreknown or fore-planned in the mind of God before any of us came to be a realization in time. God didn’t look into the future to see what Christ or we would do, Christ was right there before the foundation of the world planning it all with the Father and the Holy Spirit, foreknowing it all before any of it ever came to pass. Such an understanding of God’s “foreknowledge” is also further substantiated by God for us in Isa. 46:11 and 48:3, who says, “What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned that will I do….I foretold the former things long ago…then suddenly I acted and they came to pass.” So this trumps any idea of man’s thinking and reasoning that “foreknowledge” is just God seeing out into the future what others will do, and then responding to them accordingly. Away with such nonsense! Away with such carnal humanistic thinking and reasoning!

“Election,” as taught in the Bible, by Calvin, and by all of the Reformers, is exactly as has been described above, and no less! And the only thing “dark” about The Dark Side of Calvinism is the teaching that is being presented in that book. And it is these men above, like Noe, who have redefined terms and words in the Bible to say what they just do not mean and say. The election of God is not based upon some foreseen decisions of others, and then God deciding to elect or not elect them accordingly; and neither are the words “no one” by Christ to be understood that no one has ever entered into heaven; but only that “no one” has ever ascended to the Throne of God and has been able to claim Deity; nor to have the knowledge about God as only God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit can give and have.

Indeed, I would concur with Noe, that “a correct view” of when and where this reality of the physical resurrection of our bodies takes place “truly does matter.” But in contradistinction to him, I would have to say that, in using his own words, “the consequences of misunderstanding or saying that this resurrection” is already past are what is “devastating” to a proper biblical theology concerning Christ’s, as well as our own, bodily resurrection. Of course, Noe states that it is “devastating” to say that the resurrection is still future! I’ll let you be the judge as to who’s view is the “correct view” and more “devastating” to one’s understanding of what Christ’s bodily resurrection means to us. Paul concurred with the assessment that it really does matter whether one believes in their own bodily resurrection, as opposed to there not being one. Paul had said above that if Christ was not physically raised from the dead, then neither would we be, and that “He did not raise Him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.” Could Paul be anymore clearer than this? Christ’s bodily resurrection presupposes and promises our own bodily resurrection; Christ the firstfruits, and then they afterwards at His physical Second Coming and descent to the earth, which is no less, and in juxtaposition to, His physical ascent into the clouds in Acts 1:11. As He was physically seen ascending into heaven, the disciples were told by the angel that He will likewise descend back to the earth. And then comes the end!

And while we are on this subject of “comings,” consider the fact that in 1Cor. 11:26 that Paul says, “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.” Are we to suppose that the saints then living no longer needed to eat the bread or drink the cup once Christ came in power in His destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD? Some full-preterists actually believe this. Because that is what this verse is no less inferring: that we are to partake of this communion right up “until He comes.” And the full-preterists believe that this was the Second Coming of Christ. When viewed from the future physical Second Coming of Christ for His Church at the end of this age, then this makes all the more sense why we still need to do this. But according to full-preterists: Why is there any need to partake of a token symbolism, if Christ's physical presence has already come? When we are truly one with Christ in spirit, soul and body, which is what this “communion” is all about, then there will be no need for such a “remembrance.” The bread and the cup that we partake of now is a token participation in His body and in His blood that is to be fully consummated and realized at His future physical Second Coming. The bride of Christ is making herself ready for the marriage supper of the Lamb, and we are not talking about partaking of literal bread and wine here anymore. And so now, let me ask you this, “Would we interpret this verse to be understood that communion would still be observed if indeed Christ’s coming spoken of here in 70 AD was His physical Second Coming?” The answer quite obviously is, “Of course not!” But this is exactly what full-preterists believe! This alone should tell us that these false teachers are trying to press a meaning upon the text here that is forced and unwarranted, and only in order to establish a pretext for their own private interpretations.

Again, this is “the end” that is to come in 1Cor. 15:26, wherein the last enemy to be destroyed and cast into the lake of fire is Satan himself. Then there will be no more darkness, but complete and unadulterated Light. The very fact that Satan still goes about as a roaring lion attests to the fact that all prophecy isn’t completely “fulfilled” yet as full-preterists would have us believe. To be sure, all things are fulfilled in the person and work of Christ, but this isn’t to be understood that it all found its historical fulfillment in the past. Just look around you, things are still being “fulfilled” every day even as we speak, and even on into the future. Truly, brethren, this persuasion to believe otherwise does not come from above.

And while we are on this subject of “comings,” let me just address Heb. 10:37-38, which says, “For in just a very little while, He who is coming will come and will not delay. But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him.” This verse (except the first part, “in just a little while”), in its original context in the Septuagint translation of Habakkuk 2:3-4, refers to God “coming” in judgment upon Israel via the Babylonians armies (cf. 1:5-6); and that those who had “faith,” such as Habakkuk, would be rewarded for their faithfulness. And so Habakkuk’s attitude was adjusted to joyfully and unreservedly exclaim, “I will wait patiently for the day of calamity to come [eventually] on the nation invading us. Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are not sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will be joyful in God my Savior. The sovereign Lord is my strength…” (3:16-19). Yet the author of Hebrews takes this actual “fulfilled” statement in Habakkuk’s day and applies it freely to God coming in judgment at any time in our own lives to obtain an account of the things done in our body, and not just at Christ’s coming in judgment upon Jerusalem in 70 AD, as the full-preterists would have us all believe. It can indeed include such an idea as this, as it did for Jerusalem back in Habakkuk’s day, but it will always still be no less true throughout the course of church history.

This idea of God “coming” in judgment at any moment (His imminency) to receive an account of what is done in everyone’s life is seen repeatedly in the OT. So it should come as no surprise to see the Lord being described in the same manner in the NT. In Mat. 25, when Christ in His priestly ministry here on earth talked about coming to power in His kingly ministry when seated on His throne at His ascension—which Peter says occurred at his resurrection (Acts 2:31-36)—it was to be upon this inauguration that He says He would begin to separate His sheep from the goats during this present ongoing rule and reign of His in meting out judgments based upon what everyone has done in this life; and whether we were actually for Him or against Him. This rule and reign of Christ's is not future in some sweet bye and bye mythical fairy tail land, for Christ said His kingdom is “not of this world.” Because if it was, He said His servants would be physically fighting for Him tooth and nail. And if all of this were to be understood as occurring in some future day in the sweet bye and bye on some physical real-estate here upon the earth, then Christ would have to take back all that He said, and say that His kingdom is of this world and that His servants will indeed one day physically fight for Him, especially if we are to understand all of this as literally happening some day over in Palestine towards the end of a “physical,” and “earthly” millennial reign (cp. Rev. 20:7-9). I deal with this subject of Christ now sitting on His throne judging the nations and separating His sheep from the goats in greater detail in my article Lions, Tigers and Bears, Oh My! See also my article: The Coming of the Son of Man. Matthew Poole, John Gill, and Albert Barnes will also help somewhat with regards to these things. Additionally, in Isaiah 13:6, Isaiah talks about the fact that “the day of the Lord is near” with regards to God eventually coming to judge the Babylonians. In verse 9, he again says of this judgment upon Babylon, “the day of the Lord is coming.” And in verse 22, he repeats, “Her time is at hand.” In Isaiah 19:1, the prophet speaks of God coming in judgment back then upon Egypt, “the Lord rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt.” So Again, we see the Lord “coming” at various times and places to judge and to receive an “account” for the things people are doing now, and not just in the future at His Second Coming.

Now I do realize that some verses in the NT denote Christ coming in judgment upon Israel in 70 AD, but this doesn’t mean that every verse is to be understood in this manner. And it is just such exhortations as these, as noted above, that keep us all ready and on-our-toes, for we never know when the Lord might come in our lives to receive an “account” for what we have done here on earth. Anything less than an idea like this would only encourage loose living and a promiscuous lifestyle. But just the opposite is the case when we are all exhorted to be “watchful and ready, for you know not at what time your Lord does come.”

These same exhortations of being “ready” and the Lord “coming” at any moment in one’s life to receive an account of us, are seen in the words given to the seven churches in the book of Revelation: “I will come to you and remove your lampstand” (2:5); “Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth” (v. 16); “I have given her time to repent…but she is unwilling. So I will [come] and cast her on a bed of suffering…I will repay…Hold on to what you have until I come” (vv. 21-23, 25); “I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I come” (3:3); “I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown” (v. 11); “I am about to spit you out of My mouth…I stand at the door and knock” (vv. 16, 20). Wouldn’t this last statement by Jesus be the same as James saying, “the Judge is standing at the door” (Jam. 5:9), rather than as meaning the imminent return of the Lord to judge Israel in 70 AD? As one can very well see, these “comings” or “imminent” returns of the Lord have nothing to do whatsoever with Christ coming to Judge Israel in 70 AD.

We are now living in the days of Joel’s prophecy of the “valley of Jehoshaphat,” the “valley of decision,” where the Lord at His first coming has “split” (“rent” the veil so-to-speak) the Mount of Olives, rending and bringing low the nation of Israel in order to give what He had given to them unto another nation (us believing Jews and Gentiles) that brings forth the fruit thereof (Mat. 21:43). And this is all done in order to create what the Lord calls now His “mountain valley,” or “My mountain valley” (Zech. 14:5, NIV), wherein every high mountain in Israel is brought low and ever valley is raised (the proud abased, the humble raised); and wherein a “way” is prepared for all of God’s chosen people to flee for refuge (v. 5). And this is all in accordance with Isaiah’s and John’s words in Lke. 3:4-6. It is the place (here in the world, no less) where “decisions” are being made. “Today, is the day of salvation.” It is the place where decisions are made “for” or “against” the Lord. It is the Lord’s “valley of threshing” (Joel 3:14; KJV margin), where Christ threshes for His “wheat,” leaving the “chaff” of the ungodly to blow away with the wind and settle back to ground from where they came. As Stephen Charnock notes in his Existence and Attributes of God,

When Christ came, He proposed this great motive of repentance from the “kingdom of heaven being at hand;“ the kingdom of His grace, whereby to invite men; the kingdom of His justice in the punishment of the neglectors of it, whereby to terrify men. Punishments as well as rewards belong to royalty; it issued accordingly; those that believed and repented came under His gracious sceptre, those that neglected and rejected it fell under His iron rod; Jerusalem was destroyed, the temple demolished, the inhabitants lost their lives by the edge of the sword, or lingered them out in the chains of a miserable captivity. This term of “Judge,” which signifies a sovereign right to govern and punish delinquents, Abraham gives Him, when He came to root out the people of Sodom, and make them examples of His vengeance” (vol. 2, p 393).

This is all in fulfillment of Mat. 16:24-28 and Mat. 25:31ff. This is God’s (Christ’s) world, no less, wherein He now sits as Judge in the heavens and rules, not only over the heavens, but also over the earth; even until the final day and separation of His wheat from what Jesus now refers to as “tares.” As one can very well see, we are all still residing together. No “separation,” as such, has occurred yet other than for the fact of God having now set His “mark” upon those who are His “wheat” (His firstfruits and sheep) to distinguish them from the “chaff” (or the goats), setting them on His right and on His left. The Lord has set His seal (His mark) upon us whereby, “the Lord knows those who are His” (2Tim. 2:19). He has "set His seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come” (2Cor. 1:22).

As the angels of God are “ascending” and “descending,” so too is the Lord “coming” and “going” all over the face of the earth. Wherever the four living creatures go, the wheels full of eyes go; wherever they move, the wheels move; wherever they stand still, the wheels too stand still; whenever they arise from the earth, the wheels also arise; and wherever the Spirit goes, they also go (cf. Ezk. 1:15-21). As Jamieson, Fausset and Brown were noted earlier as saying with regards to Jesus being both being up and down at the same time in John 3:13, they said: “He who is at once both up and down.”

As one can very well see, these “comings” or “imminent” returns of the Lord throughout the prophets in the OT, and even in many places in the NT, have nothing to do whatsoever with Christ coming to judge Israel just in 70 AD (some are, some are not). Such “comings” as these are the same “comings” at any moment that Christ exhorted His disciples, and all of us, to be “ready” for at a moments notice. And so these exhortations to the seven churches are just as much true for all of the church throughout her history, right up until the last and final day at the resurrection of the just and the unjust, when we are all to give a final and absolute reckoning of the things done in our bodies. Jesus’ words, “Watch and pray…for you know not what hour your Lord does come,” applies to every saint in history (in the OT and the NT), and not just to His disciples in 70 AD. But if we too begin to say, “My master delays His coming” and “all things continue as before unto this day;” and then we “begin to eat and drink with the drunkards,” then “the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of” and “he will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites…” (Mat. 24:48-51). As the Psalmist declares: “God is a righteous Judge, a God who expresses His wrath everyday” (Psm. 7:11). Selah!

Now before I move on to address some further statements in Noe’s book, let me just first of all go over the historical realities as found in the Scriptures concerning Enoch and Elijah. Remarkably, we have those among us (the full-preterists such as Noe) who refuse to believe that Elijah went on into heaven, similar to those who refused to believe it even in Elisha’s day. The similarities of disbelief, both then and now, are striking and remarkable indeed. Truly, this saying could not be more true than it is now: “History just keeps on repeating itself.”

Now it is quoted by full-preterists, that according to Heb. 11:13, all those mentioned in the list previous to this verse had “all died in faith.” The text reads,

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth (AKJV).

The phrase “these all” who “died in faith, not having received the promises,” are Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Jacob for whom the immediate context in the previous verses say had not received what was initially “promised” to Abraham. They are the one’s who also admitted that they were “strangers and pilgrims” mentioned in the latter portion of verse 13c (see also Gen. 23:4 and 47:9). This idea of all the saints since the time of Abraham not receiving what was promised to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, is again reiterated in verse 39.

But on the contrary, Noah did receive what was promised to him, so verses 13 and 39 cannot be talking about him. And they cannot be talking about Enoch either. Because as far as Enoch is concerned in verse 5, the Greek interlinear notes of, “un ideiv thavatov,” pronounced oon eedane thanatone, that he did “not to see death.” Thus, the KJV and so many other reliable translations follow suit in translating it no other way. There is no ambiguity here. There is just no way of getting around the fact that this verse clearly and unambiguously says Enoch did “not see death.” He didn’t die! So those mentioned in Hebrews that died in faith could not (and did not) include Enoch either! I have even heard some say that “at that moment he didn’t die, but later he did!” Or as John Bray states it, “God laid him down in rest in such a way that Enoch never saw death. It was not that Enoch did not die, but, rather, he never saw death. How God did this we do not know. Perhaps Enoch died peacefully in sleep or in some way in which he never ‘saw’ death.”[18] Such statements as these are absolutely incredulous! Enoch’s very own body was physically translated into heaven to “not see death,” like all of the rest mentioned in that chapter who in fact are said to have "died." Nothing could be more clearer than this! Isn’t this just another example of someone taking the plain meaning of “words” and making them mean what they don’t mean? And if such an ambiguous text taken from the OT Hebrew Scriptures was ascertained by the author of the book of Hebrews in the NT to mean that Enoch “didn’t see death,” by just the fact that God “took him,” how much more so of what is said about Elijah’s translation of which we have even more testimony about him than we do concerning Enoch?

When one reads the chapter on Elijah’s translation into heaven in 2Kings 2, there is more indicated of his experience in this chapter than what is said of Enoch’s, in that the Scriptures just state that Enoch “was not, for God took him” (Gen. 5:24). Right out of the gate the chapter in 2Kings 2 begins with, “When the Lord was about to take Elijah up to heaven…”[19] And a couple of verses later it is well understood by a company of some fifty prophets that “the Lord is going to take your master [Elijah] from you [Elisha] today” (v. 3, 5). Elisha acknowledges this fact by saying, “Yes, I know, but don’t tell anyone of it” (vv. 3, 5). And when Elijah was finally taken up by the Lord, the company of prophets from Jericho said to Elisha, “Look…we your servants have fifty able men. Let them go and look for your master. Perhaps the Spirit of the LORD has picked him up and set him down on some mountain or in some valley.” What is Elisha’s reply? “No,…do not send them” (vv. 15-16). Are we listening to Elisha here? Because they sure didn’t! Elisha said, “No!” He said the Lord had not picked him up and set him down on some mountain or in some valley. But they persisted in their unbelief anyway and set out to find him for three days somewhere on the earth, but to no avail. Similar to Enoch, “who was not, for God took him,” Elijah was translated in a whirlwind “up to heaven,” no more to be seen of men. Nothing could be more clearer here than all of this brethren.

If Enoch and Elijah have gone into heaven (which they did) it overthrows everything these full-preterists have written and are teaching. And as a result they would have to go back to the drawing board and “recant” and rewrite everything they have said about there being no physical, bodily ascension and translation of our own mortal bodies into heaven. These two glaring and “contradictory examples” (as Noe put it) of Enoch and Elijah prove beyond all doubt that the righteous do indeed enter into heaven someday with their own physical bodies, not just to leave them behind in their shallowly graves; and with all of those who have been raised from the dead in both the Old and New Testaments as attestations to this fact. It is the “attestation” that some day our bodies will also physically arise from their dead state and condition. It is just one of the guarantees of the purchased possession of Christ’s body.

Now all this brings me to conclude with one more idea with regards to all those who believe Elijah must have been relocated somewhere on earth by God after he had ascended into heaven, in order to only come back again and eventually die. The final passage under consideration with regards to all of this is found in 2Chr. 21:12, which says,

Jehoram received a letter from Elijah the prophet, which said: “This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: ‘You have not walked in the ways of your father Jehoshaphat or of Asa king of Judah.’

This verse has also been used by the full-preterists, no less, in an attempt to prove that Elijah came back to earth in the days of king Jehoram of Judah, and then most likely died some time thereafter. But the German Hebrew commentators, Keil and Delitzsch note:

The year of the event [of Elijah’s translation into heaven] is nowhere stated in Scripture….Elijah may therefore have still been alive under Joram [or, Jehoram] of Judah….we have no certain proof that Elijah was no longer alive, but had been already received into heaven. The time of his translation cannot be exactly fixed.” [20]

I will have to concur with Keil and Delitzsch that anything else to the contrary stated by others is nothing more than complete conjecture. If the Scriptures say that a letter from Elijah was presented to Joram (or Jehoram) of Judah, then we must let the testimony of Scripture stand and not try to ascertain something any different contrived up by our own reasoning and thinking with regards to all of this, especially with regards to establishing some private doctrinal teaching or precedent that no one has ever physically ascended into heaven in their own bodies, and therefore Elijah must have come back down to earth and eventually died after delivering the letter.

Now the approximate time period for the catching up of Elijah into heaven is recorded for us in 1Kings 22:41-53 through 2Kings 3, and possibly 2Chronicles 20-21. The names Jehoram/Joram, like Rob and Robert are used interchangeably, and are given to the king of Israel and the king of Judah during this time period of Elijah’s existence. So, for clarification purposes, in this article I use “Joram” for the king of Israel, and “Jehoram” for the king of Judah. Many translations do not differentiate between the two like this, using often the name “Jehoram” for both kings. And this can often lead to confusion, as we will soon just see.

Ahaziah, king of Israel, whose death Elijah foretold while Elijah was still living (2Ki. 1), succeeded his father king Ahab of Israel after he died from a stray arrow (1Ki. 22:34) by the word of the Lord from the prophet Micaiah (1Ki. 22:19) in the 17th year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah (1Ki. 22:51; also make a mental note here that Jehoshaphat reigned 25 years, 1Ki. 22:42). Ahaziah reigned only 2 years (1Ki. 22:51), which, as said, ended by the word of the Lord from Elijah (2Ki. 1). So, Jehoshaphat had now reigned for 19 years (17 + 2). Or, if Ahaziah had died before his entire two year reign was up, he could have died in Jehoshaphat’s 18th year as we will see below.

Now because Ahaziah had no son, Joram of Israel (Ahab’s other son, 2Ki. 3:1, and Ahaziah’s brother) succeeded him at the time of Ahaziah’s death (2Ki. 1:17b). Remember now, Elijah is still living at Ahaziah’s death who is now succeeded at this time by king Joram of Israel. And look at what verse 17b also says: it says that king Joram of Israel succeeded him in the 2nd year of Jehoram of Judah who had already evidently been coregent with his father Jehoshaphat at this time (for his father hadn’t died yet until his 25th year, some 7-8 years later). So Jehoram of Judah was “already” vice-regent with his father Jehoshaphat two years prior to Elijah prophesying Ahaziah’s death. Any competent chart of Israel’s kings should reveal this co-regency.

Now in 2Ki. 3:1, it says Joram son of Ahab king of Israel became king in Jehoshaphat’s 18th year, or thereabouts. I say “thereabouts” because in 1Ki. 22:51 Ahaziah his brother was said to have become king of Israel in Jehoshaphat’s “17th year,” and reigned “two years,” succeeded immediately by his brother Joram (2Ki. 1:17b). So, wouldn’t this be in Jehoshaphat’s 19th year that he began to reign, rather than the 18th year? Not if Ahaziah only reigned about a year and a half from the 17th year of Jehoshaphat’s reign on into his 18th year, and thus counted as two years by inclusive reckoning. For further discussion on this seeming discrepancy, I would suggest reading the notes by Keil and Delitzsch below in the footnote. [21]

Now according to 2Ki. 1:17b, Joram of Israel and Jehoram of Judah (who as we noted above was coregent with his father Jehoshaphat) are both now evidently ruling and reigning while Elijah is still yet alive. Now in 2Chr. 21:1, it says Jehoshaphat died, ending his reign 7-8 years since the time his son had become co-regent with him; and of which said son’s co-regency began two years prior to Joram of Israel ascending to the throne (2Kin. 1:17b); and at around the same time of Ahaziah’s ascension to his throne in Jehoshaphat’s 17th year (1Kin. 22:51). But in 2Kin. 8:16 it says Jehoram of Judah became king in the fifth year of Joram of Israel. So what gives? In 1Kin. 17b we had seen that Joram of Israel was king in the second year of Jehoram of Judah. And it was already determined that this was the time Jehoram became co-regent with his father Jehoshaphat. So what we have here in 2Kin. 8:16 is Jehoram evidently becoming officially the sovereign king over Judah in Joram of Israel’s fifth year due to his father Jehoshaphat most likely abdicating his throne to his son two years before he died. At this point and time in Jehoram’s life he was now 32 years old, and reigned from that moment on six more years (8 yrs. from the time his sole reign began, v. 5). And it was sometime during this sole reign of his that it is said he received a prophetic letter of reprimand from Elijah. This is not a copyist’s error, for all manuscripts known of today have “Elijah,” not “Elisha,” as the one from whom the letter came.

Anyway, from the time of Jehoram’s co-reign with his father Jehoshaphat when Elijah was around at that time, to his sole reign two years before his father’s death, 2Ki. 2:1 just says, “When the Lord was about to take Elijah up to heaven.” And the fact that this chapter remains ambiguous as to the time when Elijah was taken up serves us notice that we should not jump to conclusions too soon that Elijah was not around when the letter was given to Jehoram; and at least not the idea that he must have been translated and then returned to earth in order to give his prophetic letter to him. This much is certain: Elijah was definitely around during Jehoram’s co-regency with his father and there is nothing stated that should make us believe that he wasn’t still around when he became sole-ruler 5 years later (2 years before his father Jehoshaphat died), unless we understand from 2Kin. 3:11 that he might have been taken up before Jehoshaphat inquired of Elisha, whom this verse says, “used to pour water on the hands of Elijah.” Again, Keil and Del. note,

Lightfoot indeed (Opp. i. p. 85), Ramb., and Dereser have concluded from 2Ki. 3:11 that Elijah was taken away from the earth in the reign of Jehoshaphat, because according to that passage, in the campaign against the Moabites, undertaken in company with Joram of Israel, Jehoshaphat inquired for a prophet, and received the answer that Elisha was there, who had poured water upon the hands of Elijah. But the only conclusion to be drawn from that is, that in the camp, or near it, was Elisha, Elijah's servant, not that Elijah was no longer upon earth. The perfect יָצַק אֲשֶׁר seems indeed to imply this; but it is questionable if we may so press the perfect, i.e., whether the speaker made use of it, or whether it was employed only by the later historian. The words are merely a periphrasis to express the relationship of master and servant in which Elijah stood to Elisha, and tell us only that the latter was Elijah's attendant. But Elisha had entered upon this relationship to Elijah long before Elijah’s departure from the earth (1Ki. 19:19.). Elijah may therefore have still been alive under Joram of Judah. (Notes under 2Chr. 21:12).

These are some remarkable comments by Keil and Delitzsch. In a commentary written in 1873 by Bishops and Other Clergy on 2Kings through Esther, edited by Frederick Charles Cook, they write concerning this above phrase “which poured water” in 2Kin. 3:11 (KJV), “Or, ‘which poureth water.’ The praeterite in Hebrew often implies the habit or repetition of an action which is still continuing” (p. 11). And notice also this admission by them concerning 2Kings chapter two regarding the time of Elijah’s translation into heaven: “There are reasons for believing that the events of this chapter are related out of their chronological order. Elijah’s translation did not take place till after the accession of Jehoram in Judah (2 Chr. xxi. 12), which was not till the fifth year of Jehoram of Israel (2 K. viii. 16).” Similarly, the late Rev. J. Rawson Lumby, D.D and professor of divinity out of Cambridge University England in 1891 writes, “The insertion of the history here would appear, from 2 Chron. xxi. 12-15, to be a departure from the strict order of events….It seems much more likely that the compiler of Kings decided to make his history of Elijah complete before he went on to other matters, and has by so doing put the final scene of the prophet’s earthly life a little earlier than its proper place in history” (The Second Book of Kings). The Comprehensive Comm. on the Holy Bible likewise notes, “it is certain the history is put out of its proper place, for we read of Jehoshaphat’s death, and Jehoram coming to the crown, before we read of Elijah’s translation, 1 K. 22:50” (vol. 2, p. 471). These admissions by these commentators are not out of the ordinary. Many commentators who have made a noble attempt to study these accounts in 2Kings often speak of statements that are out of their proper chronological order. We see this with regards to the book of Daniel, the book of Revelation, and even with regards to some of the gospel narratives. Even Warren Wiersbe writes in his commentary on 2Kings, “We have noted before that the writer of 2 Kings didn’t follow a strict chronology” (p. 537).

So if all these above statements are true, then the narrative of Elijah’s translation could quite possibly be an interlude, and Elijah didn’t really go to heaven until sometime after writing his letter to Jehoram of Judah. In fact, the account of the rebellion of Edom in 2Chr. 21:8-10 is again stated in 2Kin. 8:20-22, which seems to maybe be (though not dogmatically) during the time when Jehoram of Judah became sole-ruler in the 5th year of Joram of Israel, which would make this to be Jehoshaphat’s 23rd year, and two years before his death ending a 25 year reign.

As I began to ponder these revolts of Moab and Edom, I began to wonder if maybe there wasn’t a clue for us in the narratives as to the time when each revolt may have actually occurred. There is possibly just such a tell-tale “clue” in one of the narratives. With regards to the campaign against Moab, 2Kin. 3:9 states how king Joram of Israel, Jehoshaphat, and the king of Edom join in an allegiance to fight against the Moabites. Notice that it says “the king of Edom” went with them. In 1Kin. 22:47 it says there was “no king in Edom; a deputy ruled.” Some think this is most likely a deputy set up by the Israelites after having brought them under subjugation in prior years, and I have no doubt to believe otherwise. Edom was subdued by David (2Sam. 8:14), and, probably with the exception of a temporary revolt under Solomon (1Kin. 11:14 ff), it had remained subject to the united kingdom or to Judah until the revolt under Jehoram. But notice what it says in 2Kin. 8:20 and 2Chr. 21:8, “in the time of Jehoram, Edom rebelled against Judah and set up its own king.” They were without a king of their own while still under the subjugation of Judah, they effectively set up their own king under their rebellion against Judah, and now 2Kin. 3:9 says that they have a king. So rather than try and make this “king” someone such as the “deputy” in 1Kin. 22:47 whom Judah set up over the Edomites, as some attempt to finagle, why not just let the cards fall where they may and see the rebellion of the Edomites to establish their own king as what has indeed already occurred prior to the Moabite rebellion? This is just another thing to ponder in consideration of all of this.

The question that comes to our minds in all of this is, “Is such a thing as this that has just been described above even possible between Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom after the failed attempt of his son to quash the revolt of the Edomites?" Look what the United States did with Saddam Hussein after ousting him from his attempted assault and overthrow of Kuwait; instead of killing him for such an atrocity we let him return to his own land and began to continue to work with him through diplomatic means.

Could Jehoshaphat and Joram of Israel have been showing diplomacy with the Edomites after Jehoshapat’s son’s failed attempt to overthrow the Edomites? These kind of things go on all the time throughout history. And in addition to all of this, it is interesting to note how in 2Kin. 3:9 it says that they circumvented the land of Edom in order to reach the Moabites when the quickest route would have been to go right through the land of the Edomites: “So the king of Israel, the king of Judah, and the king of Edom took an indirect route [to Moab]. After seven days they ran out of water for the army and the animals” (GWT). Joram and Jehoshaphat had wanted to go through Edom (v. 8), but they didn’t. As Keil & Del. note,

Why should they go so far round, with the way through Edom open to them? [They went the way] which divided the territories of Edom and Moab, it was in the greatest danger of perishing from want of water for men and cattle, as the river which flows through this valley, and in which they probably hoped to find a sufficient supply of water, since according to Robinson (Pal. ii. pp. 476 and 488) it is a stream which never fails, was at that time perfectly dry.

In my own lifetime I have seen this with the U.S. and other countries, especially when the U.S. wanted to invade Iraq through Turkey. Turkey did not want them to do that, but instead gave them an airfield on the outskirts of the country to work from. In similar fashion, many countries have given the U.S. only so much access to what they wanted to do, and no more. Could this possibly be what had occurred here with the Edomites?

Now there is no doubt that 2Kin. 3:1 actually continues from where chapter one leaves off in verse 18. So it is not hard to see how chapter two could be an interlude with no time statements to tell one way or the other when in fact Elijah was translated into heaven. Whereas now in 2Kin. 3:1 it also says Joram of Israel reigned 12 years and that it was sometime during this 12 year reign of his that the Moabites rebelled (v. 4 ff). So since things are maybe not always necessarily in chronological order, could it be that Edom rebelled in Joram of Israel’s 5th year and that the rebellion of Moab occurred sometime later in his 12 year reign? If this is true, then it would place Elijah’s letter to Jehoram of Judah sometime just after this rebellion of Edom (cf. 2Chr. 21:12-15) that could possibly be prior to the rebellion of the Moabites in 2Kin. 3:4-27 when Elisha was eventually called upon (v. 11). 2Kings 2 through 8:15 which records the translation of Elijah, the Moabite rebellion, and the episodes of Elisha could be speaking of events that occurred after the fifth year of Joram of Israel in 2Kin. 8:16, which was the ascension of Joram of Judah as sole-ruler to the throne, the slaying of his brothers, and the rebellion of the Edomites. And in both 2Kings 8:25 and 2Chronicles 22:1 they record how Ahaziah, son of Jehoram of Judah became king in Joram of Israel’s 12th year. So, again, all these events described above happened in Joram of Israel’s 12 year reign. When all these events chronologically transpired is open for speculation. So to say that Elijah could have been still around when he gave his letter to Jehoram of Judah is not without biblical support and precedent. It just takes more twists and turns in the plot to get there. But they are twists and turns that are not highly unlikely given the fact that nothing is solidly stated to denote what time certain events began to transpire in these chronologies of these kings, especially with regards to times of the rebellions of Moab and Edom. But, according to 2Kin. 8:20-22, Edom’s rebellion seems to have most likely occurred in Joram of Israel’s fifth year, the year Jehoram of Judah became sole ruler, 7 years before his son Ahaziah succeeded him to the throne in Joram of Israel’s 12th year (or in his 11th year according to 2Kin. 9:29).

But all this still brings up the question, did Jehoshaphat die according to 2Chr. 21:1 prior to the rebellion of Edom and the slaying of his sons? Or, is this record of his death also not necessarily to be understood in chronological order, but just understood as a parenthesis in the narrative? And what about Jehoram killing his brothers? Was that done while his father was still living? Such antics between families and relatives, and between kings and their sons succeeding them are not all that unusual while all parties are still living. But if Edom’s rebellion did occur in the fifth year of Joram of Israel when Jehoram of Judah became sole-king, then all would have to admit that Jehoshaphat was still living at this time with only two years to go before he died. Now there’s a plateful of some food for thought.

But even after all of this, I for one at the current moment have come to believe that Elijah was most likely taken up by the Lord either just prior to Joram of Israel ascending to the throne, or sometime shortly thereafter. And to believe as such, one could only conclude then that the letter given to Jehoram of Judah could not have occurred until after his father had died and he began to slay all of his brothers and some of the princes of Israel (2Chr. 21:4). It is hard to imagine him doing this while his father was still living, but as said before, this isn’t entirely out of form for this to have happened.

Once again, Keil and Del. note here,

Elijah may have lived to see the perpetration of this crime [of Jehoram of Judah], and may consequently also have sent the threatening prophecy which is under discussion to Jehoram….But even if we suppose that Elijah had been taken away from the earth before Jehoshaphat’s death, we may, with Buddaeus, Ramb., and other commentators, accept this explanation: that the Lord had revealed to him Joram’s wickedness before his translation, and had commissioned him to announce to Joram in writing the divine punishment which would follow, and to send this writing to him at the proper time. This would entirely harmonize with the mode of action of this great man of God. To him God had revealed the elevation of Jehu to the throne of Israel, and the extirpation of the house of Ahab by him, together with the accession of Hazael, and the great oppressions which he would inflict upon Israel,—all events which took place only after the death of Joram of Judah. Him, too, God had commissioned even under Ahab to anoint Jehu to be king over Israel (1Ki. 19:16), which Elisha caused to be accomplished by a prophetic scholar fourteen years later (2Ki. 9:1.); and to him the Lord may also have revealed the iniquity of Joram, Jehoshaphat's successor, even as early as the second year of Ahaziah of Israel, when he announced to this king his death seven years before Jehoshaphat's death, and may have then commissioned him to announce the divine punishment of his sin. But if Elijah committed the anointing of both Hazael and Jehu to his servant Elisha, why may he not also have committed to him the delivery of this threatening prophecy which he had drawn up in writing? (Notes under 2Chr. 21:12).

So, really, what all this reveals to us is that one cannot be very dogmatic either way in determining if Elijah was either around during the time of this letter given to Jehoram, or not.

All commentators seem to attest to the fact that we really do not know when Elijah was actually caught up to heaven in a whirlwind, but what we do know is that he was definitely alive for a couple of years during the time of Jehoram’s co-regency with his father Jehoshaphat. But as stated before, this doesn’t seem to be the time maybe when he killed off all of his brothers. This most likely occurred either during his sole-rule and possibly after his father’s death. And it most certainly does not prove in favor of the fallacious statements by some that Elijah must have returned to the earth in order to be able to give king Jehoram of Judah a prophetic letter of reprimand in an attempt to overturn the testimony of Scripture with regards to Elijah’s bodily translation and falsely accuse Elijah of not being translated by God up to heaven; and all this in an attempt no less to disprove that our own physical bodies will one day also be transformed and translated up into heaven as Elijah’s—and even as Enoch’s.

“Look,” said the company of 50 prophets to Elisha, “We your servants have fifty able men. Let them go and look for your master. Perhaps the Spirit of the Lord has picked him up and set him down on some mountain or in some valley.” “No,” Elisha replied, “do not send them.” But they persisted until he was too ashamed to refuse. So Elisha said, “send them.” They searched for three days, but unlike Philip in Acts 8:40 whom the Lord caught away only to be “found” at another location, they could nowhere find Elijah. When they returned unto Elisha, he said, “Didn’t I tell you not to go.” Hadn’t Elisha told them, “No!” With all the evidence now laid out before you, what do you say? (click here for part two).



Footnotes:

[1] Biblical Perspectives, p. 2.

[2] as quoted by him in a footnote from The World Book Dictionary on p. 6 at the end of his Introduction.

[3] Shattering the Left Behind Delusion. Bradford, PA: International Preterist Assoc., © 2000, p. 142.

[4] Ibid, p. 95.

[5] Ibid, p. 124.

[6] Behind the Veil of Moses, p. 368.

[7] Shattering the Left Behind Delusion, p. 114.

[8] Ibid, footnote #1, p. 57; bold and italics for emphasis mine.

[9] Ibid, footnote #1, p. 57.

[10] The Gospel According to John, pp. 200-201; bracketed words and parenthesis his.

[11] Exposition of the Gospel of John, p. 127-128.

[12] The Gospel According to John, p. 203.

[13] anabebēken eis ton ouranon in Jhn. 3:13, which is saying the same thing.

[14] Commentary of Isaiah, vol. 1, p. 296.

[15] The Book of Isaiah, vol. 1, p. 441.

[16] The Gospel According to St. John, vol. 1, p. 381, 393.

[17] New Testament Commentary, John, p. 137.

[18] Biblical Perspectives, Oct. 14, 2005, p. 3.

[19] The NAS, ESV, NIV and other translations have here, “When the Lord was about to take…,” but the translation in the KJV, “when the LORD would take up Elijah into heaven” (cp. also ERV, ASV, DRB, WBS, WEB and YLT), is probably more preferable. The Hebrew for “would take up” is aba ala, which literally reads: “willing to take up.” As the Theological Wordbook of the OT notes on "aba," it is “the willingness to do something” (p. 3). In this case it is God who is “willing” or desiring to take up Elijah into heaven. The words “about to” aren’t even in the picture here at all. All the word “aba” denotes is a “willingness” on God’s part to do something for Elijah. And there is definitely nothing “about to” happen with Elijah in the sense that he was about to be taken up immediately prior to what is recorded for us in 2Kings 3:1, as some have mistakenly read into these words “about to.” Maybe this is why some translations have translated this phrase “aba ala” in this manner. One can only speculate. And even if we are to understand that the Lord was “about to” translate Elijah on into heaven, this chapter isn’t definitive for us in nailing down the actual time period or year when his translation occurred.

This is also no less true with regards to the Greek word “mello” (or “about to”) used roughly 109 times in the NT, and which is also often mistakenly thought of as referring to something that is always near or imminent, but this is just not always the case. As Mounce notes, “It is important to note, however, that for the most part, mello speaks of events that are inevitable,”[a] and nothing more. “Whenever the term is used, there is a notion of certainty accompanying it” (Ibid). W. E. Vine agrees with Mounce’s assessment for the main reason why “mello” is used, and that it is to denote the “certainty” of an event, not the imminency of an event. Only the context and one’s own theology about what certain things mean or are referring to determines how the word is to be understood or used. For instance, in Acts 24:15, when Paul says, “there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous” (YLT), what can only be ascertained from his words here is the “certainty” of this event, not the imminency of it. Yet if one’s own theology such as that of the full-preterist’s believes that this resurrection occurred in 70 AD, then of course there is going to be a difference of opinion as to the “certainty” of when this event was to occur. But the full-preterist cannot, I repeat, “cannot” determine by the definition of this word alone that this resurrection was to occur in the near future in 70 AD. That is a “private interpretation” of unfounded truth based upon not only a misinterpretation of what “about to” means, but also their misinformation on what the “present tense” of a Greek verb signifies, as we will soon just see.

For instance, “mello” is used in Mat. 3:7 and Lke. 3:7 of John the Baptist saying to the Pharisees and Sadducees, “Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come” (or “about to come;” Gk. mello, present active participle), a wrath that he was most likely referring to that was to be poured out upon them and upon Jerusalem in 70 AD, some 43 years later.[b] But in Acts 3:3, this same Greek word “mello” is used when Luke says of Peter and John going up to the temple, “When he [the cripple] saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for money.” Here again it is the present active participle, but unlike John the Baptist’s usage of this verb, it is now used here of Peter and John immediately starting to enter the temple when the cripple man interrupted them asking for money. Here we see the words “about to” referring to what immediately occurred, and in the former example of what was “about to” happen maybe some 43 years later.

And consider a couple of more examples for one moment: In Col. 2:17 and Heb. 10:1 they respectively talk about “a shadow of the coming things” (YLT), and “the law is only a shadow of good things that are coming” (NIV). In each of these instances the Greek word is again “mello” (present active participle). And in each instance what was “about to” come didn’t come until some 1,500 years later. This verse has nothing to do with what was about to come in 70 AD, as full-preterists would have us believe. The “things” that came in fulfillment of all of these “shadows” were all the things that came in the person and work of Christ on the cross when He abolished all those “shadows,” and not sometime later after this epistle to the Hebrews was written. Such thinking is utter nonsense. And I do not say this without support, as we will next just see.

Dana and Mantey, in their Manual Grammar of the Greek NT write with regards to the tense of these participles, “the tense of the participle never conveys an independent expression of time…its relation to its context usually involves a temporal significance. That is, the time relations of the participle do not belong to its tense, but to the sense of the context. Time with the participle is purely relative” (pp. 229-230). As A. T. Robertson notes, “the present participle is timeless and durative….The real timelessness of this participle is shown in the fact that it is used indiscriminately with past, present, or future tenses of the indicative….in general, the present participle gives linear action,” in other words, with no sense of time.[c] In his Short Grammar of the Gk. NT Robertson similarly concurs, “The present participle expresses linear action and can be used with a verb in the past, present, or future” (p. 380). So, when such passages as Col. 2:17, refers to the festivals, new moons and the Sabbath day in verse 16 as being “a shadow of the coming things” (or things “about to” come), the timeframe of this participle “about to” does not convey “an independent expression of time,” as Expositor’s had noted, but the time is expressed according “to the sense of the context.” This is extremely important for us to understand! In fact, it is so imperative that we understand this, that William Mounce in his Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar writes,

Most grammars use the term “present” participle because this participle is built on the present tense stem of the verb. This nomenclature is helpful in learning the form of the participle. However, it tends to do a serious disservice because the student may infer that the present participle describes an action occurring in the present time, which it may not. It describes a continuous action. Because the participle is not in the indicative, there is no time significance to the participle. I suggest adopting the terminology “continuous participle” because it rightly emphasizes the true significance of the participle that is built on the present tense stem: its aspect [or, action which is just a “continuous” action and nothing more]” (p. 246).

Elsewhere, Mounce says, “The key to understanding the meaning of participles is to recognize their significance is primarily one of aspect, i.e., type of action. This is the genius, the essence, of participles. They do not necessarily indicate when an action occurs ( “time”: past, present)….The present tense participle describes [only] a continuous action” (Ibid, p. 240).

Once more he adds, “It is essential to learn the Greek participle if you are to translate the New Testament with any proficiency” (Ibid, p. 239). Greek lexicons (or dictionaries), such as Thayer’s, are good for defining words, but they are not meant to define for us what is correct grammatically. Only books on Greek grammar, such as Mounce’s, Robertson’s, and Danta and Mantey’s , etc., provide for us a more excellent way here. Greek dictionaries are what they are, dictionaries. They are not grammar tools. Those who insist on a “present” tense usage only of a present participle verb (or with any verb for that matter) are just displaying their absolute ignorance on such matters; wherein the truth is that these participle verbs do not denote just a present tense action at all, but only a “continual” action, as Mounce has so clearly explained to us. Greek dictionaries (lexicons) will tell us that “mello” means “about to” or “about to be,” but they do not define for us the durative time frame in which it is to apply. The present participle verb “about to” or “about to be” can have as its stating point either the past, the present, or the future; but never just always in the present, and never with a duration that is limited until expressed otherwise in a given context. In an example of the present tense usage of a participle verb having as its starting point at a place and time in the past, A. T. Robertson makes note of this with regards to Jhn. 9:25, stating that “by the use of arti the present participle is made to refer to past time” (Ibid, p. 380). We also see this usage with the present active participle, “mello,” in Rev. 12:4, concerning Christ’s past tense birth of “the woman who was about to give birth,” and possibly even in Lke. 24:21, where the two disciples on the road to Emmaus told Jesus that they had “hoped that He was the One who was going to [about to] redeem Israel.”

Its future usage is seen in Mat. 12:32, of not being forgiven “in this age, nor in that which is to [about to] come” (WEB); and in 1Tim. 6:19 where Paul talks about “laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to [about to] come, that they may lay hold on the life which is life indeed” (ASV); and once more, in Lke. 13:9, where Jesus says of the future fruit of a fig tree in the following year, “if it shall [about to] bear fruit, but if not, after that thou shalt cut it down” (DBT).

I have to admit with Kenneth Wuest that there is some truth to this statement by A. M. Fairbairn as quoted by A. T. Robertson, “He is no theologian who is not first a grammarian.” Wuest goes on to say, “All correct theology must pay careful attention to the grammar of the Greek text, for a person is correctly understood only when his hearer or reader applies the rules of grammar which the speaker or writer uses…It is for us to learn those rules and interpret the Greek text accordingly. Then an interpreter of Scripture is on perfectly solid ground. He is far less likely to make a mistake in interpretation when using the Greek than when using a translation” (Word Studies in the Gk. NT, Untranslatable Riches, vol. 3, pp. 89-90). Elsewhere he writes, “Solid ground for correct translation and interpretation is found in a careful application of the rules of Greek grammar” (Ibid, Treasures, p. 32).

If we do not watch what we are doing with these present tense participle verbs (or with any of the verb tenses[d] for that matter), we will come up with an interpretation of Col. 2:17, and other similar passages, that is entirely unwarranted and out of character with what such texts as these are truly saying. As Expositor’s Greek New Testament notes of the Greek ton mellownton here in Col. 2:17, it is “not…the still future Messianic kingdom, for, if so, the substance [Christ] would still lie in the future, and the shadow would not be out of date. It is future from the point of view of Judaism” (vol. 3, p. 531). So here we can see that this participle’s present tense has become “relative” to the context. It’s point of origin begins with the Judaic old testament sacrifices and rituals (the “shadows”) and continues on into the future until the stated fulfillment in the “substance” of Christ appeared on the scene. So we can very well see that a 70 AD fulfillment of this passage by full-preterists is just out of the question. Moule in his commentary on Colossians and Philemon agrees with Expositor’s, noting, “…things to come. From the point of view of the Old Dispensation….the Mosaic ordinances were adjusted with a Divine prescience, to the future of the Gospel; and that the fulfillment of their true import in Christ abrogates their observance” (p. 110).

A glaring example of all that has been said is found in Mat. 11:14, which reads, “if ye are willing to receive it, he [John the Baptist] is Elijah who was about to come” (YLT; Gk. mello, present active participle). The translation could just as easily read, “who is about to come” as most translations denote. Young chose to say, “was” about to come, because he clearly saw this as something that had as its starting point the prophecy of Malachi, and the translation of these present participle verbs has this flexibility according to context and usage. Clearly, John the Baptist wasn’t “about to” come sometime later in the future after Jesus had said this, but this prophecies’ starting point or origin was in the days of Malachi, some 400 years or so before the Spirit of Elijah in the person of John was “about to” come. Which takes us all back to Robertson’s earlier statement that the present participle is “timeless” and “durative.” No way is “about to come” to be understood in this verse as still being yet future after Jesus said these words. And there is clearly nothing “imminent” about this coming that was prophesied, even though it may have an “air” of imminency about it. One day is truly with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. And our life is like a vapor; here only for a moment, and gone the next. And when the Lord says He is “at hand” or “at the door,” He truly means it. What is past and future for us, is always present and “imminent” with Him. And we should always order our lives as if He were coming at any moment.

Consider also this next verse for one moment with regards to all of this. In Rom 5:14, it says of Adam in his fall that he was “a type of Him who is coming” (YLT; Gk. mello, present active participle). This “type,” or figure of Adam wasn’t a “type” that was developed until he fell into sin about 4,000 years before Christ came on the scene. It was at that moment in the past that he became a “type” of Christ who was “about to” come sometime in the future. But He didn’t “come” until 4,000 years later. And He wasn’t to come in 70 AD after Paul wrote this epistle either. This Second Adam came before Paul wrote his epistle and for which this “type” of Christ had already been fulfilled in the person and work of Christ on the cross. As you will notice, Young interprets this literally as the text reads, but most translations give us the sense that this “coming” was something that began upon Adam becoming the “type” and was fulfilled at Christ’s coming on the cross; and they are entirely correct in doing so. Adam cannot be a “type” of Christ who is still yet to come, for the antitype has already come and fulfilled the type. Through one man many were made sinners, through Christ many are made righteous from the point of the cross. Let there be no doubt about it, Christ fulfilled the type completely at the cross. And, once again, this verse has nothing to do with Christ “coming” to destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD.

And if all this is not enough, consider also Gal. 3:23, which says, “And before the coming of the faith, under law we were being kept, shut up to the faith about to be [Gk. mello, present active participle] revealed” (YLT). The Jews were “shut up” or bound to the old covenant laws until the faith mentioned in verse 22 was to be revealed some 1,500 years later. This “faith” in Jesus Christ was already “revealed” at the cross of Christ and before Paul wrote this epistle, so he cannot be referring to this faith being revealed some time after his epistle was written, and definitely not in 70 AD.

So when we now come to such verses as Acts 24:15, which says, “having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous” (YLT), what are we to determine of this? A future 70 AD fulfillment as the full-preterists contend? Not on your life! As we have seen from its usage, “mello” does not necessarily denote something as imminent as that. For as we have seen, it can denote something that may not have its fulfillment until many years on down the road. Because, as noted above, the present tense is “durative,” denoting a “continuance” of action that is indefinite on into the future. And since in this article we have clearly shown that the physical, bodily resurrection is something that is still to be believed in, and something that is still yet future, then what Paul was saying here in Acts is indeed what every saint has believed throughout church history: that there is still yet “about to come” the resurrection of the dead. It was not “past” as Hymenaeus and Pheletus had argued, and it is still not “past” as the full-preterists argue; basing part of their argument no less on the misinformation that the present tense verb denotes something only "present," or in the apostle's days. According to Greek 101, they are wrong! And all this serves to show us how a little bit of Greek in the one who is unskilled in the world of Greek grammar can quickly become a recipe for disaster.

So now we have a biblical and proper understanding of what this Greek verb “mello” is all about. Clearly, it can refer to something that is to imminently take place, but it can no less refer to something that is to occur five, ten, fifteen, forty, fifteen hundred, and even four thousand years later. And it can even have as its origin or starting point, the past, present, or sometime in the future. And as we have discovered, it is the faithful, tried and true hermeneutical rule of the contextual method of interpretation that determines its usage. Full-preterists attempt to pigeon-hole this verb to denote only something that is imminent or what they only want this word to mean, but even they have to concur that its usage can be understood within the context of at least a day, a year, five years, ten years; and even up until 70 AD—forty years later!

And so all that we can really ascertain from this verb’s usage in Scripture is that it has a particular starting point in time, and that whatever it is referring to, it sees its stated fulfillment as occurring sometime in the future, whether close at hand or many years away. None of the respected Greek translations of our Bible seem to have any difficulty with this usage as described above, so why should we? It is only those who are ignorant, unlearned and unskilled with the Greek grammar who are wrestling with all of this. Indeed, one full-preterist wrote, "When properly translated, mello changes the understanding and the sense of the timing of many passages."[e] Boy, he's got that right! They now just have to practice what they preach! It is their improper translation and lack of grammatical prowess that has gotten them into trouble here, changing the understanding and the sense of many passages to say what they do not say. In fact, this author just referred to "imminent" usages of "mello" to prove that this verb must always mean this everywhere else that it is found, which, as has been clearly demonstrated, does not.

What is most certain with regards to this verb is that we cannot always impose an “imminency” upon it, for the Scriptures just do not always support it. If we attempt to do so, then we will only find ourselves forcing upon texts a pretext of our own making, not of God’s. Even if of Elijah it could be said that he was “about to” be taken up into heaven, we know it didn’t occur immediately as in the case of Peter and John who were “about to” go up to the temple; for after the statement in 2Ki. 2:1, it says that he went from Gilgal, to Bethel, to Jericho and then to the Jordan River before being translated. But neither did it occur before 2Ki. 3:1, as has already been shown. Whatever time Elijah’s translation did occur, the Bible is silent with this regards. But Elijah was definitely around when Jehoshaphat’s son, Jehoram, was co-regent with his father. And there is nothing noted to disavow that Elijah was not around when Jehoram was made sole king two years before his father died; and in order to present a prophetic letter to him as the Scriptures affirm to us that he did. Let’s let the Scriptures be the final arbiter.

Now the following is an inexhaustive list of just a few more verses to look up and see how this Greek participle verb “mello” is used. Some are imminent, most are not. Context, context, context determines usage: Mat. 12:32; Lke. 3:7; 13:9; 22:23; 24:21; Acts 18:14; Rom. 8:18; 1Cor. 3:22; Eph. 1:21; 1Tim. 1:16; 4:8; 2Tim. 4:1; Heb. 2:5; 9:11; 10:27; 13:14; Jam. 2:12; 1Pet. 5:1; 2Pet. 2:6 (non-participle forms of the verb mello are in: Mat. 2:13 [PAI]; Mk. 13:4 [PAS]; Lke. 7:2 [IAI]; 19:4 [IAI]; Jhn. 4:47 [IAI]; Acts 17:31 [PAI]; Acts 23:3 [PAI]; 1Ths. 3:4 [PAI]; Rev. 3:16 [PAI]).

Now with what we know of the participle “mello’s” usage and how it isn’t to be pigeon-holed and restricted to a certain time frame, can we honestly say that “about to come” has to necessarily refer to 70 AD? As we have seen, it can refer to a time beyond that—years beyond! Acts 24:15; Rom. 8:18; Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1; 2Tim. 4:1; Heb. 13:14 and 1Pet. 5:1 are all just classic examples of such misuse and sleight-of-hand of such individuals who make these verses say what they just do not mean (and more particularly, with regards to 70 AD). Now that we have been educated, one should never look at these participles the same ever again.


Additional footnotes to footnotes above:

[a] Mounces’ Complete Expository Dict. of Old and New Testament Words, p. 3.

[b] without Christ we are all “children of wrath” and the Scriptures tell us that He “expresses His wrath everyday” (Psm. 7:11), so we can’t even pigeon-hole these words of John the Baptist as referring to the coming wrath just in 70 AD. Some of these Jews most likely experienced God’s wrath in some form or another before 70 AD even came about. And it was only God’s mercy that kept a lot of them alive even up until 70 AD, giving them more time to repent.

[c] A Grammar of the Greek NT in Light of Historical Research, p. 1115.

[d] Except for the bracketed notations, everything in the following is taken from: http://www.mythfolklore.net/bibgreek/morphology/verb_system.htm,

Whenever you learn a verb in Greek, you must make absolutely sure that you learn both the present stem of that verb and also the aorist stem of that verb. The perfect system is much less important in Biblical Greek, so you should definitely concentrate your attention on the present system and on the aorist system. Learning the perfect stem is less important, since in general perfect stems can be easily recognized (unlike the present and aorist stems, which generally must be memorized).

The present system, aorist system and perfect system are based on differences in the aspect [as noted by Mounce above] of the Greek verbs. “Aspect” is the quality of the action, not its sequence in time. So always remember: aspect and tense (time) are not the same thing! When a Greek verb is built on the present stem, it is not necessarily in the present tense! The present is a quality of action - not a time. And when a Greek verb is built on the aorist stem, it is not necessarily in the past tense! The aorist is a quality of action - not a time.

Here are some general notes about how you can try to understand the meaning of “aspect,” although the only way to really learn this is from reading Greek... from reading lots of Greek.

Present aspect. Present aspect is like watching a movie or video. The present stem shows you the action as it unfolds. The present aspect emphasizes the process of the verbal action as you watch it happening. Think about the present stem as ongoing action.

Aorist aspect. Aorist aspect is like a photograph, a single snapshot image. The aorist stem simply indicates verbal action. There is no emphasis on the process of the action unfolding. The aorist is the most neutral aspect. Think about the aorist stem as action. [or as an “undefined” action, as Mounce likes to call it, “that normally occurs in the past,” but says, "nothing more about the aspect of the action…The word 'aorist' means 'undefined,' 'indefinite.'" Ibid, p. 195 w/footnote; cf. p. 240].

Perfect aspect. The perfect aspect calls attention to the completion of the action. When you see a perfect stem, you are dealing with action that has been completed, or with the consequences of that completed action. Think about the perfect stem as completed action.

Note: These above notations concerning a proper understanding of these Greek verb tenses are also in accordance with everything that Mounce says in his Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, as noted in the pages immediately referenced above.

With regards to the future tense usage, a verb is only regarded in and of itself as “future” when given a future tense stem. Without this stem its time remains relative, as in the present, aorist and perfect stems and is defined only by the context. With the “future tense” stem of the verb, “it is the one Greek tense in which aspect [or action] is secondary to time” (Mounce, Ibid, p. 160); whereas with present, aorist and perfect tense stems “aspect” is primary, time is secondary.

And it is also of interest to note that when the future tense is used, “the time of reference is from the point of the writer [or speaker], not the reader” (Ibid, p. 157). So, in Mat. 24:6, when Jesus told His disciples, “You will [are about to; future active participle] hear of wars and rumors of wars,” this is not to be understood with a reference to our future, but to Christ’s and His apostle’s immediate future. And so this is just another proof positive that what Jesus was saying of “this generation” was indeed to be understood of their own generation and not of our's years later, “the reader.”

[e] Glen L. Hill. Christianity's Great Dilemma, p. 106.

[20] Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 3, pp. 396-397.

[21] This statement is at variance both with that in 2Ki. 3:1, to the effect that Joram [of Israel] began to reign in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat, and with that in 1Ki. 22:52, viz., that Ahaziah ascended the throne in the seventeenth year of the reign of Jehoshaphat, which lasted twenty-five years, and also with the statement in 2Ki. 8:16, that Joram of Judah became [sole] king over Judah in the fifth year of Joram of Israel. If, for example, Ahaziah of Israel died after a reign of not quite two years, at the most a year and a half, in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat; as Jehoshaphat himself reigned twenty-five years, he cannot have died till the seventh year of Joram of Israel, and his son Joram [of Judah] followed him upon the throne. The last of these discrepancies may be solved very simply, from the fact that, according to 2Ki. 8:16, Jehoshaphat was still king when his son Joram began to reign so that Jehoshaphat abdicated in favor of his son about two years before his death. And the first discrepancy (that between 2Ki. 1:17 and 1Ki. 3:1) is removed by Usher (Annales M. ad a.m. 3106 and 3112), Lightfoot, and others, after the example of the Seder Olam, by the assumption of the co-regency. According to this, when Jehoshaphat went with Ahab to Ramoth in Gilead to war against the Syrians, in the eighteenth year of his reign, which runs parallel to the twenty-second year of the reign of Ahab, he appointed his son Joram to the co-regency, and transferred to him the administration of the kingdom. It is from this co-regency that the statement in 2Ki. 1:17 is dated, to the effect that Joram of Israel became king in the second year of Joram of Judah. This second year of the co-regency of Joram corresponds to the eighteenth year of the reign of Jehoshaphat (2Ki. 3:1). And in the fifth year of his co-regency Jehoshaphat gave up the reins of government entirely to him. It is from this point in time, i.e., from the twenty-third year of Jehoshaphat, that we are to reckon the eight years of the reign of Joram (of Judah), so that he only reigned six years more after his father's death....It is indeed stated in 1Ki. 22:51 and 2Ch. 21:1, 2Ch. 21:5, 2Ch. 21:20, that Jehoshaphat died and his son Joram became king, which may be understood as meaning that he did not become king till after the death of Jehoshaphat; but there is no necessity to understand it so, and therefore it can be very easily reconciled with the more precise statement in 2Ki. 8:16, that Joram ascended the throne during the reign of Jehoshaphat… (Keil & Del, pp. 288-290 w/ footnote).

Merrill F. Unger similarly concurs with Keil & Del.,

It is stated in II Kings 1:17 that Jehoram, the son of Ahab, began to reign in the second year of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat; while in II Kings 8:16 it says that the latter began to reign in the fifth year of the former. To reconcile these statements let us remember that Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, was for some time joint ruler with his father. Now, suppose that in the second year of this joint reign Jehoram (son of Ahab) began his reign; then that in the fifth year of the latter the former began to reign alone. This will make the joint reign about five years long (Unger’s Bible Dict., Note, p. 563).

Full-Preterism: Full of Baloney! (2 of 2)

As I noted earlier, John Bray made some startling statements in his newsletter concerning Enoch and Elijah as having not been translated into heaven, as most of us have all along supposed. And we should suppose it to be true, because as we shall soon see, by taking John Bray’s arguments point by point to the contrary of what most of us have always believed about Enoch and Elijah, we will analyze these “points” in order to show that he is utterly wrong in the supportive arguments that he uses, in order to make us believe in his conclusions. I will lay out his points in the order that he gives them in his newsletter.

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.”

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).

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.

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 (eōrakan). 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.

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]

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,

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…

…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]

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:

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.