Posted on 12/11/2005 11:07:30 PM PST by jecIIny
Epeisis. Merry Christmas!
We know by continuing on in 2 Kings 2:16 that he probably ended up in a nearby valley somewhere or on some mountain (as suggested).... because in [2 Chronicles 21:12] Elijah writes a letter to Jehoram.....about 6 or seven years after the flight. You can date the timeline by reading 2 Kings 1:16-17. Elijah did not go to the same heaven a lot of folks seem to think he did.
Nonsense. 4 Kings expressly discredits the notion that Elijah hid in some mountain or valley in 2:16-17. Your timing regarding Chr 21:12 is completely speculative.
2 Chronicles 21:4-5; [When Jehoram established himself firmly over his father's kingdom he put all his brothers to the sword along with some princes of Israel. Jehoram was thirty two years old when he became king and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years.]
Verse 12-20; [Jehoram received a letter from Elijah the prophet].....Elijah tells him he will die with an incurable disease of the bowels and two years later he does just that. So, the letter comes to him in about his sixth year of reign.
The last recorded act of Elijah before being taken to heaven in a chariot of fire is 2 Kings 1:15-18. Elijah tells Ahaziah, the king of Israel, that because of his actions he will never leave the bed on which he is laying.... injured. Verse 17 says he died, according to the word of the Lord that Elijah had spoken. He died in the 2nd year of the reign of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah. He is the one with the bowel disease, remember?
2 Kings 2:1-11 tells of Elijah being taken up and this is right after King Ahaziah of Israel dies in the 2nd year of the reign of King Jehoram of Judah. Again....he writes Jehoram a letter four or five years later in the sixth year of his reign. There is no speculation here.
4 (2) Kings 2:1-11 does not say the ascension is "right after" King Ahaziah of Israel died. The last act of Elijah is not the prediction given to King Ahaziah; it is the episode prior to the conversation about the ascension, the miracle of parting the waters, the promise of the double spirit, and then ascension. There is no reason to assume 4 years did not separate the prediction to King Ahaziah and the ascension.
Besides, it is wrong to compare events recorded by different human writers for purposes of constructing contradictory timelines, when the intent of the text being there is clearly to tell the same story. In this case, the story of the ascension is intended to show that the ascension was real: predictions are made about it, and then the alternative theory of Elijah's disappearance is tested. Even if there was a chronological contradiction to some detail, we would conclude that the human author got that detail wrong, and stick with the intended thrust of the story. To do otherwise is to think that God spoke in riddles in order to confuse His people and His Church. The God I know does not do that.
What about:
John 3:13; [And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.] KJV
John 3:13; [And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.] Douay-Rheims
In the apostolic tradition, we don't speak of Elijah ascending to Heaven, precisely to draw the difference between ascension -- done under one's own power, -- and assumption, worked by God. Christ ascended; Elijah and the Blessed Virgin were assumed.
It is true that the "ayal" in 4 (2nd) Kings 2:11 is most literally translated as "ascended" or simply "went up", but that is Old Testament usage, and not apostolic usage.
Hebrews 13:8; [Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.]
John 1:14; [The Word became flesh and lived for a while among us......]
We will have to disagree. I don't find assumption scriptural and I don't believe the Word of God changes from the Old to the New.
Well, if you don't find the assumption of Elijah scriptural, your problem is with the scripture that plainly teaches so.
The assumption of Mary is indeed interpretative theology without direct scriptural support. As Catholics we have authority to decide those things, so we did.
If you think that the distinction between assumption and ascension is artificial, then there are milennia of both Jewish and Christian theology that clearly understood the distinction. The fact that Christ is the same today, yesterday and forever does not negate the fact that both languages and theology develop.
bookmark to digest later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.