What Is So Difficult About Water Baptism?

By Anthony Buzzard

As one who has learned almost everything by being challenged on various biblical issues over 40 years, I venture to stimulate the thinking of some fellow unitarians on the question of baptism. These are friends, whose zeal for the Bible is undoubted, who have been taught that baptism in water is a pointless ritual not applicable to Christians.

The argument has been put this way: “There are two major baptisms in the New Testament:

a) water baptism begun by John the Baptist;
b) baptism in the spirit — the baptism which Jesus Christ baptizes with and which makes someone a Christian.”

Take a careful look at the above statement. It is really not a fair account of what the Bible teaches. There is a major missing factor. The facts are that Jesus also baptized in water. There are therefore three baptisms, not two: a) the water baptism of John; b) the water baptism authorized by Jesus; c) baptism in the spirit.

Everyone is familiar with the baptism of John. It has clearly been superseded by Christian baptism. Christian baptism is both by water and by spirit. In John 4:1, 2 we learn that “Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples were).” John 3:22 says that “Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea, and there Jesus was spending time with them and baptizing.” There is no doubt therefore that Jesus baptized in water (although the actual act of immersion was performed by his agents, the disciples). This initiation ceremony was baptism performed by Jesus — Christian baptism in water.

The great commission mandates that disciples until the end of the age go into all nations and teach whatever Jesus taught. Part of that commanded disciplining process is to “baptize them into the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). That is a clear command from the lips of Jesus, and it features amongst the marching orders of the Church.

The Apostles clearly understood it that way. Peter’s appeal to his first-century audience has not become obsolete:

“Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” Acts 2:38

The typical initiation into the Church is by repentance, believing the Gospel of the Kingdom and the name of Jesus Christ and baptism in water. Acts 8:12 provides an early creed:

“When they believed Philip as he proclaimed the Gospel about the Kingdom and the Name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, both men and women.”

As if to leave no possible loopholes, Luke reports that even after the reception of Holy Spirit, the Gentiles were to be baptized in water. Peter was only following his Lord’s command when he called for water and ordered “them to be baptized who had received the holy spirit” (Acts 10:47, 48). When Paul discovered converts who had received John’s water baptism only, he immediately administered Christian water baptism into the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 19:5). The New Testament Church certainly did not teach that spirit baptism replaced Christian water baptism. The two go together as the standard way in which a person is joined to the body of Christ. Late in his career Peter can still talk of “baptism which saves” us, as “an appeal to God for a good conscience” (1 Pet. 3:21). Of course, no one is suggesting that there is anything “magical” in the water. What counts is the childlike submission to the ordinance prescribed by Jesus. It is a simple matter of obedience.

Baptism without a persistent continuation in the Christian life cannot save a person, any more than a one-time decision which is not followed by commitment. Salvation is by grace and faith, which means also (in Paul’s words) “obedience from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed” (Rom. 6:17). That teaching included baptism. This way of inviting converts to become Christians is a part of what salvation by faith meant to the Apostles. They taught the “obedience of faith” everywhere (Rom. 1:5; 16:26).

God has given us a proper procedure for admission to His Church. Baptism in water is a public renouncing of sin and a determination to serve God and the Messiah. Labels like “carnal ordinance” or “legalism” misrepresent the apostolic teaching about Christian water baptism. Jesus himself was baptized in water (Luke 3:21). He made and baptized converts (John 4:1), and he ordered his followers to make and baptize converts (Matt. 28:19, 20).

There is no need for division or difference over this very simple matter, which has not been a problematic issue for millions of Bible readers over many centuries.

Evangelicals recognize that Peter’s appeal for repentance and baptism is strikingly different from modem evangelistic formulae. Writing on “Conversion in the Bible,” R.T. France observes that:

Our tendency to see baptism as a symbolic optional extra, or to be embarrassed by the inclusion of a physical act as part of the spiritual process of conversion, contrasts with the strongly “realist” language of the New Testament about the saving significance of baptism (e.g., John 3:5; Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12; Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:20-21). While there are no New Testament grounds for believing that baptism by itself makes a person a Christian, the idea of an unbaptized Christian is equally foreign to its thought. “Without it [baptism] a believer did not enter the primitive community of faith” (S.S. Smalley) (Evangelical Quarterly, 65:4, 1992, p. 306).

We appeal, therefore, to our unitarian friends who have been caught in the falsely spiritual view that the physical act of baptism is not part of Christian discipleship. It was the Gnostics who created a mistaken division between what is physical and what is spiritual. The Apostles, in mandating water baptism, were obedient, as we should be, to the command of Christ. And recognizing the Lordship of Jesus is the heart of what it means to be a believer. There is no genuine confession of Jesus as Lord without obedience (Rom. 10:9).

His Ashes Cry Out Against John Calvin

By Dan Corner

This article deals with a little-known but very important part of church history from the Reformation period. This information has been so concealed from the public in our day that very few people know anything about these appalling facts. Whistles need to be blown. Brace yourself for a shock.

On October 27, 1553 John Calvin, the founder of Calvinism, had Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the stake just outside Geneva for his doctrinal heresies.[1] John Calvin, the originator of the popular doctrine of “once saved, always saved” (known in certain circles as “the perseverance of the saints”) violated the cry of the Reformation — “sola Scriptura” — by murdering a doctrinal “heretic” without scriptural justification. The killing of Servetus was something Calvin had planned long before Servetus was even captured. Calvin wrote to his friend Farel on February 13, 1546 (seven years prior to Servetus’ arrest). He went on record as saying: “If he [Servetus] comes to Geneva, I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight.”[2] Evidently, in that day Calvin’s authority in Geneva, Switzerland had ultimate “weight.” This is why some referred to Geneva as the “Rome of Protestantism”[3] and to Calvin as the Protestant “Pope of Geneva.”[4]

During Servetus’ trial, Calvin wrote: “I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty.”[5] All this reveals a side of John Calvin that is not known and hardly appealing, to say the least! Obviously he had a prolonged, murderous hate in his heart and was willing to violate Scripture to put another to death and in a most cruel way. Although Calvin consented to Servetus’ request to be beheaded [thought to be better than being burned alive], he acquiesced in the mode of execution employed. But why did Calvin have a death wish for Servetus? “To rescue Servetus from his heresies, Calvin replied with the latest edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, which Servetus promptly returned with insulting marginal comments. Despite Servetus’ pleas, Calvin, who developed an intense dislike of Servetus during their correspondence, refused to return any of the incriminating material.”[6]

“Convicted of heresy by the Roman Catholic authorities, Servetus escaped the death penalty by a prison break. Heading for Italy, Servetus unaccountablystoppedat Geneva, where he had been denounced by Calvin and the Reformers. He was seizedthe day after his arrival, condemned as a heretic when he refused to recant,and burned in 1553 with the tacit approval of Calvin.”[7]

“In the course of his flight from Vienne, Servetus stopped in Geneva and made themistake of attending a sermon by Calvin. He was recognized and arrested aftertheservice.”[8] “Calvin had him [Servetus] arrested as a heretic, Convicted andburned to death.”[9]

From the time that Calvin had him arrested on August 14th until his condemnation, Servetus spent his remaining days “in an atrocious dungeon with no light or heat, little food, and no sanitary facilities.”[10]

Let it be noted that those responsible for burning Servetus in Geneva put half-green wood around the feet of the victim and a wreath strewn with sulfur on his head. It took over thirty minutes to render him lifeless in such a fire, while the people of Geneva stood around to watch him suffer and slowly die! Just before this happened, the record shows:

“Farel walked beside the condemned man, and kept up a constant barrage ofwords, in complete insensitivity to what Servetus might be feeling. All he had in mindwas to extort from the prisoner an acknowledgment of his theological error[which readers of this magazine know was not an error at all but Jesus’ own truth about GOD] — a shocking example of the soulless cure of souls. After some minutes of this, Servetus ceased making any reply and prayed quietly to himself. When they arrived at the place of execution, Farel announced to the watching crowd:

‘Here you see what power Satan possesses when he has a man in his power. This man is a scholar of distinction, and he perhaps believed he was acting rightly. But now Satan possesses him completely, as he might possess you, should you fall into his traps.’ [Well did Jesus say, “Those who kill you will think that they are doing God a service”!]

“When the executioner began his work, Servetus whispered with trembling voice: ‘Oh God, Oh God!’ The thwarted Farel snapped at him: ‘Have you nothing else to say?’ This time Servetus replied to him: ‘What else might I do, but speak of God!’ Thereupon he was lifted onto the pyre and chained to the stake. A wreath strewn with sulfur was placed on his head. When the faggots were ignited, a piercing cry of horror broke from him. ‘Mercy, mercy!’ he cried. For more than half an hour the horrible agony continued, for the pyre had been made of half-green wood, which burned slowly. ‘Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me,’ the tormented man cried from the midst of the flames.”[11]

Although we have essentially the same cry from the converted, repentant thief on the cross (Lk. 23:42-43, cf. Lk. 18:13) and Scripture says, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13), Farel still reckoned Servetus an unsaved man at the end of his life: “Farel noted that Servetus might have been saved by shifting the position of the adjective and confessing Christ as the Eternal Son rather than as the Son of the Eternal God.”[12]

“Calvin had thus murdered his enemy, and there is nothing to suggest that he ever repented of his crime. The next year he published a defense in which further insults were heaped upon his former adversary in most vindictive and intemperate language.”[13]

As the Roman Catholics of 1415 burned John Hus[14] at the stake over doctrine, John Calvin, the Protestant, likewise had Michael Servetus burned at the stake. But was doctrine the only issue? Could there have been another reason, a political one?

“As an ‘obstinate heretic’ he had all his property confiscated without more ado. He was badly treated in prison. It is understandable, therefore, that Servetus was rude and insulting at his confrontation with Calvin. Unfortunately for him, at this time Calvin was fighting to maintain his weakening power in Geneva. Calvin's opponents used Servetus as a pretext for attacking the Geneva Reformer’s theocratic government. It became a matter of prestige — always the sore point for any dictatorial regime — for Calvin to assert his power in this respect. He was forced to push the condemnation of Servetus with all the means at his command.”[15]

“Ironically enough, the execution of Servetus did not really bolster the strength of the Geneva Reformation. On the contrary, as Fritz Barth has indicated, it ‘gravely compromised Calvinism and put into the hands of the Catholics, to whom Calvin wanted to demonstrate his Christian orthodoxy, the very best weapon for the persecution of the Huguenots, who were nothing but heretics in their eyes.’ The procedure against Servetus served as a model of a Protestant heretic trial…It differed in no respect from the methods of the medieval Inquisition…The victoriousReformation, too, was unable to resist the temptations of power.”[16]

Is it possible for a man such as John Calvin to have been a “great theologian” and at the same time to act in this reprehensible way and afterwards show no remorse? Dear reader, do you have a heart that could, like John Calvin, burn another person at the stake? Do you approve of this brutal murder?

Let us illustrate this another way. Suppose a man from your congregation with a reputation for being a spiritual leader captured your neighbor’s dog, chained it to a stake, then used a small amount of green kindling to slowly burn the dog to death. What would you think of such a person, especially if he afterwards showed no remorse? Would you want him to interpret the Bible for you? To make the matter even worse for John Calvin, a person, unlike a dog, is created in the image of God! Like it or not, we can only conclude from this evidence that John Calvin’s heart was darkened, and not enlightened, as a result of his murderous hate for Servetus. At best, Calvin was spiritually blinded by this hate and therefore, spiritually hindered from rightly expounding the word of truth.[17] At worst, which was apparently the case, John Calvin himself was unsaved, according to Scripture:

“But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars — their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death” (Rev. 21:8).

“We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, ‘I know him,’ but does not do what he commands is a liar and the truth is not in him” (1 Jn. 2:3-4).

“And you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding [continuing] in him” (1 Jn. 3:15, NKJV).

The Greek adds an important word to 1 John 3:15 sometimes omitted in English translations. That word is “continuing” or “abiding” (NKJV) and states that murderous people don’t have eternal life continuing in them.

Dear reader, since murderers are unsaved and John Calvin was a murderer, then Calvin was unsaved! Moreover, since the unsaved are darkened in their spiritual understanding (Eph. 4:18) and Calvin was unsaved based on Scripture, then was not Calvin darkened in his spiritual understanding? Jesus said we can “know” people by their fruit (Matt. 12:33) — be it John Calvin or anyone else! Similarly, the Apostle John wrote:

“This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the Devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother” (1 Jn. 3:10).

Can you say Calvin did what was “right” regarding Servetus? If not, then doesn’t this make him a “child of the Devil” according to this verse and others already cited? Though some will rant and rave over this conclusion, can we scripturally come to any other?

No other evidence is needed to objectively assess Calvin’s spiritual status. However, two other men should also be briefly mentioned:

Two other famous episodes concerned Jacques Gruet and Jerome Bolsec. Gruet, whom Calvin considered a Libertine, had written letters critical of the Consistory and, more serious,
petitioned the Catholic king of France to intervene in the political and religious affairs of Geneva. With Calvin’s concurrence he was beheaded for treason. Bolsec publicly challenged Calvin’s teaching on predestination, a doctrine Bolsec, with many others, found morally repugnant. Banished from the city in 1551, he revenged himself in 1577 by publishing a biography of Calvin that charged him with greed, financial misconduct, and sexual aberration.”[18]

How should a heretic or any false teacher be dealt with, that is, if one is willing to abide by the biblical guidelines? Paul wrote Titus and touched upon this very issue, which first starts out as a qualification for eldership in the church:

“He [the elder] must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach, and that for the sake of dishonest gain” (Titus 1:9-11).

Clearly, then, a false teacher should be “silenced,” not by having him killed, as Calvinism’s founder did, but by refuting him with Scripture. This is the true Christian method. [Readers should bear in mind that Calvin was the heretic as well as the one who burned the holder of Truth about God at the stake!]

If Calvin’s example is the standard, the next time the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormon missionaries come to our door, we should physically overpower them, bind them to a stake, and make human candles out of them. Can you imagine a professing Christian doing this, much less a reputed theologian? If done, could you force yourself to believe such a person was truly saved and adhere to his unique doctrinal distinctives?

Also, false teachers should be openly named as Paul openly named Hymenaeus and Philetus who were destroying the faith of some of the Christians whom Paul knew: “Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some” (2 Tim. 2:17-18).

Why did Calvin grossly violate these scriptural guidelines? Since Paul’s holy spirit-inspired directives (and example) regarding how to deal with a heretic were diametrically opposed by Calvin, isn’t it safe to assume that Calvin was governed by a different spirit than Paul had? Moreover, why have these facts about John Calvin’s life rarely been mentioned in our day? The answer to this last question is obvious. They are both an embarrassment and refutation of Calvinists who proudly refer to themselves by his name! Since they are the evangelical majority and it is their power and influence that has the greatest sway over what is disseminated throughout our land and even the world, this information about their founder is seldom, if ever, heard. Many people are only now learning the shocking facts about Calvinism’s founder as they read them for the first time!

“No event has more influenced history’s judgment of Calvin than the role he played in the capture and execution of the Spanish physician and amateur theologian Michael Servetus in 1553. This event has overshadowed everything else Calvin accomplished and continues to embarrass his modern admirers.”[19]

Three important questions remain: (1) Can John Calvin be scripturally justified for murdering Michael Servetus? (2) Does a murderous hate, according to Scripture, render one spiritually unable to accurately interpret the Scriptures? (3) Can a murderer be saved according to Revelation 21:8?

All these answers have a bearing on the credibility of Calvin’s popular “perseverance of the saints” doctrine, among others. Regretfully, Calvin’s version of Christianity is the prevalent view in our land, but is his view Scriptural? To answer in the affirmative is to say that Calvin’s double predestination is true, that is, some are predestined for Heaven [Heaven in the Bible is nowhere the destination of the saved — ed.] and others are predestined for Hell without free choice on their part![20] This would violate many Scriptures, especially 2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

Furthermore, Calvin’s teachings declare Jesus’ work on the cross was not infinite, because according to that teaching, he did not shed his blood for every human, but only for the elect — those predestined to be saved. This is clearly refuted by 1 John 2:2: “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Also, his “perseverance of the saints” doctrine would assert that God’s power will keep a truly saved person secure, in spite of grievous sins committed after regeneration and/or any doctrinal heresies that would be embraced, thus violating many scriptural examples and warnings which prove the opposite!

It should be apparent that, from the founder down to us today, the “perseverance of the saints” doctrine (most commonly known as “once saved always saved”) has often been a “license for immorality” taught under the banner of grace (see Jude 3, 4). As Calvin’s own theology allowed for his actions against Servetus, many in our day are sexually immoral, liars, drunkards, filled with greed, etc., while they profess salvation. This is a ramification of Calvin’s perverted grace message — a teaching which has “spread like gangrene” from a man who could openly burn another to death and for the remaining 10 years and seven months of his life, never publicly repent of his crime.

“Servetus’ ashes will cry out against him [Calvin] as long as the names of these two men are known in the world.”[21]

Responses to this article from www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm:

“One year ago, while taking a European History class, I chose to do a final project on the Reformer John Calvin. After gathering all the facts I could find in books, I turned to the Internet for the latest information. What I found was an article titled, ‘His Ashes Cry out Against John Calvin.’ Shortly after reading it, I changed my topic from John Calvin to Michael Servetus. Interested by this story and seeing much of your information came from Bainton’s book Hunted Heretic, I searched madly for a copy through used bookstores, for about a year. One day, I received a letter that I might purchase a copy for a not-so-high amount, and amazingly the copy was signed by Bainton himself. I’m back at this web site, scratching up information for a friend on his report on Calvin. The whole point of this is that I would just like to thank you for giving me a brand new point of view on John Calvin. This web site has one thing that many don’t, and that is credibility. Thanks again.”

“On Monday I received a phone call from the chairman of the board of the church I pastor. Brother Phil was upset some of his fellow Christian school board members were pestering him about not being a Calvinist. They were saying his simple Bible believing faith was naive and he needed to study John Calvin to understand what it means to be saved. He asked me for help. Well, I had long ago in college studied Calvin and decided his position on predestination was not in line with the clear teaching of Scripture. I had two funerals to do this week and no time to prepare anything. But I located your work ‘His Ashes Cry Out Against John Calvin’ on the internet. I read this work word for word to the men's Sunday School class and the reaction was universal: They all exclaimed: Who needs a murderer to teach Bible doctrine? Thank the Lord that your article ‘His Ashes Cry Out Against John Calvin’ headed off a very divisive issue. I am waiting to hear what the school board members think when they read ‘His Ashes Cry Out Against John Calvin’! Again, thank you.”

FOOTNOTES.

[1] “On only two counts, significantly, was Servetus condemned — namely, anti-Trinitarianism and anti-paedobaptism [infant baptism]” (Roland H. Bainton, Hunted Heretic, The Beacon Press, 1953, p. 207). Comment: Regarding his rejection of infant baptism, Servetus said, “It is an invention of the Devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity” (Ibid., p. 186.) Many Christians of our day could only give a hearty “Amen” to this statement made about infant baptism. However, this is why, in part, Servetus was condemned to death by the Calvinists!

[2] Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Baker Book House, 1950, p. 371.

[3] The Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church, Moody Press, 1982, p. 73.

[4] Stephen Hole Fritchman, Men of Liberty, reissued Kennikat Press, Inc., 1968, p. 8.

[5] Walter Nigg, The Heretics, Alfred A. Knopf, 1962, p. 328.

[6] Who's Who In Church History, Fleming H. Revell Company, 1969, p. 252.

[7] Steven Ozment, The Age Of Reformation 1250-1550, Yale University Press, 1980, p. 370.

[8] The Heretics, p. 326.

[9] The Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church, p. 366.

[10] John F. Fulton, Michael Servetus Humanist and Martyr, Herbert Reichner, 1953, p. 35.

[11] The Heretics, p. 327.

[12] Hunted Heretic, p. 214. Comment: Nowhere in the Bible do we see this sort of emphasis for one’s salvation. The dying thief, the Philippian jailer and Cornelius were all saved by a most basic trusting-submitting faith in Jesus.

[13] Michael Servetus Humanist and Martyr, p. 36.

[14] John Hus attacked various Roman Catholic heresies such as transubstantiation, subservience to the Pope, belief in the saints, efficacy of absolution through the priesthood, unconditional obedience to earthly rulers and simony. Hus also made the Holy Scriptures the only rule in matters of religion and faith. See The Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church, p. 201.

[15] The Heretics, p. 326.

[16] Ibid., pp. 328, 329.

[17] For example, in clear contrast to the meaning that Jesus gave of the parable of the weeds in the field (Mt. 13:24-43) where the Lord told us “the field is the world” (v. 38), John Calvin taught “the field is the church.” See Calvin’s verse by verse commentary on Matthew’s gospel.

[18] The Age of Reformation 1250-1550, pp. 368,369. Bolsec's book in which he charges Calvin as he did is cited as Histoire de la vie, moeurs, actes, doctrine, constance et mort de Jean Calvin,. pub. a Lyon en 1577, ed. M. Louis-Francois Chastel (Lyon, 1875).

[19] Ibid., p. 369.

[20] Augustine of Hippo, the Catholic theologian, was an earlier proponent of predestination from whom John Calvin drew ideas.

[21] The Heretics, p. 328.

Enoch and Elijah: Where Are They Now?

By Jim Punton and Anthony Buzzard

Hebrews 11:5: “By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, and was not found, because God had taken him; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” Other heroes of faith are then listed in this hall of fame. Then the writer says: “All these died in faith, not having received the promises. They saw the promises from afar and welcomed them. They confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims in the land” (Heb. 11:13). “What more shall I say?…Gideon, Barak, Jephthah, David and Samuel and the prophets…All these, though well attested through their faith, did not obtain the promise” (Heb. 11:32, 39).

The writer to the Hebrews allows for no exceptions when it comes to the question of death. Enoch died, and the prophets died. Elijah, of course, was a celebrated prophet.

There is no hint here that either Enoch or Elijah was taken to be with God in heaven and given immortality before Jesus. They were removed, certainly, but the text does not say “taken up to the throne of God.” In fact their colleagues went looking for them, expecting to find them in a different location on earth. On the basis of these facts we conclude:

1. By the end of the first century no human being other than Christ himself had been resurrected from death into immortality. Peter said (about 31 AD), “David has not ascended into heaven” (Acts 2:29, 34). Paul said that Christ was “the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20) and “afterwards, at his coming again, those who belong to Christ” (1 Cor. 15:23). Jesus was the “firstborn from the dead” (Col. 1:18). Between Christ’s resurrection and Christ’s return, these dead are “asleep in Jesus” (1 Thess. 4:14). Since “the fathers fell asleep” (2 Pet. 3:4) none who trusted God before or after Christ has been awakened. None has been removed to heaven. No one but Christ has ascended to heaven.

2. Those who have “fallen asleep” trusting in Christ “have already perished,” says Paul (1 Cor. 15:18), unless there is a coming resurrection. If there is no resurrection, there is no life beyond death. Paul places no hope in the dead being now immortal nor even alive. No one yet has immortality. Immortality is a gift beyond death, to be given only to those who have God’s Holy Spirit, and to be given when Christ returns. If he doesn’t return, if there’s no resurrection, then the dead are already perished. BUT Christ has died! Christ is risen! Christ will come again! Immortality awaits our awakening at Christ’s return (1 Cor. 15:51-54; 1 Thess. 4:13-17; John 5:29).

3. This is not contradicted by 1 Peter 3:18-19. Christ was “put to death”; but he was raised again or “made alive” (v. 18). Having then also “gone”[1] or ascended to God, he made by this his proclamation of triumph over the demonic, the “spirits in prison” (v. 19). Carefully read, this passage says nothing of an alleged “life” of Jesus while he was dead. It does not speak of activity between his death and resurrection. It affirms his resurrection — he was dead and then “made alive” by resurrection. Then followed his ascension. In that risen condition he made a proclamation of the defeat of evil to fallen spirits (angelic beings, v. 19). The robbing or “harrowing” of Hades (by which Christ supposedly set free the Old Testament believers and took them off to heaven) is fantasy. And it is based on misinterpreting the above and Ephesians 4:8. The “captivity he took captive” probably refers again to the “principalities and powers” (Eph. 1:21, 22; Col. 2:15).

4. The “sleep” of death itself need hold no fears. At the resurrection the period of death will seem to have been as momentary as any undisturbed sleep now. And, to the Lord, all our time is present. Tyndale says this: “I think the souls departed in the faith of Christ...to be in no worse case than the soul of Christ was from the time that he delivered his spirit into the hands of his Father until the resurrection of his body in glory and immortality” (1534).

5. The early church firmly held that resurrection at Christ’s return was our hope of God’s Kingdom. Till then, the whole person who died remains in sleep. Justin Martyr (who died in 165 AD) says: “I choose to follow not men or men’s teachings, but God and the doctrines delivered by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians but...who say that their souls when they die are taken to heaven, do not imagine that they are Christians...Christians who are right-minded on all points are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead” (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 80).

Elijah and Enoch are not, as we saw in Hebrews 11, exceptions. They too died (Heb. 11:13, 39), although they had previously experienced a miraculous “transference” by divine intervention.

Elijah

The year in which Elijah was lifted up and carried off in a whirlwind was 852 BC. This was the year when Jehoram (son of Ahab) began to reign over the northern territory of Israel (2 Kings 1:17; 3:1). Elijah was removed and Elisha succeeded him as God’s prophet to Israel (2 Kings 2:1, 11).

But in the southern territory of Judah another Jehoram (son of Jehoshaphat) had been reigning alongside his father from 853 BC and became sole king of Judah in 848 BC (2 Kings 8:16).
So from the time of Elijah’s disappearance in 852, till 841 BC, there was a Jehoram in Judah and a Jehoram in Israel. They were brothers-in-law.

Jehoram of Judah turned to idolatry (2 Chron. 21:11). In 842 BC, the year before he died of dysentery, and ten years after Elijah had gone, Jehoram of Judah received a letter from Elijah (2 Chron. 21:12-15). Elijah was still alive, still on earth, still active for God ten years after he was removed from Israel.

In 852 Elijah had been caught up “into the heavens,” into the sky, in a whirlwind. The other prophets were afraid that he might have been dropped on some mountain or in some valley (2 Kings 2:16); they obviously hadn’t thought that Elijah would be carried beyond the skies. Fifty athletes searched for him for three days but “did not find him” (2 Kings 2:17). Clearly they expected him to have been transferred from one location on earth to another on earth. And so it was. But God did not reveal where. Yet, from that unknown place, Elijah continued his watchful and prayerful concern for Israel and Judah. He broke his silence after ten years when he wrote his letter to Jehoram of Judah. We are told no more, and don’t know when or where he died. But we do know that immortality awaits him when he is awakened by Christ at the last day (1 Cor. 15:51-56). Three of Jesus’ disciples were allowed a glimpse of that future Kingdom and saw Elijah alive by resurrection there. But this was a vision (Matt. 17:9), the future being seen in advance. Like Moses, Elijah now awaits the resurrection. There is no contradiction of John 3:13 in what the Bible tells us of Elijah.

Those who insist that the whirlwind took him “to heaven,” to immortality, into God’s presence (despite Heb. 11:13, 39) have real difficulty with Elijah’s letter to Jehoram. They have to suggest (a) that 2 Chronicles 21:12-15 is a corrupted text (though there’s no evidence for this); or (b) that Elijah foresaw Jehoram’s idolatry and, writing the letter before he was removed, left it with someone with instructions to send it ten years later; or (c) that he came back from heaven in order to write to Jehoram. But the straightforward explanation rings most true. And John was not opposing the Old Testament Scriptures when he wrote John 3:13.

What evidence is there that the Hebrews ever thought Elijah had ascended to God? His fellow prophets didn’t think of this. Nor in the rest of the Old Testament is it suggested. Josephus (writing about the same time as John) says, “Elijah disappeared from men and no one knows to this day of his end” (Antiq. ix. 2:2).

As for his being transported in the whirlwind, we may have a parallel in the account of Philip in Acts 8:39. It seems to be a similar phenomenon. But while Elijah was not found (2 Kings 2:17), Philip was found (Acts 8:40).

Summary

On this understanding, Elijah did not ascend into heaven and gain immortality. He was carried by God’s Spirit to an undisclosed location where he lived on, serving his Lord; ten years passed before he spoke out his challenge to Jehoram of Judah. He eventually died in faith, as did all the prophets (Heb. 11:32, 39, 40) and he sleeps now till Christ returns.


What Then of Enoch?

Isn’t the Bible clear that he was transfigured and transferred to God’s presence in heaven? Genesis 5:24 says: “He [was] not, for God took him.” The Hebrew text has no main verb. We’ll come back to the phrase. The other verb “took” is from a common Hebrew verb laqah, meaning “take, take away, remove, carry off.” Its usage covers the “taking away” of purchases from a market, of a woman from her father’s house through marriage, of life by violence.

It is a feature of laqah that “when nephesh, ‘life, person,’ is the object in every instance in the OT the meaning is ‘to take away life, to kill.’”[2] Elijah, for example, uses it to refer to his opponents’ plans for him: “They seek my life [nephesh] to take it away” (1 Kings 19:10, 14). The psalmist says, “They plotted to take away my life [nephesh]” (Ps. 31:13). Ezekiel has, “If the sword should come to take away a life [nephesh] from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity” (Ezek. 33:6). Most interestingly we have in Proverbs, “The reward of the just will be a tree of life, but the lives [nephesh] of the unjust will be taken away. The man who is just on the earth will receive what he deserves; how much more the unjust and the sinner” (Prov. 11:30, 31).[3]

Jonah actually prays to God, “O Lord, take away my life [nephesh]” (Jonah 4:3) and Elijah earlier had prayed, “O Lord, take away my life [nephesh]; I am no better than my fathers before me” (1 Kings 19:4).

As in the last two examples, God may be the one who “takes away” being (nephesh). So the phrase “God took him” (Gen. 5:24) is not unique. Hosea speaks for God: “In my anger I gave you a king; in my wrath I have taken him away” (Hos. 13:11). But it needn’t mean “destroyed.” The Psalmist can say: “With your counsel you will guide me, and with glory then take me away” (Ps. 73:24), and “God will ransom my being [nephesh] from the power of Sheol [the Unseen world of the dead], for he will take me away” (Ps. 49:15).

The phrase “God took him” would not then be a surprising one to the Hebrews. It would not of itself suggest a unique experience for Enoch. They would read it as implying an ending of life by intervention of God such as that prayed for by Elijah and Jonah. More than the phrase itself would be required to indicate that Enoch bypassed death, or that he was removed into God’s presence in heaven. The Old Testament gives us no further information beyond saying that “all the days of Enoch were 365 years” (Gen. 5:23). But we should note that the phrase “he was not” would itself be taken to mean “he died” (cf. Job 7:21; 8:22; Ps. 39:13; 103:16; Prov. 12:7). Hebrews 11:13 says that Enoch (v. 5) died along with all the rest of the heroes of faith.

The Septuagint

The Greek-speaking community of expatriate Jews in Alexandria required the Old Testament to be translated into Greek. This was completed between 250 BC and 170 BC and is known as the Septuagint (LXX). It was important to the early church and frequently quoted. It renders Genesis 5:24: “He was not found because God transferred him.” “He was not” has become “he was not found” (perhaps influenced by the Elijah story). “God took him” has become “God transferred him.” This translation goes beyond the Hebrew original “God took him,” but needn’t mean more.

The Greek word rendered “transferred” is from metatihemi which means “place or position differently, change the position of, relocate, resite, transfer.”[4]

a. It appears in the LXX of the Old Testament as follows: “Cursed is the one who transfers his neighbor’s landmarks” (Deut. 27:17). “Ahab...sold himself to what was evil in God’s sight as Jezebel, his wife, transferred him” (i.e. changed the position he took, 1 Kings 21:25; 20:25, LXX). “The mountains are transferred into the depths of the seas” (Ps. 45:3). “Do not transfer the eternal landmarks” (Prov. 23:10). “I will proceed to transfer this people and I will transfer them” (Isa. 29:14). “Lebanon will be transferred as the mountains of Carmel” (Isa. 29:17). “The rulers of Judah have become like those transferring landmarks” (Hos. 5:10). Here we see the main use as repositioning landmarks (Deut. 27:17; Prov. 23:10; Hos. 5:10); resiting mountains moved from one place to another (Ps. 45:3; Isa. 29:17); displacing people and relocating them (Isa. 29:14; and the transferring of allegiance from Yahweh to Baal, effected in Ahab by Jezebel (1 Kings 21:25).

b. It appears in the New Testament as follows: “Jacob died, he and our fathers, and they were transferred to Shechem” (Acts 7:16). “I’m astonished that you are transferring so quickly to another gospel” (Gal. 1:6). “The priestly office being transferred, a transfer of law of necessity also occurs” (Heb. 7:12). “By faith Enoch was transferred...God transferred him” (Heb. 11:5). “Persons transferring the grace of God...” (Jude 4). The noun (metathesis) occurs at Hebrews 7:12; 11:5; 12:27.

Usage of the verb in the LXX and New Testament strongly suggests that we understand it in Genesis 5:24 (LXX) as God’s transferring Enoch from one location or site to another. (It is not a word for transfiguration or transformation and does not speak of being taken up to immortality.) Elijah was transferred alive from one place in Palestine to another. Was Enoch similarly transferred? Or is the reference to the transferring of the dead Enoch for a secret burial like that of Moses (Deut. 34:5, 6; Jude 9)?[5] Or is it something else?

Josephus

The Jewish historian, Josephus, says: “As for Elijah and for Enoch (who was before the flood) it is written in the sacred books that they disappeared” (Antiq. IX. 2.2). He gives no hint that he thought Enoch had ascended immortal to heaven. But he does indicate mystery in his “disappearance” and links it with that of Elijah.

Writings Between the Old Testament and New Testament

a. About 180 BC we find in the Book of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus: “Enoch pleased the Lord and was taken away. He was an example of repentance to all generations” (4:4). A Hebrew version of this passage says, “He was a sign of knowledge to all generations” (Cairo Genizah B text). The whole verse is missing from the Syriac version and from the Masada scroll. Whatever the reading should be, it does not advance our search, beyond showing profound regard for Enoch.

b. About 100 BC we find a substantial legend surrounding Enoch. The Book of Jubilees (4:16-26) suggests that he was the first to learn writing and to write prophetically, that he devised the astronomical signs and constructed the first calendar, that he was foremost in knowledge and wisdom. In his sleep he was taken on a tour of the earth and the heavens; he met the fallen angels who had had sexual relations with women and fathered the nephilim (Gen. 6:1-4; Jude 6: 1 Pet. 3:19). God finally carried him off to the Garden of Eden where he remains, recording the wickedness of mankind in preparation for the final judgment. Jubilees is a fictional work which carries us well outside the Bible. But it allows us to see one view, which may have become widely held. But that view puts Enoch in Eden, not heaven.

c. An important collection of five writings, mostly from the second century BC, is known as Ethiopic or 1 Enoch. The section “The Watchers” (1:36) quotes the same prophecy of Enoch’s as Jude does (Jude 14, 15; Enoch 1:9). Another section, “The Giants,” was replaced by “The Similitudes” (37-71) which was probably written at least as late as 100 AD. It is not found at Qumran. In “Similitudes,” the legend of Enoch is further developed. Enoch is identified with “the Son of man” (Enoch 71:14) and reference made to his “sitting on the throne of glory” (45:3; 61:8; 69:2).

It has been improbably suggested that this work may pre-date Jesus and that Jesus is referring to Enoch in John 3:13: “No man has gone up into heaven except the one who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man [Enoch] who is in heaven.” Is there a comparison of Enoch and of the Messiah, both as “Son of Man”? Are we to see both as ascending to heaven, both as making proclamation to the imprisoned angels? Intriguing though this is, it is unconvincing. John 3:13 probably refers to Jesus entering, during his life, into the secrets of God through his intimate relation to God.

d. In Slavonic or 2 Enoch, a later Christian work which may include Jewish material, we find Enoch petitioning God on behalf of the fallen angels and reporting back to them God’s negative response. He then returns to earth for 30 days and is taken permanently to Eden (2 Enoch 68:1-3).

Summary

We have strayed some way from the Biblical data in order to explore material that may have been available to the early Christian community. To recap: Genesis 5:24 simply says, “He [was] not, because God took him.” The Hebrew does not imply anything unique by “took.” The LXX makes this “God transferred him,” a Greek word that suggests change of location. Josephus says he “disappeared,” echoing the LXX “he was not found” for the Hebrew “he not.” If the Old Testament and Josephus were our only sources, there would be no grounds for assuming anything different to have happened to Enoch than happened to Elijah. But we have inter-testamental Jewish writings which have Enoch transferred to the Garden of Eden — not to heaven. And we have one work, later than John’s gospel, which has Enoch in heaven as the Son of Man.

New Testament

Genesis 5:24 is quoted in the New Testament, in its LXX form: “He was not found, because God transferred him” (Heb. 11:5). The writer prefaces the quotation with “Enoch was by faith transferred, in order not to see death” (Heb. 11:5). This well-known chapter tells us what was accomplished by means of faith; and Enoch “by faith was transferred.” We are not told what this involved. If it meant relocation, we do not know the whereabouts. We are not told that he ascended “to heaven.” The mystery remains.

The purpose of his being “transferred” was “not to see death.” This very phrase occurs in Luke 2:26 where Simeon saw the infant Messiah as God had promised. He was ready then to “see death,” to be “released in shalom” (v. 29). To “see death” is the opposite of to “see life.” “The one who does not obey the Son shall not see life” (John 3:36). “See” as “experience” is used with “decay” (Acts 2:27, 31) and “grief” (Rev. 18:7), as well as with “life” and “death.” It occurs with a different verb in John 8:51 where the Greek has, “If anyone keeps my word, he will in no way see death eternally” (cf. the next verse where Jesus talks of us “tasting” death eternally: John 8:52; Matt. 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27; Heb. 2:9).

In what sense did Enoch not “see” or “experience” death? Was it a deferment like Simeon’s (Luke 2:26)? Was it the means of his avoiding the “eternal death” (John 8:51, 52), the “second death” (Rev. 20:14)? Which “death” did he not “see”? If “the first,” for how long did he “not see” it? One suggestion is that both Enoch and Elijah were faced with violent death from which God rescued them: “In Hebrews 11:5 it is said ‘By faith Enoch was translated’ (that is, transferred from one place to another) ‘that he should not see death’ (that is, a martyr’s death) at the hands of the ungodly world, no doubt for his prophecy of a coming judgment upon them (Jude 14, 15). In the same way Elijah was no doubt translated (that is, transferred), certainly not to the planets, that he might not meet with a martyr’s death at the hands of Jezebel.”[6]

Did Enoch die? The writer to the Hebrews states clearly that he did. Having listed many who trusted God, including Enoch, he says, “these all died in faith” (11:13). Besides, “All these…received not the promise” (11:13, 39). Enoch has not yet received it. Nor will he till the resurrection. Paul does not except Enoch (or Elijah) from death. He says, “Death passed upon all men” (Rom. 5:12). Whatever in reality happened to Enoch, whatever Genesis 5:24 and Hebrews 11:5 mean, ascent into heaven to receive immortality before the resurrection is not claimed for Enoch or Elijah in the Old Testament or New Testament.

Conclusion

Enoch and Elijah, having “died in faith,” are asleep. With all who “sleep in Christ,” they have no awareness of the passage of time as they “await” his coming. Yet his return will bring their awakening to life and immortality at the first resurrection (Dan. 12:2; 1 Thess. 4:13-15; 1 Cor. 15:20, 51-54; John 5:25, 28; Rev. 20:1-6). Jesus will come back and reign for 1000 years in a renewed earth with all the saints of all the ages. Following the progressive eradication of all that is evil, a further renewal will bring “heaven” to this planet (Rev. 21:1-4). “Even so, come Lord Jesus.”

[1] That “having gone” (v. 19) refers to his ascension is clear from its reappearance in verse 22 (cf. Acts 1:10, 11; John 14:2, 3, 12, 28; 16:7, 28).

[2] Robert Bratcher in Bible Translator 34, no. 3, July 1983, p. 337.

[3] The Greek (LXX) has: “the lives of the unjust are taken away.” The OT “a wise man takes away lives” should probably read “violence takes away lives.”

[4] Methistemi is a different verb occurring in the NT at Luke 16:4; Acts 13:22; 19:26; 1 Cor. 13:2; Col. 1:13.

[5] The Hebrew here (Deut. 34:6) has been taken as: “he buried him” (RSV); “he buried himself” (Rashi. Ibn Ezra); “he was buried” (JB); “buried him” (GNB); perhaps it’s simply “someone buried him”; the LXX has “they buried him.”

[6] George Waller, A Biblical Concordance on the Soul, the Intermediate State and the Resurrection, 1906.