Assumption of Moses

[jmm08]

This is my argument that after Moses died, his body was taken to heaven.

“Why does this matter?” seems to be a great question. I answer that it matters because the New Covenant is greater in every respect to the Old Covenant. If it can be clearly shown from the Bible that the bearer of the Old Covenant (Moses) was assumed into heaven, then it logically follows that the bearer of the New Covenant (Mary, the Mother of Jesus) was also assumed into heaven.

Note that I am a Catholic Convert (and I have studied the Bible for quote awhile).

(1) Epistle of Jude verse 8 (in the NAB New Testament):Yet the archangel Michael, when he argued with the devil in a dispute over the body of Moses, did not venture to pronounce a reviling judgment (8) upon him but said, "May the Lord rebuke you!"Footnote (8 – NAB): The archangel Michael . . . judgment: a reference to an incident in the apocryphal Assumption of Moses. Deut 34:6 had said of Moses, literally in Greek, “they buried him” or “he (God?) buried him” (taken to mean “he was buried”). The later account tells how Michael, who was sent to bury him, was challenged by the devil’s interest in the body. Our author draws out the point that if an archangel refrained from reviling even the devil, how wrong it is for mere human beings to revile glorious beings (angels).

Note that there is some evidence that the Assumption of Moses was actually included as canon in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Although geographically separate, the Ethiopian Orthodox church adopted a nearly identical canon of scripture as the Roman Catholic Church. I think the Assumption of Moses and the book of Enoch are the main differences.

The Assumption of Moses was lost. But the title does tell a bit. And I think it is obvious that the writer of the epistle of Jude was familiar with the book – and had quoted from it in verse 8. It seems to me that the title makes it plain that those who wrote the Assumption of Moses (along with those who believed what was written) knew about the assumption of Moses.

(2) See Luke 16:19-31 – Jesus telling of the poor man Lazarus and the rich man. Luke does not say that this is a parable, rather many believe that Jesus is telling a true story.

Abraham’s bosom is said to be the waiting place for those who “lived by faith” in God, but died before the coming of Jesus. Sometime between Good Friday and Easter, Jesus descended into the realm of the dead and retrieved those in Abraham’s bosom.

Like Father Abraham, Moses died before Jesus came. It might seem logical to conclude that Moses went to Abraham’s bosom.

However…

(3) At the transfiguration of Jesus [Matthew 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-13; Luke 9:28-36] it is Moses and Elijah that appear with Jesus. If Moses is awaiting release from Abraham’s bosom (something that does not happen until after Good Friday) then how do we see Moses talking with Jesus at the transfiguration?

We know how Elijah could be seen with Jesus. Elijah did not die, rather he was taken in the flaming chariot directly to heaven. See 2 Kings 2:11 “As they walked on conversing, a flaming chariot and flaming horses came between them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.”

Taking into account the above three scripture sources, I think one may easily conclude sola scriptura that the Assumption of Moses took place.

And seeing that this is so, even as a Bible-believing Baptist it seemed quite obvious to me that the Assumption of Mary into heaven was very logical. After all, at the time of Christ the devil was the same devil as at the time of Moses. And there was ever so much more of an evil reason for the devil to want to perform some evil deed with Mary’s body. And the Lord at the time of Moses is the same Lord as at the time of Christ. It seems obvious that the Lord knew the same thing would happen. So much so that I think Mary’s Assumption was scheduled to happen even more quickly.

jmm08

 

[jmm08]

(1) Epistle of Jude verse 8 (in the NAB New Testament)

While briefly trying to explain this to a Catholic Priest, I had to point out that Jude was an epistle in the New Testament (and not a deuterocanonical or – even worse – some apocryphal book). However, I think the Priest was somewhat tired so maybe he wasn’t thinking so sharply.

 

[jmcrae]

Thanks - I like your analysis. I had always wondered how Moses got to appear to Jesus before the Crucifixion and Resurrection. This makes for an excellent working theory.

While briefly trying to explain this to a Catholic Priest, I had to point out that Jude was an epistle in the New Testament (and not a deuterocanonical or – even worse – some apocryphal book). However, I think the Priest was somewhat tired so maybe he wasn’t thinking so sharply.

Quite possible. In all honesty, I have no idea how priests keep everything they need to know in their heads. I’m sure they all have temporary lapses from time to time, especially if it’s not something they’ve been directly thinking of, lately.

 

[NotWorthy]

Your logic is pretty sound, but not conclusive (in my opinion). I don’t think it will get you involved in any heresies if you stick with your theory.

I’ve often wondered about Moses being assumed since it was Moses and Elijah (who we KNOW was assumed) who appeared at the Transfiguration.

And one comment about Lazarus - it seems too great a coincidence that the protagonist in the story of Lazarus shares the same name with someone who Jesus allows to die from a sickness and then raises him from the dead. You are definately right, the story of Lazarus is never described as a parable in the bible; only in Bible Commentaries.

 

[jmm08]

I’ve often wondered about Moses being assumed since it was Moses and Elijah (who we KNOW was assumed) who appeared at the Transfiguration.

As a Baptist (and still think that way as a Catholic) I think this way: Elijah was not assumed (taken after he died) – he was taken alive into heaven. 2 Kings 2 does not describe that Elijah died and then was taken in the chariot. And note that Enoch walked with the Lord and was also taken up to heaven. But I should start another thread to talk about Elijah and Enoch.

And one comment about Lazarus - it seems too great a coincidence that the protagonist in the story of Lazarus shares the same name with someone who Jesus allows to die from a sickness and then raises him from the dead.

A likely explanation is that Lazarus was a fairly common Jewish name.

You are definately right, the story of Lazarus is never described as a parable in the bible; only in Bible Commentaries.

I think that many Catholics consider this to be a true story. It is my understanding that nobody ever goes to that place any more (Abraham’s bosom). Jesus freed those who were in that prison.

 

[NotWorthy]

A likely explanation is that Lazarus was a fairly common Jewish name.

And yet, you only find the name describing two people in the NT:

1. A story about a person that dies. The rich guys asked Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to testify about the punishments of evil people.
2. A person that dies and is raised from the dead.

I don’t call these “coincidences”. I call them “God-incidences”.

 

[jmm08]

Note too that Moses had a remarkable birth story.

Not unlike the time of Christ, all the Jewish baby boys were being killed. And Moses escaped in a basket.

One could easily say that the story of Moses’ beginnings as an infant is miraculous. So it is easy to believe that Moses also had a miraculous death.

Moses was the bearer of God’s commandments (the Old Covenant) to the people of Israel. And even more than taking God’s message to God’s people, Moses was used by God to bring God’s people out of bondage and to lead them to worship God.

Exodus 2:3-10 When she could hide him no longer, she took a papyrus basket, daubed it with bitumen and pitch, and putting the child in it, placed it among the reeds on the river bank. His sister stationed herself at a distance to find out what would happen to him. Pharaoh’s daughter came down to the river to bathe, while her maids walked along the river bank. Noticing the basket among the reeds, she sent her handmaid to fetch it. On opening it, she looked, and lo, there was a baby boy, crying! She was moved with pity for him and said, “It is one of the Hebrews’ children.” Then his sister asked Pharaoh’s daughter, “Shall I go and call one of the Hebrew women to nurse the child for you?” “Yes, do so,” she answered. So the maiden went and called the child’s own mother. Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Take this child and nurse it for me, and I will repay you.” The woman therefore took the child and nursed it.

 

[NotWorthy]

I think that many Catholics consider this to be a true story. It is my understanding that nobody ever goes to that place any more (Abraham’s bosom). Jesus freed those who were in that prison.

But Jesus would have freed only those that were on Abraham’s part of the prison. What about those who were with the rich man that wanted a drop of water from Abraham’s finger?

 

[jmm08]

But Jesus would have freed only those that were on Abraham’s part of the prison. What about those who were with the rich man that wanted a drop of water from Abraham’s finger?

Exactly true. As a Baptist I always thought those in torment on the other side were those who had rejected God’s ways. Jesus did not free them. I think they remain there still in torment, awaiting the final resurrection and then final judgement.

Note that in Jesus’ story, the only thing wrong that the Rich Man did was to not have pity on the poor. The Rich Man ignored the needs of the poor Lazarus. Aside from that perhaps the Rich Man followed the Jewish law, we don’t know. But it seems that one of Jesus’s points in the story must be not to ignore the poor, but rather to have a heart of charity.

I suppose that the Catholic Catechism or other Church document may actually specifically address this question. As a fairly recent convert I prefer to defer to the Church teaching on this entire topic (Lazarus and the rich man, Abraham’s bosom, place of torment where the rich man went). I’d be surprised to find any significant difference than what I previously thought.

 

[jmm08]

I have given this matter some additional thought (usually while praying the rosary).

In looking at the transfiguration, Jesus was seen with Moses and Elijah – Moses whose body was assumed into heaven (see preface of epistle of Jude in NAB) – and Elijah who ascended directly into heaven by means of a chariot of fire (“Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind” – 2 Kings 2:11). God the Father’s testimony in the cloud is “This is my chosen Son; listen to him.” (Luke 9:35). Surely this is direct evidence from God that Jesus is fulfilling the law (represented by Moses) and the prophets (represented by Elijah). And note too that since we see Moses and Elijah they are not along with the Old Testament Saints awaiting Jesus to come and free them as he does sometime between the first Good Friday and Easter morning.

In Jesus ascension we see a strong echo of God’s testimony. That Jesus was raised from the dead was not entirely a unique phenomenon (Jairus’s daughter and Lazarus being the closest examples of that time) but certainly for us that is great testimony enough. The ascension of Jesus is yet another obvious direct testimony of God the Father that He was pleased with Jesus His chosen Son – it is another proof that Jesus was the Son of God. And secondly it is also a direct testimony of God the Father to confirm one of Jesus’ last words “It is finished”. Because Jesus had previously died, His ascension echoes that of Moses – if you consider that assumption is the body being taken directly to heaven after death. And Jesus’ ascension echoes that of Elijah because Jesus is most certainly alive when He ascended into heaven. God’s testimony and confirmation of Jesus’ last words “It is finished” and these echoes of Moses and Elijah – is furthermore God the Father’s testimony and witness to all that Jesus fulfilled all of the law and all of the prophets.

Furthermore, it seems to me that the assumption of Mary is tied greatly into all of this as well. Because Mary fulfilled all of the law and was without sin. And she gave us God’s New Covenant – another similarity with Moses who brought the Old Covenant.

– jmm08

 

[Solo1959]

I have given this matter some additional thought (usually while praying the rosary).

In looking at the transfiguration, Jesus was seen with Moses and Elijah – Moses whose body was assumed into heaven (see preface of epistle of Jude in NAB) – and Elijah who ascended directly into heaven by means of a chariot of fire (“Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind” – 2 Kings 2:11). God the Father’s testimony in the cloud is “This is my chosen Son; listen to him.” (Luke 9:35). Surely this is direct evidence from God that Jesus is fulfilling the law (represented by Moses) and the prophets (represented by Elijah). And note too that since we see Moses and Elijah they are not along with the Old Testament Saints awaiting Jesus to come and free them as he does sometime between the first Good Friday and Easter morning.

In Jesus ascension we see a strong echo of God’s testimony. That Jesus was raised from the dead was not entirely a unique phenomenon (Jairus’s daughter and Lazarus being the closest examples of that time) but certainly for us that is great testimony enough. The ascension of Jesus is yet another obvious direct testimony of God the Father that He was pleased with Jesus His chosen Son – it is another proof that Jesus was the Son of God. And secondly it is also a direct testimony of God the Father to confirm one of Jesus’ last words “It is finished”. Because Jesus had previously died, His ascension echoes that of Moses – if you consider that assumption is the body being taken directly to heaven after death. And Jesus’ ascension echoes that of Elijah because Jesus is most certainly alive when He ascended into heaven. God’s testimony and confirmation of Jesus’ last words “It is finished” and these echoes of Moses and Elijah – is furthermore God the Father’s testimony and witness to all that Jesus fulfilled all of the law and all of the prophets.

Furthermore, it seems to me that the assumption of Mary is tied greatly into all of this as well. Because Mary fulfilled all of the law and was without sin. And she gave us God’s New Covenant – another similarity with Moses who brought the Old Covenant.

– jmm08

Thank you for posting here again and bringing the thread up so I could read it. I am “SO” glad you wrote this.

The story of the transfiguration was one of the things that brought me back to the church. I never understood how all that stuff with the saints worked until I saw [read the account of] Jesus chatting with Moses and Elijah. There was documented black and white biblical proof positive that the saints know God, see God, and that God listens to them. This had been a stumbling block for me for many years until my eyes were opened via this passage. And you verified it for me and put it into very clear words. So many people have no idea what I’m talking about, so I thank you for writing it well.

However, I am most impressed with how you bring the assumption of the virgin Mary into this. These posts of your will be a prominent part of my reading and praying for several days. Thank you

 

[NHInsider]

While briefly trying to explain this to a Catholic Priest, I had to point out that Jude was an epistle in the New Testament (and not a deuterocanonical or – even worse – some apocryphal book). However, I think the Priest was somewhat tired so maybe he wasn’t thinking so sharply.

Poor old Jude. Always the forgotten apostle (isn’t that how he came to be the patron of impossible causes?)

And one comment about Lazarus - it seems too great a coincidence that the protagonist in the story of Lazarus shares the same name with someone who Jesus allows to die from a sickness and then raises him from the dead. You are definately right, the story of Lazarus is never described as a parable in the bible; only in Bible Commentaries.

The literary form is very much that of a parable, however Catholics are free to believe either that Jesus was telling about an actual event or that He was teaching by a parable. (BTW, some of our evangelical brethren are so fixated on the literalist view of Scripture that they insist that ALL the parables are actual accounts of actual events - because otherwise there would be words in Scripture that aren’t literally “true.”)

But the Lazarus who was raised from the dead was not a poor beggar at a rich man’s gate, he was the brother of Mary and Martha of Bethany. So if it IS an actual account, it’s a different Lazarus.

This is my argument that after Moses died, his body was taken to heaven.

“Why does this matter?” seems to be a great question. I answer that it matters because the New Covenant is greater in every respect to the Old Covenant. If it can be clearly shown from the Bible that the bearer of the Old Covenant (Moses) was assumed into heaven, then it logically follows that the bearer of the New Covenant (Mary, the Mother of Jesus) was also assumed into heaven.

This is a very nice piece of exegesis. I’m impressed!

 

[choy]

Poor old Jude. Always the forgotten apostle (isn’t that how he came to be the patron of impossible causes?)

not to derail this thread but i had a discussion with a “Born Again” before and he called the Epistle of Jude as the Gospel of Judas

we had a lengthy discussion at first with me telling him that the Gospel of Judas was a Gnostic writing and therefore a heresey, he claims that i was part of the Bible. before finally posting (this was on another forum) the two chapters that comprise the Epistle of Jude

well, at least he got the Judas right (St. Jude also known as Judas Thaddeus)

 

[JeanneH]

This is my argument that after Moses died, his body was taken to heaven.

See John 3:13 JB No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven.
So Moses died and was buried in a place know only to God. Jesus opened the doors to heaven when He ascended to heaven.

Joshua 1:1 JB When Moses the servant of Yahweh was dead… So Moses died.

. If it can be clearly shown from the Bible that the bearer of the Old Covenant (Moses) was assumed into heaven,

It can’t.See above.

then it logically follows that the bearer of the New Covenant (Mary, the Mother of Jesus) was also assumed into heaven.

Mary was assumed into heaven after Jesus died, resurrected and ascended into heaven.

Note that I am a Catholic Convert (and I have studied the Bible for quote awhile).

Keep studying.

(1) Epistle of Jude verse 8 (in the NAB New Testament):
Yet the archangel Michael, when he argued with the devil in a dispute over the body of Moses, did not venture to pronounce a reviling judgment (8) upon him but said, “May the Lord rebuke you!”

Footnote (8 – NAB): The archangel Michael . . . judgment: a reference to an incident in the apocryphal Assumption of Moses. Deut 34:6 had said of Moses, literally in Greek, “they buried him” or “he (God?) buried him” (taken to mean “he was buried”). The later account tells how Michael, who was sent to bury him, was challenged by the devil’s interest in the body. Our author draws out the point that if an archangel refrained from reviling even the devil, how wrong it is for mere human beings to revile glorious beings (angels).

Deut.34:6 says that Moses was BURIED.

Note that there is some evidence that the Assumption of Moses

was actually included as canon in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church

If so, then why would the Assumption of Moses be lost? Wouldn’t it still be in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church?

.

**

(3)

**

At the transfiguration of Jesus [Matthew 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-13; Luke 9:28-36] it is Moses

and Elijah that appear with Jesus. If Moses is awaiting release from Abraham’s bosom (something that does not happen until after Good Friday) then how do we see Moses talking with Jesus at the transfiguration?

I Sam 25:1JB Samuel died and the whole of Israel assembled to mourn him.

1 Sam. 27:15JB Then Samuel said to Saul ‘;Why have you disturbed my rest’?

see Sirach 46:20NAB Even when he lay buried, his guidance was sought:he made know to the king his fate, and from the grave he raised his voice as a prophet, to put an end to wickedness.

So even though Samuel was in the grave he was seen by Saul.
So Moses was in the grave and was seen with Jesus at the transfiguration.

We know how Elijah could be seen with Jesus. Elijah did not die, rather he was taken in the flaming chariot directly to heaven. See

2 Kings 2:11 “As they walked on conversing, a flaming chariot and flaming horses came between them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.”

see Acts 8:39 JB But after they had come up out of the water again Philip was taken away by the Spirit of the Lord., and the eunuch never saw him again but went on his way rejoicing.40 Philip found that he had reached Azotus and continued his journey proclaiming the Good News in every town as far as Caesarea.

So I think what happened to Philip happened to Elijah also. Elijah was just carried away to another place.
see 2 Chron. 21:12 JB Then something written by the prophet Elijah came into his hands. Some may argue that this was just a found document or was actually written by the prophet after he was carried away. Who knows for sure?

Taking into account the above three scripture sources, I think one may easily conclude sola scriptura

that the Assumption of Moses took place.

Again see John 3:13

And seeing that this is so, even as a Bible-believing Baptist it seemed quite obvious to me that the Assumption of Mary into heaven was very logical.

Only logical because Jesus had ascended into heaven before her and opened the way.

Jeanne

 

[zach_dunn]

As a Baptist (and still think that way as a Catholic) I think this way: Elijah was not assumed (taken after he died) – he was taken alive into heaven. 2 Kings 2 does not describe that Elijah died and then was taken in the chariot. And note that Enoch walked with the Lord and was also taken up to heaven.

You don’t need to be dead to be assumed, Elijah was assumed. To be assumed is to be taken up by someone else’s power.

In looking at the transfiguration, Jesus was seen with Moses and Elijah – Moses whose body was assumed into heaven (see preface of epistle of Jude in NAB) – and Elijah who ascended directly into heaven by means of a chariot of fire (“Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind” – 2 Kings 2:11).

Elijah did not ascend to heaven. No one can/could ascend into heaven accept Christ himself because to ascend is to go up to heaven by your own power. The difference between “assumed” and “ascended” is very important in Catholic theology and apologetics. It’s important because many Protestants like to accuse us of believing Mary ascended into heaven by her own power, rather than assumed.

See John 3:13 JB No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven.
So Moses died and was buried in a place know only to God. Jesus opened the doors to heaven when He ascended to heaven.

Many other versions have it “no one has ascended . . .”

John 3:13
And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven. [DRB]

John 3:13
No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man. [RSVCE]

John 3:13
No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. [NRSVCE]

Other Protestant versions that translate this way: KJV, ESV, ASV, NASB, and NKJV. This would make sense because no one but Christ could ascend into heaven.

Only logical because Jesus had ascended into heaven before her and opened the way.

IF you wanted to take the Jerusalem Bible’s (one among many that translates it that way) translation seriously, you would have to say neither of the two people of the OT who were assumed were actually assumed and you couldn’t say Mary was assumed either. The verse (in the JB) never indicates that people could go up to heaven after His ascension . . .

 

[JeanneH]

You don’t need to be dead to be assumed, Elijah was assumed. To be assumed is to be taken up by someone else’s power.

.

IF you wanted to take the Jerusalem Bible’s (one among many that translates it that way) translation seriously, you would have to say neither of the two people of the OT who were assumed were actually assumed and you couldn’t say Mary was assumed either. The verse (in the JB) never indicates that people could go up to heaven after His ascension . . .

I don’t happen to believe that Elijah was carried off into heaven by the chariot but just carried by the Spirit like Philip in Acts to another place. I believe that Moses was and is buried some place to await the coming of Christ like the rest of us. I don’t know when Mary was assumed into heaven but I think that was made a dogma around 1950.

See my above post.
Jeanne

 

[zach_dunn]

I don’t happen to believe that Elijah was carried off into heaven by the chariot but just carried by the Spirit like Philip in Acts to another place.

And that place is heaven, like the Bible says.

I believe that Moses was and is buried some place to await the coming of Christ like the rest of us. I don’t know when Mary was assumed into heaven but I think that was made a dogma around 1950.

What does it matter when the teaching was made dogma?

 

[JeanneH]

And that place is heaven, like the Bible says.

What does it matter when the teaching was made dogma?

It doesn’t matter. I just don’t think that 2 people in the OT were assumed into heaven.
Heaven has a lot of meanings in scripture and not necessarily the abode of God. We are told by the Church that Mary was assumed into heaven. Was she? Any proof?

So now that Jesus has opened the gates to heaven there is no one in heaven?

 

[jmcrae]

It doesn’t matter. I just don’t think that 2 people in the OT were assumed into heaven.
Heaven has a lot of meanings in scripture and not necessarily the abode of God. We are told by the Church that Mary was assumed into heaven. Was she? Any proof?

The “proof” is that no one has ever found or even claimed to have found Mary’s relics. Can you imagine the value of the relics, if they had been found? And there are those who claim to have found things that they know exist - St. Peter, for example, potentially had ten heads. But the only reason for that is that these shysters know that St. Peter’s skull is somewhere on the earth.

No one has ever claimed to have found anything of Mary’s though, and the reason is that even the shysters know that there is nothing here on the earth of hers to be found - she is physically in Heaven.

 

[zach_dunn]

It doesn’t matter. I just don’t think that 2 people in the OT were assumed into heaven.
Heaven has a lot of meanings in scripture and not necessarily the abode of God.

You can if you want, the orthodox and early Church belief (not to mention the Jewish belief) is that Elijah and Enoch were assumed into heaven, so I believe that. I also think the OP has made a solid case for the assumption of Moses, not conclusive as was pointed out by NHInsider, but still solid.

We are told by the Church that Mary was assumed into heaven. Was she?

Yes.

Any proof?

The “proof” is that no one has ever found or even claimed to have found Mary’s relics. . . .

I agree with jmcrae, but I think the most convincing proof is that the pope proclaimed this dogma infallibly, his proclamation is affirmed by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit says it is true through the pope, therefore it is true. It’s very simple; Jeanne, why do you question a pope’s infallible proclamation?

So now that Jesus has opened the gates to heaven there is no one in heaven?

That’s not what I said, I said if you interpret Jn 3:13 so strictly that Elijah, Enoch, and possibly Moses couldn’t get into heaven, then you would have to say that “no one has gone up to heaven” because the verse nor the context suggest this fact changes in the future.