Enoch v. Mary

[garysibio]

I was discussing the doctrine of the Assumption with a non-Catholic Christian friend on Facebook when this question came up. I didn’t have a good answer so I thought I’d share it here to see if anyone could suggest anything.

Although it is not a dogma that Mary died before the Assumption, that is what Roman Catholics generally believe. When Enoch was taken he was alive according to Hebrews 11:5. Is there any significance to this difference and why? (It’s not enough to just say there isn’t.)

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I was discussing the doctrine of the Assumption with a non-Catholic Christian friend on Facebook when this question came up. I didn’t have a good answer so I thought I’d share it here to see if anyone could suggest anything.

Although it is not a dogma that Mary died before the Assumption, that is what Roman Catholics generally believe. When Enoch was taken he was alive according to Hebrews 11:5. Is there any significance to this difference and why? (It’s not enough to just say there isn’t.)

I would point out two things to add to the discussion.

1.
Vatican II made it clear that it did not intend to resolve every theological question regarding Mary and that RCs may believe accepted schools of thought on those questions. It also left unresolved whether or not Mary died prior to her assumption. As far as theologians go, many favor her not dying. What most RCs in the pew believe may need to be refined.

“this Holy Synod, in expounding the doctrine on the Church, . . . does not, however, have it in mind to give a complete doctrine on Mary, nor does it wish to decide those questions which the work of theologians has not yet fully clarified. Those opinions therefore may be lawfully retained which are propounded in Catholic schools concerning her,”
(Lumen Gentium, 54)

“Finally, the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all guilt of original sin, on the completion of her earthly sojourn, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen of the universe, that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and the conqueror of sin and death.”
(LG, #59)

2.
The idea of assumption into heaven is found in Scripture in more cases than Enoch: Enoch (Gn 5:24; Heb 11:5) and Elijah (2 K 2:11) were both taken into heaven at the end of their life. Yet, in Matthew, the bodies of “saints” who had died were raised and “appeared” (same word for Jesus’ post resurrection encounters with the Apostles and disciples) after Jesus’ death on the cross (Mt 27:51-53). In that case they had died.

 

[GEddie]

There are some who hold that Enoch and Elijah will be the 2 witnesses in Rev., and will die then, to subsequently rise again before everybody’s eyes (unlike our LORD) and ascend into Heaven.

So the fact they kept their natural bodies up to now is not an “added perk,” in that they will still face the bodily death at a later time.

ICXC NIKA

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

There are some who hold that Enoch and Elijah will be the 2 witnesses in Rev., and will die then, to subsequently rise again before everybody’s eyes (unlike our LORD) and ascend into Heaven.

So the fact they kept their natural bodies up to now is not an “added perk,” in that they will still face the bodily death at a later time.

ICXC NIKA

Many Protestants believe that Elijah and Moses are the two witnesses. The reasoning behind Moses is that he never reached the Promised Land as promised, and in the latter days he will come back and preach in the midst of the Promised Land.

Enoch is an interesting Biblical figure, because it appears he was only human being ever assumed without suffering physical death into Heaven because he was sinless (Mary possibly excepted, but she existed for a very specific purpose).

 

[perpetual200]

SOme have held, on the basis of Heb. 11, where it is stated “these all died in faith”, referring back to a list that includes Enoch, that Enoch actually did die. The saying"that he should not see death" would then be understood that he was somehow kept from the normal experience of death. I am not advocating this view, (I have no firm opinion one way or another) but thought i would mention it.
Is not the view that Mary was received into heaven without death tied to the idea that she was preserved free from sin? How has the Catholic Church defined that in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception/ Open to any help I get on that.
The oldest tradition I am aware of relating the Assumption of Mary would be in the book titled “THe Passing of Mary” which seems to indicate that she died first. I would appreciate any info anyone has relative to this also.

 

[GEddie]

Many Protestants believe that Elijah and Moses are the two witnesses. The reasoning behind Moses is that he never reached the Promised Land as promised, and in the latter days he will come back and preach in the midst of the Promised Land.

Enoch is an interesting Biblical figure, because it appears he was only human being ever assumed without suffering physical death into Heaven because he was sinless (Mary possibly excepted, but she existed for a very specific purpose).

Problem with Moses as 1 of the witnesses is he died, and was buried. He isn’t available to die again.

(Yes, I know about the reference in Jude, but to go from that to him being raised again to die again, is a serious stretch.)

If the 2 witnesses of Rev. are anybodies who lived before, I’d go with Enoch and Elijah.

ICXC NIKA

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Problem with Moses as 1 of the witnesses is he died, and was buried. He isn’t available to die again.

That assumes that resurrection isn’t possible, which is obviously not the case.

(Yes, I know about the reference in Jude, but to go from that to him being raised again to die again, is a serious stretch.)

I don’t believe that it is any more of a stretch than somebody not of this Earth returning.

If the 2 witnesses of Rev. are anybodies who lived before, I’d go with Enoch and Elijah.

Since it appears that Enoch was without sin and assumed, it begs the question why not Mary also?

 

[garysibio]

Problem with Moses as 1 of the witnesses is he died, and was buried. He isn’t available to die again.

(Yes, I know about the reference in Jude, but to go from that to him being raised again to die again, is a serious stretch.)

If the 2 witnesses of Rev. are anybodies who lived before, I’d go with Enoch and Elijah.

ICXC NIKA

Lazare died twice. No reason Moses can’t. We don’t know what happened to Moses’ body. See Jude 9.

 

[garysibio]

I would point out two things to add to the discussion.

1.
Vatican II made it clear that it did not intend to resolve every theological question regarding Mary and that RCs may believe accepted schools of thought on those questions. It also left unresolved whether or not Mary died prior to her assumption. As far as theologians go, many favor her not dying. What most RCs in the pew believe may need to be refined.

“this Holy Synod, in expounding the doctrine on the Church, . . . does not, however, have it in mind to give a complete doctrine on Mary, nor does it wish to decide those questions which the work of theologians has not yet fully clarified. Those opinions therefore may be lawfully retained which are propounded in Catholic schools concerning her,”
(Lumen Gentium, 54)

“Finally, the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all guilt of original sin, on the completion of her earthly sojourn, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen of the universe, that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and the conqueror of sin and death.”
(LG, #59)

2.
The idea of assumption into heaven is found in Scripture in more cases than Enoch: Enoch (Gn 5:24; Heb 11:5) and Elijah (2 K 2:11) were both taken into heaven at the end of their life. Yet, in Matthew, the bodies of “saints” who had died were raised and “appeared” (same word for Jesus’ post resurrection encounters with the Apostles and disciples) after Jesus’ death on the cross (Mt 27:51-53). In that case they had died.

Regardless of what issues about Mary V2 decided to settle and what they didn’t, this guy asked a good question and deserves a good answer. I know the RCC isn’t dogmatic about Mary having died but why should she and not Enoch. I’ve heard it said that Mary opted to die but I’ve never seen any evidence to that effect.

 

[garysibio]

Many Protestants believe that Elijah and Moses are the two witnesses. The reasoning behind Moses is that he never reached the Promised Land as promised, and in the latter days he will come back and preach in the midst of the Promised Land.

Enoch is an interesting Biblical figure, because it appears he was only human being ever assumed without suffering physical death into Heaven because he was sinless (Mary possibly excepted, but she existed for a very specific purpose).

Well don’t know that Elijah died. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t.

 

[pablope]

Regardless of what issues about Mary V2 decided to settle and what they didn’t, this guy asked a good question and deserves a good answer. I know the RCC isn’t dogmatic about Mary having died but why should she and not Enoch. I’ve heard it said that Mary opted to die but I’ve never seen any evidence to that effect.

If you are looking for definitive evidence, no one will find it.

But we know that oral traditions do have a basis in fact, having been passed on to each generation in the early Church orally, not by writing.

It is in the Eastern Church tradition, that at the foot of the cross, she did ask Jesus to die with Him, but Jesus refused.

In fact, if you watch the Passion of the Christ, this is indeed in the crucifixion scene.

 

[garysibio]

If you are looking for definitive evidence, no one will find it.

But we know that oral traditions do have a basis in fact, having been passed on to each generation in the early Church orally, not by writing.

It is in the Eastern Church tradition, that at the foot of the cross, she did ask Jesus to die with Him, but Jesus refused.

In fact, if you watch the Passion of the Christ, this is indeed in the crucifixion scene.

I’m not so sure that it’s oral tradition as much as pure speculation. If oral tradition were that specific, I doubt there would be any question whether or not Mary died prior to the Assumption.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Regardless of what issues about Mary V2 decided to settle and what they didn’t, this guy asked a good question and deserves a good answer. I know the RCC isn’t dogmatic about Mary having died but why should she and not Enoch. I’ve heard it said that Mary opted to die but I’ve never seen any evidence to that effect.

People read TOO much into some passages, including theologians (who are fallible.)

Every human ever born has died. To speculate differently may be possible based on certain theological principles, and because the Church has not declared on this categorically.

However, because it is possible to speculate theologically does not negate other theologies, or that theology is false. We know from the Bible that everyone descended from Adam and Eve are marked with Original Sin. We also know this as a dogma of the Church. The Church has only recognized the exemption of ONE PERSON ever, from this fate of all Humanity (expecting of course Our Savior,) and that person is the BVM.

Therefore the ONLY person that we MAY speculate to have been exempted from death is the BVM.

On the other hand, we have been taught by Blessed Pope John Paul II, that the doctrine declaring the death of the Virgin Mary was not included in Munificentissimus Deus NOT because her death was doubtful, but because it was not an opportune moment to declare yet another doctrine within a main one. He did say and teach (while Pope) explicitly that the Virgin Mary did indeed die. Now some doubting Catholics will say they will ONLY believe infallible Dogmas. (I don’t know how they arrive at these select beliefs) but, when the Pope categorically teaches something, even though not in a dogmatic framework, we are still under an obligation to hear him humbly, unless it is actual heresy. We can’t just dismiss the Pope’s teaching as “another man’s opinion.” The Pope’s opinion will weigh HEAVILY with future Popes and Councils. We also have the ancient tradition of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary in the Eastern Church. That alone is enough to settle the question in most religious minds. And lastly, we have an ancient unbroken tradition of Mary dying in the Western Church too.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Regardless of what issues about Mary V2 decided to settle and what they didn’t, this guy asked a good question and deserves a good answer. I know the RCC isn’t dogmatic about Mary having died but why should she and not Enoch. I’ve heard it said that Mary opted to die but I’ve never seen any evidence to that effect.

Of course he deserves a good answer!

What’s your point re my answer? It seemed a fair enough contribution to me. If there is nothing definitive, there is nothing definitive. Pretending there is would be a bad answer. And letting him know people are free to believe either way in the RC pale and where that is stated is a legitimate contribution to the discussion.

 

[garysibio]

People read TOO much into some passages, including theologians (who are fallible.)

Every human ever born has died. To speculate differently may be possible based on certain theological principles, and because the Church has not declared on this categorically.

I don’t know how Hebrews 11:5 could be any clearer: “By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God.”

You can accept what the Bible says or reject it.

 

[garysibio]

Of course he deserves a good answer!

What’s your point re my answer? It seemed a fair enough contribution to me. If there is nothing definitive, there is nothing definitive. Pretending there is would be a bad answer. And letting him know people are free to believe either way in the RC pale and where that is stated is a legitimate contribution to the discussion.

It seemed to me that your answer was, basically, I don’t know. It seemed dismissive. I understand that we don’t know everything, but, if you are going to declare a belief to be dogma, you need to have your bases covered. The Holy Spirit put in those words about Enoch for a reason; we can’t just blow them off.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

It seemed to me that your answer was, basically, I don’t know. It seemed dismissive. I understand that we don’t know everything, but, if you are going to declare a belief to be dogma, you need to have your bases covered. The Holy Spirit put in those words about Enoch for a reason; we can’t just blow them off.

OK, but I didn’t declare the dogma. The Church did. We need to square our mind with the church.

You mentioned that most RCs think Mary died. Even if that is true, which is debatable, their thinking has to be brought in line with the mind of the Church which is that the question at this time is open. So I remarked “What most RCs in the pew believe may need to be refined” and I gave the reasons (V2).

That being the case the issue with Enoch (and Elijah) in relation to Mary disappears. And that was my point. Nonetheless the passage in Matthew, where the saints did die first, can be of significance especially given that the same language is used to describe this event as is used for Jesus post-resurrectional appearances.

I think these do represent important facts in the discussion, but perhaps I could have done more to spell out their significance. I regret if not drawing out the implications of my points made you feel put off.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I don’t know how Hebrews 11:5 could be any clearer: “By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God.”

You can accept what the Bible says or reject it.

The Bible also clearly states the Jesus had brothers and sisters. Do you reject the Bible there?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

The Bible also clearly states the Jesus had brothers and sisters. Do you reject the Bible there?

Can we really say this?

I actually did some exploration of the topic in a discussion with a fundamentalist. I have my doubts that one can hold that the NT positively asserts Jesus had siblings as we understand them.

1. The only Hebrew word for relative is ‘ah. It covers masculine relatives of varying degrees (brother, half-brother, cousin, even brother-in-law). The same is true in Aramaic for ‘aha, which Jesus and the people around Him spoke. There is no dedicated word for sibling.
2. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew word ‘ah with the Greek word adelphos (which normally means a true brother) even when it is clearly not a true brother. For example, in Gn 13:8 and 14:16 Lot is called Abraham’s “brother” when this is not so (Gn 12:5). Another example is Gn 29:15 which is not the case from Gn 28:2 and 29:10. See also Lv 10:4 as compared to Lv 10:1-3.
3. Consistent with the above, Herod Philip was in fact a step-brother of Herod Antipas. Yet in the NT he is called his “brother,” adelphos, (Mt 14:3; Mk 6:17; Lk 3:19). From historical sources we know that Herod the Great, the father of Herod Philip, had 10 wives, and that Herod Philip and Herod Antipas were born of different wives.
4. The Catholic teaching that Mary had no other children than Jesus shows up early in the 200s AD. How could this have happened if four of her sons were well-known Christians; and one of them, James, perhaps the Bishop of Jerusalem!
5. It is odd that Jesus would commend his mother to John (Jn 19:26-27) if He had four brothers. Unless Jesus’ mother’s sister was married to Zebedee, thus making John a relative.
6. There are definitely two, maybe three, men named “James” in the New Testament:
   a) James, prominent in the Jerusalem Church (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18), was called “brother of the Lord” by Paul (Gal 1:19).
   b) James, son of Alphaeus, one of the Twelve, may or may not be the same as James “brother of the Lord”. [If he is, he can’t be Jesus’ brother.]
   c) James, son of Zebedee, one of the Twelve, is not at issue here because he was executed by Herod (Acts 12:2).
7. • At the cross, “Mary, the mother of James (the Younger) and Joseph (Joses)”, is present (Mt 27:55-56; Mk 15:40, 47; 16:1; maybe Lk 24:10). However, she is not referred to as the mother of Jesus. Joseph Fitzmyer in his Anchor commentary on Luke notes that it is “hardly likely that Mark would mean thereby the mother of the person hanging on the cross. Why would he have used such a circumlocution?” (I, 723-4). John (19:25) lists Jesus’ mother specifically plus Jesus’ “mother’s sister” and a “Mary, the wife of Clopas.”
   • Mary (wife of Clopas) could be the same as Mary (mother of James and Joseph (Joses)). This is possible since Mary Magdalene is out and Jesus’ mother’s sister is not likely to be named “Mary” also. [If so, James and Joseph (Joses) aren’t Jesus brothers]
   • “James the Younger” (or “the Less”), whose mother Mary is at the cross (Mk 15:40), may be James, son of Alphaeus. Christian writers have often made this link. [If so, he can’t be Jesus’ brother.]
   • James (son of Zebedee’s) mother (Mt 27:56) and Jesus’ mother’s sister (Jn 19:25) could be the same person. If so, this would give Jesus “brothers” according to the Aramaic word for relative (see #1 above).

 

[TimothyH]

The Bible also clearly states the Jesus had brothers and sisters. Do you reject the Bible there?

Jesus likley lived in a type of extended family where two or more nuclear families would share a home and live communally. Such an arrangment might be between two brothers who would bring in their wives and children into the shared home. The women would cook, clean and care for the children communally their upbringing was viewed as a shared rather than as an individual responsiblity. I was told once that this type of arrangment was known as a betaab, but have not been able to confirm that this is a correct term.

In the cultures in which this type of living arrangment was common, the division between nuclear families was not as clear as it is in our modern culture. The division in this type of communal living arrangement was such that children of one set of parents would would refer to children of the other parents as brother or sister. This is how Joseph and Mary could have easily assumed that the 12 year old Jesus was “in the caravan”. It is a foreign idea to us but we can’t project our own culture onto other cultures which are often very different and difficult for us to understand and accept.

In light of the cultural differences and the specifics around this type of family living arrangment, it is not a rejection of the bible to believe that Mary had no other offspring while at the same time believing that Jesus had “brothers”. It is well accepted fact that the other children with whom Jesus probably lived would have been referred to as brothers.

Someone living in Palestine at the time of Jesus would not have bat an eyelash at the idea of an only child having brothers. They would have assumed that they lived in this type of extended family communal living arrangment. That an only child could have brothers was not an obstacle to someone from this culture.

-Tim-