Did Elijah and Enoch go straight to heaven?

[Want2BSaint]

I have a question… In my Bible Study (Ignatious Scripture Study) we are studying the Gospel of Luke and we came across the reference to “The Bosom of Abraham”. According to the study, “Abraham’s Bosom” was a “place” where the “righteous” went prior to Jesus’ suffering and death. Apparently, in Luke, anyway, it was a place where the “damned” could “see” the righteous, but in no way could anyone pass from one place to the other. I have always understood the part in the Creed where we say that Jesus “decended to the dead” after his own physical death, as being the time when he went to this “place” to release the righteous. I was taught that no one could enter heaven until Jesus’ death and resurrection, opening the gates of heaven to all. This all makes perfect sense to me, so far… BUT!!

My husband, who even though he went through an RCIA class and was confirmed Catholic prior to our marriage almost 16 years ago, still has struggled off and on with differant “issues”. Currently he is NOT practicing his Catholic Faith, other than still going to Mass with us every week. He is not practicing any of the sacraments at this time. He was born and raised in a Pentacostal Assembly of God Church, and still enjoys listening to any number of protestant preachers on the radio or reading material intermixed with some occasional Catholic stuff. Anyway, when I was discussing the “Bosom of Abraham” with him, he brought up Enoch and Elijah. He said, according to Scripture, they were taken straight to heaven. But does this add up to Catholic teaching? What does the Church teach about anyone entering heaven before Jesus’ suffering and death? specifically, Elijah and Enoch? I appreciate any "enlightenment you can give me on this subject!

Thanks!

 

[Emmaus]

You might ask your husband about

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

and

John 6:46 "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.

Where does that leave Enoch and Elijah?

You may also point out that in the passage about Elijah being carried up to “heaven” that the Hebrew used the word heaven to mean a variety of things even as we do. There were the first second and third heaven, : the atmosphere, the planets and stars and the dwelling place of God ((which St Paul says he was transpoted to, whether in the body or out of the body he could not tell ( 2 Cor 12:2). So the firely chariot went up into the heavens, but where did it drop him off?

 

[Buckeyejoe]

It is impossible for anyone to go to Heaven prior to the Redemptive act of Jesus Christ on the cross. This is the problem with Protestantism, they are all over the road with their understandings. How could he say he’s a christian and then reply with this utter foolishness. Tell him to stop listening to the half truths of the radio preachers and start learning the entire truth of the Catholic faith.

As far as the term Heaven being used, I’m not sure why it is translated that way or what Hebrew word is being used, that would require a little research. Someone else on the website could shed light on it I’m sure.

Thanks

 

[thisismyusrname]

I know of two places in Sacred Scripture where Enoch is mentioned. The first is in Genesis, where it says God took him. The other is in Hebrews, where it talks about it similarly, saying that Enoch didn’t die because God took him. However, i can not find it saying that Enoch was taken into Heaven.

As for Elijah, the 2 book of Kings, chapter 2 , describes him being taken up into “heaven” in a chariot. I’m not absolutely sure, but i think the idea that Elijah could have actually entered Heaven may be permissible in Catholic theology - but i am not totaly positive so i really can’t say.

However, could it be possible that “heaven” refers more to “the sky”, like “the heavens”, rather than Heaven? Does this make sense to anyone, or is it just so late that I can’ think logically any more? :whacky: …:yawn:…

 

[gomer_tree]

Doesn’t this fall under the “exception to the general rule” category?

It was always my understanding that Elijah was indeed taken up to heaven. He was Assumed, similar to Mary being Assumed. It makes no sense to me that anyone woould be Assumed to a place anywhere other than heaven.

Yes, it is true that Christ came to reconcile us to the Father. But God is also God. If He chose to take someone into heaven prior to - by our calendars - the redemptive act of the Son, then what’s to say He couldn’t retroactively apply the Son’s future redemptive act in isolated cases? After all, we use the retroactive application of Christ’s redemptive act when talking about the Immaculate Conception.

 

[jpusateri]

I think gomer tree has it right. Enoch and Elijah are used as supportive texts for the Assumption of Mary. An exception indeed.

The bosom of Abraham is where the righteous dead were said to be, separate from the unrighteous dead by a great gulf.

Remember that Yahweh is the God of the Living not of the dead (Matt 22:32, Mark 12:27, Luke 20:38). They are ALIVE.

Also in the Transfiguration, Elijah and Moses appear with Jesus (Moses representing the Law and Elijah the prophets). Where were they beforehand since it’s clear that Jesus knew them and that they knew Him?

One alternative explanation I have heard is that time moves differently in Heaven and that it is possible for this to make sense in that context. Sounds more like science fiction to me.

 

[Matt16_18]

Anyway, when I was discussing the “Bosom of Abraham” with him, he brought up Enoch and Elijah. He said, according to Scripture, they were taken straight to heaven. But does this add up to Catholic teaching?

No, Enoch and Elijah going to heaven before Jesus incarnated on earth and ascended as the first born of the new creation does not add up to Catholic teaching. First of all, that would contradict what Jesus told Nicodemus:

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

Enoch and Elijah were born in original sin. If they could enter heaven by being righteous men living in a state of original sin, then why did Jesus have to die an agonizing death on the cross? Instead of sending his only begotten Son in to the world, God the Father could have just sent a holy angel to the world and told men and women to wise up and start acting righteous like Enoch and Elijah.

Enoch and Elijah did not descend to the dead to dwell in Abraham’s bosom because they weren’t dead when they left this world!

There are Fathers and Saints that say that Enoch and Elijah were taken back to the terrestrial paradise, where they wait to return to this world shortly before the second coming. Enoch and Elijah are the two witnesses in the Book of Revelation that will be killed for their testimony. That explanation makes perfect sense to me.

 

[EENS]

You should start first and foremost with the argument that disproves sola Scriptura. Once that is proved, the Church is necessary and infallible, and it doesn’t matter what his personal interpretation of any passage of Scripture is. I gave this link out once before. I do my best here to prove the necessity of the Church from the Bible. There is also a good defense extra-biblical for the Church (it is the second “comment” after my entry), here: xanga.com/item.aspx?user=CatholicCrusader&tab=weblogs&uid=68053383. God bless.

 

[Matt16_18]

gomer tree:

It was always my understanding that Elijah was indeed taken up to heaven. He was Assumed, similar to Mary being Assumed. It makes no sense to me that anyone woould be Assumed to a place anywhere other than heaven.

Yes, it is true that Christ came to reconcile us to the Father. But God is also God. If He chose to take someone into heaven prior to - by our calendars - the redemptive act of the Son, then what’s to say He couldn’t retroactively apply the Son’s future redemptive act in isolated cases? After all, we use the retroactive application of Christ’s redemptive act when talking about the Immaculate Conception.

I read this explanation all the time in Catholic publications and it drives me crazy. I have even read this answer in This Rock Magazine.

Does it really make sense to believe that men born in original sin ascended into Heaven to see the beatific vision before Jesus ascended into heaven as the first born of the new creation?

It seems awfully strange to me to think that there were two men in living in heaven with physical bodies before Jesus ever incarnated on earth. Trying to use the “anticipatory grace” argument is stretching things too far, IMO.

 

[ktf]

I’m not sure that the reference from John 3:13 itself rules out the possibility of Enoch and Elijah being brought into Heaven. Note that the quote states that no one has “ascended” into Heaven. As we note, particularly in regard to the Virgin Mary, this is quite distinct from being “assumed” into Heaven.

 

[Matt16_18]

excerpt from: Two Witnesses

Popular eschatology throughout church history has identified the two witnesses as Elijah and Enoch … St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in his Summa Theologica: “Elias was taken up into the atmospheric heaven, but not in to the empyrean heaven, which is the abode of the saints: and likewise Enoch was translated into the earthly paradise, where he is believed to live with Elias until the coming of Antichrist.”

 

[gomer_tree]

Enoch and Elijah were born in original sin. If they could enter heaven by being righteous men living in a state of original sin, then why did Jesus have to die an agonizing death on the cross?

By this argument, how in the world did any of the OT believers make it to heaven then? They all died in a state of original sin. What, did they get baptized in the nether world?

It has been noted that ascended <> assumed.

And why is retroactive application a stretch? Because of the time difference between that event and the Crucifixion? Did the application to Mary’s conception make it within the retroactive statute of limitations?

There are often exaggerated statements to make a point in Scripture. “None are righteous, not one” is an example. Yet, we say that Mary was. And a baptized infant certainly is. Paul wasn’t a liar, he was making a point.

 

[Matt16_18]

gomer tree

By this argument, how in the world did any of the OT believers make it to heaven then?

The righteous dead had to wait for the gates of heaven to be opened by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus is an eternal sacrifice that makes satisfaction for all the sins of men – past sins, present sins, and sins that men have not yet committed. The righteous dead in Abraham’s bosom were waiting for the atoning sacrifice that takes away the sins of the world to be offered to the Father.

*They all died in a state of original sin. *

Yes, and that is why they couldn’t enter heaven until the atoning sacrifice was offered.

What, did they get baptized in the nether world?

Baptism is the immersion into the death and resurrection of Jesus. The OT dead had to be immersed into the death and resurrection of Jesus to be freed from their sins and brought to the new life. We can say that they had a baptism of implicit desire.

And why is retroactive application a stretch? Because of the time difference between that event and the Crucifixion? Did the application to Mary’s conception make it within the retroactive statute of limitations?

The Church only teaches that Mary was immaculately conceived – i.e., she was born without original sin. That does not mean that May was born a Catholic with the indwelling of God in her soul. Adam and Eve were not immaculately conceived since they had no parents to conceive them, but they were created as immaculate beings without spot or stain on their souls. The state of sanctifying grace that Adam and Eve possessed in original justice was inferior to the sanctifying grace given to a newly baptized Catholic.

I personally believe that Mary was baptized, and through her baptism, she was elevated to an even higher state of grace than she possessed at her conception. I believe that Mary was baptized by standing under the cross, through the blood and water that poured forth when Jesus was speared in the heart. But that should be discussed on a different thread.

 

[gomer_tree]

Let me first say that I agree with most of your comments. But an implicit baptism of desire being good enough to make it to heaven is in and of itself yet another exception to the rule: you must be born again of water and spirit…

My whole point is not to argue that these men didn’t make it to heaven. It’s to point out that they died with original sin, and through the grace of God and because of their faithfulness, they were brought into heaven.

In fact, the Church today still allows that there is baptism of desire. In fact, the Church even allows that the unbaptised can be saved if it is not their fault, and that they follow the graces God gave them to the best of their understanding. Yet all these things are exceptioins to rules that you must believe in Jesus, that you must be baptized, that you must etc.

The reason there are exceptions is because God makes the rules. It is not for us to question those rules. It is also not for us to say He cannot make exceptions.

All I’m saying is that there is the possibility that Elijah and Enoch were taken to heaven. Do I know that for sure? No. You could be correct that God wouldn’t allow it, and they were taken somewhere else. But this is not dogmatic, as far as I know. I think it is simply erroneous to say that a Catholic can’t believe that. You may not believe it, and we may debate it. But to suggest it’s against Church teaching is simply not correct, as far as I know. Thomas Aquinas maybe argued one way, and that’s fine. But he was not a Pope.

That’s all I’m saying. Argue the merits and your opinion, but don’t overstate the teachings of the Church.

 

[Matt16_18]

gomer tree

• an implicit baptism of desire being good enough to make it to heaven is in and of itself yet another exception to the rule: you must be born again of water and spirit…*

The just in Abraham’s bosom were indeed were born again of the Spirit. The water only signifies the grace that it bestows. The just in Abraham’s bosom weren’t really exception to “rule” that men must be born again of the Spirit to enter heaven.

My whole point is not to argue that these men didn’t make it to heaven. It’s to point out that they died with original sin, and through the grace of God and because of their faithfulness, they were brought into heaven.

The OT saints in Abraham’s bosom believed Abraham’s prophecy that, “God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering” (Gen. 22:8) The OT saints had faith that God would provide the lamb that takes away the sins of the world, without knowing all the details of how God would do this. They were waiting for the sacrifice to be offered. But I agree with you, it was their faith in God’s goodness and providence that brought them divine mercy for their sins.

• In fact, the Church today still allows that there is baptism of desire. In fact, the Church even allows that the unbaptised can be saved if it is not their fault, and that they follow the graces God gave them to the best of their understanding. Yet all these things are exceptioins to rules that you must believe in Jesus, that you must be baptized, that you must etc.*

True. The Church teaches that salvation can come through both the baptism of explicit desire, and the baptism of implicit desire – a truth rejected by the Feeneyites and many überTrads. But no one is exempt from having to be born again of the Spirit before they can see the beatific vision – and the Spirit could not indwell human beings in a state of original sin until the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin was offered.

• All I’m saying is that there is the possibility that Elijah and Enoch were taken to heaven. Do I know that for sure? No. You could be correct that God wouldn’t allow it, and they were taken somewhere else. But this is not dogmatic, as far as I know. I think it is simply erroneous to say that a Catholic can’t believe that.*

I never said that it is a solemnly defined dogma that Elijah and Enoch were not taken to the “empyrean heaven”. But I find Aquinas’ answer to be much more sensible than the “anticipatory grace” argument that is now so commonly heard – the argument that Enoch and Elijah are examples of Mary’s Assumption into heaven. The statement that Elijah and Enoch ascended to Heaven is contradicted by John 3:13, and that should be the basis of our understanding of Enoch and Elijah’s translation from earth.

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

 

[thisismyusrname]

The just in Abraham’s bosom were indeed were born again of the Spirit. The water only signifies the grace that it bestows. The just in Abraham’s bosom weren’t really exception to “rule” that men must be born again of the Spirit to enter heaven.

The rule, as stated in John, is that men must be born of water and the Spirit - not just of the Spirit - i.e., they must recieve water Baptism. Yes, the water of the Sacrament of Baptism is a symbol of the grace bestowed by the Sacrament, the washing away of original and all other sin. But the water is still an instrinsic and necessary part, as Christ says “born of WATER and the SPIRIT”, not just “of the Spirit”. So (if anyone knows for sure and has reference, such as from the catechism, please correct me), yes, those of the Old Testament are exceptions to the rule, as they were not born anew of the water and the Spirit - they were not Baptized.

True. The Church teaches that salvation can come through both the baptism of explicit desire, and the baptism of implicit desire –
a truth rejected by the Feeneyites and many überTrads. But no one is exempt from having to be born again of the Spirit before they can see the beatific vision – and the Spirit could not indwell human beings in a state of original sin until the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin was offered.

Is it correct to say they can be saved both through Baptism of explicit desire and implicit desire? Either there is the acctual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism (which bestows the Sacramental character, washes away all sin, gives sanctifying grace and the supernatural virtues), or the Baptism of desire, either implicit (such as one who knows nothing of Christianity but none the less cooperates with the grace God gives him), or explicit desire, such as catechumens not yet Baptized (i probably spelled that wrong), neither of which gives the Sacramental character and may not remove all sin.

You say the Holy Spirit can not indwell human beings in a state of original sin until the Sacrifice is offered - however, Mary was redeemed, and “filled with grace” before the Sacrifice was offered. She was redeemed and filled with the Holy Spirit, free of all stain of original sin - one of which is the lack of sanctifying grace - before Christ died in time. Why could something like this happen similarly to others before her, such as Elijah and Enoch, perhaps once they were assumed(?) ?

 

[thisismyusrname]

gomer tree

The Church only teaches that Mary was immaculately conceived – i.e., she was born without original sin. That does not mean that May was born a Catholic with the indwelling of God in her soul. Adam and Eve were not immaculately conceived since they had no parents to conceive them, but they were created as immaculate beings without spot or stain on their souls. The state of sanctifying grace that Adam and Eve possessed in original justice was inferior to the sanctifying grace given to a newly baptized Catholic.

I personally believe that Mary was baptized, and through her baptism, she was elevated to an even higher state of grace than she possessed at her conception. I believe that Mary was baptized by standing under the cross, through the blood and water that poured forth when Jesus was speared in the heart. But that should be discussed on a different thread.

Mary was redeemed from the moment of her conception and as of such as free from the stain of original sin, one of which is the loss of sanctifying grace. If she was not in a state of sin, she would not be without the state of sanctifying grace. She was Holy - she had Sanctifying Grace.

 

[gomer_tree]

I never said that it is a solemnly defined dogma that Elijah and Enoch were not taken to the “empyrean heaven”. But I find Aquinas’ answer to be much more sensible than the “anticipatory grace” argument that is now so commonly heard – the argument that Enoch and Elijah are examples of Mary’s Assumption into heaven. The statement that Elijah and Enoch ascended to Heaven is contradicted by John 3:13, and that should be the basis of our understanding of Enoch and Elijah’s translation from earth.
No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.
John 3:13

Your remarks still trouble me. You admit that it is not defined dogma, and it’s fine and dandy if you think Aquinas’ argument is the best. Great. You then proceed to basically say that because you have determined it’s the best, everyone else should accept it. Your “proof” is John 3:13, which basically circumvents all the previous arguments about (1) exceptions to the rule, (2) extreme use of language, and (3) the fact that ascension <> assumption.

I didn’t ask you to not accept your way of thinking. But your initial remarks were this: “No, Enoch and Elijah going to heaven before Jesus incarnated on earth and ascended as the first born of the new creation does not add up to Catholic teaching.” I pointed out that they *could *add up to Catholic teaching. I’m not necessarily all that concerned about what I believe on the subject. I’m more concerned that some incorrectly admonish other beliefs that they have a perfect right to hold.

Now, had you simply said, “In my opinion, I don’t think so, and here’s why…” then it would be much more palatable.

Anyway, I’m done with this topic, because it’s kind of a silly thing to be getting heated about. Don’t take offense - I normally agree with your points.

 

[Matt16_18]

gomer tree

*You then proceed to basically say that because you have determined it’s the best, everyone else should accept it. *

What I am really arguing is that everyone must accept John 3:13 as being true because this is the inspired word of God, and it cannot be in error. All theology about Enoch and Elijiah’s translation from earth must somehow address this divinely revealed truth from Jesus. I have never seen any argument do so that asserts that Elijah and Enoch ascended to the “empyrean heaven”. I find these arguments totally unconvincing because they never do address what Jesus has said in John 3:13.

Don’t take offense

None taken - a good-natured discussion is all I am looking for, one where we all have to think a little. If you could give me your views on how to resolve the John 3:13 “problem”, I would be glad to read them.

 

[gomer_tree]

If you could give me your views on how to resolve the John 3:13 “problem”, I would be glad to read them.

I thought I had. Ascended <> assumed, for one.

Type of language. The fact that Jesus says “no one has…” could be an example of extreme language to make an important point - common in those days.

For example, Jesus also said “Unless you eat of My flesh and drink of My blood, you have no life within you.” Of course, we take this very seriously, because we believe in the Eucharist. And for us, it is true because we have the fullness of truth and we have general access to the Sacrament. But is there no one who will be saved if they have not received the Eucharist? The Church certainly doesn’t teach that. But a narrow reading of this - a verse from John - could lead one to erroneously argue that not believing this statement in the narrow sense is to not believe the words of Jesus! No, we understand that Jesus is using extreme language to drive home a point. And certainly He desires that all receive Him worthily. But there are exceptions, even with a seemingly tight statement like this.

I’ve already argued the “exceptions to the rule” point that is for God alone to determine. But that is another argument.

I’m not asking you agree. In fact, I’m willing to accept that there can be more than one possible explanation. I just don’t see a problem with the side I’ve argued.

Peace.