Enoch and Elijah’s Ascension, Jesus on a Donkey, and Days of Noah

Dave Drewry: Welcome to Focal Point. I'm Dave Drewry, and today we're diving into another edition of Ask Pastor Mike Live, taking real questions and answers from Pastor Mike's weekly live program. The questions on the table today go deep into some of the Bible's most intriguing terrain: passages about Christ's unique place in redemptive history, the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy in ways that might surprise you, and what the New Testament is really saying about salvation and the end times. Pastor Mike doesn't dodge the hard ones; he takes them straight on with an open Bible and the kind of careful, clear thinking that makes these conversations so valuable. Let's get started. Let's talk to Jack. Jack, you're on with Pastor Mike Fabarez. How can I help?
Jack: Yes, I had a quick question about where it says, "No man has ascended into heaven, except he who came down from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven."
Mike Fabarez: John chapter 3, is that the one you're talking about? Because that's repeated a couple of times. John 20? There are two references that speak to that. "No one has ascended into heaven except he who has descended from heaven, the Son of Man." That's the one you're talking about?
Jack: Yes, John 3, verse 13. And Elias and Enoch, where it says that he was taken up into heaven is where I was wondering in what reference those pair, or how Christ really meant or was interpreting that. Because I know that he was the first among creation and the light that came down, so I was curious as to how those two coincided together as somebody had asked me a question on that.
Mike Fabarez: First, we know the word heaven has three definitions. Like in our dictionary, if you look up the word flush, it would have seven definitions. So the word heaven had three definitions, both in Greek and in Hebrew. It can mean the dwelling place of God, clearly, like 1 Timothy chapter 6, or plenty of places in the Old Testament: that God dwells in heaven. Then you can have the place where the stars and the moon hang out, which is probably what's in view initially in Genesis 1:1: "God created the heavens and the earth." And then you have the sky where the birds fly around. Even the concepts in the Old Testament about something being caught up into heaven, that's a directional kind of description of someone being caught up. Of course, it's credited to God taking someone supernaturally off the planet, just like Jesus in Acts chapter 1: he's caught up into heaven. Now, we know he's going to go, as it says in Hebrews 1, to the right hand of the Father. So we know he goes into heaven-heaven, into the dwelling place of God in a permanent abode. That's a little different, we would assume, than what's going on any other place in scripture. He sits down at the right hand of God.
Jack: If I may interject at that moment, my understanding was that the permanent was the heaven, it's heaven.
Mike Fabarez: But there are three distinct places, even though we use the same word for it. You understand that. When we talk about Genesis 1:1, I did look at it because that's what I was assuming, too, that there are three and so one was the permanent. But when I looked at Genesis 1:1, I didn't think there was an 's', but I didn't see an 's' there right now yesterday, and I looked at it right now as you just mentioned it again. Maybe it's because I have the KJV. It doesn't say the 's'. Well, it is plural, and it has an iota-mem on it, which is the noun form of a plural. When it ends in, if you transliterate it, an "im", like Seraphim or Cherubim, this is Shamayim. "Im", whenever you have that, if you hear a Hebrew word said with an "im" at the end, that's a plural. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." That's just the way it is. Sometimes even with the word God, Elohim, that's a word that is a plural also. But because in the beginning of Genesis chapter 1, with one exception, it takes a singular pronoun, that's not translated as a plural. It's translated as a singular. In a few translations, just the King James version, they translate it as a singular. But every other translation I'm looking at, and I'm looking at several, they all are plural because it is a plural in the original language.
Jack: And that's what you're explaining to me, that the original has an "im"?
Mike Fabarez: Correct. In Hebrew. If you were to move it over into English, it's got an 's' on the end, so to speak. The only thing that would throw someone off if you learn Hebrew, so does the word Elohim; it's got an 's' at the end. You're familiar with that from the council?
Jack: Yes, what opened my eyes about that.
Mike Fabarez: If you've learned a little bit about that, some people struggle with that, and you should. Why is the word Elohim a plural? You can talk about a divine council, and perhaps that's the case. Some people have said maybe it's just the divine majesty of God. There are a lot of theories about why it's a plural. Nevertheless, that's plural. The idea is irrelevant to the question of Jesus in John chapter 3 talking about the exclusivity of someone who has full access, eternal abode. As it says in John 1:1, in the beginning he was with God, was God, and now, like it says in chapter 1, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. That's really what's trying to be captured with this word here in John 3:13. He's all about the eternal abode in heaven, unlike Enoch or Elijah, and now he's descended from heaven and now he's on his earthly redemptive mission, and there's no one like him in that regard. He's got a permanent address in heaven, unlike Enoch who started on earth, unlike Elijah who started on earth. Jesus is different. His abode, as it says in John 1:1, has been with God in the beginning, in heaven. Now, he's ascended in heaven in the sense that he's been there. That's his place, and he will ascend back in the end of his earthly ministry; he goes back to be with him. Patrick Schreiner wrote a good book, the only one I know of, all about the ascension, which has a lot of application for our theology. I've never seen a book written on just the ascension of Christ, which is a good book to read. But this ascension, the idea of ascended into heaven, is not speaking about the future ascension; it's talking about the fact that he has a permanent dwelling there.
Jack: Is it safe to say that's the same reference to the three heavens where the glory of the Father is in the third heaven? He's seated in the heavens, and then the earth is his footstool. So there's the third one.
Mike Fabarez: Yes. We get that from 2 Corinthians chapter 12 when Paul's talking about the thorn in the flesh. He says, "I was caught up to the third heaven." He's trying to clarify: not the sky, not space, but God's dwelling place. 1 Timothy chapter 6: "God dwells in unapproachable light." He's in this place that no one has seen or can see. So there's something about this, even Moses who had the closest relationship with God, you can't take in the glory of God. He's in a whole different dimension. So that's the place we're talking about. The dimension of space, we've been able to go out there, even though we can't breathe out there. We can create contraptions and at least go and scratch the surface of space, and we certainly can fly around in the sky now with the modern invention of airplanes. But we can't penetrate heaven, only in rare circumstances. You've named them: Elijah and Enoch. Bodily, something happened there that's very unique, and they have. But as it relates to the uniqueness of the permanent address of the Son of Man, that's the Christ, and there's exclusivity to him dwelling there always, in the beginning, with God, was God, and then he became flesh and dwelt among us. I think that's the summary of it there in John 3:13. Does that help, Jack?
Jack: It absolutely helps. If I may ask you about the ass and the colt writing, when it refers to that they set him on them, and he wrote on them being two. Would that was fulfilling prophecy, or what was prophecy that he wrote on one donkey?
Mike Fabarez: When you're talking about Zechariah's prophecy?
Jack: Yes, where I'm assuming that one tied to where they put palm trees before the Lord as he rode in on them with hosanna. If that's the prophecy, I was just curious because the people I always talk to also ask me about how he wrote on two at the same time. But I just assumed he came in on maybe one and then the other later. So I was wondering how that tied into the prophecy.
Mike Fabarez: Matthew chapter 21: they brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them. I don't envision someone riding two animals at one time. I think even the spreading of the cloaks, I just think that would be almost a comical sense of trying to read the text that way. Matthew's the only one who describes the colt. So to introduce that and then try to say he's riding on both of them, it seems as though the clothes are what is riding on the other one and that Christ rode the young colt, which is what Mark chapter 11 seems to specifically say. So I don't think he's riding both and trying to straddle two animals at one time, one big and one small.
Jack: That's why I was asking you about the prophecy. I was wondering how it what the prophecy said to be fulfilled. Is that according to how it said that he would write on both, or was there...?
Mike Fabarez: No. Zechariah chapter 9, verse 9: "Behold your king is coming to you, righteous and having salvation. He is humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey." It's just Hebrew parallelism trying to describe it's a donkey, but it's a young donkey, it's the colt, the foal of a donkey. So he's riding on the small, diminutive, young donkey which is a colt. So there's a mother and then there's the young colt, and he's riding on the young colt, which is a very humble way to show the Prince of Peace coming in, not riding on a charger or on a big animal. He's riding on the small animal, which Mark 11 says: the small animal. But there's another animal there next to him, but he's not riding both of them, no.
Jack: Is it safe to say that?
Mike Fabarez: Yes. I'm pretty sure, yes, I think so. Because I think what's being said in Zechariah 9:9 in the prophecy is true that a colt is a donkey; it's the same. We're talking what kind of animal it is and then what age it is. This is a young donkey. He's riding on a young donkey. But according to Matthew, which is a very long gospel giving more information than Mark, the shortest gospel, he describes that the donkey was brought and the colt with the donkey. So he rides on the colt, but the donkey was also there. I think it's safe to say that. Thanks, Jack. Appreciate the call.
Dave Drewry: You've been listening to a pre-recorded segment from Ask Pastor Mike Live. Let's talk to Jeff. Jeff, you're on the air with Pastor Mike. How can I help?
Jeff: Hey, Pastor Mike. My pastor, he preached a message last week. Mind you, no matter what is said, he and I are still best friends and I love him with all my heart. I wouldn't trade him for anything. But I just have a disagreement. Matthew 7, verses 13-14. Narrow is the way, broad is the... you know what I'm talking about.
Mike Fabarez: "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."
Jeff: Yes, that's correct. And his take on that, what he preached, was that the destruction side of that doesn't mean it's not a salvation verse. He's saying that it means your time here on earth means that you're less productive. The way that I see that when I look at the original language, I believe it's apoleia, if I'm pronouncing that correctly from the original Greek, which is complete destruction, which is also paralleled in other scriptures like Matthew 10:28. Don't worry about the one that can destroy your life; worry about the one that can destroy your soul. That same word for destruction is the verb part of that, which is apollumi. To me, that is destruction. It does not mean, well, you go by the wide way and you don't follow the straight and narrow. This is what he's saying: if you don't follow the straight and narrow, you decide to follow the way of the world, but yet you're still saved, that it simply means that you will just have a less fulfilled life on earth. I cannot possibly disagree with that more. Again, he and I will be going to breakfast here on Saturday and he and I are best buddies like my best buddy ever. We may not always interpret things the way others do. So I may be wrong, but I would sure love to know your thoughts on that and see if you feel kind of the way that I do: that maybe is that a salvation verse?
Mike Fabarez: Yes, it is a salvation verse, and I would go to Luke chapter 13, which is a parallel passage. Maybe a different time that Jesus taught it, but he's using the same analogy of entering by a narrow door in this case. He uses the verb sozo, which is the verb "saved", which is always used by Christ about being saved from the penalty of our sins. Here's how it reads in Luke 13:23-24: "Someone said to him, 'Lord, will those who are saved be few?'" That's the question. And he said to them, "Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter it and not be able." So he's using the same analogy. There's a narrow door, a narrow way to get, a narrow gate is how it's used in Matthew 7. Well, that whole contrast is not used in this passage, but it's the same idea. There's a narrow passageway, a portal, and you better get through that narrow way. You better strive to get through that narrow way. Why? Because the question is: who's going to be saved? Who's going to be right with God? Who's going to be sitting, to use the way they talked about it a lot in the gospels, sitting with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and reclining at the table in the kingdom? Well, I want to be saved. I want to be in the right side of history. Well, you better get through the narrow door. Well, that's the same thing that's being said in Matthew 7. Well, the word "saved" is not in Matthew 7, but he calls it "that leads to life". I think life and destruction clearly is the contrast, obviously, about salvation and damnation. There's just no way around it. So yes, you're right and I would say respectfully, he's wrong. I think there's just too much in terms of the shared analogy. Jesus is not going to shift analogies like that that have to do with salvation and confuse us with destruction meaning, well, not really a fruitful Christian life. No, we're talking about salvation here and the word is certainly employed in the parallel analogy in Luke 13.
Jeff: Could I also ask you about another piece of scripture, and that is Matthew 24 where it talks about the days of Noah: one being taken from the field, one being left, so on and so forth. His take on that is that that is not a rapture verse. Do you feel that that's not a rapture verse?
Mike Fabarez: Well, I'm with him on that one. I don't think this is a rapture passage. I think this has to do with the judgment during the tribulation and what's going on. If you read, obviously, starting in chapter 6 of Revelation all the judgment: a third being destroyed here and all the masses of people. I think that's what we're dealing with. Because in Matthew 24, we're dealing with the temple, we're dealing with the people of Israel, and we're really jumping ahead to Jesus looking at what's going to happen to the chosen people, the people that are descendant of Abraham. We're looking forward to that period of time. That's the question on the table. So yes, I think your pastor's right about that even though it looks so inviting to be looked at as the rapture; to be taken is I think to be taken in judgment.
Jeff: But here's the issue that I have with that. "As in the days of Noah, people were marrying," and so on. In the latter days of the Great Tribulation, there will be billions upon billions of people that will be dead. I don't see that as people having life as normal. So that's where I have issue with it.
Mike Fabarez: No, I see that inconsistency. I get that. But here's the thing: right out of the gate with the seals, so much is going on. The Day of the Lord is beginning at the very beginning with the wrath of God, and I don't think we have to wait to the end to have the people being taken away. Like the first question I had about what's going on, the judgment taking lives away, massive lives away. He says, "As in the days of Noah," and he says "the flood came and swept them all away, so will be with the coming of the Son of Man." And they say by the end of chapter 6, we know this is the wrath of the Lamb, it has come. So I think though it stretches over seven years, the idea of God's judgment sweeping people away has come upon a world where, according to the end of this, has been described as Babylon that has been rich in wine and luxury and all of that, and it's come to an end. That description stretches all the way back before the beginning of the time of Jacob's trouble. The world was doing well. It's been united. They've got a world government and the leader steps into this where everyone seems to be very good; technology and whatever, world wealth. I don't know what's going on. I mean we're moving toward that. We've basically gotten rid of so much of the poverty in the world and starvation. We're moving toward this kind of wealth in the world that is solving so many problems medically and everything else. This is what people I think are going to be shocked when all that's going on in the book of Revelation starts to take place. So yes, I get that it seems like, "Oh, how can they be eating and drinking and marrying and given in marriage and then bam, it shouldn't be that way." Well, I don't think necessarily this is the end of the tribulation. I think this describes the whole thing.
Dave Drewry: You've been listening to another edition of Ask Pastor Mike Live here on Focal Point. If today's program stirred up a question of your own, we want to hear it. Ask Pastor Mike Live airs every Tuesday through Thursday at 1:00 PM Central. Just visit AskPastorMike.live for everything you need to call in. For more of Pastor Mike's Bible teaching content, just go to FocalPointRadio.org or download the free Focal Point app. At Focal Point, our passion is to proclaim the truth of God's word with clarity and conviction and to get it into the ears of anyone who will listen. That mission runs on the generous support of listeners who believe in what we're doing. So if you've been blessed by these programs, we invite you to give back today. Make a one-time donation or take your commitment a step further and become a Focal Point partner, giving monthly. Your faithful recurring support is what keeps this Bible teaching free and accessible for everyone. To give and become a Focal Point partner, call 888-320-5885 or give online at FocalPointRadio.org. And as our thanks for your donation, we'll send you a book by David Klotzfelter titled Sinners in the Hands of a Good God. Klotzfelter brings both the justice and the goodness of God into clear focus. It's a book that will deepen your love for the God you serve and strengthen your confidence in the gospel. Request Sinners in the Hands of a Good God when you give to Focal Point today by calling 888-320-5885 or give online at FocalPointRadio.org. You can also mail your donation to Focal Point, Post Office Box 2850, Laguna Hills, California 92654. And if this is your first time getting in touch with us, we have a free resource we'd love to send you. It's a booklet by Pastor Mike called Storing Up Treasures, and it's yours at no cost just for reaching out. Call 888-320-5885 or contact us at FocalPointRadio.org. I'm Dave Drewry wishing you a wonderful weekend. We'll see you back here next time for more from Pastor Mike Fabarez right here on Focal Point. Today's program was produced and sponsored by Focal Point Ministries.