Transfiguration

Q. I have a biblical question on the Transfiguration of Christ. The majority of the commentaries assert that Moses and Elijah represented the Law and the Prophets. I have an alternative view. Since Moses and Elijah talked about the death of Jesus Christ (Lk 9:31), the key idea was not the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, but His death and resurrection. This was also what Jesus told His disciples immediately thereafter (Mt 17:9; Mk 9:9).

If the interpretation of the two prophets in Rev as Elijah and Moses is accepted, then Moses did not represent the Law in the transfiguration but represented the Prophet and with Elijah also a Prophet, pointed the transfiguration as witnessing Lord Jesus was the Prophet to come, with the Father reiterating Moses’ words that the people should listen to Him (Dt 18:15). Can you throw some light on this?

You have given this much thought, so I will not repeat arguments you have made already but raise only further points to consider.

While I do not think the traditional view of Moses represents the Law and Elijah represents the Prophets is wrong, you are also on the right track.

The term “Law of Moses” occurs twenty-three times in the NASB, and Jews in both OT and NT times associate Moses with the Law. Similarly, when the Lord asked His disciples “who do people say the Son of Man is,” they typically answered, “John the Baptist, or Elijah,” as Elijah is the prophet that immediately comes to mind. Besides, the Lord Himself said in:

• Mt 5:17 Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

So the majority view has its merits.

However, you rightly pointed out one often overlooked clue:

• Lk 9:31 who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.

The word “departure” translates the Greek noun exodos, which occurs three times in the NT. Besides Lk 9:31, they are:

• Heb 11:22 By faith Joseph, when he was dying, made mention of the exodus of the sons of Israel, and gave orders concerning his bones.
• 2 Pet 1:15 And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you will be able to call these things to mind.

Departure in Lk 9:31 certainly meant “death” as in 2 Peter 1:15, but it is more than that. Joseph referred to the “exodus of the sons of Israel.” Just as Moses delivered the Israelites from bondage in Egypt, Christ the Prophet like but greater than Moses (Deut 18:15, 18; Heb 3:3, 6) delivered God’s children from the bondage of sin. So I do think Moses’ appearance in the Transfiguration has more to do with him as a prophet leading the sons of Israel to freedom than his role as a lawgiver.

Secondly, I also interpret the two witnesses in Revelation 11:3-13 to be Moses and Elijah, rather than Enoch and Elijah. The clues and supporting evidence are:

1. Fire devours enemies

Rev 11:5 And if anyone wants to harm them, fire flows out of their mouth and devours their enemies.

Num 16:35 Fire also came forth from the Lord and consumed the 250 men who were offering the incense.

2 Kgs 1:10 Elijah replied to the captain of fifty, “If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty.” Then fire came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty.

2 Kgs 1:12 Elijah replied to them, “If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty.” Then the fire of God came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty.

2. Rain will not fall

Rev 11:6a These have the power to shut up the sky, so that rain will not fall during the days of their prophesying

Jas 5:17 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months.

Water turns into blood, plagues

Rev 11:6b and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with every plague, as often as they desire.

Ex 7:20 So Moses and Aaron did even as the Lord had commanded. And he lifted up the staff and struck the water that was in the Nile, in the sight of Pharaoh and in the sight of his servants, and all the water that was in the Nile was turned to blood.

Ex 9:14 For this time I will send all My plagues on you and your servants and your people, so that you may know that there is no one like Me in all the earth.

The argument that the two witnesses should be Enoch and Elijah is based on:

• Heb 9:27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.

Proponents suggest that God appointed all men to die once, which did not happen to Enoch and Elijah:

• Gen 5:24 Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.
• 2 Kgs 2:11 As they were going along and talking, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven.

So, to fulfill Heb 9:27 they must return to die. I find this argument weak as:

• 1 Co 15:51-52 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep [die], but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
• 1 Thes 4:17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Some who were raised from the dead in the Old and New Testament, e.g., the widow’s son whom Elijah raised from the dead (1 Kgs 17:22-23), Lazarus (Jn 11:43-44) subsequently died again, so they died twice, not once.

In conclusion, I consider the alternative understanding of the Transfiguration is still significant. While the fulfillment of the Law is important, the delivering of man out of bondage into freedom is the purpose of the Lord’s incarnation, atonement, and redemption, and should govern our own purpose and conduct. Hope this helps.

Return of the Soul?

Scan from color transparency

Q. – Is there such thing as “return of the soul” after death according to the Bible? If so, where in the Bible can I read to for more insight? Do you personally believe in it?

A. No, there is no such thing. It is not biblical. I do not believe in it. Some have misinterpreted the Bible to justify their belief in this, e.g. Saul asking the witch at Endor to summon Samuel’s spirit in 1 Sam 28. I have answered this and related questions on the subject:

Where do we go when we Die?

Where Do We Go When We Die?

Contacting the Dead:

Contacting the Dead

Mediums & Spiritists

Mediums and Spiritists

The plain answer from Scripture is:

• Heb 9:27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.
• Rom 2:6-8 [God] who will render to each person according to his deeds: ⁷ To those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; ⁸ but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath, and indignation.
• Lk 16:26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.

After we die we face judgment where our eternal destiny will be decided. Those who trust in God and obey the truth will receive eternal life and everlasting bliss in heaven. Those who disobey and reject Christ will receive tribulation and distress in hell. There is no crossing over from either side to the other – no returning to earth to visit loved ones, nor is there a second chance to “try harder” next time. These are all wishful thinking on the part of man-made religions to give false hope to followers. Do not fall for them.

Decision Making in Gray Areas

Q. I retired 5 months ago and sold my clinic practice to another doctor, keeping only a part-time position at two nursing homes to keep myself active. I visit the 140 seniors weekly to make the rounds, do the paperwork, and am on call for any sickness. A colleague at one of the nursing homes plans to go on maternity leave for 10 months starting 3 weeks from now, and the director asked me whether I am interested in taking over the additional 25 patients for the next 10 months. I discussed this with my wife, but she is not enthusiastic, as I will be busy again despite my retirement, plus I am not young and have health issues myself, though under control. I find it hard to decide. What is your opinion?

A. I used to tell my church members to consider the following principles from Paul in 1 Co when they decide on a gray area not contrary to biblical guidelines or morals:

• 1 Co 6:12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.
• 1 Co 8:9-13 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. … ¹³ Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.
• 1 Co 10:23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. 
• 1 Co 10:31 Whether then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
• 1 Co 11:1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.

The questions I asked them to answer for themselves are:

1. Is the proposal under consideration profitable?

2. Will the activity master you?

3. Will it stumble my brother?

4. Does it edify?

5. Will it glorify God? and

6. Does it follow Christ’s example?

My opinion as an outsider could not possibly consider all the factors you would weigh as an insider, concerned about the well-being of your patients, or your own family situation. But since you asked, here is my quick assessment. For the sake of illustration, I would assign a weight of one equally to all six questions. You could assign scores differently to each factor, depending on its importance to you.

1. Is it profitable? I do not mean in terms of dollars and cents, but how it might affect your witness as a Christian doctor, making a difference for the Kingdom and having an impact on the lives of others. I assume you can handle the additional seniors, otherwise, the director would not have approached you. Should you decline, the director would ask another doctor, who may or may not be Christian. Should you accept, the pro is that you would have more opportunities to provide Christian care and witness, provided the seniors are open to listening. So this one is a +1.
2. Will it master you? This is not an addictive activity. You estimated the extra workload to be an hour making rounds, plus paperwork and making calls. You have to come up with a total time estimate as I am not a medical professional and have no idea. You are attracted by the extra income, but your wife is leaning against it as it is opposite to the retirement plan you started. Your age and health are also on the negative side. Overall it is a -1.
3. Will it stumble your weak brother/sister? Unlike the issues others have raised, such as social drinking, non-gambling card playing, etc. which might cause others to stumble if handled improperly, this taking over more patients would not be a stumbling block to anyone. So for weak brothers alone, it is +1. But another party to consider is your wife. Accepting the invitation is –1, while declining is +1. This cancels out the effect on weak brothers. So overall the score is 0.
4. Does it edify? By edification, I meant for the church, the Body of Christ. This is similar to question (1), except that (1) primarily impacts non-believers, whereas (4) primarily affects believers. I do not see it affecting the church unless it takes away your time serving the congregation to working. On balance it is 0.
5. Will it glorify God? I do not know how you testify through your medical work. In my case it is straightforward as my work, be it pastoral or missional, is explicitly Kingdom-oriented. If you have the habit of sharing Christ through your work, then this is +1. However, if you keep your faith to yourself, then this is 0. You can answer that for yourself. For illustration purposes, I will assign a score of +0.5.
6. Does it imitate Christ? You can summarize the Lord’s work as teaching, preaching/proclaiming, and healing (Mt 4:23, 9:35). Let us divide the total possible score of 1 into 0.33 for each component. I see this as a 0 for teaching (since no teaching is involved), 0 to 0.33 for proclaiming (depending on whether you share your faith at work), and +0.33 for healing. Of course, your score depends on your attitude as well.

In summary, my simplistic total is:

1. +1
2. –1
3. 0
4. 0
5. +0.5 (or your answer)
6. +0.33 to 0.67

Total = 0.83 to 1.17 which leans marginally towards accepting.

Your score will depend on how you assign your weights and assess each factor, or you may throw this out completely! Best wishes as you decide whether to take up this challenge.

Nephilim?

Q. If the Canaanites were the last of the Nephilim, how did they survive the flood?

A. First, allow me to unravel the tangled question. What is the basis of the claim that the Canaanites were the last of the Nephilim? Canaanites were descendants of Canaan, son of Ham:

• Gen 9:18 Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Ham was the father of Canaan.
• Gen 10:6 The sons of Ham were Cush and Mizraim and Put and Canaan.
• Gen 10:15-18 Canaan became the father of Sidon, his firstborn, and Heth ¹⁶ and the Jebusite and the Amorite and the Girgashite ¹⁷ and the Hivite and the Arkite and the Sinite ¹⁸ and the Arvadite and the Zemarite and the Hamathite; and afterward, the families of the Canaanite were spread abroad. (Also 1 Chron 1:13-16)

Since Canaan was Noah’s grandson, his descendants the Canaanites, which consisted of 11 tribes, came after the Flood. They were not even born before the Flood.

Second, I guess that your interest is more with the Nephilim, which name appears twice in the Bible:

• Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward when the sons of God came into the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
• Num 13:33 There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim), and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

“Those days” in Gen 6:4 refer to the time of Noah, so Nephilim existed pre-Flood, but would have perished during the Flood since only eight persons (Noah, his three sons, and their wives) were brought safely through the water (1 Pet 3:20). How, then, could they be around in Numbers 13?

To understand this, we need to find out who the Nephilim and “sons of Anak” were. The word Nephilim is the transliteration of the Hebrew word נָפִיל (nāp̄î). Word-for-word English versions such as NASB or ESV simply left the word transliterated. Thought-for-thought versions e.g., GNT translate the word as “giants”.

Anak is the transliteration of the Hebrew word עֲנָק (ănāq). It appears 9 times in 8 verses in the NASB, and as “Anakim” another 9 times in 9 verses, for a total of 16 verses as one verse contains both terms. The word means “neck”. The relevant passages which shed light on the subject include:

• Deuteronomy 1:28 Where can we go up? Our brethren have made our hearts melt, saying, “The people are bigger and taller than we; the cities are large and fortified to heaven. And besides, we saw the sons of the Anakim there.”’
• Deuteronomy 2:10 (The Emim lived there formerly, a people as great, numerous, and tall as the Anakim.
• Deuteronomy 2:21 a people as great, numerous, and tall as the Anakim, but the Lord destroyed them before them. And they dispossessed them and settled in their place,
• Deuteronomy 9:2 a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim, whom you know and of whom you have heard it said, ‘Who can stand before the sons of Anak?’

As you can see, the Nephilim were giants. The sons of Anak were a tribe of big and tall people, i.e., giants, hence a part of the Nephilim. More precisely, the Nephilim or sons of Anak in Num 13:33 were a sub-tribe of Canaanites who were giants. It does not mean the original Nephilim of Gen 6:4 somehow survived the Flood and lasted until the time of Moses when the twelve spies saw them. Hope this clarifies the issues.

Longevity?

Q. Does the Bible explain how people stopped living from over 900 years to under 100 years only?

A. No, there is no explicit explanation, but commentators have their hypothesis based on biblical genealogies. For example, look at the life span of our ancestors. The following table lists ten generations from Adam to Noah before the Flood, and ten generations after from Shem to Abraham:

Note that the average life span of the nine generations before the Flood, excluding Enoch who was taken up by God and did not die, is 912 years:

• Gen 5:24 Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.
• Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death, and he was not found because God took him up; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God.

However, the average life span of the ten generations after the Flood is only 317 years, just 35% of those before, and dropping rapidly from 600 for Shem to 175 for Abraham. It continued to decline from Abraham onwards, falling to under 100 and beyond. Graphically the drop after the Flood is very abrupt:

Why is that? Let’s examine what happened to start the Flood:

• Gen 7:11-12 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. ¹² The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.

It was a lot of rain alone. When God created the heavens and the earth, there was no rain initially:

• Gen 1:6-8 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” ⁷ God made the expanse and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse, and it was so. ⁸ God called the expanse heaven.
• Gen 2:5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

According to the biblical record, no rain fell on the earth until the Flood:

• Gen 7:4 For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made.

Therefore commentators speculated that the worldwide flood was caused by a combination of:

1. Fountains of the great deep, or waters which were below the expanse bursting open i.e., subterranean reservoirs and springs collapsing; and
2. Floodgates of the sky were opened i.e., the waters which were above the expanse collapsed.

Just as the ozone layer protected life on earth from harmful radiation now, the water canopy then filtered out all harmful radiation at that time, which kept life spans long. However, once the protective canopy depleted, it can no longer prevent harmful radiation from the sun, and longevity on earth plummeted. Is there proof? Unfortunately no, there is no science experiment on a global scale to prove this hypothesis, but that is the proposal from some Christian scientists.

Garden of Eden and the Ark of the Covenant

Q. Was the Garden of Eden to humanity basically the same as the Ark of the Covenant was where we could not directly approach it because of God’s holy presence?

A. First, let us look at the clues in the Bible. Before the fall of man, the LORD God walked in the garden of Eden (Gen 2:8) to have fellowship with man. After Adam and Eve sinned, they were driven from the garden:

• Gen 3:22-24 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out, and at the east of the garden of Eden, He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

The reason why they were driven out was so that they would not eat from the tree of life and live forever, i.e. perpetuate their sin into eternity. It was not because of God’s holy presence, although that was important.

Next, let us look at the Ark of the Covenant. When the Philistines captured the ark, the hand of the LORD was heavy against the people of Ashdod, Gath, Ekron, wherever the ark was sent (1 Samuel 5), so they sent it back to Israel. But the punishment was not just against the Philistines, as God also struck down Israelites:

• 1 Sam 16:19 He struck down some of the men of Beth-shemesh because they had looked into the ark of the Lord. He struck down of all the people, 50,070 men, and the people mourned because the Lord had struck the people with a great slaughter. 
• 2 Sam 6:7 And the anger of the Lord burned against Uzzah, and God struck him down there for his irreverence, and he died there by the ark of God. (Also 1 Chron 13:10)
• 2 Sam 6:11 Thus the ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months, and the Lord blessed Obed-edom and all his household.

My observation is that there is a severe penalty for treating the ark with irreverence, but a blessing when you respect it. The ark always represented the presence of God, but it was the attitude of the people that determined how they will be treated.

In summary, I would say that while both the garden of Eden and the ark of the covenant are associated with God’s presence, they are not the same. Men were barred from Eden for their good, to prevent access to the tree of life which would perpetuate their damnation. In other words, their future destiny is at stake. Men are killed for showing the ark irreverence, as a retribution for their present insolence. There is no mention of their eternal destiny. So the two are related but different.

Firstborn

Q. What is the interpretation of the “firstborn” in Col. 1:15? I thought it could be explained in Rom 8:29. The Lord is the firstborn in the second creation, the second Adam.

A. This is an interesting question, sometimes misinterpreted by cults to deny Jesus’ deity. They equate “firstborn” to “first-created”, and infer that since Jesus was created, He was less than God the Father. This interpretation is wrong. Here is why.

The word “firstborn” translates the Greek noun prōtotokos and appears 9 times in the NASB:

• Luke 2:7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son, and she wrapped Him in cloths and laid Him in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn.
• Luke 2:23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”),
• Romans 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.
• Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
• Colossians 1:18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
• Hebrews 1:6 And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “And let all the angels of God worship Him.”
• Hebrews 11:28 By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood so that he who destroyed the firstborn would not touch them.
• Hebrews 12:23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,
• Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood—

Prōtotokos itself is made up of two words:

• Protos, which could mean (1) first in time or place, or (2) first in rank, depending on the context, and
• Tokos, alternate of tiktō, which means to bring forth, bear, produce.

When you look at the 9 appearances in the NT, it is evident that for Luke 2:7, 2:23, and Hebrews 11:28, firstborn refers to “first in time”. However, for Col 1:15, I believe the context demands firstborn to mean “first in rank”, for the following reasons:

• Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, … all things have been created through Him and for Him. In other words, He is the Creator as opposed to the chronological first of all creation. The Creator is in a completely different class from His creatures.
• Col 1:18 He is also head of the body, the church; … so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. Head means the leader, the commander. If you examine contemporary translations, you will find the following, e.g.,
  • ESV And He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything He might be preeminent.
  • NIV And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead so that in everything He might have the supremacy.
  • NKJV And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
• Col 1:15 is an allusion to Christ as the son of David, the LORD’s firstborn:
  • Ps 89:27 I also shall make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. David was the youngest son of Jesse, not his eldest. Nor was David Israel’s first king, Saul was. Yet God called him His firstborn, referring to his preeminence. It has nothing to do with first in time in a sequence.

My interpretation of firstborn in Col 1:15 is expressed in several contemporary versions, e.g.:

• CJB He is the visible image of the invisible God. He is supreme over all creation.
• CEV Christ is exactly like God, who cannot be seen. He is the first-born Son, superior to all creation.
• NCV No one can see God, but Jesus Christ is exactly like him. He ranks higher than everything that has been made.
• NLT Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation.

Your thought about Jesus as the Second Adam is novel, but 1 Co 15:45 refers to Christ as the last Adam, not the Second. My understanding of firstborn in Rom 8:29 is the same as in Col 1:15 –

• AMP … so that He would be the firstborn [the most beloved and honored] among many believers.
• EXB … so that Jesus would be the firstborn [ the preeminent one, but also indicating others will follow] of many brothers and sisters …

Hope this helps.

Dogs and Swine

Q. I have a relative who was deceived by the prosperity gospel. She sent money to them as “seed-faith” in the hope of gaining wealth. I warned her about the dangers, but she got angry, rejected my warnings, and will not listen to me again. What should I do?

A. Do not misunderstand me. I am not calling your relative names. But as I read your email, two passages come to mind:

• Mt 7:6 Do not give what is holy to dogs and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
• 2 Tim 3:6-7 For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

It appears you are trying to give her the truth, but she is trampling them under her feet, & turning around to tear you apart. She is like one of those weak women captivated by the false teachers & never able to come to the truth. My opinion is to do what the apostles did:

• Acts 13:46 Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
• Acts 18:6 But when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his garments and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”

You did right to warn her first, but when she repudiated & resisted, it is OK to turn to others. You should continue to pray for her, but no point in throwing pearls away. Let God deal with her. He may send other witnesses, or allow her to suffer some setbacks to wake her up. Just wait for the opportunity. She may open the door herself, so be ready:

• 1 Peter 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.