Is There a Contradiction?

[Arial]

Jehoram didn't become king until a year after the chariot event.

2 Kings:1:17-18


17 So he died according to the word of the Lord that Elijah had spoken. Jehoram became king in his place in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, because Ahaziah had no son. 18 Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel?

2 Kings 2 Elijah taken to heaven.

2 Chron 21:1
Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers and was buried with his fathers in the city of David, and Jehoram his son reigned in his place.

12.
12 And a letter came to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, “Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father, ‘Because you have not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat your father, or in the ways of Asa king of Judah, 13 but have walked in the way of the kings of Israel and have enticed Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem into whoredom,

King of Judah
Jehoram from Guillaume Rouillé's Promptuarii Iconum Insigniorum, 1553
Reign	c. 853 – 849 BCE (co-regent with Jehoshaphat) c. 849 – 842 BCE (sole reign)
Predecessor	Jehoshaphat
Successor	Ahaziah

 

[Arial]

The letter was to Jehoram, He wasn't king of Judah until after the chariot event occurred.

Show this from Scripture.

 

[Viking123]

2 Kings:1:17-18


17 So he died according to the word of the Lord that Elijah had spoken. Jehoram became king in his place in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, because Ahaziah had no son. 18 Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel?

2 Kings 2 Elijah taken to heaven.

2 Chron 21:1
Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers and was buried with his fathers in the city of David, and Jehoram his son reigned in his place.

12.
12 And a letter came to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, “Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father, ‘Because you have not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat your father, or in the ways of Asa king of Judah, 13 but have walked in the way of the kings of Israel and have enticed Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem into whoredom,

King of Judah
Jehoram from Guillaume Rouillé's Promptuarii Iconum Insigniorum, 1553
Reign	c. 853 – 849 BCE (co-regent with Jehoshaphat) c. 849 – 842 BCE (sole reign)
Predecessor	Jehoshaphat
Successor	Ahaziah

Jehoram became king in 849. I believe Jehosaphat was king of Judah until 849-Jehoram may have co ruled but Jehosaphat would be the only one called king until 849.

 

[Viking123]

Show this from Scripture.

850=the chariot event--849 Jehoram becomes king.

 

[makesends]

None are immortal but God and he gave Jesus immortality. You twist Php. It does not say when he would be with Christ. It just says he would be with Christ--That occurs during the first resurrection-after Rev 6:2 occurs here in these last days. Not back then.

Do you believe in the Trinity —Do you believe that Jesus Christ was God before he was conceived, and after?

 

[makesends]

Thanks, glad to be here.



I would call myself Evangelical. The Bible is the Word of God and the only written Word of God. I would not call myself Reformed, though I think I hold to the TULIP except for Limited Atonement. I hold to that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ only.

I am Dispensational. I believe in the Rapture of the saints. Pre-Trib and Pre-Mill and all that. Though I am Dispensational I differ there in that I do hold that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still for the Church today.

I have been a member of many different denominations and have learned from many good Bible teachers. I hold to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Literal in that it allows for symbols, types, allegories, etc.

Lees

Thanks. The rest of what you believe, your worldview and assumptions will show up as we go along, and, I hope, you won't assume till you hear from the rest of us, what we believe and why. But it is good to have a starting point.

 

[Lees]

Do you believe in the Trinity —Do you believe that Jesus Christ was God before he was conceived, and after?

Yes, I believe in the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Yes, Jesus Christ was God with the Father and Holy Spirit before He ever became a Man. And Jesus Christ was/is the God/Man. 100% God/100%Man. The God/Man.

Thanks. The rest of what you believe, your worldview and assumptions will show up as we go along, and, I hope, you won't assume till you hear from the rest of us, what we believe and why. But it is good to have a starting point.

No problem.

Lees

 

[Arial]

850=the chariot event--849 Jehoram becomes king.

You have only said that the chariot event was in 850. You have not shown me that it was. Give evidence. Lacking historical evidence, we can go no farther than what the Bible says.

Jehoram received a letter from Elijah. This the Bible says.
Since it is illogical to think that Elijah had already been taken up to heaven when he wrote and sent that letter, logic tells us he had not been taken to heaven when he wrote the letter.

What we don't do is make up a fantastical story that makes the Bible tell lies and say he wasn't taken to heaven but to some other part of the earth.

 

[3 Resurrections]

As to (Heb. 11:13), "These all died in faith, not having received the promises...." This speaks to those promises made to Abraham. (Heb. 11:8-12) These promises were well after Enoch. And to those to whom these promises were made, they all died in faith, not having received the end to those promises.

YES. This underlined part above in your comment was also the point I was making earlier. (By the way, greetings to a new poster - fresh voices always welcome )

I do not see any contradiction between (Heb. 9:27) and (Heb. 11:5). If that is viewed as a contradiction then the 2nd death, (Rev. 2:11) (Rev. 20:6), must be a contradiction to (Heb. 9:27) also. Because that contradicts the 'once to die'.

I, too, see no contradiction at all between Hebrews 9:27 and Hebrews 11:5 with the faithful Enoch who did not see death, compared to all of those faithful descendants of the faithful Abraham who did physically die in faith.

The "second death" is also not a contradiction to Hebrews 9:27, because it was NOT a "second death" for members of humanity to physically die twice. Instead, it was the second time that the city of Jerusalem was destroyed by Death and Hell (Hades - the grave) being cast into the city to plague the besieged inhabitants, and for the temple and the city to be burned down (by the Babylonian invasion in 586 BC and then by the AD 70 Roman invasion).

 

[3 Resurrections]

What we don't do is make up a fantastical story that makes the Bible tell lies and say he wasn't taken to heaven but to some other part of the earth.

This is not a "fantastical story". Here is the account in the LXX of Elijah's transport into the sky (the first heaven - NOT the "third heaven").

"And it came to pass, when the Lord was going to take Eliu with a whirlwind AS IT WERE into heaven, that Eliu and Elisaie went out of Galgala."
"And it came to pass as they were going, they went on talking; and, behold, a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and it separated between them both; and Eliu was taken up in a whirlwind AS IT WERE into heaven." (IV Kings 2:1 & 11).

So, from the viewpoint of Elisha down below on the ground, it APPEARED as if Elijah was being taken up into the heavens, but in reality, he was never ascending to God's presence, but merely being transported through the skies of the first heaven to another location on earth where he later wrote the letter to King Jehoram. There are NO contradictions to the later statement in John 3:13 that "no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven."

 

[Arial]

This is not a "fantastical story". Here is the account in the LXX of Elijah's transport into the sky (the first heaven - NOT the "third heaven").

"And it came to pass, when the Lord was going to take Eliu with a whirlwind AS IT WERE into heaven, that Eliu and Elisaie went out of Galgala."
"And it came to pass as they were going, they went on talking; and, behold, a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and it separated between them both; and Eliu was taken up in a whirlwind AS IT WERE into heaven." (IV Kings 2:1 & 11).

So, from the viewpoint of Elisha down below on the ground, it APPEARED as if Elijah was being taken up into the heavens, but in reality, he was never ascending to God's presence, but merely being transported through the skies of the first heaven to another location on earth where he later wrote the letter to King Jehoram. There are NO contradictions to the later statement in John 3:13 that "no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven."

It is fantastical and it is pure speculation. Something that is never stated in Scripture. What is stated in 2 Kings is that Jehoshaphat died and Jehoram became king. And then we have the account of Elijah being taken up. In 1 and 2 Chron we have a repeat of much of the same history as we find in 1 and 2 Kings. 1 Kings begins with the history with David in his old age and recounts events and kings in the northern kingdom (Israel) and Judah, and king Zedekiah through 2 Kings, to the fall of Judah. 1 Chron begins it history of the people of Jacob with genealogies and relates historical events and people through the death of David. 2 Chron goes through the fall of Judah and ends with the proclamation of Cyrus.

Originally these books were not divided into 1st's and 2nd's. They are coming from different perspectives and have different purposes. They have different authors.

There are conflicting assertions as to whether or not Elijah was still alive when Jehoram received this letter. The original language suggests that what is translated "a letter" is "a writing". In which case, if Elijah was already gone, it could be something Elijah had previously written (perhaps prophetically) that was brought to the king's attention. However the content of the letter strongly suggests otherwise. Since Elijah's going up to heaven is not dated within the Bible there is really no reason to suggest that he wasn't still alive.

In any case, there is no reason to completely miss the point of the passage, connect it to other unrelated passages (unrelated because they are dealing with different things) and makeup something that has zero Bible support, and leap to a conclusion that is a leap that leaves one dangling in mid air wondering where the ground went. That is, "because Jesus says this over here, then this thing about Elijah means Elijah went to a different place on earth and wrote that letter."!

The OP made the mistake of trying to compare two different things and then asked if they were a contradiction. The OP itself was deeply flawed. @Josheb

 

[Lees]

YES. This underlined part above in your comment was also the point I was making earlier. (By the way, greetings to a new poster - fresh voices always welcome )


I, too, see no contradiction at all between Hebrews 9:27 and Hebrews 11:5 with the faithful Enoch who did not see death, compared to all of those faithful descendants of the faithful Abraham who did physically die in faith.

The "second death" is also not a contradiction to Hebrews 9:27, because it was NOT a "second death" for members of humanity to physically die twice. Instead, it was the second time that the city of Jerusalem was destroyed by Death and Hell (Hades - the grave) being cast into the city to plague the besieged inhabitants, and for the temple and the city to be burned down (by the Babylonian invasion in 586 BC and then by the AD 70 Roman invasion).

Thanks for the welcome. Glad to meet you.

I believe the 'second death' does involve humans. (Rev. 20:6) "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power...." (Rev. 20:14-15) "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the lake of fire.

It is the second death because they have been resurrected. Resurrection always involves the body. And note the 'he' and 'whosoever'. They lived once and died. They are resurrected, getting their bodies back. They are then thrown into the lake of fire where their bodies die again, second death, and their spirit and soul are in the lake of fire forever.

As the old saying goes, 'born twice-die once. born once-die twice'.

Lees

 

[Eleanor]

They received the promises...yes. But they never received the fulfillment or end of those promises. That those promises were eternal, and everlasting...yes.

A promise was for the land for ever. (Gen. 13:15)

The promise was an everlasting possession (Ge 13:15, 17:8), made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, personally (Ge 17:8, 26:3, 28:4, 35:12), yet none of them ever possessed a foot of ground there (Ac 7:5), because according to Heb 11:8-16, it was not a promise of an everlasting possession of earthly land, but an everlasting possession of heavenly land. That country of hope and promise was the heavenly country (Heb 11:16), not Canaan.
There was no eternal title to (everlasting possession of) the land of Canaan.

,"For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever." And as you point out in (Acts 7:5), Abraham never obtained the fulfillment of that promise. "And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child."

In the verses (Heb. 11:10, 13, 16), the desire from those to seek a heavenly city, one whose builder and maker is God, doesn't need to mean a city or country not found on earth. It just needs to be one whose builder and maker is God. A heavenly city on earth. And Abraham had already been told that it would be at least 400 years before the land process would even begin. (Gen. 15:13-16) And the call of Abraham was the beginning of the promises, and the land was part of those promises.

Those promises are first given in (Gen. 12:1-3). If all the land that Abraham saw was promised to him forever, then if God doesn't give him that land forever, He has gone back on His Word. And I'm sure you don't believe that, as neither do I.

That is my understanding. Pleased to meet you.

Lees

 

[CrowCross]

The "second death" is also not a contradiction to Hebrews 9:27, because it was NOT a "second death" for members of humanity to physically die twice. Instead, it was the second time that the city of Jerusalem was destroyed by Death and Hell (Hades - the grave) being cast into the city to plague the besieged inhabitants, and for the temple and the city to be burned down (by the Babylonian invasion in 586 BC and then by the AD 70 Roman invasion).

Rev 20;14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

 

[Eleanor]

Satan and his angels will be destroyed, thus are not immortal. No created being is immortal unless God grants it to them. There is no ghost like being within a mortal.

Yours is not orthodox Christianity.

 

[Arial]

The promise was an everlasting possession (Ge 13:15, 17:8), made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, personally (Ge 17:8, 26:3, 28:4, 35:12), yet none of them ever possessed a foot of ground there (Ac 7:5), because according to Heb 11:8-16, it was not a promise of an everlasting possession of earthly land, but an everlasting possession of heavenly land. That country of hope and promise was the heavenly country (Heb 11:16), not Canaan.
There was no eternal title to (everlasting possession of) the land of Canaan.

Many have a very difficult time accepting that there is a distinction there. There are two covenant relationships involved. One is for land with stipulations, which Jacob's descendants broke and lost the land, and the other is the singular covenant of redemption through faith in the substitutionary work of Christ. The land grant covenant is a part of the covenant of redemption but is not redemption.

 

[Josheb]

The OP made the mistake of trying to compare two different things and then asked if they were a contradiction. The OP itself was deeply flawed. @Josheb

It's not a mistake and, while it is true the two verses are asserted in differing contexts, it is not misguided in any way to ask if they contradict. The Op is not deeply flawed. It is flawed thinking that imagines it is flawed. The two verses cited, and all the rest that speak to Enoch's condition, reconcile perfectly when all of scripture is considered. According to the posts, most people get it and got it. Post 151 would have served better @3 Resurrections better without that last line.

 

[Arial]

It's not a mistake and, while it is true the two verses are asserted in differing contexts, it is not misguided in any way to ask if they contradict. The Op is not deeply flawed. It is flawed thinking that imagines it is flawed. The two verses cited, and all the rest that speak to Enoch's condition, reconcile perfectly when all of scripture is considered. According to the posts, most people get it and got it. Post 151 would have served better @3 Resurrections better without that last line.

okey dokey.

According to the posts, most people get it and got it.

Which kind of surprised me that they didn't catch the "mistake" but were quickly misled, perhaps distracted, by the mention of Enoch as a possible contradiction to men only dying once, to be resolved. It only got worse because the OP went immediately off track speculation about where Enoch and Elijah went. But---that is my opinion, which I am entitled to. Not a subject for further discussion.

 

[Lees]

The promise was an everlasting possession (Ge 13:15, 17:8), made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, personally (Ge 17:8, 26:3, 28:4, 35:12), yet none of them ever possessed a foot of ground there (Ac 7:5), because according to Heb 11:8-16, it was not a promise of an everlasting possession of earthly land, but an everlasting possession of heavenly land. That country of hope and promise was the heavenly country (Heb 11:16), not Canaan.
There was no eternal title to (everlasting possession of) the land of Canaan.

But...it was a promise concerning the land. (Gen. 13:15) "For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever." (Gen. 17:8) "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession...."

That Abraham or his descendants never possessed it, (Acts 7:5), didn't annul the promise of it. That Abraham and his descendants looked for a heavenly country, does not annul the promise of the land. (Heb. 11:8-16) The promise of the land is part of the basis for establishing that 'heavenly country'. Why can't earthly land be heavenly land?

In other words, if God establishes His people on His land, and they in turn are governed and led by Him, that is the heavenly country. It's origin is from God. It is from there God works upon the earth through man. It is a heavenly country. That is what they were looking for, and what was promised them.

It is this very thing Jesus also came to establish, didn't He? (Matt. 6:10) "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."

I disagree. I believe the gift or title to the land of Canaan is eternal. I say gift because God holds the title deed to that land. (Lev. 25:23) "The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me."

Lees

 

[Eleanor]

But...it was a promise concerning the land. (Gen. 13:15) "For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever." (Gen. 17:8) "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession...."

God promised that to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob personally, and none of them ever possessed a foot of ground there (Ac 7:5).

See post #153.

That Abraham or his descendants never possessed it, (Acts 7:5), didn't annul the promise of it. That Abraham and his descendants looked for a heavenly country, does not annul the promise of the land. (Heb. 11:8-16) The promise of the land is part of the basis for establishing that 'heavenly country'. Why can't earthly land be heavenly land?

In other words, if God establishes His people on His land, and they in turn are governed and led by Him, that is the heavenly country. It's origin is from God. It is from there God works upon the earth through man. It is a heavenly country. That is what they were looking for, and what was promised them.

It is this very thing Jesus also came to establish, didn't He? (Matt. 6:10) "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."

I disagree. I believe the gift or title to the land of Canaan is eternal. I say gift because God holds the title deed to that land. (Lev. 25:23) "The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me."

Lees