Gregory Little fue el más impresionado e hizo un estudio del Libro de Enoc, a la luz de la revelación de Andreasson. Señaló que en el Libro de Enoc, observó que había dos ángeles en las puertas del Cielo y el Infierno - imitando a los Neters egipcios, que también guardan las puertas del Cielo y el Infierno en el Egipto después de la muerte. Little señaló que los guardianes de Sheol - el infierno - fueron descritos como ángeles "de color gris, como los niños pequeños, con una forma que es algo similar a la forma humana." Little señaló que esta descripción no estaba presente en la edición eslava del Libro (el más utilizado), pero estuvo presente en la versión en hebreo.

(2)Y el me dijo así: Los espiritus de los impios bajan al Sheol de la mano de dos ángeles de destrucción: Zafiel y Simkiel, esos son sus nombres.
(3) Simkiel, señala a los espiritus de los intermedios, que han de penar y purificarse, contando con la misericordia del Principe del Lugar.
Zafiel, señala los espiritus de los impíos, con el fin de enviarlos abajo, en la presencia del Unico y Sagrado, bendíto sea Él, desde el esplendor de la Shekina al Sheol, para ser castigados con el fuego de la Gehenna, con pedazos de carbón ardiente.
(4) Y fuí a su lado, me tomó de su mano y me los mostró señalandolos con sus dedos.
(5)Vi la apariencia de sus rostros ( así fué) como la aparición de los hijos de los hombres, y sus cuerpos como las águilas.
Y no sólo eso, sino (además) el color del semblante de los intermedios era como de color gris pálido, a cuenta de sus actos, porque hay manchas sobre ellos, hasta que sean limpiados de su iniquidad, pasados por el fuego.
(6) Y el color de los impíos es como el fondo de una olla a cuenta de la maldad de sus obras.

Yahweh as Amun-Seth
Before leaving the monotheism of Moses to itself, to watch how its gospel of slave liberation has infected Palestine and lands beyond, it still may be helpful to say a few things about the Egyptian “Seth” element as it pertains to the Yahweh‑Amun theology of Moses.

In its Heliopolitan orthodox setting the divine Ennead, which includes Seth, represents a series of hypostases that emanate from a single source, Atum. During the New Kingdom the Amun theology that Moses had learned was still the full heir of the orthodox manner of thinking about theogony, as a process of generation and emanation. Therefore, the theological mind of Moses can be expected to have been aware not only of the essential attributes of the hidden godhead of the New Kingdom, Amun, but also of the God's desert heat emana­tion—the portion of Seth. As a desert god, Seth was known among Egyptians also as the god of foreigners, of thunder, lightning, and earthquakes. Seth in his cosmic dimension, on a monthly cycle, also was deemed responsible for injuring the poor eye of Horus, the moon.

It has been told that Moses spoke to the pharaoh in the name of the God of the Hebrews (Exodus 5:3). To an Egyptian pharaoh that meant in the name of Seth. Of course, the Hebrew narrator happily proceeded to exaggerate the status of Moses another step, at the expense of a supposedly superstitious pharaoh. But then, this is understandable. The story was told to amuse Hebrews, not Egyptians:

…the Lord said to Moses, "See, I make you as God to the Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet." (Exodus 7:1)

It is uncertain how much historical weight can be given to the ten plagues that, with the exception of the last, can be explained in terms of ordinary natural or environmental imbalances. All nine, it must be acknowledged, also proved ineffective for softening the pharaoh's “hardened heart.”

The initial ruse of having to make a three‑day journey into the Sinai desert, to fulfill religious obligations under the threat of divine punishment, may have been only a cover for a more subtle ruse. What halfway intelligent pharaoh would not have been able to see through the first one? And yes, the story tells how the pharaoh hardened his heart, as could reasonably be expected of him.

Perhaps the real goal or ruse, from the outset, was to nag and intimidate the pharaoh, and wear him down to a point where he no longer would pay attention. Repeated rumors, to the effect that these people were about to leave, could so have been neutralized by the persistent formal diplomatic requests of Moses. Repeated unsubstanti­ated rumors could have created an impression to the effect that Moses and these slaves would never try to leave without the pharaoh's official consent. Such a subtle strategy could have given the escapees much needed lead time before the ruler would seriously have taken note. Of course, these are mere speculations based on the style of subterfuge by which political problems are being resolved in Near Eastern lands still today.

But then, the tenth and special plague attracts our attention as the pivotal point in the Exodus story plot. All of Egypt's firstborn sons, we are told, have been slain by an executioner angel of Yahweh. It is high time to rethink this Hebrew story plot from the hypothetical point of view of a twofold Hebrew‑Egyptian mind, such as had been the mind of Moses. The God who killed the firstborn sons of the Egyptians would have been Seth to them, the very god of desert dwellers. Furthermore, on the Egyptian side, the color of appearance of Seth, and of all his evil deeds, was red.[3] On the Hebrew side, Mosaic tradition has accented the role of their God with all kinds of red “fire” kratophanies.

Egyptians always have experienced unease in the presence of Seth. Their perception of this lowest Enneadean hypostasis, in Egyptian tradition, clearly has constituted the weakest point in the politico-religious structure within which an Egyptian pharaoh was obliged to operate. Even if critical historiography refuses to accept the tenth Exodus plague as a historical event and even if the rite of Passover is to be understood only as an historicized ancient communal herder sacrifice, both of these motifs together nevertheless may contain a historical kernel of fact. They hint at an actual diplomatic leverage that Moses reasonably could have applied to the Egyptian royal court.

Traditionally, whenever in Egypt a pharaoh died the god Seth was known to have killed him, reduced him or transformed him into the condition of an Osiris corpse. From the Hebrew perspective, of course, Yahweh upstaged the Egyptian perception of Seth. Instead of waiting to kill an old Egyptian pharaoh, he killed his firstborn son. This means he killed the very person who, on his ceremonial rebirth as Horus during the next enthronement rite, was meant to become the ruling pharaoh.

Egyptian mythology knows the ruling pharaoh as Horus and the avenger of Osiris. The young king supposedly was the one who was to have mutilated Seth during a battle that then ensued.[4] According to Egyptian tradition, however, that victory of Horus over Seth was never a decisive one. Seth was mutilated, and while they struggled the avenger Horus lost his eye. Both divinities had to be healed by Thoth. This meant that after their struggle Seth was again in a position to strike another blow against the next Horus‑king of Egypt, whenever he chose to do so. And everyone knew that ruling pharaohs when they suffered death were dispatched by Seth, to be thereby trans­formed into Osiris. In this manner the god Seth repeated­ly defeated a ruling Egyptian Horus. He transformed him back into the mode of his brother Osiris.

To the extent that Moses spoke authoritatively to the pharaoh, in the name of a God who behaved as Amun and Seth combined—or as the Hebrew narrator would mockingly have it, to the extent that Moses himself impersonated that kind of a God—he indeed did have a plausible case as to why the Hebrew people should be let go. People who belonged to this dangerous God of the desert, in Egypt, could not be held captive indefinitely with impunity. Moreover, it also was reasonable to think that the people of Seth should want to appease this dangerous God in the desert places where, according to Egyptian perception, he actually lived.

It is quite possible therefore that a diplomatically astute Moses indeed assured the pharaoh that an appeased Yahweh­-Amun-Seth would refrain from plaguing Egypt. The presence of a narrative with ten plagues, which now dominates the larger Exodus epic, suggests that at one point some threats of plagues indeed could have been made.

The clinching plot of the Exodus, which subsequently could have given credence to a series of diplomatic plague threats against Egypt, was Yahweh‑Seth's killing of the Egyptian Horus-to-be; that is, the ruling pharaoh's firstborn son. For good measure it is said as well that the Hebrew God has killed all the firstborn sons in all Egyptian houses not marked with Sethian "red" blood.

The initial diplomatic bait that Moses might have offered to the pharaoh is now coming into better focus. In exchange for letting the Hebrew slaves serve their God in his distant desert, the land of Egypt would be spared the typical calamities that a foreigner's god, like Seth, would be able to inflict. Positively stated, Moses had offered Egypt a conditional blessing.

But diplomatic positivism of the "deal" offered by Moses was overshadowed, in the narrative, when subsequent Hebrew storytellers got carried away celebrating their escape. For good measure they celebrated all the punishments their mighty God could possibly have brought down upon those hated Egyptians.

The death of the pharaoh's firstborn son may be pondered in terms of historical realism still a little further. If Moses actually had approached the Egyptian pharaoh so as to appear to him as a spokesman of a God like Amun‑Seth, and if we consider how at some point during these negotiations Moses must have become desperate, then a conditional curse laid by him on the Egyptian crown prince could have been a logical next step. The story has it that the king's firstborn son actually died and that, in a subsequent state of grief, the disparaged pharaoh finally ordered the Israelites to get out.

Was this story merely the product of Hebrew wishful thinking? Was it all generated by priestly Levites to anchor an ancient herder ritual in the bedrock of Palestine historical relevance, to commemo­rate liberation? Possibly, yes. But then, if such thinking was possible by Hebrew minds at all—and the existence of the story testifies to the fact that it was—then it also is conceivable that a desperate Moses could have unloaded on the pharaoh's son some conditional “curse” or “cause” of death. With his Sethian mission, an impatient Moses easily could have cursed the entire sacred Egyptian tradition of royal succession. A strong Amun‑Sethian curse laid on the crown prince, possibly even pronounced within hearing range of the lad, conceiv­ably could have contributed to bringing a sensitive young royal heir to his deathbed.

The Hebrew storyteller seems to have remembered that Moses acted like a God! Inasmuch as the curse was conditional, only the pharaoh himself could have removed it by liberating his Hebrew slaves. Thus, in consideration of Egyptian religious beliefs current at the time, and in light of experiences that had accrued for Moses, the basic steps of the Exodus appear to have been undertaken in accor­dance with a well-reasoned strategy.

In all likelihood Yahweh's commissioning of Moses, at the site of the burning bush, was no more than the turning point from theory to practice. While he lived at Midian, Moses had many years to ponder Egyptian weaknesses and Hebrew points of leverage. He probably still knew personally some key Egyptians at the court, and he knew their religio-psychological strengths and weaknesses. He would have been able to exploit these.

Still another question may be asked concerning the Hebrew Exodus, about what exactly might have happened on the Egyptian side. Was a divine curse really sufficient to scare and to kill the crown prince? Was it enough to create confusion, by which Moses and his people could escape? Or, were other death‑dealing measures resorted to in the process, perhaps with some inside help at the court? Could Moses have lent a helping hand in the Passover plot by sending a human angel of death into the pharaoh's house? But then again, bodily inflictions may not have been necessary. Curses were taken seriously enough in those days. Could the original Exodus plot indeed have been that simple?

Maybe—and maybe not. The exact historical sequence of events eludes those of us who live over three millennia later. Nevertheless, the religio-political affinity that exists between the Egyptian-educated aristocrat Moses and the man who in Hebrew literature we have come to know as the lawgiver of Yahweh still can be surmised in broad outlines. With help from the history of religions it may be possible to excavate some fresh hypotheses, perhaps with improved historical clarity, beyond what hitherto has been imagined.

the apostle Paul already wrote about greys (mischievous elementals strewn throughout fairy lore, he cites the main authors, like 17th century Rev Robert Kirk 1697AD, Grimm, etcetera, ... but not my fave, James Stephens, who wrote The Crock of Gold): "The greys have been around a long long time and have had many names; Djinn, Geni, Faerie, Kobold, Demon, Archon, Goblin, and are referred to in the New Testament in the letters of St Paul to the Colossae. This was a Christian colony in a region beset by malignant Grey activities though in those days – the demonic Grey elementals conjured by Dr John Dee the Elizabethan mage for his keys of Enoch stuff, storms etc were called by the name Stoicheia."

Part Four - Greek: Stoicheia
By Donald Hochner

This is the fourth of five articles with Greek words. We are going to look into the Preterist's view on "elements." The Greek word for elements used here is "stoicheia," and it appears in the NT only seven times. When you see the terms like "elements," ask yourself what this means? In Young's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the literal meaning of the word is "element, rudiment, principle." In other words, these are the elements of religious training, or the ceremonial precepts that are common to the worship of Jews and of Gentiles. We will look into it and you may find out.

Why I am talking about this is because the Futurists believe the elements of the physical heavens and earth were going to melt away or be burned up, especially in 2 Peter 3. Does this word "elements" refer to the scientific idea of the elements of matter, all the "atoms" of the universe? Or the periodic table of elements? I don't think so! We will first look into seven passages with the word "elements" or in Greek "stoicheia." I am using Young¹s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible.

1. Gal. 4:3, 9 - "So also we, when we were babes, under the elements of the world were in servitude...and now, having known God -- and rather being known by God -- how turn ye again unto the weak and poor elements to which anew ye desire to be in servitude?" Notice Paul uses the word twice. This context is clearly his discussion of the relationship of the Jew to the old law of Moses, in verses 1-7; the Gentiles who had served idols in verse 8. The blessings, by the way, are contrasted, which are in Christ. So, the Jews were held in bondage to the old law of Moses or the tradition of men. Paul exhorted the Christian brethren not to return to the bondage to that Law. The Law was our tutor to bring us into Christ that we might be justified by faith (Gal. 3:23-24). No man could keep that Law perfectly. The Gentiles served worthless idols. Both had been in bondage to the stoicheia of the world. Therefore, the use of "elements" is not about the physical world.

2. Col. 2:8, 20-22 - "See that no one shall be carrying you away as spoil through the philosophy and vain deceit, according to the deliverance of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ, ...If, then, ye did die with the Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances? -- thou mayest not touch, nor taste, nor handle -- which are all for destruction with the using, after the commands and teachings of men." Again, Paul uses the word twice. In verse 8 he pleads with the Colossian church not to allow anyone to deceive them by way of worldly philosophy, or traditions of men according to the elements or rudiments of the world. In this context, there were two different dangers they confronted: Judaistic activities in verses 16-17, and possibly some cultic or pagan activities in verse 18. The point is, once again, this one is not about the material creation.

3. Heb. 5:12 - "For even owing to be teachers, because of the time, again ye have need that one teach you what [are] the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God, and ye have become having need of milk, and not of strong food." This writer laments to the Jewish Christians (Hebrews) the fact that they had not grown in Christ as they should. The writer says they need someone to teach them again with "milk, not solid food" in elementary principles of God's oracles before becoming teachers and mature. Obviously, this "stoicheia" is not about atoms or the creation of the universe.

4. 2 Peter 3:10-13 - "And it will come -- the day of the Lord -- as a thief in the night, in which the heavens with a rushing noise will pass away, and the elements with burning heat be dissolved, and earth and the works in it shall be burnt up. All these, then, being dissolved, what kind of persons doth it behove you to be in holy behaviours and pious acts? waiting for and hasting to the presence of the day of God, by which the heavens, being on fire, shall be dissolved, and the elements with burning heat shall melt; and for new heavens and a new earth according to His promise we do wait, in which righteousness doth dwell" Notice Peter uses the word twice. In both views he says the elements will be destroyed or burned up. So far, we (hopefully) agree that the fact "elements" does not, in its other previous passages, ever refer to the physical universe.

Nowhere do the Scriptures teach that this physical creation will be destroyed. In the beginning God created the universe and it was good. The sin of men only affected the human race. This is what we call "total depravity." In fact, the Scripture speaks of the earth's permanence (Ps. 104:5; Ecc. 1:4) and the church throughout all generations (Eph. 3:21). Read in Gen. 8:21, after the great flood God looked down the flow of time and into man's heart and said "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth (total depravity), and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done." This one is not speaking only about the flood in Gen. 9:15. This is CRITICAL! God would never again curse the ground nor destroy every living creature. Could God reverse His promise? He cannot lie. We must keep in mind that the Bible itself is in harmony as the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures. God is not a God of confusion.

We will do some study in 2 Peter 3:10-13. In verse 10, "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief" is the parallel to other passages in Matt. 24:42-44 (Jesus was speaking to His disciples in their generation), in 1 Thes. 5:2-10 (see in verse 3 about the destruction of Jerusalem), and in Rev. 3:3 (to the church in Sardis) which are referring to the first-century audience. This would fit all together in one theme.

In verse 12, notice "looking (Gk: prosdokao - fervent, expecting, anticipating) and hastening (Gk: speudo - speeding, eagerness) the coming (Gk: parousia - presence, coming, advent) of the day of God." Peter uses this word "prosdokao" three times in verse 12, 13, and 14. And each verse says the brethren to whom he was writing were looking (expecting) and hastening the day of God in their lifetime, for the end of all (Jewish) things was AT HAND (1 Peter 4:7).

In verse 13, "But according to His promise (see Rom. 4:13, 16; Eph. 3:6; Heb 4:1; 9:15; 10:36-39; 12:25-29 and many more about the promise of God) we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells." First we will look at what "heavens and earth" means. It means that when God made His covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai, He planted the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth. See in Deut. 32:1; Isa. 1:1-4; 24:1-5; 51:15, 16. So, it is clearly not a literal heavens and earth. It is the covenant of God. Did you know that the great reformer John Owen embraced the preterist interpretation in 2 Peter 3? (Works, 16 vols. in 9:134-38).

Peter tells us they expected the "new" heavens and earth. We ought to check out the word "new" that he used. There are two words translated as "new" in the NT. They are "neos" and "kainos." Interesting, neos is new in time, never been before, or that which has recently come into existence. Other one is kainos which means new in quality, not time. So, Peter uses kainos in this verse. Now, if someone takes the position that the new heavens and earth is a literal way, it is inconsistent with the word of kainos. If God destroys this earth and creates another, that would be a new (neos) earth not a new (kainos). We have seen in the NT that it says we have a new (kainos) covenant (Heb. 8), a new (kainos) creation (2 Cor. 5:17) and the church is a new (kainos) Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2 c.f. Heb. 12:22).

Lastly, "the new heavens and a new earth" must have come into Peter's mind from the book of Isaiah, chapters 65 and 66. Notice before God creates the new heavens and a new earth, He will pour out His wrath against Jerusalem, His rebellious people (Isa. 65:1-7, 11-17; 66:3-6, 15-18, 24). This involves the making of a new Israel or the Church (Isa. 65:8-10, 15; 66:7-14). When God created the new heavens and earth, notice that physical death will remain (Isa. 65:20, 66:24), spiritual home construction and agriculture will continue (Isa. 65:21-22 = 1 Cor. 3:6-8; 9:7-11), it will have descendants (Isa. 65:23, 66:22), the Lord will hear their prayers (Isa. 65:24), it will have evangelism (Isa. 66:19), it will have new priests (66:21), as well as weekly and monthly worship (in other word, everyday Isa. 66:23); and there will be an everlasting hell where the worm shall not die, and the fire shall not quenched to those who have transgressed against the Lord (Isa. 66:24). The new heavens and earth is referring to the eternal state while we live in the physical realm in earthly bodies; it must be referring to a period in human history. This is the period of the Kingdom of God which Christ rules in the hearts of the believers. The Kingdom of God is made without hands (spiritual - Dan. 2:34, 44-45; c.f. Col. 2:10-11). If we take the statements from the scriptures at face value, then we should conclude that the first heavens and the first earth passed away and was replaced by the glorious reign of the Lord Jesus Christ, the kingdom without end.

The fact is that anytime Scripture uses the phase "last days" (and similar expression) it means, not the end of the world or physical universe, but the period from 30-70 AD. This was the period during which the Apostles were preaching and writing, the "last days" of Old Covenant Israel before it was forever destroyed in the destruction of the Temple (and consequently the annihilation of the Old Covenant sacrificial system). Read Acts 2:16-21; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-9; Heb. 1:1-2; 8:13; 9:26; James 5:7-9; 1 Peter 1:20; 4:7; 2 Peter 3:3-4; 1 John 2:18; Jude 17-19; Rev. 1:1-3; 22:6-10, 12, 20. The Old Covenant Israel is done. All the prophecies are fulfilled. The Bible is completed. The scheme of redemption has been accomplished. The tree of life has been restored (Jesus Christ gave us everlasting life) which Adam lost.

I would recommend you to read in Athanasius' On the Incarnation of the Word, Section 40 Verses 1-8 because I do not have enough space. Athanasius, the early Christian writer from the fourth century, made a significant preterist statement.

In conclusion, what we have seen so far is that the Preterist's view is consistent with the Scriptures. The Futurist's views do not agree with the Scriptures for several reasons. The first reason is their views are based on their church traditions or creeds. The second reason is the lack of careful analysis of the original Greek words used in the Bible and their proper meaning. The Futurists also did not carefully compare different Scriptures to determine their actual meaning.

Hopefully this will help a lot and cause you to rethink your view of eschatology. Blessed are those who abide His Word.

2 Pedro 3:12 y la palabra griega Stoicheia

2 Pedro 3:12 en las Escrituras Griegas, dice: “prosdokôntas (aguardando) kai (y) speudontas (apresurando) tên (la) parousian (venida) tês (del) tou theou (de Dios) êmeras (día) di ên ouranoi (a causa del cual los cielos) puroumenoi (encendidos) luthêsontai (serán disueltos) kai (y) stoicheia (elementos) kausoumena (quemados) têketai (se derretirán)”.

Nos interesa examinar qué fue lo que quiso decir el Apóstol Pedro con la palabra Griega stoicheia, que ha sido vertida como “elementos” o “rudimentos” en la mayoría de las versiones bíblicas. Y es que se ha creído que Pablo se refiere a una destrucción total de la tierra por fuego a tal punto que sus elementos serán destruidos completamente.

Stoicheia y sus acepciones en el NT
En primer término, esta palabra aparece en el Nuevo Testamento sólo en 7 ocasiones En la Concordancia Exhaustiva Young de la Biblia, el significado literal de la palabra es "elemento, rudimento, principio". En otros términos, éstos son los elementos del aprendizaje religioso, o los mandatos ceremoniales que son comunes al culto de los judíos y de Gentiles.

¿Acaso esta palabra "elementos" se refiere a la idea científica de los elementos de la materia, todos los "átomos" del universo? ¿O la tabla periódica de los elementos? ¡No necesariamente! Nosotros debemos primero mirar dentro de los siete pasajes con la palabra "elementos" o en el griego "stoicheia".

1.- Gál 4:3,9 dice: “Así también nosotros, cuando éramos niños, estábamos en esclavitud bajo los rudimentos (stoicheia) del mundo. mas ahora, conociendo a Dios, o más bien, siendo conocidos por Dios, ¿cómo es que os volvéis de nuevo a los débiles y pobres rudimentos (stoicheia), a los cuales os queréis volver a esclavizar?”.

Este pasaje de Gálatas 4:3,9, donde aparece dos veces la palabra stoicheia, es claramente una discusión de la relación del judío a la antigua ley de Moisés, en versos 1-7; y los Gentiles que habían servido a los ídolos, en el verso 8. Así que los judíos estuvieron en esclavitud a la antigua ley de Moisés o a la tradición de hombres. Pablo exhortó a los hermanos cristianos para no volver a la esclavitud de esa Ley. La Ley era nuestra tutora para traernos a Cristo para que nosotros podamos ser justificados por la fe (Gal. 3:23-24). Ningún hombre podía guardar esa Ley perfectamente. Los Gentiles sirvieron a los ídolos sin valor alguno. Los dos habían estado en esclavitud, a la stoicheia del mundo. Por consiguiente, el uso de la palabra "elementos" o “rudimentos” no es sobre el mundo físico.

2.- Col. 2: 8,20-22: “Mirad que nadie os engañe por medio de filosofías y huecas sutilezas, según las tradiciones de los hombres, conforme a los rudimentos (stoicheia) del mundo, y no según Cristo. Pues si habéis muerto con Cristo en cuanto a los rudimentos (stoicheia) del mundo, ¿por qué, como si vivieseis en el mundo, os sometéis a preceptos tales como: No manejes, ni gustes, ni aun toques (en conformidad a mandamientos y doctrinas de hombres), cosas que todas se destruyen con el uso?”

De nuevo, Pablo usa la palabra (stoicheia) dos veces. En el versículo 8 él exhorta a la iglesia de Colosas a que no permitan que nadie los engañe por medio de la filosofía mundana, o las tradiciones de hombres según los elementos o rudimentos del mundo. En este contexto había dos peligros diferentes que ellos confrontaron: Las actividades Judaicas en los versos 16-17, y posiblemente alguna actividad o culto pagano en el verso 18. El punto es, una vez más, que esto no tiene que ver en absoluto con la creación material.

3.- Hebreos 5:12: “Porque debiendo ser ya maestros, después de tanto tiempo, tenéis necesidad de que se os vuelva a enseñar cuáles son los primeros rudimentos (stoicheia) de las palabras de Dios; y habéis llegado a ser tales que tenéis necesidad de leche, y no de alimento sólido”.

Este escritor lamenta el hecho de que los Judíos Cristianos (hebreos) no habían crecido en Cristo como debían. El escritor dice que ellos necesitan a alguien para enseñarles de nuevo con "la leche, no la comida sólida" en los principios elementales de los oráculos de Dios antes de convertirse en maestros idóneos y maduros. Obviamente, este "stoicheia" no es sobre átomos o sobre la creación del universo.

4.- 2 Pedro 3:10-13: “Pero el día del Señor vendrá como ladrón en la noche; en el cual los cielos pasarán con grande estruendo, y los elementos (stoicheia) ardiendo serán deshechos, y la tierra y las obras que en ella hay serán quemadas. Puesto que todas estas cosas han de ser deshechas, ¡cómo no debéis vosotros andar en santa y piadosa manera de vivir, esperando y apresurándoos para la venida del día de Dios, en el cual los cielos, encendiéndose, serán deshechos, y los elementos (stoicheia), siendo quemados, se fundirán! Pero nosotros esperamos, según sus promesas, cielos nuevos y tierra nueva, en los cuales mora la justicia”.

Observe que Pedro usa la palabra stoicheia (elementos) dos veces. En ambas él dice que los elementos se destruirán o se quemarán. Hasta ahora, nosotros podemos estar de acuerdo que los "elementos" en sus otros pasajes anteriores, nunca se refieren al universo físico.

Los elementos o rudimentos (stoicheia) puede referirse, sin duda, a varias cosas, aunque no hemos encontrado en la Biblia una aplicación para los átomos de la materia de nuestro universo, salvo, aparentemente, en 2 Ped. 3:10-13. Si se refiere a lo material debe entenderse a distintas cosas: “La disposición ordenada de las cosas”, los elementos atómicos, los fundamentos del universo físico. En lo espiritual ya hemos visto que son los preceptos religiosos, las filosofías mundanas opuestas a la doctrina de Dios, y también a las fuerzas angélicas invisibles y poderes espirituales que controlan este mundo o siglo malvado —Los espíritus elementales o demonios.

Los Espíritus demoníacos como los “Elementos (stoicheia)”
El Diccionario de Pablo y Sus Cartas tiene esto para decir sobre los "elementos" como los poderes espirituales:

“Varios intérpretes, quizás incluso una mayoría, ha concluido que 'ta stoicheia tou kosmou' se refiere a los poderes espirituales de alguna clase. . . . La más temprana evidencia extrabiblica Judía existente para stoicheia que está asociada con ambos, los espíritus y las estrellas, es muy posterior que el primer siglo (segundo y terceros siglos D.C.), pero está muy bien confirmado y puede muy bien representar las creencias contemporáneas de Pablo ( cf. Lohse, 99 n.41). El Testamento de Solomón, una obra Judío-Cristiana, normalmente fechada en el tercer siglo D.C., pero que contiene posiblemente material que data al primer siglo, testifica una creencia en los espíritus de las estrellas llamados stoicheia. Siete espíritus atados aparecen ante Solomon y revelan su identidad: "Nosotros somos los stoicheia, gobernantes de este mundo de oscuridad [el skotous de tou de kosmokratores, el cf. Eph 6:12]. . . nuestras estrellas en el cielo se ven pequeñas, pero nosotros somos llamados como dioses" (T. Sol. 8:2-4). ( pp. 231, 232, “Elementos/espíritus Elementales del Mundo")”.

La mayoría de los estudiosos sostienen que Pablo está refiriéndose por stoicheia a los demonios satánicos que han originado las enseñanzas falsas que el apóstol de los gentiles está refutando. Pablo los llama "los principios elementales del mundo" porque los herejes estaban refiriéndose a ellos como los seres espirituales que gobiernan sobre los cielos. Lejos de ser una revelación superior de Dios que les traerá liberación espiritual, Pablo da a entender irónicamente que esta enseñanza se origina de los demonios y sólo les traerá, por consiguiente, la esclavitud. Entre los estudiosos que sostienen esta opinión están Boice, F. F. Bruce, Vaughn, Guthrie y Carson.

Se encuentra apoyo para esta interpretación de varios fuentes. El hecho más citado por los autores anteriores es que "los principios" elementales es usado en la literatura extra bíblica para referirse a los espíritus estelares que también se identificaron con los cuerpos celestiales Ambos pasajes también hacen la referencia a los ángeles en alguna relación a la frase. En Gál 3:19, Pablo se refiere a los ángeles como los mediadores a través de los cuales Dios dio la Ley. En Gál. 4:8, él habla de "aquellos que no son por naturaleza dioses" que los Gálatas anteriormente adoraron, y luego, al parecer, aplica "los principios elementales" a ellos en vs. 9. En Col. 2:18, Pablo habla del "culto de ángeles" como la parte de la herejía asociada con "los principios elementales".

El punto es que en todas las ocurrencias de stoicheia en la Biblia, nunca se refiere al mundo material, a los elementos de la materia. ¿Por qué tendríamos que suponer que en 2 Pedro 3:10-13, donde aparece dos veces la palabra stoicheia, sí se refiere al mundo material o a los elementos de la materia? ¿Por qué no podría referirse más bien al diablo y a los demonios quienes serán lanzados en el lago de fuego, siendo movidos desde los cielos al Gehenna para que no corrompan nuestra futura “nueva tierra” de justicia? Además, ¿Por qué no podría significar que las doctrinas de demonios, y todas las obras impías de los hombres serán destruidas en el fuego consumidor de Yahweh?

Stoicheia y la Ley Mosaica
Otro grupo de eruditos sostiene que Pablo se está refiriendo por stoicheia a la Ley de Israel. Esta idea, sostenida por Stott, Lightfoot y Tenney, entre otros, enfatiza la manera en la cual Pablo conecta estar “bajo la ley” en Gál. 3:23; 4:5 con estar “bajo los principios elementales de este mundo” en Gál. 4:3. También menciona el hecho que en cada caso, los herejes están prescribiendo leyes del Antiguo Testamento (ver Col. 2:16,21; Gál. 4:10).

Ciertamente hay una conexión entre estos dos conceptos, pero es exagerado llamarlos sinónimos por al menos dos rezones. Primero, parece improbable para Pablo llamar “el mundo” como el origen de la Ley de Israel. En Gál. 3:19,23, Pablo enseña que Dios dio la Ley para mantener a Israel bajo custodia hasta la venida del Mesías. Lo que sea que esto pueda significar, ciertamente afirma el origen divino de la Ley y su probidad esencial

El mayor problema con esta interpretación es que no toma en cuenta el hecho de que en ambos pasajes, Pablo también usa la frase para referirse a las enseñanzas gentiles o heréticas. En Col. 2:8 Pablo se refiere a “las filosofías y huecas sutilezas, según las tradiciones de los hombres, conforme a los rudimentos del mundo, y no según Cristo.” Este pasaje aclara que la frase se refiere a algo que se origina de la esfera del hombre en vez de Cristo. En Gál 4:9 Pablo dice que los Gálatas están en peligro de regresar nuevamente a la stoicheia (elementos), cuando su primer envolvimiento con ellos era idolatría pagana.

Razones por las que 2 Pedro 3:10-13 no se refiere a los elementos materiales (átomos)
El pasaje “problemático” de 2 Pedro 3:10-13 tiene relación con Isaías 65:17 que dice: “Porque he aquí que yo crearé nuevos cielos y nueva tierra; y de lo primero no habrá memoria, ni vendrá más al pensamiento.” Pero lo interesante del caso es que Dios sigue diciendo en los siguientes versículos 18-25 que: “traigo a Jerusalén alegría...y me alegraré con Jerusalén.” Estas palabras indican que finalmente el planeta no será destruido, pues seguirá existiendo la Jerusalén antigua como una ciudad que finalmente, y después de tantas lágrimas y sufrimiento, tendrá gozo y alegría.

Por otro lado, ¿Si la tierra será destruida por Cristo, entonces sobre qué naciones y reinos regirá el Mesías y su iglesia (Apo. 11:15, 20:3)? Aquí hay un problema si sostenemos que la presente tierra será destruida desde sus “fundamentos” o “elementos”.

Y Finalmente, la promesa de Dios hecha Abraham que dice “Porque toda la tierra que estás viendo la daré a ti y a tu simiente para siempre” (Gén. 13:15; 15:18) jamás podría cumplirse si admitimos por un instante que el presente planeta desaparecerá por completo.

Neos y Kainos
Es cierto que Pedro esperó los nuevos cielos y la nueva tierra en el futuro. Pero, ¿ha investigado usted la palabra “nuevo” que es usada en 2 Pedro 3: 13? Pues hay dos palabras traducidas como “nuevo” en el NT. Ellas son “neos” y “kainos”. Curiosamente, “neos” significa nuevo en tiempo, es decir, que nunca existió antes, o que recientemente ha venido a existir. La otra palabra, “kainos”, significa “nuevo en calidad”, no en el tiempo. Pero Pedro usa “kainos” en este versículo. Ahora, si alguno toma la posición de que los nuevos cielos y la nueva tierra tienen un significado LITERAL, entonces es inconsistente con la palabra “kainos”. Si Dios destruye una tierra, y crea otra, esa sería nueva (“neos”) tierra no un nuevo “kainos”. Así tenemos que nosotros somos una “nueva (‘kainos’) creación”, o “nueva (‘kainos’) criatura”, o “nuevo (‘kainos’) hombre”. ¡Pero en lo cualitativo!